. ■ /w'vr"^ ' / (f\/vz^L£/ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library 5C5 0 * \ httpS://arChiVe.Org/detailS/refOrmerStheOlOg00CUnn_0 / AND THE BY THE LATE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. EDITED BY IIIS LITERARY EXECUTORS. EDINBURGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON. MDCCCLXII. _$ CS MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. PREFACE. In introducing the present volume to the Public, the Editors feel that a few words of explanation may he desirable, in regard to the trust assigned to them, and the manner in which they have, in so far, attempted to discharge it. In the interview which, at Dr Cunningham’s request, they had with him within a few hours of his death, he committed to them the charge of his whole writings and manuscripts connected with the College, to be deposited in the Library, and to he used and applied to any purpose they judged right ; stating, that he gave them absolute power to do in the matter as they considered to be best for his character, and the good of the Church. The charge thus verbally intrusted to them was formally and legally confirmed by the Trustees acting under Dr Cunningham’s settlement ; so that the Editors became invested with the character of his Literary Executors, and with the full powers and responsibilities attaching to such an office. IV PREFACE. On examining his writings, they found that, — with respect to an important portion of them, — some little delay must occur before they could be properly pre¬ pared for the press, owing to their being required for the work of the Class during the present session of College ; and that the wide-spread desire, throughout the Church, for the early publication of some of his valuable contri¬ butions to Theology, could be best met by giving to the Public the present volume in anticipation of the rest. It is made up of a number of Articles, contributed by Dr Cunningham to the “ British and Foreign Evangelical Review,” with a few additions from his manuscript Lectures, on Church History. The substance of these Articles originally formed a series of carefully prepared Lectures, delivered to his Class, on the leading Reformers and the character of their Theology ; and they wTere subsequently transferred to the pages of the Review in which they appeared, with almost no alteration be¬ yond extensive enlargements and additions, and such references to the more recent criticisms upon the Re¬ formers as were suggested by the books reviewed. They were written upon a plan, and as an orderly series of discussions, embracing the leading historical characters, and the great developments of scriptural truth at the time of the Reformation; and were intended by their Author for separate publication as a connected whole. Happily the series was completed before Dr Cunning- PREFACE. v ham’s death ; and it now exhibits a full and systematic view of the leading agents, and of the spiritual principles, of that great theological and ecclesiastical movement in the sixteenth century, which constitutes the greatest event in the history of the Church of Christ since the Apostolic Age, and which has bequeathed to us, in the present day, both our Church creeds and our Church polity. The alterations which the Editors — in the exercise of their discretion — have made on the original text, have been more numerous than important, and in no case have affected the substance of the thought or reasoning. They have been guided in these alterations, sometimes by the manuscript corrections made by Dr Cunnningham himself ; sometimes by the desire to avoid those repetitions and references to passing events, which naturally occur in a series of Articles, appearing at inter¬ vals in the pages of a Periodical ; and sometimes, by a conviction — which many years of confidential intercourse with the Author on the subjects handled, as well as his own last instructions to them, enabled and warranted them to act upon, — of what he himself would have done had he been permitted to revise, with his own eye, the sheets before publication. The quotations and references have been verified and corrected, with the kind assistance of the Rev. John Laing, Librarian to the New College. VI PREFACE. The Editors expect to be enabled, in a short time, to issue two other volumes similar to the present, and comprising a full review of the leading theological discussions that have taken place in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age. JAMES BUCHANAN. JAMES BANNERMAN. New College, Edinburgh, April 1862. CONTENTS -*■ PAGE THE LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION, . 1 LUTHER, . 54 THE REFORMERS, AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE, . . Ill MELANCTHON, AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 149 ZWINGLE, AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, . . 212 JOHN CALVIN, . 292 CALVIN AND BEZA, . 345 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM, . 413 « CALVINISM, AND THE DOCTRINE OF> PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY, . 471 CALVINISM, AND ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION, . . .525 THE REFORMERS, AND THE LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY, . 600 / I LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION.* The Reformation from Popery in the sixteenth century was the greatest event, or series of events, that has occurred since the close of the Canon of Scripture; and the men who are really entitled to be called the “Leaders of the Reformation” have a claim to more respect and gratitude than any other body of un¬ inspired men that have ever influenced or adorned the church. The Reformation was closely connected in various ways with the different influences which about that period were affecting for good the general condition of Europe, and, in combination with them, it aided largely in introducing and establishing great im¬ provements in all matters affecting literature, civilisation, liberty, and social order. The movement, however, was primarily and fundamentally a religious one, and all the most important questions that may be started about its character and consequences, should be decided by tests and considerations properly applicable to the subject of true religion. The Reformers claimed to be regarded as being engaged in a religious work, which was in accordance with God’s revealed will, and fitted to promote the spiritual welfare of men ; and we are at once entitled and bound to judge of them * British and Foreign Evangelical “ Leaders of the Reformation, Review , April 1860. by John Tulloch, D.D.” 1859. VOL. I. 1 2 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. and their work, by investigating and ascertaining the validity of this claim. There are two leading aspects in which the Reformation, viewed as a whole, may be regarded ; the one more external and negative, and the other more intrinsic and positive. In the first aspect it was a great revolt against the see of Rome, and against the authority of the church and of churchmen in religious matters, combined with an assertion of the exclusive authority of the Bible, and of the right of all men to examine and interpret it for them¬ selves. In the second and more important and positive aspect, the Reformation was the proclamation and inculcation, upon the alleged authority of Scripture, of certain views in regard to the substance of Christianity or the way of salvation, and in regard to the organization and ordinances of the Christian church. Many men have approved and commended the Reformation, viewed merely as a repudiation of human authority in religion, and an assertion of the right of private judgment, and of the exclusive supremacy of the Scriptures as the rule of faith, who have not concurred in the leading views of the Reformers in regard to Christian theology and church organization. In this sense, rationalists and latitudinarians have generally professed to adopt and act upon what they call the principles of the Reformation, while they reject all the leading doctrines of the Reformers. Men of this class usually attempt to pay off the Reformers with the credit of having emancipated mankind from ecclesiastical thraldom, established the right of private judgment, and done something to encourage the practice of free inquiry. But while giving the Reformers credit for these things, they have often rejected the leading doctrines of the Reformation upon theological and ecclesiastical subjects, and have been in the habit of claiming to themselves the credit of having succeeded, by following out the principles of the Reformation, in educing, either from Scripture or from their own speculations, more accurate and enlightened doctrinal views than the Reformers ever attained to. There has been a great deal of this sort of thing put forth both by rationalists and latitudinarians who professed to admit the authority of the Christian revelation, and by infidels who denied it. Dr Robertson in his life of Charles V. spoke of some doctrinal discussions of that period in such terms as justly to lay himself open to the following rebuke of Scott, the son of the commentator, in his Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION- 3 excellent continuation of Milner’s “History of the Church of Christ.” “ It is manifest what is the character that Dr Robertson here affects, which is that of the philosopher and the statesman, in preference, if not to the dis¬ paragement, of that of the Christian divine. This is entirely to the taste of modern times, and will be sure to secure to him the praise of large and liberal views among those who regard a high sense of the importance of revealed truth, and all ‘ contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,’ as the infallible mark of narrow-mindedness and bigotry.”* Dr Campbell of Aberdeen, too, who was a very great pretender to candour, has, in the last of his lectures on ecclesiastical history, made it manifest that he considered the chief benefits which the Re¬ formers had conferred upon the world, 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 zealous efforts and contendings in restoring the pure gospel of the grace of God, the true system of Christian theology, as conversant only, according to the common cant of latitudinarians, with metaphysical subtleties and scholastic jargon. But the climax, perhaps, of this practice of paying off the Reformers with some commendation of their services in promoting free inquiry, while all their leading doctrines are rejected, is to be found in the facts, that in our own day such a man as Bretschneider wrote a “Dissertatio De Rationalismo Lutheri,” and that Wegs- cheider dedicated his “ Institutiones Theologise Christianse Dog;- maticse,” which is just a system of Deism in a sort of Christian dress, “ Piis Manibus Martini Lutheri,” mainly upon the ground, that he had opened up liberty of thought, and encouraged posterity to advance much further in the path on which he had entered. A somewhat different aspect of this matter has been presented by certain writers, who are not disposed to allow to the Reformers even the credit of having encouraged and promoted free inquiry. It has been alleged that there is little or nothing said in the writ- ings of the Reformers about the right and duty of private judg¬ ment, and that the absence of this, combined with their great zeal for what thev reckoned truth, and their strenuous and vehement t * opposition to what they reckoned error, proved that after all they were nothing better than narrow-minded bigots. Hallam, in his “Literature of Europe diming the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries,” * Yol. i. p. 270. 4 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. has some statements to this effect; and the facts on which he founds are in the main true, though they certainly do not warrant his conclusions.* It must, however, we fear, be conceded to Hallam and others who take this view : 1st, that the Reformers were not much in the habit of formally and elaborately discussing, as a distinct and independent topic , what has since been called the right and duty of private judgment ; and 2d, that they ever pro¬ fessed it to be their great object to find out the actual truth of God contained in His word, that they were very confident that in regard to the main points of their teaching they had found the truth, and that they were very strenuous in urging that other men should receive it also upon God’s authority. And these facts are amply sufficient to secure for them, in certain quarters, the reputa¬ tion of being narrow-minded bigots. The Reformers did not discuss at much length, or with any great formality, the subject of the right of private judgment as a general topic, but they understood and acted upon their right as rational and responsible beings to reject all mere human authority in religious matters, to try everything by the standard of God’s word, and to judge for themselves, on their own responsibility, as to the meaning of its statements. And by following this course, by acting on this principle, by setting this example, they have con¬ ferred most important benefits upon the church and the world. The fundamental position maintained by the Reformers was this, that the views which they had been led to form, as to what should be the doctrine, worship, and government, of the church of Christ, were right , and that the views of the church of Rome upon these points, as opposed to theirs, were wrong . This was the grand position they occupied, and they based their whole procedure upon the ground of the paramount claims of divine truth, its right as coming from God and being invested with His authority, to be listened to, to be obeyed, and to be propagated. When the papists opposed them in the maintenance of this position, and appealed on their own behalf to tradition, to ecclesiastical authority, to the decisions of popes and councils, the Reformers in reply pushed all this aside, by asserting the supremacy of the written word as the only standard of faith and practice, by denying the legitimacy of submitting to mere human authority in religious matters, and by * Part I., chap, iv., sec. 60, 61. Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 5 maintaining that men are entitled and bound to judge for them¬ selves, upon their own responsibility, as to what God in His word has required them to believe and to do. They asserted these positions more or less fully as circumstances required, but still they regarded them as in some sense subsidiary and subordinate. The primary question with them always was, What is the truth as to the way in which God ought to be worshipped, in which a sinner is saved, and in which the ordinances and arrangements of the church of Christ ought to be regulated? They were bent upon answering, and answering aright, this important question, and they brushed aside everything that stood in their way and obstructed their progress. There can be no doubt that the only satisfactory explanation of the conduct of the Reformers is, that they regarded themselves as fighting for the cause of God ; and it is creditable to Hallam that, unable, as he admitted, to understand their theology, and having no predilection on them behalf, he should have seen and asserted this, in opposition to the ordinary calumnies of the papists.* But the great, the only really important, question is, Was it indeed the cause of God? or in other words, was it indeed the truth of God which they deduced from His word, and which they laboured to promote and to enforce? If it was not so, then they have deserved little gratitude, and they can have effected little good. In estimating the value of what God gave to them, and what they have transmitted to us, almost everything depends upon the truth, the Scriptural truth, of the doctrines which they taught and * Hallam’s statements about Luther and the Reformers are certainly very defective and erroneous, but they have much the appearance of being chiefly traceable to what may be called honest ignorance. He seems to have intended to be fair and candid in his statements regarding them, and he probably was about as much so as could reasonably be expected of a man who was very imperfectly acquainted with theologi¬ cal subjects. He admits (P. 1, c. iv., s. 61), that “ every solution of the conduct of the Reformers must be nugatory, except one — that they were men absorbed by the conviction that they were fighting the battle of God.” He describes Luther (s. 59), as a man “ whose soul was penetrated with a fervent piety, and whose integrity, as well as purity of life, are unquestioned. ” He admits (c. vi., s. 26), that he had but a “ slight acquaintance” with Luther’s writings, and that he had “ found it impossible to reconcile or understand his tenets concerning faith and works.” After all this, it was scarcely to be expected, from Hallam’s usual good sense and fairness, that he should have charged Luther with Antinomianism. There is a thorough exposure of the incompetency of Hal¬ lam, as well as of Sir William Hamil¬ ton in this matter, in Archdeacon Hare’s admirable “ Vindication of Luther.” 6 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. laboured to advance. The highest honour of the Reformers, or rather the principal gift which God gave them, viewed as public teachers who have exerted an influence upon the state of religious opinion and practice in the world, was that, in point of fact, they did deduce from the word of God, the truths or true doctrines which are there set forth, and that they brought them out, and expounded and enforced them in such a way as led, through God’s blessing, to their being extensively received and applied. Christian theology, in some of its most important articles, had for a long period been grossly corrupted in the Church of Rome, which then comprehended the largest portion of Christendom. The Lord was pleased, through the instrumentality of the Reformers, to expose these corruptions, to bring out prominently before the world the true doctrines of His word, in regard to the worship which He required and would accept, the way in which He had provided and was bestowing, and in which sinners were to receive, the salvation of the gospel, and the way in which the ordinances and arrange¬ ments of His church were to be regulated ; and to effect that these true Scriptural doctrines should be extensively disseminated, should become powerfully influential, and should be permanently preserved over a considerable portion of His church. The Lord did this by His Spirit at the era of the Reformation, and He employed in doing it the instrumentality of the Reformers. He guided them not only to the adoption of the right method, the use of the appropriate means for detecting error and discovering divine truth, but what was of primary and paramount importance, He guided them to a right judgment — that is, right in the main and with respect to all fundamental points, as to what particular doc¬ trines were true and false, according to the standard of His own written word. Their unquestionable sincerity and integrity, their unwearied zeal and activity, their great talents and their un¬ daunted courage, would only have shed a false glare around a had cause, if it was not indeed the cause of God which they were maintaining. Their other good qualities would have tended rather to evil than to good results, if it had not been really error which they opposed and God’s truth which they supported. We believe nothing because the Reformers believed it, and we approve of no¬ thing because they practised it ; but, judging of them by the same standard which they applied to the church of Rome, and by which they professed to regulate their own opinions and conduct, because Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 7 we believe with them that it is the right standard, we are firmly persuaded that what they opposed was error — grievous and dan¬ gerous error — and that what they maintained was in the main truth — God’s own truth — taught in His word, and applied to them by the teaching of His own Spirit. There is so much unanimity among the Reformers, so much harmony in the confessions of the Reformed churches, as to entitle us to speak of the theology of the Reformation , as conveying a pretty distinct idea of a particular system of doctrine upon the leading articles of the Christian faith ; and we think it can be proved, not only that this theology was sound and scriptural, as compared with what had previously prevailed in the church of Rome, but that the deviations which Protestants have since made from it have been in the main retrogressions from truth to error. We do not set up the Reformers as guides or oracles ; we do not invest them with any authority, or believe anything because they believed it. There is, indeed, no authority in religion but that of God, and authority, in its strict and proper sense, does not admit of degrees. The fact that certain doctrines were taught by some particular class or body of men, is either at once and of itself a sufficient reason why we must embrace them, or else it is of no real weight and validity in determining what we should believe. It is entitled to be received as authoritative and determining, only when the men in question can produce satisfactory evidence that they have been commissioned and inspired by God. There is a sense, indeed, in which some respect or deference is due to the opinions of others. But this respect or deference should never be transmuted into anything like authority or obligation. It may afford a valid call for careful attention and diligent investigation, but for nothing more. It should have no determining or con- trolling influence. The Reformers, with respect to all points in which they were substantially of one mind, may be regarded as being upon the whole entitled to more respect and deference than any other body of men who could be specified or marked out at any one period in the history of the church. But it holds true universally, that God has never given to any uninspired man, or body of men, to rise altogether above the influence of the circum¬ stances in which they were placed, in the formation and expression of their opinions upon religious subjects. And even the greatest admirers of the Reformers readily admit that they, all of them, 8 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. though not in the main features of their theological system, yielded more or less to the various sources of error which prevail among men, and more particularly, that they exhibited, on the one hand, traces that they had not wholly escaped from the corrupting influ¬ ence of the system in which they had been educated, and on the other hand, what is equally natural, that they were sometimes in danger in avoiding one extreme of falling into the opposite one. These obvious views about the position and services of the Reformers have been suggested to us by the perusal of Principal Tulloch’swork on the “Leaders of the Reformation.” It is intended as a popular sketch of the main features in the history of Luther, Calvin, Latimer, and Knox ; and regarded in this light, it is fairly entitled to very considerable commendation. We cannot say that the work displays any great power of thought, or any great extent of research. We have no idea that Dr Tulloch is familiar with the writings of the Reformers, or that he is qualified to appreciate them in connection with the highest departments of the work which they performed. But he has given a very intelligent, in¬ teresting, and candid survey of the principal features of the life and the general character and position of the men whom he has selected as the leaders of the Reformation. He has taken consi¬ derable pains to understand and to state accurately most of the points he has discussed. He has shown a large measure of fair¬ ness and candour in the principal views he has put forth ; and he has presented them generally in a very pleasing and interesting style. Dr Tulloeh's book, as a whole, woidd have been entitled to veiy considerable commendation, if it had not put forth some very objectionable and dangerous views in regard to the theology of the Reformers, by far the most important feature in their history. The object of the work did not require of Dr Tulloch to enter into theological exposition or discussion, and we might have passed over the work with commending what was commendable in it, if he had entirely ignored theological subjects. But he has not done this. He has put forth certain views in regard to the theology of the Reformers which we believe to be unsound and dangerous, and which we think it incumbent upon us to expose. The Reformers themselves reckoned it the great duty which they were called upon to discharge, the great work which God Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 9 gave them to do, to bring out from the sacred Scriptures right views of Christian theology and of church organization, in oppo¬ sition to those which generally prevailed in the church of Rome. They believed that they were enabled, by God’s grace, to succeed to a large extent in doing this ; and all who have since concurred with them in this belief have also, as a matter of course, regarded their success in this respect as a very great service rendered to the church and the world, as, indeed, the greatest service which they rendered, or could render. We believe that the theology of the Reformation, in its great leading features, both as it respects doc¬ trine in the more limited sense of the word, and as it respects the organization of the church as a society, is the unchangeable truth of God revealed in His word, which individuals and churches are bound to profess and to act upon. Dr Tulloch, we fear, has come to a different conclusion upon this important question, and has plainly enough given the world to understand that, in his judg¬ ment, the theology of the Reformation, though a creditable and useful thing in the sixteenth century, and a great improvement on the state of matters that then prevailed in the church of Rome, has now become antiquated and obsolete, and quite unsuitable to the enlightenment which characterizes this age. He does not adduce any specific objections against the theo¬ logy of the Reformation ; but having attained to a much greater elevation, a far higher platform, than the Reformers ever reached, he coolly but conclusively sets aside the results of all their inves¬ tigations of divine things, as now scarcely worthy of being seri¬ ously examined. This not only, as we have already explained, deprives the Reformers of what all who have in the main adopted their principles, have regarded as the greatest honour which God conferred upon them, the greatest service they were enabled to render ; but it bears, and, as we believe, bears injuriously, upon a matter of infinitely greater importance than any question affect¬ ing the reputation of any body of men, even the accurate exposition of the system of revealed truth. Dr Tulloch does not profess to discuss any theological questions ; and his views upon these points are brought out very vaguely and imperfectly. But he has said enough to show that he has given up the theology of the Refor¬ mation as untenable and unsatisfactory ; and he evidently thinks that all liberal men who are abreast of this enlightened age must do the same. It is quite evident that men’s whole views and 10 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. impressions in regard to the history of the Reformers must be greatly influenced by the admission or the denial, that they were God’s instruments in bringing out to a large extent the permanent truth revealed in His word, and in restoring the church to a large measure of apostolic purity ; and it is highly creditable to Dr Tul- locli that, denying this, he should have treated them with so large a measure of justice and fairness in most other respects. But it was scarcely possible that one who withholds from them their highest and most peculiar honour should be perfectly just and fair to them in everything else ; and there are indications, though not many or important, of his depreciating them even in matters not much connected with their theology. There is not much to complain of in what he says of Luther and Knox, barring their theology, except that he underrates their intellectual powers, when he says of the former* that, “ as a theological thinker he takes no high rank, and has left little or no impress upon human history and of the latter f that, “as a mere thinker, save perhaps on politi¬ cal subjects, he takes no rank.” f Few, we think, who have read the principal works of Luther and Knox will concur in this opinion of these men, and even in some of the things which Dr Tulloch himself has recorded about them, there is enough to convince discerning men that they did take high rank as thinkers on theological subjects. Luther, notwith¬ standing his great mental powers, and the great light he has thrown upon many important topics of discussion, had yet such defects and infirmities, as to unfit him very much for being appealed to as a guide or oracle on theological subjects ; and Knox, overshadowed by Calvin, is not so frequently contemplated as a theologian, though his treatise on Predestination proves, we venture to think, that he is entitled to take high rank as a thinker. For the reasons now referred to, neither Luther nor Knox seems to have strongly excited Dr Tulloch’s anti-theological zeal, and he * P. 72. f P. 317. t This somewhat supercilious way of disposing of eminent men is in great favour with Dr Tulloch. He applies it to Beza likewise, calling him (p. 145) “ a lively, meddlesome, service¬ able, but by no means great man.” Sir William Hamilton, who when he condescends to praise any of the Re¬ formers, and particularly when the question respects their talents and acquirements, must be regarded as a somewhat higher authority than Dr Tulloch, has pronounced such an eulo- gium on Beza as plainly implies that lie reckoned him a great man, and he expressly describes him as “ this great thinker and illustrious divine.” (Be not Schismatics, etc., p. 80, 35.) Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 11 certainly deals out to tliem a large measure of justice and candour, though he does not appreciate fully either their talents or their services. Calvin, however, as might he expected, does not fare so well in Dr Tulloch’ s hands. He was so thoroughly the great representative of all that Dr Tulloch seems most heartily to disapprove and dislike, viz., a distinct and definite system of theological doctrine, and a church organisation upon the model of apostolic precept and practice, that it was scarcely to he expected that the great Reformer would get justice from him. He does not, indeed, so far as we remember, make any direct attempt to depreciate Calvin’s intellectual powers, or to dispute his right u to take high rank as a thinker.” But we have a strong impression that he comes far short of a just appre¬ ciation even of Calvin’s mental powers and capacities. And it should not he forgotten, that it has become very much the fashion now-a-days, even among Romanists, as a matter of policy, to praise Calvin’s talents. Even Audin, his latest popish biographer, who is just as thoroughly unprincipled as the champions of popery usually are, has given the appearance of something like candour to his u Life of Calvin,” by strong statements about his great talents, his literary excellencies, and his commanding influence. Dr Tulloch, while he makes no direct attempt to depreciate Calvin’s talents, does injustice, we think, in several respects to his general character. He says nothing, indeed, against him which has not been said often before. He just repeats what has been so fre¬ quently alleged against Calvin, his want of the more amiable and engaging qualities, his pride and coldness, his sternness and cruelty. He does not seem to appreciate the purity and elevation of the motives by which Calvin was animated, and of the objects he aimed at. He does not appear to have turned to good account the greater accessibility now-a-days of Calvin’s Letters, which are so admirably fitted to counteract some of the prevailing miscon¬ ceptions of his character, and to show that there was nearly as much about him to love as to admire, as much to excite affection and confidence as veneration and respect. Dr J ules Bonnet, who has done so much to make Calvin’s Letters more widely known, describes, in the preface to the English translation, his letters to Farel, Yiret, and Beza, as exhibiting “ the overflowings of a heart filled with the deepest and most acute sensibility.” It might have been supposed that no one who had really read the two volumes 12 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. of Calvin’s Letters, to which this statement is prefixed, 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* — u Overflowing of any kind is exactly what you never find in Calvin, even in his most familiar letters.” We fear that Dr Tulloch must understand the word u overflowing” in a different sense from other men ; for if Ave had space we could easily produce plenty of extracts from his Letters, which most men, we are confident, would, without any hesitation, declare to be overflowings of the warmest and tenderest feeling, outpourings of the most hearty and cordial kindness and sympathy, and of the purest and noblest friendship. Calvin’s character, intellectual, moral, and religious, lias been most highly appreciated by the most competent judges ; and the collection of testimonies in commendation of him and his works, published in one of the last volumes of the Calvin Translation Societv, con- tabling his Commentary on Joshua, is probably unexampled in the history of the human race. But we are not sure if a more emphatic tribute to his excellence and his power is not furnished by the hostility of which he has been the object ; often breaking out into furious rancour, and frequently, even Avlien assuming a greatly modified aspect, indicating a strong disposition to depre¬ ciate him, and to bring him down to the level of ordinary men. But we cannot dwell longer upon this topic. We must hasten to notice the position which Dr Tulloch has assumed in regard to the theology of the Reformation ; and here it will be necessary in fair¬ ness to grve him an opportunity of speaking for himself. His views are brought out pretty fully in the following extracts : — “ The spiritual principle is eternally divine and powerful. It is a wry dif¬ ferent thing when we turn to contemplate the dogmatic statements of Luther. So soon as Luther began to evolve his principle, and coin its living heart once more into dogma, he showed that he had not risen above the scholastic spirit which he aimed to destroy. It was truly impossible that he could do so. Not even the massive energy of Luther could pierce through those intellectual in¬ fluences which had descended as a hoary heritage of ages to the sixteenth century.”! “ The Reformation, in its theology, did not and could not escape the deteriorating influences of the scholastic spirit, for that spirit survived it, and lived on in strength, although in a modified form, throughout the seventeenth * P. 153. t P. 83. Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 13 century. In one important particular, indeed, the scholastic and Protestant systems of theology entirely differed : the latter began their systematising from the very opposite extreme to that of the former — from the divine and not from the human side of redemption — from God and not from man. And this is a difference on the side of truth by no means to be overlooked. Still the spirit is the same — the spirit which does not hesitate to break up the divine unity of the truth in Scripture into its own logical shreds and patches, which tries to disci’iminate what in its moral essence is inscrutable, and to trace in distinct dogmatic moulds the operation of the divine and human wills in salvation, while the very condition of all salvation is the eternal mystery of their union in an act of mutual and inexpressible love. This spirit of ultra-definition — of essential rationalism — was the corrupting inheritance of the new from the old theology ; and it is difficult to say, all things con¬ sidered, as we trace the melancholy history of Protestant dogmas, whether its fruits have been worse in the latter or in the former instance. The mists, it is true, have never again so utterly obscured the truth, but that dimness, covering a fairer light, almost inspires the religious heart with a deeper sadness.”* ‘ ‘ While thus claiming for Calvinism a higher scriptural character, it would yet be too much to say that Calvinism, any more than Lutheranism, or latterly Arminianism, was primarily the result of a fresh and living study of Scripture. Calvin, no doubt, went to Scripture. He is the greatest bib¬ lical commentator, as he is the greatest biblical dogmatist, of his age ; but his dogmas, for the most part were not primarily suggested by Scripture ; and as to his distinguishing dogma, this is eminently the case. Like Luther, he had been trained in the scholastic philosophy, and been fed on Augustine ; and it was no more possible for the one than for the other to get beyond the scholastic spirit or the Augustinian doctrine. An attentive study of the ‘ Institutes’ reveals the presence of Augustine everywhere ; and great even as Calvin is in exegesis, his exegesis is mainly controlled by Augustinian dogmatic theory.”! “ This appeal to an earlier catholicity on the part of the reformed theolo¬ gies — this support in Augustine — beyond doubt greatly contributed to their success in their day. For few then ventured to doubt the authority of Augus- tinianism, and the theological spirit of the sixteenth century hardly at any point got beyond it. It was a natural source of triumph to the great Pro¬ testant confessions against the unsettled unbelief or more superficial theologies which they encountered, that they wielded so bold and consistent a weapon of logic, and appealed so largely to an authoritative scriptural interpretation. •Calvinism could not but triumph on any such modes of reasoning or of biblical exegesis as- then prevailed ; and so long as it continued to be merely a ques¬ tion of systems, and logic had it all its way, this triumph was secure. “ But now that the question is changed, and logic is no longer mistress of the field ; now, when a spirit of interpreting Scripture, which could have * Pp. 84-5. f P. 166. 14 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. hardly been intelligible to Calvin, generally asserts itself — a spirit which re¬ cognises a progress in Scripture itself — a diverse literature and moral growth in its component elements, and which at once looking backward with rever¬ ence and forward with faith, has learned a new audacity, or a new modesty, as we shall call it, according to our predilections, and while it accepts withal the mysteries of life and of death, refuses to submit them arbitrarily to the dictation of any mere logical principle ; now that the whole sphere of religious credence is differently apprehended, and the provinces of faith and of logical deduction are recognised as not merely incommensurate, but as radically dis¬ tinguished — the whole case as to the triumphant position of Calvinism, or indeed any other theological system, is altered. An able writer in our day (Hansel, in his Bampton Lectures), has shown with corivincing power what are the inevitably contradictory results of carrying the reasoning faculty with determining sway into the department of religious truth. The conclusions of that writer, sufficiently crushing as directed by him against all rationalistic systems, are to the full as conclusive against the competency of all theological systems whatever. The weapon of logical destructiveness which he has used with such energy, is a weapon of offence really against all religious dogmatism. What between the torture of criticism, and the slow but sure advance of moral idea, this dogmatism is losing all hold of the most living and earnest intelli¬ gence everywhere. And it seems no longer possible, under any new polemic form, to revive it. Men are weary of heterodoxy and of orthodoxy alike, and of the former in any arbitrary and dogmatic shape still more intolerably than the latter. The old Institutio Christianas Religionis no longer satisfies, and a new Institutio can never replace it. A second Calvin in theology is impossible. Men thirst not less for spiritual truth, but they no longer believe in the capacity of system to embrace and contain that truth, as in a reservoir, for successive generations. They must seek for it themselves afresh in the pages of Scripture, and the ever-dawning light of spiritual life, or they will simply neglect and put it past as an old story.” * These extracts fully justify the statements we have made in regard to the scope and tendency of this booh, and in commenting upon them in order to show this, we shall speak of the theology of the Reformation and Calvinism as substantially identical, not meaning by Calvinism the personal opinions of Calvin, but the leading features of the Calvinistic system of theology, as distin¬ guished from the Arminian and Socinian systems. In this sense Calvinism may be fairly called the theology of the Reformation, as it was certainly, though with different degrees of accuracy and fulness, maintained by the great body of the Reformers, and pro¬ fessed in most of the Confessions of the Reformed churches. We APp. 167-9. Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 15 never hesitate to call ourselves Calvinists, though there are some of Calvin’s opinions which we reckon erroneous ; and in adopting this designation, we mean simply to convey the idea that we are firmly persuaded that the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology, as generally set forth in the symbolical books of churches usually reckoned Calvinistic, are taught, and can be proved to be taught, in Scripture, as the revealed truth of God. And here a practical difficulty at once arises in dealing with Dr Tulloch. If we were to judge of him solely from the statements contained in this book, we would have little hesitation in saying, that he is not a Calvinist, in the sense above explained. But of course we are aware that he lias, like ourselves, subscribed a Calvinistic creed, and that he holds an office, the chief duty of which may be said to be to expound this creed. We have, there¬ fore, scarcely a right to say that he is not a Calvinist, unless he had said so more explicitly, perhaps, than he has done. And in anything we may say bearing on this point, we wish it to be un¬ derstood that we make no categorical assertion as to what Dr Tulloch’ s theological opinions in point of fact are, and that we intend merely to set forth what seem to us to be the scope and tendency of the views indicated in this book. With this explana¬ tion, we have no hesitation in saying that we are unable to com¬ prehend how any intelligent Calvinist could have published the statements we have quoted; and that they are plainly fitted to lead to the conclusion that the author has renounced, if he ever held, the theology of the Reformation. It is a significant fact, that Dr Tulloch, though a professor of theology, has not, from the beginning to the end of his book, given any distinct indication that he is a Calvinist, or made any profession of regarding the Reform¬ ers as bavins; succeeded in the main in brinffins; out God’s truth from His word. There are several statements which look like a profession of Calvinism, but which, when carefully examined, are clearly seen to come short of this. But we are not confined to negative materials. We are plainly told that Calvinism once triumphed, but that this triumph was temporary, and is long since over, that no theological system can now occupy a triumphant position, since we have at last reached a demonstration of the in¬ competency of all theological systems whatever. Dr Tullocli’s position is pretty distinctly indicated in the some¬ what enigmatical deliverance, “The old ‘Institutio Christianas Reli- 16 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. gionis’ no longer satisfies, and a new Institutio can never replace it.” There is a sense in which we could assent to the notions suggested by this quotation. But in the sense in which Dr Tulloch evi¬ dently understands it, we regard it as unsound and dangerous. “The old ‘ Institutio Christianas Religionis’ no longer satisfies.” Every Calvinist will admit this to be true, if it be understood to mean merely, that there are views set forth in the “Institutes” of Calvin which can be proved from Scripture to be erroneous, and that the progress of discussion since his time has indicated defects existing in that work and improvements that might be made upon it, as to the arrangement of the subjects, the mode in which several topics are presented, singly or in their relation to each other, the comparative prominence assigned to them, and the validity of all the proofs by which they are supported. There are points coming under these various heads, in which the “Institutes” do not now satisfy, and we hold it to be a mark of the respect to which Calvin and the “ Institutes” are entitled, to be prepared to specify the grounds of our dissatisfaction. But those things about the “ Insti¬ tutes,” which do not satisfy us, are few and unimportant, and do not materially affect the present and permanent value of that great work. It is plainly in an entirely different sense from this, that it no longer satisfies Dr Tulloch and other men of progress in the present day. He evidently regards it as having proved an entire failure in regard to its main substance, its principal contents or materials, and its leading design. The materials of which the “ Institutes” are composed are, of course, just the leading doctrines of Scripture, according to the view which Calvinists, from Augus¬ tine to the present day, have always taken of their meaning and import. And the main question in judging of any work which professes to exhibit in a scientific or systematic form the leading principles of Christian theology must of necessity be, — Are the materials of which it is composed, or the doctrines which it ex¬ pounds and defends, accordant, in the main, with Scripture ? Are they as a whole the views which Scripture teaches, and which it warrants and requires us to believe, as immutable truth resting upon divine authority'? Every Calvinist who has read Calvin’s “ Institutes,” of course, believes that the materials of which that work is composed, are in the main the doctrines of God’s word, and therefore possessed of unchangeable verity. Most Calvinists have also been of opinion, that the great doctrines of Christian Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION- 17 theology are upon the whole about as well arranged, as ably and accurately expounded, and as satisfactorily and conclusively de¬ fended in Calvin’s “Institutes” as they ever have been or can be. We do not exact of every Calvinist that he must concur in this commendation of Calvin’s “Institutes.” But, of course, no man can call himself a Calvinist, unless he believe that the leading doc¬ trines set forth in the “Institutes” are indeed taught by God in His word. And it is not very likely that any man could be found, who, while professing to hold the Calvinistic doctrines taught in the “ Institutes,” should, at the same time, assert that either he himself, or any one else, could expound them more ably and defend them more conclusively than Calvin has done. But it is of comparatively small importance in what light the “ Institutes” ought to be regarded, viewed merely as a specimen of Calvin’s powers and achievements. The only vital question is this — Are the leading doctrines taught in the “Institutes” true and scriptural ? Was the theology of Calvin, in its fundamental principles, correctly derived from the word of God % This is a vital question. We answer it in the affirmative, and we consider our¬ selves warranted in asserting that Dr Tulloch has answered it in the negative. There is, as was natural in the circumstances, a good deal of vagueness and confusion in his statements upon this sub¬ ject. It was scarcely to be expected that he would at first speak out in an explicit and manly way. Men of progress in theology usually require to grope their way for a time, through hedges and along bye-ways. But with all the vagueness and confusion which characterise his statements, he has, we think, afforded sufficient grounds for charging him with maintaining, 1st, That the main features of the theology of the Reforma¬ tion, the leading doctrines of the Calvinistic system, are not re¬ vealed to us in the word of God. 2d, That the Reformers erred in them whole theological system, because they had erroneous notions of the true province of logic, of the object and design of the sacred Scriptures, and of the way and manner in which they ought to be interpreted and applied in the formation of our religious opinions. 3d, That the crude and erroneous notions of the Reformers in regard to the province of logic, and the method of explaining and applying Scripture being corrected and taken away, it is now a fixed and settled thing that all theological systems are incompetent. VOL. I. 2 18 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. We believe tliat these three propositions exhibit accurately the sum and substance of Dr Tulloch’s teaching upon the most im¬ portant subject touched on in his lectures. It would afford us sincere gratification if Dr Tullocli could and would repudiate these views, and show that we had no sufficient grounds for imputing them to him. But this we fear is hopeless, and the next best thing would be, that he should plainly admit that he holds these positions in substance ; and having thus come into the open arena, should boldly and manfully defend his convictions. The reputa¬ tion of the Reformers, the settlement of any questions that may be started about the amount of the commendation that should be bestowed upon them, and about the grounds on which it should be based, all this is insignificant. But the question of the truth or falsehood of the theology of the Reformation is too important to be trifled with. There may turn out to be nothing formidable in the attack now made upon it, but from the magnitude of the interests involved, we like always to see who are the assailants, and what means of assault they have provided. A combination seems to exist at present for the purpose of undermining and exploding the theology of the Reformation, without meeting it fairly and openly in the field of argument. A man of higher standing than Dr Tulloch has yet reached, one who has rendered many important services to the cause of Chris¬ tian truth, Mr Isaac Taylor, has lent a helping hand to this object, by publishing (anonymously) the following statement : — “ The creeds and the confessions of the Reformation era were, indeed, with scrupulous care based upon the authority of Holy Scripture, and looking at them simply as they stood related to the manifold corruptions of the twelve centuries preceding, they might well claim to be scriptural. But in what manner had they been framed? A certain class of texts having been assumed as the groundwork of Christian belief, then a scheme of theology is put to¬ gether accordingly, whence by the means of the deductive logic , all separate articles of faith are to be derived. As to any passages of Scripture which might seem to be of another class, or which do not easily fall into their places in this scheme, they were either ignored, or they were controlled, and this to any extent that might be asked for by the stern necessities of the syllogistic method.”* Dr Tullocli has not put forth anything against the Reformers so discreditable as this, but he evidently occupies ground the same * North British Review , No. li. p. 60. Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 19 in substance, so far as concerns the erroneousness, botli of the process by which they investigated divine truth, and of the results which they reached. He cannot, indeed, be so forgetful of the history and writings of the Reformers as to be capable of believ¬ ing what Mr Taylor has said about a a certain class of texts.” But in all other respects there is a wonderful harmony between them. They concur not only in the belief that the theology of the Reformation is fundamentally unsound and untenable, but also in then’ leading views of the errors attaching to the process by which this erroneous result was reached. They both think that it was the “ deductive logic ” that was the main cause of all the mischief, combined with certain erroneous notions of the way in which the Scriptures ought to be used and applied, meaning by this, apparently, just the doctrine of inspiration, as it has been usually held by the Christian church, and its immediate conse¬ quences. They both expect an entirely new theology, which is to replace the superannuated logical theology of the Reformation. They expect this first from abandoning the deductive logic, and then from the introduction of new modes of biblical exegesis. Mr Taylor, indeed, held out to the world the prospect of a new u exegetical method,” which was to work wonders in reforming theology. We are not aware that this exegetical method has yet made its appearance. But Dr Tulloch speaks as if the new and improved process of investigating divine truth, and of explaining and applying the Bible, were already in operation, and had already succeeded, not only in bringing down Calvinism to the dust, but even in doing something to introduce a simpler and sounder theology. In the quotation we have given from him, he calls it a certain u spirit of interpreting Scripture,” which he describes in terms very magniloquent, but not such as to convey to us any very definite idea of what this spirit is, or where it is to be found. We would like to know something about this u spirit of interpret¬ ing Scripture,” which is to work such wonders, and to effect such improvements in theology. But as Dr Tulloch assures us that it u could hardly have been intelligible to Calvin,” we fear we must renounce all hope of ever catching a glimpse of its import. Dr Tulloch’s work contains no theological discussion, and therefore we are not called upon to engage in theological discussion in reviewing it. There is no distinct specification of what it is in the theology of the Reformation, or in the system of Calvinism, 20 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. which is unsound aud untenable. There is no specification of what it was that was erroneous in those old modes of reasoning or of biblical exegesis, which led to the temporary triumph of Calvinism, or of what are the grounds of that new “ spirit of interpreting Scripture,” which has demolished Calvinism and in¬ troduced a sounder, that is, a more scanty and obscure, theology. We do not refer to the absence of anything of this sort, as if it were a defect in a hook, which does not profess to discuss theolo¬ gical topics. We refer to it for the purpose, first, of expressing a doubt whether it was quite right and fair in Dr Tulloch to intro¬ duce what has so unfavourable a hearing upon the theology generally professed in Scotland, without entering into theological discussion , or setting forth with some fulness the grounds of the views expressed ; and, secondly, of showing that we are not called on, in reviewing Dr Tulloch’ s book, to engage in theological dis- cussion, since he has not given us anything distinct and substantial to answer. The nearest approach to anything like definiteness which Dr Tulloch makes under this general head of the theology of the Deformation, is an allegation to the effect that the Reformers formed their system of doctrine by carrying to an unwarranted length the practice of drawing inferences from Scripture state¬ ments, and by exercising greatly too much their logical faculties in classifying, combining, and expanding the materials which Scripture affords. But even this is only a vague generality of no real value or use, apart from its proved applicability to actual processes of investigation which have been adopted by individuals or bodies of men, and to actual theological results which have been brought out. No one can well dispute, that men are entitled and bound to use their intellectual powers, not only in investigating the meaning of particular statements, but in classifying and com¬ bining a number of statements, in order to bring out as the result the full teaching of Scripture upon the subject to which the state¬ ments relate, and that we are to receive, as resting upon divine authority, not only what is “ expressly set down in Scripture,” but also what u may, by good and necessary consequence, be deduced from Scripture.” It is admitted, on the other hand, that men have often gone too far in making deductions from scriptural statements, and especially what is with many a great bugbear in the present day, in making deductions from doctrines as- Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 21 sumed to be already established, upon the principle of what is sometimes called the analogy of faith. But though these are dangers to be guarded against, we fear that no rules can be laid down, marking out distinctly what is warrantable and legitimate in these respects, and what is not ; and, therefore, no decision upon these points can be founded upou mere vague general declamation about dangers and excesses. Each case in which error, either in the process adopted, or in the result brought out, is alleged, must be judged of and decided upon its own merits. The theology of the Reformers is not to be set aside, merely because men have often gone to an extreme in making deductions from scriptural statements, nor even because they themselves have sometimes erred in this respect. We insist that their theology, as a whole, and every doctrine which enters into their system, shall be judged of fairly and fully by the standard of Scripture, and of Scripture used and applied according to its real character and design. We embrace the theology of the Reformation just because we think we can prove, that all the particular doctrines which constitute it are taught in Scripture, rightly interpreted and applied ; and while, on the one hand, we undertake the responsibility of assert¬ ing and proving this, we must, on the other hand, insist that any one who repudiates the theology of the Reformation, shall dis¬ tinctly specify what the errors of the system are, and bring forward the evidence from Scripture that they are errors. But Dr Tulloch assures us* that Mr Mansel, in his u B amp- ton Lectures,” has conclusively established the incompetency of all theological systems whatever. Mr Mansel has not proved, and has not professed to prove, this. The fundamental principle of Mr Mansel’s book is really and in substance just the doctrine which has always been a familiar commonplace with orthodox divines, viz., that the human faculties are unable adequately to comprehend all truths and all their relations, and that men have therefore no right to make them full comprehension of doctrines, or their perception of the accordance of doctrines with each other, the test or standard of their truth. And the principal merit of the work is, that it brings out this very important but veiy obvious and familiar principle in a philosophic dress, establishes it upon philosophic grounds, and connects it with the best philosophy of * P. 169. 22 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. the age. The most legitimate and valuable application of Mr Manse! s principles, so far as theological subjects are concerned, is to expose the unwarrantable presumption of the objections com¬ monly adduced against the leading doctrines that seem to be taught in Scripture, on the ground of their alleged contrariety to reason. We admit that his principles would also preclude the competency of founding a positive argument in support of the mysterious doc¬ trines of theology, on what may be called rationalistic grounds derived from their intrinsic nature or mutual relation. But this is not sufficient to warrant Dr Tullocli’s allegation that they es¬ tablish the incompetency of all theological systems, because it is not by any such unwarrantable rationalistic process that theological systems are formed. The advocates of every theological system profess to find in Scripture all the materials of which their system is composed, and to be prepared to defend every doctrine they hold, and their system as a whole, by the authority of Scripture. The Reformers professed to derive their whole theology from Scripture, and undertook to produce evidence from Scriptm’e for every doctrine they inculcated. And so do all Calvinists still. They may find some confirmation of their doctrines individually, and of their system as a whole, in considerations derived from natural reason and the exercise of their logical faculties. But they refer to Scriptm’e as affording the chief direct positive proof of all they teach, and they undertake to show that the materials which Scriptm’e furnishes, rightly and rationally used and applied, establish every part of their theological system. Calvinists do not pretend, that when they have proved some one of their doctrines from Scripture, they can derive all their other doctrines from this one, by mere logical deduction. They profess to produce direct positive proof from Scripture suffi¬ cient to establish eveiy one of them, and to have recourse to rational considerations only for confirming the proof, and, especi¬ ally for answering, or rather disposing of objections. In regard, then, to every one of the doctrines which enter into our theolo¬ gical system, we profess to show, that it accurately expresses or embodies the sum and substance of what is asserted or indicated in Scripture upon the point. There is nothing in Mansel’s “Bampton Lectures,” or anywhere else, which proves, or even appears to prove, that there is anything in this process which is incompetent or unwarrantable, or involves a transgression of the Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 23 just a limits of religious thought.” If there be men who mainly rest the truth of their doctrines individually, or of their systems as a whole, upon any other ground than this reasonable and com¬ petent application of scriptural materials, they cannot plead on their behalf, the example of the Reformers, or any of the best defenders of Calvinism. We base all the doctrines of our system upon statements contained in Scripture, we undertake to prove them by a fair and rational application of the materials which Scripture furnishes, and there is no ground for alleging that the processes required in doing this, whether conducted so as to lead in point of fact to a correct result in any particular case or not, go beyond the fair and legitimate exercise of men’s mental powers. We are entitled to demand that our scriptural proofs shall be fairly faced and disposed of, in place of the whole subject being set aside as incompetent, upon the ground of a piece of palpably irrelevant metaphysics. These remarks may be illustrated by selecting an instance of a particular doctrine, and we shall choose with this view the great doctrine of justification, which, in some aspects, may be regarded as the great distinguishing feature of the theology of the Refor¬ mation. Dr Tulloch has given* a statement of this great doctrine of Luther in a somewhat mystical and not very intelligible style, to which it is not worth while to advert. What we have to do with at present is this, that he complains, that Luther and the de¬ fenders of the theology of the Reformation, in place of being contented with some vague generalities upon this subject, should, by definition and exposition, have drawn it out into precise and definite propositions, alleging in substance, that the whole process by which this is done is unwarrantable and incompetent, and that the result is not truth, but error. Let us take one of these pre¬ cise and definite descriptions of justification, and see how the case stands ; and in order to give Dr Tulloch every advantage, we shall select it from a period when the odious process of what he calls u ultra-definition” had been carried somewhat farther than was done by the Reformers, and when, of course, all that he reckons so objectionable was most fully developed. About the middle of the seventeenth century, an assembly of divines put * P. 82. 24 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. forth the following statement of what they believed to be taught in Scripture on the subject of justification : — “ Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth ; not by in¬ fusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous ; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone ; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteous¬ ness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves — it is the gift of God.”* Every one acquainted with the history of theological discus¬ sion, knows that this remarkable statement not only affirms, positively and explicitly, certain great truths, but, by plain impli¬ cation, denies certain errors opposed to them, which have been held by Papists and Arminians to be taught in Scripture ; and the question raised by it is this, Are the doctrines asserted, or the doctrines denied, here, revealed to us in Scripture as true ? It is quite possible that some men may refuse to adopt either of these alternatives, and may contend that Scripture teaches a third doc¬ trine upon the subject of justification, different from either, — or that it does not teach any definite doctrine whatever upon the points here brought under consideration, and furnishes no ma¬ terials for an intelligent and rational decision among the contend- ing creeds. Our position upon the subject is clear and decided, and we wish to understand distinctly the position of any one whose views upon these matters we may be called upon to con¬ sider. We believe that the statement quoted from the “ Confession of Faith” presents an accurate embodiment of the sum and sub¬ stance of what Scripture warrants and requires us to believe upon the subject of justification ; and we hold ourselves bound to produce, in suitable circumstances, the Scripture proof that all the Protestant Calvinistic doctrines there asserted are true, and that all the Popish and Arminian doctrines there denied are false. In what precise way Dr Tulloch would define his position in regard to this matter, we can scarcely venture to say. We pre¬ sume he will not affirm, that he believes either the one or the other set of opinions to be taught in Scripture, and to be binding upon men’s consciences. He is not likely, we should suppose, to put forth a third set of opinions upon these points, * Westminster Confession of Faith, c. xi. Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 25 different from the other two. The ground which, it would seem, he must take, in order to escape from the degradation of profess¬ ing, in this nineteenth century, a precise set of opinions upon justification, is to maintain that Scripture does not furnish mate¬ rials for laying down any such definite doctrines upon the subject. And this can be established only in one or other of two ways, either by producing some direct general proof of it a priori , as an abstract position, or by following the method of exhaustion and proving in detail, that not one of the attempts which have been made to deduce a definite doctrine of justification from scriptural materials has succeeded. There is thus a vast deal to be done be¬ yond what lias ever yet been attempted, before the great doctrine of justification, as set forth in the confessions of the Reformed churches, can be exploded, and the way opened up for restoring that obscurity and confusion, in regard to the way of a sinner’s justifi¬ cation, which the Reformers did so much to dissipate, and which the men of progress in the present day seem so anxious to bring back. There is one theological topic on which Dr Tulloch has given something like a deliverance, and it may be worth while to advert to it as a specimen of the new or advanced theology. In treating of the controversy between Luther and Erasmus on the subject of the bondage or servitude of the will, he gives the following sage and satisfactory deliverance regarding it : — “ It would be idle for us to enter into the merits of this controversy ; and, in truth, its merits are no longer to us what they were to the combatants themselves. The course of opinion has altered this as well as many other points of dispute, so that under the same names we no longer really discuss the same things. There are probably none, with any competent knowledge of the subject, who would care any longer to defend the exact position either of Luther or of Erasmus. Both are right, and both are wrong. Man is free , and yet grace is needful; and the philosophic refinements of Erasmus, and the wild exaggerations of Luther, have become mere historic dust, which would only raise a cloud by being disturbed.” * And in referring to tlie same point as controverted between Calvin and Pighius, he disposes of it in this way : — “ So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, it cannot be said that he is any more successful than the German Reformer. He is here and everywhere more simple and cautious in his statements, but his cold reitera¬ tions and evasions really no more touch the obvious difficulties, than Luther’s heated paradoxes.” f * P. 52. | P. 123. 26 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. The great controversy, then, about the bondage of the will, to which the Reformers attached so much importance in their dis¬ cussions with the Romanists, and the Calvinists in their discussions with the Arminians, Dr Tulloch pronounces to have been a mere logomachy, — a question of no practical importance whatever, un¬ worthy, it would seem, of receiving any serious consideration. Here, again, we fear that Dr Tulloch’s deliverance must be held to imply a denial, that the doctrine taught by the Reformers is really revealed to us in Scripture. That doctrine, as set forth by the Westminster divines is, that “man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accom¬ panying salvation.” Luther, in defending this doctrine, in reply to Erasmus, has made some rash and exaggerated statements, which no one adopts. But Calvin, in defending the same doctrine, in reply to Pighius, has, as Dr Tulloch admits, avoided these excesses. And, independently of all peculiarities of individuals, we would like to know how Dr Tulloch would deal with the doc¬ trine as stated by the Westminster divines. Is that, too, a mere logomachy, which is just as true and as false as the opposite doc¬ trine taught by Papists and Arminians? Are there really no materials in Scripture for deciding either for or against the great Reformation doctrine of the bondage or servitude of the will of fallen man to sin ? Is the whole of the process of investigating the meaning of Scripture for the decision of that question, as it has been conducted on both sides, unwarrantable and illegitimate ? Or is there really an utter want of materials in Scripture for de¬ termining the question, either on the one side or on the other? The way in which Dr Tulloch has spoken in regard to this import¬ ant doctrine of the Reformation, suggests and warrants such ques¬ tions as these ; and we would like to see him meet them, as well as those formerly proposed in regard to justification, openly and manfully, in order that we might, if possible, learn something about that u spirit of interpreting Scripture,” of which Dr Tulloch discourses so magniloquently and unintelligibly, and by which Scripture seems to be rendered so inadequate to be u a light unto our feet and a lamp unto our path.” There is another important subject, in regard to which the Reformers have been generally regarded as having rendered good service to mankind, viz., the right organization of the Christian Church. This, in one aspect, might be comprehended under the Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 27 general head of theology or doctrine, as it consists essentially in bringing out a portion of the mind and will of God, as revealed in His word. But it is common, and in some respects useful, to dis¬ tinguish them, and Dr Tulloch has given them a separate treat¬ ment. The questions to be entertained and settled upon this subject are these : Has God given us, in His word, any indica¬ tions of His will with respect to the worship and government of His church, which are binding in all ages ? and if He has, What are they? It is generally conceded that the Reformers restored the church to a large measure of apostolic purity and simplicity with respect to worship and government. But it cannot be said that they reckoned this matter so important as the restoration of sound doctrine, or that they were to so large an extent of one mind in the conclusions to which they came. In this, as well as in theology, more strictly so called, Calvin was the great master-mind, who stamped his impress most distinctly upon the church of that and of every subsequent period. His own contributions to the establish¬ ment of principle and the development of truth, were greater in regard to church organization than in regard to any other depart¬ ment of discussion, — of such magnitude and importance, indeed, in their bearing upon the whole subject of the clnu’ch, as na¬ turally to suggest a comparison with the achievements of Sir Isaac Newton in unfolding the true principles of the solar system. The Christian church is mainly indebted to Calvin, much more than to any other man, for bringing out distinctly, pressing upon general attention, and establishing the following great principles : — 1st, That it is unwarrantable and unlawful to introduce into the government and worship of the church anything which has not the positive sanction of Scripture. 2d, That the church, though it consists properly and primarily only of the elect or of believers, and though, therefore, visibility and organization are not essential , as papists allege they are, to its existence, is under a positive obligation to be organized, if pos¬ sible, as a visible society, and to be organized in all things, so far as possible, — its office-bearers, ordinances, worship, and general administration and arrangements, — in accordance with what is prescribed or indicated upon these points in the New Testament. 3 cl, That the fundamental principles, or leading features, of what is usually called Presbyterian church government, are indi- 28 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. cated with sufficient clearness in the New Testament, as permar- nently binding upon the church. 4 th, That the church should he altogether free and independ¬ ent of civil control, and should conduct its own distinct and in¬ dependent government by presbyteries and synods, while the civil power is called upon to afford it protection and support. 5th, That human laws, whether about civil or ecclesiastical things, and whether proceeding from civil or ecclesiastical autho¬ rities, do not, per se — i.e. irrespective of their being sanctioned by the authority of God, — impose an obligation upon the con¬ science. Calvin professed to find all these principles more or less clearly taught in Scripture ; and we have no doubt that he succeeded in proving that they are all sanctioned by the word of God, and that thus they may be said to embody the permanent, binding, constitution of the Christian church. We do not say that none of these principles had ever been enunciated till Calvin proclaimed them. But some of them had never before been so clearly and explicitly set forth. None of them had ever before been so fully brought out in their true meaning, and in their complete evidence. And the presentation of them all in combination, expounded and defended with consummate ability, and at the same time with admirable moderation and good sense, furnishes a contribution to the right permanent organization of the Christian church such as no man ever made before, and no man could have an opportunity of making again. Calvin may be said, in a sense, to have settled permanently the constitution of the Christian church, not by assuming any jurisdiction over it, or by any mere exercise of his own talents and sagacity, but simply because God was pleased to make him the instrument of bringing out from the sacred Scrip¬ tures the great leading principles, bearing upon the organization of the church, which till that time had been very much over¬ looked, and had been far from exerting their proper influence. We believe that the leading principles which Calvin inculcated in regard to the organization of the church, never have been, and never can be, successfully assailed ; while there is certainly no possibility of any one being able again to bring out from Scripture a contribution of anything like equal value. Of course, everything depends upon the settlement of the question, whether or not these principles are taught in Scripture, Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 29 as truth revealed for the permanent guidance of the church. The general process by which this is to be investigated and ascer¬ tained, is perfectly competent and legitimate in all its features, though opposite conclusions have been brought out by different parties who professed to follow it. It has been contended, lsi, That Scripture sanctions the great principles above stated, as the permanent constitution of the church. 2d, That Scripture teaches something which is different from, or exclusive of, or opposed to, these principles, upon all or most of the points to which they relate. 3 d, That little or nothing bearing upon matters of worship and government is prescribed to, or imposed upon, the church, and that there are no adequate materials for deciding upon the truth or falsehood of the two preceding positions. Something plausible may be adduced in support of each of these three positions. But the question is, Which of them is true? which has really the sanction of Scripture? We embrace the first of them, and profess to be able to establish it by an accu¬ rate exposition and a reasonable application of materials which Scripture furnishes. The third of these positions is in substance that which is maintained by Dr Tulloch and other latitudinarians. He seems to think, that except, perhaps, in regard to some great general principles, so evident as scarcely to leave room for a dif¬ ference of opinion, the church is left at liberty to settle questions about government and worship for herself, in the way which she may think best at the time and in the circumstances; that the views upon these subjects brought out by Calvin and the Refor¬ mers, though improvements upon the previous condition of things, and well suited to the times, furnish nothing like a pattern of what ought to be the permanent state of the church : and that Scripture cannot be shown to afford materials for deciding those contro¬ versies which have been carried on between different churches about questions of government and worship. These are the sort of notions which he indicates plainly enough in such passages as the following : — “ There are two distinct views that may be taken of this part of Calvin’s work. It presents itself, on the one hand, as a moral influence — a conserva¬ tive spiritual discipline suited to the time, as it was called forth by it ; and, on the other hand, as a new theory, or definite reconstitution of the church. In the first point of view, it is almost wholly admirable ; in the second, it 30 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. will be found unable to maintain itself any more than the Catholic theory which it so far displaced.”* “It is a very different subject that is before us when we turn to contemplate the theocracy of Calvin, in its formal expres¬ sion and basis as a new and definite outline of church government. In this respect he made more an apparent than a real advance upon the old Catholic theocracy. He took up the old principle from a different and higher basis, but in a scarcely less arbitrary and external manner. There is a kingdom of divine truth and righteousness, he said, and Scripture, not the priesthood, is its basis. The Divine word, and not Roman tradition, is the foundation of the spiritual commonwealth. So far all right ; so far Calvin had got hold of a powerful truth against the corrupt historical pretensions of popery. But he at once went much farther than this, and said, not tentatively, or in a spirit of rational freedom, but dogmatically, and in a spirit of arbitrariness, tainted with the very falsehood from whose thraldom he sought to deliver men, 4 this is the form of the divine kingdom presented in Scripture.’ ” f “ Presbyterianism became the peculiar church order of a free Protestantism, carrying with it everywhere, singularly enough, as one of the very agencies of its free moral influence, an inquisitorial authority resembling that of the Cal- vinistic consistory. It rested, beyond doubt, on a true divine order, else it never could have attained this historical success. But it also involved from the beginning a corrupting stain in the very way in which it put forth its divine warrant. It not merely asserted itself to be wise and conformable to Scripture, and therefore divine, but it claimed the direct impress of a divine right for all its details and applications. This gave it strength and influence in a rude and uncritical age, but it planted in it from the first an element of corruption. The great conception which it embodied was impaired at the root by being fixed in a stagnant and inflexible system, which became iden¬ tified with the conception as not only equally but specially divine.” £ “ But were not these 4 elements,’ some will say, really biblical ? did not Calvin establish his church polity and church discipline upon Scripture ? and is not this a warrantable course ? Assuredly not, in the spirit in which he did it. The fundamental source of the mistake is here. The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth, and not a revelation of church polity. They not only do not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one ; and for the best of all reasons, that it would have been entirely contrary to the spirit of Christianity to have done so ; and because, in point of fact, the conditions of human progress do not admit of the imposition of any unvarying system of government, ecclesias¬ tical or civil. The system adapts itself to the life, everywhere expands with it, or narrows with it, but is nowhere in any particular form the absolute con¬ dition of life. A definite outline of church polity, therefore, or a definite code of social ethics, is nowhere given in the New Testament, and the spirit of it is entirely hostile to the absolute assertion of either the one or the other.” § * P. 175. t P. 179. t P. 181. § Pp. 182-3. Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 31 In order to establish his position, Dr Tullocli is bound either to produce Scripture evidence in support of the general notions or maxims on which he bases it, or else to prove in detail the utter inadequacy of all the attempts which have been made to show, that any definite views in regard to government and worship ought permanently to guide the churches of Christ. We profess to establish our position by both these classes of argument. In so far as we profess to lay down any general rules, whether of an imperative or of a prohibitory character, and in so far as we urge any specific arrangements as permanently binding, we undertake to produce sufficient evidence from Scripture for all we assert or require. Dr Tulloch has not entered upon any defence of the ground he has taken upon this subject ; and, therefore, we are not called upon to discuss it. But as the loose and dangerous views which he has put forth are very prevalent in the present day, and as they are by no means destitute of plausibility, while, at the same time, we are persuaded that a large share of the favour they have met with is to be ascribed to ignorance and misapprehension, we shall take the opportunity of making a few explanatory observations regarding them. Of the views generally held by the Reformers on the subject of the organization of the church, there are two which have been always very offensive to men of a loose and latitudinarian ten¬ dency, — viz., the alleged unlawfulness of introducing into the worship and government of the church any thing which is not positively warranted by Scripture, and the permanent binding obligation of a particular form of church government. The second of these principles may be regarded, in one aspect of it, as comprehended in the first. But it may be proper to make a few observations upon them separately, in the order in which they have now been stated. The Lutheran and Anglican sections of the Reformers held a somewhat looser view upon these subjects than was approved of by Calvin. They generally held that the church might warrant- ably introduce innovations into its government and worship, which might seem fitted to be useful, provided it could not be shown that there was anything in Scripture which expressly prohibited or discountenanced them, thus laying the onus probandi , in so far as Scripture is concerned, upon those who opposed the introduction of innovations. The Calvinistic section of the Reformers, follow- 32 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. ing their great master, adopted a stricter rule, and were of opinion, that there are sufficiently plain indications in Scripture itself, that it was Christ’s mind and will, that nothing should be introduced into the government and worship of the church, unless a positive warrant for it could be found in Scripture. This principle was adopted and acted upon by the English Puritans and the Scottish Presbyterians ; and we are persuaded that it is the only true and safe principle applicable to this matter. The principle is, in a sense, a very wide and sweeping one. But it is purely prohibitory or exclusive ; and the practical effect of it, if it were fully carried out, would just be to leave the church in the condition in which it was left by the apostles, in so far as we have any means of information ; a result, surely, which need not be very alarming, except to those who think that they them¬ selves have very superior powers for improving and adorning the church by their inventions. The principle ought to be understood in a common sense way, and we ought to be satisfied with reason¬ able evidence of its truth. Those who dislike this principle, from whatever cause, usually try to run us into difficulties by putting a very stringent construction upon it, and thereby giving it an appearance of absurdity, or by demanding an unreasonable amount of evidence to establish it. The principle must be interpreted and explained in the exercise of common sense. One obvious modifi¬ cation of it is suggested in the first chapter of the “Westminster Confession,” where it is acknowledged “ that there are some cir¬ cumstances, concerning the worship of God and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.” But even this distinction between things and cir- cumstances cannot always be applied very certainly ; that is, cases have occurred in which there might be room for a difference of opinion, whether a proposed regulation or arrangement was a distinct thing in the way of innovation, or merely a circumstance attaching to an authorised thing and requiring to be regulated. Difficulties and differences of opinions may arise about details, even when sound judgment and good sense are brought to bear upon the interpretation and application of the principle ; but this affords no ground for denying or doubting the truth or soundness of the principle itself. Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 33 In regard to questions of this sort there are two opposite extremes, into which one-sided minds are apt to fall, and both of which ought to he guarded against. The one is to stick rigidly and doggedly to a general principle, refusing to admit that any limitations or qualifications ought to be permitted in applying it ; and the other is to reject the principle altogether, as if it had no truth or soundness about it, merely because it manifestly cannot he carried out without some exceptions and modifications, and because difficulties may he raised about some of the details of its application which cannot always he very easily solved. Both these extremes have been often exhibited in connection with this principle. Both of them are natural, hut both are unreason¬ able, and both indicate a want of sound judgment. The right course is to ascertain, if possible, whether or not the principle be true, and if there seem to be sufficient evidence of its truth, then to seek to make a reasonable and judicious applica¬ tion of it. With regard to the Scripture evidence of the truth of the principle, we do not allege that it is very direct, explicit, and overwhelming. It is not of a kind likely to satisfy the coarse, material, literalists, who can see nothing in the Bible but what is asserted in express terms. But it is, we think, amply sufficient to convince those who, without any prejudice against it, are ready to submit their minds to the fair impression of what Scripture seems to have been intended to teach. The general principle of the unlawfulness of introducing into the government and worship of the church anything which cannot be shown to have positive scriptural sanction, can, we think, be deduced from the wrord of God by good and necessary consequence. We do not mean, at present, to adduce the proof, but merely to indicate where it is to be found. The truth of this principle, as a general rule for the guidance of the church, is plainly enough involved in what Scrip¬ ture teaches, concerning its own sufficiency and perfection as a rule of faith and practice, concerning God’s exclusive right to determine in what way He ought to be worshipped, concerning Christ’s exclusive right to settle the constitution, laws, and arrange¬ ments of Ilis kingdom, concerning the unlawfulness of will wor¬ ship, and concerning the utter unfitness of men for the function which they have so often and so boldly usurped in this matter. The fair application of these various scriptural views taken in vol i. 3 34 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. combination, along with the utter want of any evidence on the other side, seems to us quite sufficient to shut out the lawfulness of introducing the inventions of men into the government and worship of the Christian church. There is no force in the presumption, that, because so little in regard to the externals of the church is fixed by scriptural authority, therefore much was left to be regulated by human wisdom, as experience might suggest or as the varying condition of the church might seem to require. For, on the contrary, eveiy view suggested by Scripture of Christianity and the church, indi¬ cates, that Christ intended His church to remain permanently in the condition of simplicity as to outward arrangements, in which Ilis apostles were guided to leave it. And never certainly has there been a case in which it has been more fully established by experience, that the foolishness of God, as the apostle says, is wiser than men, that what seems to many men very plausible and very wise, is utter folly, and tends to frustrate the very objects which it was designed to serve. Of the innumerable inventions of men introduced into the government and worship of the church, without any warrant from Scripture, but professedly as being indicated by the wisdom of experience, or by the Christian con¬ sciousness of a particular age or country, to be fitted to promote the great ends of the church, not one can with any plausibility be shown to have had a tendency to contribute, or to have in fact contributed, to the end contemplated ; while, taken in the mass, and of course no limitation can be put to them unless the principle we maintain be adopted, they have inflicted fearful injury upon the best interests of the church. There is a remarkable statement of Dr Owen’s on this subject, which has been often quoted, but not more frequently than it deserves ; it is this — “ The principle that the church hath power to institute any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of God, either as to matter or manner, beyond the observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ Himself hath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry, of all the confu¬ sion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for so long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world.” It is no doubt very gratifying to the pride of men to think that they, in the exercise of their wisdom, brought to bear upon the experience of the past history of the church, or (to accommodate our statement Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 35 to the prevalent views and phraseology of the present day), in the exercise of their own Christian consciousness, their own spiritual tact and discernment, can introduce improvements upon the nakedness and simplicity of the church as it was left by the apostles. Perhaps the best mode of dealing with such persons, is to call upon them to exemplify their own general principle, by producing specific instances from among the innumerable innova¬ tions that have been introduced into the church in past ages, by which they are prepared to maintain that the interests of religion have been benefited ; — or if they decline this, to call upon them for a specimen of the innovations, possessed of course of this bene¬ ficial character and tendency, which they themselves have devised and would wish to have introduced; and then to undertake to show, what would be no very difficult task, that these inno¬ vations, whether selected or invented, have produced, or would produce if tried, effects the very reverse of what they would ascribe to them. There is a strange fallacy which seems to mislead men in forming an estimate of the soundness and importance of this principle. Because this principle has been often brought out in connection with the discussion of matters which, viewed in them¬ selves, are very unimportant, such as rites and ceremonies, vest¬ ments and organs, crossings, kneelings, bowings, and other such ineptice, some men seem to think that it partakes of the intrinsic littleness of these things, and that the men who defend and try to enforce it, find their most congenial occupation in fighting about these small matters, and exhibit great bigotry and narrow-minded¬ ness in bringing the authority of God and the testimony of Scrip¬ ture to bear upon such a number of paltry points. Many have been led to entertain such views as these of the English Puritans and of the Scottish Presbyterians, and very much upon the ground of their maintenance of this principle. Now, it should be quite sufficient to prevent or neutralize this impression to show, as we think can be done, 1st, That the principle is taught with sufficient plainness in Scripture, and that, therefore, it ought to be pro¬ fessed and applied to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. 2d, That, viewed in itself, it is large, liberal, and comprehensive, such as seems in no way unbecoming its Divine author, and in no way unsuitable to the dignity of the church as a divine institution, giving to God His rightful place of supremacy, and to the church, 36 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. as the body of Christ, its rightful position of elevated simplicity and purity. 3d, That, when contemplated in connection with the ends of the church, it is in full accordance with everything suggested by an enlightened and searching survey of the tenden¬ cies of human nature, and the testimony of all past experience. And with respect to the connection above referred to, on which the impression we are combating is chiefly based, it is surely plain that, in so far as it exists de facto , this is owing, not to anything in the tendencies of the principle itself or of its sup¬ porters, but to the conduct of the men who, in defiance of this principle, would obtrude human inventions into the government and worship of the church, or who insist upon retaining them permanently after they have once got admittance. The principle suggests no rites or ceremonies, no schemes or arrangements ; it is purely negative and prohibitory. Its supporters never devise innovations and press them upon the church. The principle itself precludes this. It is the deniers of this principle, and they alone, who invent and obtrude innovations ; and they are responsible for all the mischiefs that ensue from the discussions and contentions to which these things have given rise. Men, under the pretence of curing the defects and short¬ comings, the nakedness and bareness, attaching to ecclesiastical arrangements as set before us in the New Testament, have been constantly proposing innovations and improvements in government and worship. The question is, How ought these proposals to have been received ? Our answer is, There is a great general scriptural principle which shuts them all out. We refuse even to enter into the consideration of what is alleged in support of them. It is enough for us that they have no positive sanction from Scripture. On this ground we refuse to admit them, and, where they have crept in, we insist upon their being turned out, although, upon this latter point, Calvin, with his usual magnanimity, was always willing to have a reasonable regard to times and circumstances, and to the weaknesses and infirmities of the parties concerned. This is really all that we have to do with the mass of trumpery that has been brought under discussion in connection with these subjects. We find plainly enough indicated in Scripture a great comprehensive principle, suited to the dignity and importance of the great subject to which it relates, the right administration of the church of Christ, — a principle “majestic in its own simplicity.” Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 37 We apply this principle to the mass of paltry stuff that has been devised for the purpose of improving and adorning the church, and thereby we sweep it all away. This is all that we have to do with these small matters. We have no desire to know or to do anything about them ; and when they are obtruded upon us by our opponents, we take our stand upon a higher plat¬ form, and refuse to look at them. This is plainly the true state of the case ; and yet attempts are constantly made, and not wholly without success, to represent these small matters, and the discussions to which they have given rise, as distinctively charac¬ teristic of English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians ; whereas, in all their intrinsic littleness and paltriness, they are really cha¬ racteristic only of those who contend for introducing or retain¬ ing them. It was a great service, then, that Calvin rendered to the church when he brought out and established this principle, in correction of the looser views held by the Lutheran and Anglican Reformers. If all the Protestant churches had cordially adopted and faithfully followed this simple but comprehensive and com¬ manding principle, this would certainly have prevented a fearful amount of mischief, and would, in all probability, have effected a vast amount of good. There is good ground to believe, that, in that case, the Protestant churches would have been all along far more cordially united together, and more active and suc¬ cessful in opposing their great common enemies, Popery and Infidelity, and in advancing the cause of their common Lord and Master. There is another principle that was generally held by the Reformers, though not peculiar to them, which is very offensive to Dr Tulloch and other latitudinarians, viz., the scriptural autho¬ rity or jus divinum of one particular form of church government. This general principle has been held by most men who have felt any real honest interest in religious matters, whether they had adopted Popish, Prelatic, Presbyterian, or Congregational views of what the government of the church should be. The first persons who gave prominence to a negation of this principle, were the original defenders of the Church of England in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, Archbishop Whitgift and his associates, who scarcely ven¬ tured to claim a scriptural sanction for the constitution of their church. They have not been generally followed in this by the 38 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. more modern defenders of the Church of England, who have commonly claimed a divine right for their government, and not a few of whom have gone the length of unchurching Presbyterians and Congregationalists. But they have been followed by some men in every age who seemed anxious to escape from the con¬ trolling authority of Scripture, that they might be more at liberty to gratify their own fancies, or to prosecute their own selfish interest. From the time of Whitgift and Hooker down to the present day, it has been a common misrepresentation of the views of jure divino anti-prelatists, to allege, that they claimed a divine right — a positive Scripture sanction — for the details of them system of government. Dr Tulloch seems to have thought it impossible to dispense with this misrepresentation, and accordingly he tells us that Presbyterianism u not merely asserted itself to be wise and conformable to Scripture, and therefore divine, but it claimed the direct impress of a divine right for all its details and applications.” This statement is untrue. There may be differences of opinion among Presbyterians as to the extent to which a divine right should be claimed for the subordinate features of the system, and some, no doubt, have gone to an extreme in the extent of their claims. But no Presbyterians of eminence have ever claimed “ the direct impress of a divine right for all the details and appli¬ cations” of their system. They have claimed a divine right, or scriptural sanction, only for its fundamental principles, its leading features. It is these only which they allege are indicated in Scripture in such a way as to be binding upon the church in all ages. And it is just the same ground that is taken by all the more intelligent and judicious among jure divino Prelatists and Congregationalists. . Dr Tulloch, in the last of the quotations we have given from his book, endeavours to prove that no form of church government was or could have been laid down in Scripture, so as to be per¬ manently binding upon the church. His leading positions are embodied in this statement : — “ The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth, and not a reve- ation of church polity. They not only do not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one. And for the best of all reasons, that it would have been entirely contrary to the spirit of Christianity to have done so ; and because, in point of fact, the Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 39 conditions of human progress do not admit of the imposition of any unvarying system of government, ecclesiastical or civil.” Dr Tullocli admits that the Scriptures are “ a revelation of Divine truth;” and since the truth revealed in them is not the theology of the Reformation, we hope that some time or other he will enlighten the world as to what the “ Divine truth” is which O they do reveal. As to the position that “ the Scriptures are not a revelation of church polity,” we venture to think, that it is pos¬ sible that something may be taught in Scripture on the subject of church polity for the permanent guidance of the church ; and if there be anything of that nature taught there, then it must be a portion of the “ divine truth” which the Scriptures reveal. Whether anything be taught in Scripture on the subject of church polity, must be determined, not by such an oracular deliverance as Dr Tulloch has given, but by an examination of Scripture itself, by an investigation into the validity of the scriptural grounds which have been brought forward in support of the different theo¬ ries of church government. Dr Tulloch will scarcely allege, that there is nothing whatever taught in Scripture as to what should be the polity of the church ; and if there be anything taught there upon the subject, it must be received as a portion of divine truth. He is quite sure, however, that the sacred Scriptures “ not only do not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one.” Here we are directly at issue with him. We contend that not merely “hints,” but what may be fairly called an “ outline” of a particular church polity, are set forth in Scripture in such a way as to be binding upon the church in all ages. We admit, indeed, that when this position is discussed in the ab¬ stract as a general thesis, a good deal of the argument often adduced in support of it is unsatisfactory and insufficient, as well as what is adduced against it. When the position we maintain is put in the shape of an abstract proposition, in which the advocates of all the different forms of church government — Papists, Prelatists, Pres¬ byterians, and Congregationalists — may concur ; in other words, when the general position is laid down, that a particular form of church government, without specifying what , is sanctioned by Scrip¬ ture, we admit that the materials which may be brought to bear in support of this position are somewhat vague and indefinite, and do not tell very directly and conclusively upon the point to be proved. 40 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. The strength of the case is brought fully out only when it is alleged that some one particular form of church government spe¬ cified, as Prelacy or Presbyterianism, is sanctioned and imposed by Scripture. The best and most satisfactory way of establishing the general position, that the Scripture sanctions and imposes a particular form of church government, is to bring out the particu¬ lar principles, rules, and arrangements in regard to the govern¬ ment of the church which are sanctioned by Scripture, and to show that these, when taken together, or viewed in combination, constitute what may be fairly and reasonably called a form of church government. By this process not only is the general pro¬ position most clearly and directly established, but, what is of much more importance, the particular form of church government which Scripture sanctions, and which, therefore, the church is under a permanent obligation to have, is brought out and demonstrated. Attempts, indeed, have been made to prove and to disprove the general thesis in the abstract by a priori reasonings, but most of these reasonings appear to us to possess but little force or rele¬ vancy. It is contended on a priori grounds, on the one hand, that there must have been a particular form of church government laid down in Scripture ; and it is contended on similar grounds, on the other hand, that this could not be done, or that it was impossible consistently with the general nature of the Christian church, and the circumstances in which it was, and was to be, placed. But the truth is, that nothing which can be fairly regarded as very clear or cogent can be adduced in support of either of these abstract positions, unless the idea of a form of church government be taken, in the first of them, in a very wide and lax, and in the second, in a very minute and restricted sense. On the one hand, while there is a large measure of a priori probability, that Christ, intend¬ ing to found a church as an organised, visible, permanent society, very different in character from the previously subsisting church of God, especially in regard to all matters of external organization and arrangement, should give some general directions or indica¬ tions of His mind and will as to its constitution and government, we have no certain materials for making any assertion as to the extent to which He was called upon to carry the rules He might prescribe as of permanent obligation, or for holding that He might be confidently expected to give rules so complete and minute as to constitute what might with any propriety be called a form of Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 41 church government. And, on the other hand, while it is evident that the Christian church was intended to he wholly different in external organization from the Jewish one, and to have no such minute and detailed system of regulations, as being intended for all ages and countries ; and while on these grounds, but little as compared with the Jewish system, was to be subjected to precise and detailed regulations, and something might thus be left to the church to be determined by the light of nature and providential circumstances, there is no antecedent improbability whatever, arising from any source or any consideration, in the idea that Christ might give such general directions on this subject as, when combined together, might justly have the designation of a form of church govern¬ ment applied to them. On these grounds we do not attach much wreight to those general a priori considerations, by which many have undertaken to prove, on the one hand, that Christ must have established a particular form of government for His church, or, on the other hand, that He could not have done so ; and we regard the case upon this whole subject as left in a very defective and imper¬ fect state, until the advocates of the principle of a scripturally sanctioned or jure divino form of church government, have shown wdiat the particular form of church government is which the Scrip¬ ture sanctions, and have produced the evidence that Scripture does sanction that form, and, of course, a form — which will be a suffi¬ cient answer to the allegation that He could not have done so. We think wTe can prove from Scripture statement and apos¬ tolic practice, the binding obligation of certain laws or rules, and arrangements, which furnish not only “ hints,” but even an “out¬ line of church polity,” and which, when combined together, may be fairly said to constitute a form of church government. In this way, we think we can show that there is a particular form of chiu'ch government which, in its fundamental principles and leading features, is sanctioned and imposed by Scripture, viz., the Presbyterian one. If the general a priori considerations which have been fre¬ quently brought into the discussion of this subject are insufficient to establish the true position, that Scripture does sanction one particular form of church government, much less are they ade¬ quate to establish the false position that it does not. Dr Tulloch, as we have seen, asserts that we have “ the best of all reasons” to show’ that the Scriptures do not lay down even an “ outline” of a 42 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. church polity. But his u best of all reasons” are not likely to satisfy any but those who are determined beforehand to be con¬ vinced. His reasons are two : — 1st, “ It would have been entirely contrary to the spirit of Christianity to have done so 2d, “ The conditions of human progress do not admit of the imposition of any unvarying system of government, ecclesiastical or civil.” This is the whole proof which he adduces ; and these he calls “ the best of all reasons.” This, forsooth, is to prove that it is impossible that even the “ outline” of a church polity could have been set forth in Scripture as permanently binding. Even Divine Wisdom, it would seem, could not have devised an outline of a church polity which would have been accordant with “ the spirit of Christianity and the conditions of human progress.” Our readers, we presume, will not expect us to say anything more for the pur¬ pose of refuting and exposing this. “ The spirit of Christianity and the conditions of human progress” might have had some bear¬ ing upon the question in hand, if there had been on the other side the maintenance of the position, that the Scriptures imposed upon the church a full system of minute and detailed prescription of external arrangements, similar in character and general features to the Jewish economy. But when it is considered how entirely different from everything of this sort is all that is contended for by intelligent defenders of the divine -right of a particular form of church government, most men, we think, will see that Dr Tulloch’s appeal, for conclusive evidence against its possibility, to the spirit of Christianity and the conditions of human progress, is truly ridi¬ culous. The disproof of the position, which has been received so gene¬ rally among professing Christians, that Scripture does sanction and prescribe the outline of a church polity, cannot be effected by means of vague and ambiguous generalities, or by high-sound¬ ing declamation. It can be effected, if at all, only by the method of exhaustion, that is, by the detailed refutation of all the different attempts which have been made to establish from Scripture the divine right of a particular form of church government. And this species of work is much more difficult, requires much more talent and learning, than declaiming about “the spirit of Chris¬ tianity and the conditions of human progress.” At the same time, we must admit that it has become somewhat common and popular in modern times, to scout and ridicule the Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 43 advancing of a claim to a divine right on behalf of any particular form of church government. This has arisen partly, no doubt, from the ignorant and injudicious zeal with which the claim has been sometimes advocated, even by those whose views upon the subject of church government were, in the main, sound and scrip¬ tural ; but principally, we are persuaded, from certain erroneous notions of the practical consequences that are supposed to follow necessarily from the establishment of this claim. All Papists and many Prelatists, in putting forth a claim to a divine right on behalf of their respective systems of church govern¬ ment, have openly, and without hesitation, deduced from their fancied success in establishing this claim, the conclusion, that professedly Christian societies which had not their form of government were, for this reason, to be refused the designation and the ordinary rights of Christian churches, or even to be placed beyond the pale within which salvation is ordinarily pos¬ sible. This mode of procedure, in applying the claim to a divine right, universal among Papists, and by no means un¬ common among a certain class of Prelatists, must appear to men who know anything of the general genius and spirit of the Christian system, and wh6 are possessed of any measure of common sense and Christian charity, to be absurd and monstrous ; and by many the disgust which has been reasonably excited by this conduct, has been transferred to the general principle of claiming a jus divinum on behalf of a particular form of church government, from which it was supposed necessarily to flow. All this, how¬ ever, is unwarranted and erroneous. Presbyterians and Congre- gationalists have as generally set up a claim to a divine right on behalf of them systems of church government as Papists and Prelatists have done ; but we do not remember that there has ever been a Presbyterian or a Congregationalist of any note who unchurched all other denominations except his own, or who refused to regard and treat them as Christian churches merely on the ground that they had adopted a form of government different from that which he believed to have, exclusively, the sanction of the word of God. But many seem to suppose that Presbyterians and Congrega- tionalists, in not unchurching other denominations on the ground of rejecting what they believe respectively to be the only scrip- turally sanctioned form of church government, are guilty of an 44 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. amiable weakness, and fall into inconsistency, by declining to fol¬ low out their assertion of a jus divinum in judging of others, to its natural and legitimate consequences. This notion is erroneous and unjust, as will appear by attending to the true state of the case. All that is implied in claiming a divine right for Presbyte¬ rianism, for instance, is that the person who does so believes, and thinks he can prove, that Christ has plainly enough indicated in His word His mind and will, that the fundamental principles of Presbyterianism should always and everywhere regulate the government of His church. Prelatists and Congregationalists, professing equally to follow the guidance of the sacred Scrip¬ tures and to submit to the authority of Christ, have formed a different and opposite judgment as to the true bearing and im¬ port of the materials which Scripture furnishes upon this subject, and have in consequence set up a different form of government in their churches. This being the true state of the case, the sum and substance of what any candid and intelligent Presbyterian, even though holding the jus divinum of presbytery, has to charge against them is just this, that they have mistaken the mind and will of Christ upon this point, that they have formed an errone¬ ous judgment about the import of the indications he Has given in His word, as to how He would have the government of His church to be regulated. And this, which is really the whole charge, does not, upon principles generally acknowledged, afford of itself any sufficient ground for unchurching them, or for refusing to recog¬ nise and treat them as Christian churches. It is a serious matter to adopt and to act upon erroneous views in regard to any portion of divine truth, anything which God has made known to us in His word, and we have no wish to palliate this in any instance. But let the case be fairly stated, and let the principles ordinarily and justly applied to other errors be applied to this one. There can be no possible ground for holding, that the adoption and mainte¬ nance of an error on the subject of the government of the church, by words or deeds, involves more guilt, or should be more severely condemned, than the adoption and maintenance of an error upon a matter of doctrine in the more limited sense of that word ; and on the contrary, there is a great deal in the nature of the subject, viewed in connection with the general character, spirit, tendency, and objects of the Christian economy, and in the kind and amount of the materials of evidence which Scripture affords us for forming Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 45 a judgment upon such questions, which indicates that errors in regard to government should be treated with less severity of con¬ demnation, and should less materially affect the intercourse of churches with each other, than errors (within certain limits) with regard to doctrine, which are not usually considered to warrant the unchurching of other denominations, or to form an insuperable obstacle to the maintenance of friendly relations with them. These grounds on which we establish the unwarrantableness and unfairness of the common allegation, that claiming a divine right for one particular form of church government, implies the unchurching of other denominations who may have come to a dif¬ ferent conclusion as to the bearing of the Scripture testimony upon this subject, apply equally to the wider and more compre¬ hensive principle, formerly explained, of the unlawfulness of in¬ troducing anything into the government and worship of the church which is not positively sanctioned by Scripture. Lutherans and Anglicans generally contend that this principle is not taught in Scripture, and, on this ground, refuse to be so strictly tied up in regard to the introduction of ceremonies and regulations. We believe that, in denying this principle, they have fallen into an error in the interpretation and application of Scriptime, and that the ceremonies and regulations which, in opposition to it, they may have introduced, are unlawful, and ought to be removed. But we never imagined, that because of this error in opinion, followed to some extent by error in practice, these denominations were to be unchurched, or to be shut out from friendly intercourse, especially as the scriptural evidence in favour of the principle, though quite sufficient and satisfactory to our minds, is of a somewhat construc¬ tive and inferential description, and as differences sometimes arise among those who concur in holding it about some of the details of its application. If these views, which are in manifest accordance with the dictates of common sense, and with principles generally recognised in other departments of theological discussion, were admitted, there would be much less disinclination to yield to the force of the Scripture evidence in support of the two principles which we have explained, and which form, we are persuaded, the only effectual security for the purity of church administration, and the authority of church arrangements. But there are, in every age, some men who seem anxious to 46 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. have the reputation of being in advance of all around them in the enlightened knowledge of theological subjects, and who, with this view, are very desirous to escape from the trammels of implicit deference to the authority of Scripture. The great source of error in religious matters is, that men do not fully and honestly take the word of God as their rule and standard. They may profess to do so, and they may do so to some extent ; but there have been many contrivances, by which men have laboured to undermine the authority of Scripture as a rule of faith and prac¬ tice, while professing to respect it, and have virtually set up themselves or their fellow-men as the ultimate standard of truth. Papists and Quakers, Rationalists and Traditionalists, Fanatics and Mystics, all undermine the supreme authority of Scripture, and substitute something else in its room ; and the elements of the leading notions of these various parties, singly or in combination, are now in extensive operation amongst us. Indeed, one of the most remarkable features of the present age, is the extent to which these different, and apparently opposite, elements are combined even in the same persons, and co-operate in producing the same result. There are persons of some influence in the religious world, in the present day, in regard to whom it would not be easy to determine under which of the heads above mentioned they might most fairly be ranked— men who seem to be at once traditionalists, rationalists, and mystics, and who, under the influence of a combination of the elements of these different systems, set aside, to a considerable extent, the authority of Scripture, and pervert the meaning of its statements, or, at least, come far short in turning the Scrip times to good account, or in deriving from them the amount of clear and definite knowledge of divine things which they are fitted and in¬ tended to convey. It might be a useful and interesting subject of investigation, to bring out a view of the way in which these different and op¬ posite tendencies are, in the present day, combined in producing error and unsoundness, and especially indefiniteness and obscurity, on religious subjects. The great bugbear, indeed, now-a-days, is the inculcation of clear and definite doctrines upon theological topics. Men seem now quite vailing to employ any pretence, derived from any quarter, for discountenancing definite and sys¬ tematic views of Christian truth, and for bringing back again over the church all the confusion and obscurity of the dark ages. The Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 47 men of progress in tlie present day seem to have resolved to gain distinction by extinguishing light, and plunging back into dark¬ ness ; and they evidently hope that in this way they will acquire the reputation of being very advanced and very profound. In every age since the revival of letters, there has been a class of men who were anxious to distinguish themselves from those around them by going ahead, by turning aside from the path which most of their friends and associates were pursuing, and by taking what they reckon a more advanced and elevated position. What they may happen to regard as constituting the advancement and elevation which minister to them self-com¬ placency, may depend upon a great variety of causes and influ¬ ences. But it has not usually been found very difficult to discover something or other which might be made to appear advanced and elevated, although it really was not so when tried by any standard reasonably and legitimately applicable. In this way, men of a certain stamp have usually found it easy enough to get up some plausible grounds for regarding and representing themselves as liberal and enlightened, and the generality of those around them as narrow-minded and bigoted ; and at present, the greatest credit in theological matters is to be gained, it seems, by taking as little as possible from Scripture, by repudiating all clear and definite views upon doctrinal subjects, and by displaying a “voluntary humility” in striving to get back to the primeval con¬ dition of ignorance and obscurity. This condition of comparative ignorance and obscurity might be harmless and innocent before errors were broached and controversies were waged, but it has now become for ever unattainable on the part of intelligent and educated men, and if it were attainable, could be realised only through a sinful refusal to improve the opportunities which God has given us of acquiring an accurate knowledge of His revealed will. There is, indeed, a bigotry which is despicable and injuri¬ ous, the bigotry of those who refuse to practise any independent thinking, who slavishly submit to mere human authority, who never venture to entertain the idea of deviating in any point from the beaten track, and denounce as a matter of course all who do so, who can see only one side of a subject, or perhaps only one corner of one side of it, who are incapable of forming a reason¬ able estimate of the comparative importance of different truths and different errors, who contend for all truths and denounce all 48 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. errors with equal vehemence, who never modify or retract their opinions, who have no difficulties themselves and no sympathy with the difficulties of others. We meet occasionally with bigots of this sort, and they are very despicable and very mischievous. There is also a species of progress, which is creditable and praise¬ worthy, exhibited by men who are thoroughly conversant with, and reasonably deferential to, the attainments of the churches and the achievements of the great theologians of former times, who can comprehensively survey and judiciously estimate the past, who can read the lessons “ of doctrine, reproof, and correction” which it is fitted to suggest, who are thus by the study of the past qualified in some measure to anticipate and to guide the course of discussion in the future, and who, while, it may be, only confirmed by their researches and meditations in the soundness of their own leading convictions, have learned, at the same time and by the same process, a larger measure of friendly forbearance for those who differ from them. This is a kind of progress which should ever be regarded with approbation and respect, and in which all of us, according to our capacities and opportunities, should be seeking to advance. But this is a very different kind of thing from the latitudinarianism which finds its representatives in every age, and which at bottom is little better than a desire of noto¬ riety, and an affectation of superior wisdom where no superior wisdom exists. We believe that the general run of latitudina- rians, or men of progress, to be found in every generation of theo¬ logians from the Reformation to the present day, have upon the whole been as ignorant, as narrow-minded, and as self-conceited, as the bigots. We have no respect for any of the u men of latitude” and progress in the present day regarded as theologians ; we have a very decided conviction, that the leading views in which the generality of the Reformers concurred, both with respect to the substance of Christian tlieologv and the organization of the Chris- tian church, can be fully established from Scripture ; and we cer¬ tainly never shall be shaken in this conviction by vague generali¬ ties, high-sounding pretensions, or supercilious declamation. But we have no wish to remain in darkness while the light is shining all around us. And we promise that, if Mr Isaac Taylor or Dr Tulloch will abandon the vague and equivocal declamation which they have put forth on this subject, if they will plainly and explicitly declare, what are the Reformation doctrines on theologi- Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 49 cal and ecclesiastical subjects which must now be dismissed as untenable, producing at the same time the detailed proof that these doctrines are not sanctioned by Scripture rightly interpreted and applied, we shall give them a careful and deliberate hearing ; and we shall examine their statements with the more earnestness and respect, if they not only refute the theology of the Reforma¬ tion, but at the same time expound and establish a different theo¬ logy that may be entitled to take its place. The really vital questions which all men are called upon to solve as well as they can, are these : — What ought we believe concerning God and ourselves, concerning Christ and the way of salvation, concerning the church and the sacraments % We have long held, that men who made a thorough and adequate, an accu¬ rate and comprehensive, use of the materials furnished by Scrip¬ ture, would be constrained to admit, that the true answer to all these questions is, in substance, what is set forth in the confessions of the Reformed churches, the most important body of uninspired documents in existence. But the subject is too vitally important to be set aside as altogether beyond the pale of farther investiga¬ tion, and we would not refuse to attend to any feasible attempt to show that these questions ought to be answered in a different way. Dr Tulloch rejects the views which the Reformers derived from Scripture upon these points. But he has not told us what other views Scripture requires 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 be shown that the theology of the Refor¬ mation will not do for the nineteenth century. We know some- thing of the process by which Arminians and Socinians, ration¬ alists and latitudinarians, have laboured to show that the theology of the Reformation is not taught in Scripture. We are well satisfied that nothing; more formidable can be adduced against it than has been brought forward, consistently with an honest ad¬ mission in any sense of the divine authority of Scripture ; and we are confirmed in this conviction by the fact, that some of the most learned modern German critics have admitted that the apostles believed and taught the leading doctrines of the Reformers, while they of course refuse to believe anything so irrational upon the authority of apostles. Surely it is high time that Mr Isaac Taylor should develop his new u exegetical method” which is to revolu¬ tionise theology, and that Dr Tulloch should unfold his u spirit of VOL I. 4 50 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. interpreting Scripture,” which could have “hardly been intelli¬ gible to Calvin,” but which, it seems, is quite adequate to de¬ molish Calvinism. Whatever this mysterious method or spirit may be, we are not afraid of it. Let it be brought freely out to the open field of conflict, and let it do its best to over¬ turn the theology of the Reformation. We have no anxiety about the result. One of the worst passages in Dr Tulloch’s book is the conclu¬ sion of his sketch of Luther. It is so bad that we must quote it at length : — “ They were consistent in displacing the Church of Rome from its position of assumed authority over the conscience, but they were equally consistent, all of them, in raising a dogmatic authority in its stead. In favour of their own views, they asserted the right of the private judgment to interpret and decide the meaning of Scripture, but they had nevertheless no idea of a really free interpretation of Scripture. Their orthodoxy everywhere appealed to Scripture, but it rested in reality upon an Augustinian commentary of Scrip¬ ture. They displaced the mediseval schoolmen, but only to elevate Augustine. And having done this, they had no conception of any limits attaching to this new tribunal of heresy. Freedom of opinion, in the modern sense, was utterly unknown to them. There was not merely an absolute truth in Scrip¬ ture, but they had settled, by the help of Augustine, what this truth was ; and any variations from this standard were not to be tolerated. The idea of a free faith holding to very different dogmatic views, and yet equally Chris¬ tian — the idea of spiritual life and goodness apart from theoretical orthodoxy — had not dawned on the sixteenth century, nor long afterwards. Heresy was not a mere divergence of intellectual apprehension, but a moral obliquity — a statutory offence — to be punished by the magistrate, to be expiated by death. It is the strangest and most saddening of all spectacles to contemplate the slow and painful process by which the human mind has emancipated itself from the dark delusion, that intellectual error is a subject of moral offence and punish¬ ment, as if even the highest expressions of the most enlightened dogmatism were or could be anything more than the mere gropings after God’s immeasur¬ able truth — the mere pebbles by the shore of the unnavigable sea — the mere ' star dust in the boundless heaven, pointing to a ‘ light inaccessible and full of glory, which no man hath seen, neither indeed can see.’ It required the lapse of many years to make men begin to feel — and it may still require the lapse of many more to make them fully feel — that they cannot absolutely fix in their feeble symbols the truth of God ; that it is ever bursting with its own free might the old bottles in which they would contain it ; and that, con¬ sequently, according to that very law of progress by which all things live, it is impossible to bind the conscience by any bonds but those of God’s own wis¬ dom (word) in Scripture — a spiritual authority addressing a spiritual subject Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 51 — a teacher, not of ‘ the letter which killeth, but of the Spirit which giveth life.’”* We have not now space for exposing, as it deserves, this remarkable and significant passage. We can only suggest a few hints as to its import and bearing. 1. Dr Tulloch makes the statement absolutely and without qualification, that heresy is not a “ moral obliquity,” — that it is “ a dark delusion that intellectual error is a subject of moral offence and punishment.” Is this anything different from what Warbur- ton, a century ago, denounced as “ the master sophism of this infidel age, the innocence of error V’ 2. When Dr Tulloch intimates his approbation of “ the idea of a free faith, holding to very different dogmatic views, and yet equally Christian,” we presume he just means, in plain English, to tell us, that Calvinism, Arminianism, and Socinianism, are all equally Christian. 3. In this passage he seems to confound or mix up together all interference with heresy or u intellectual error” in religious matters, whether by the civil or the ecclesiastical authorities, as if all exercise of ecclesiastical discipline on such grounds, were just as unwarrantable and offensive as persecution, in the shape of the infliction of civil pains and penalties on the ground of error in religion. This confounding of things that differ, was one of the leading artifices of the infidels and semi-infidels, who discussed these subjects in the early part of last century, the Tindals and Collinses, the Hoadleys and Sykeses. 4. Dr Tulloch seems here to employ another sophism derived from the same not very respectable source, when, upon the grounds, that creeds and confessions are human productions, and of course exhibit indications of human imperfections, and that they are not fitted to serve all the purposes to which they have been sometimes applied, he would intimate that they are of no worth or value whatever, and are not fitted to serve any good or useful purpose. His views upon this point are certainly not brought out clearly and explicitly, but what has now been stated, seems, so far as we can judge, to be the substance of what he intended to indicate, especially in the last sentence of the quota¬ tion. There is a notion which seems to be pretty prevalent in * Pp. 87-8. 52 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I. the present day, though as yet in a somewhat latent and undeve¬ loped form, and which produces some sympathy in the minds of many with what is said in disparagement of creeds and confes¬ sions. It is a doubt, at least, whether creeds and confessions, which are to be made terms of ministerial communion, and, of course, grounds of division among churches, should be so long and so minute as some of them are. We have noticed of late some indications of this feeling in men who are far superior to the vulgar aversion to creeds, and whom there is no reason to suspect of unfaithfulness to their own confession. We admit that this is a fair and reasonable topic for discussion, and we are not aware that, as distinguished from some of the other branches of the controversy about confessions, it has ever yet been subjected to so thorough, deliberate, and comprehensive an investigation as its importance deserves. We have no wish to encourage the rais¬ ing of a discussion upon this subject. But we see symptoms which seem to indicate, that it is likely to be pressed upon the attention of the churches, and it may be well that men should be turning their thoughts to it. O O 5. Men who are familiar with the common cant of latitudina- rians, will easily see that some of the statements contained in this passage, especially those which speak of the influence of Augus¬ tine, and of an “ Augustinian commentary of Scripture,” are intended to convey such notions as these — that the Reformers derived their leading theological views, not from the word of God but from the writings of Augustine ; that they adopted Augus¬ tine’s views, not because they had satisfied themselves of their accordance with Scripture, but from deference to his authority, or from some other adventitious, or accidental, or, it may be, un¬ worthy, cause ; that having adopted Augustinian views for some other reason than their accordance with Scripture, they then did what they could to bend and twist Scripture to the support of Augustinianism, and that in this way they brought out of Scrip¬ ture what is not to be found there, what it does not sanction. All this Dr Tulloclis statements seem to us to imply. It would have been more creditable to him to have openly and explicitly asserted it. But as he has produced no evidence in support of these notions, we could only meet even an assertion of them, by a denial of their truth. We assert, that the notions which Dr Tulloch here indicates with regard to the theological views of- the Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 53 Reformers are not true, and in flat contradiction to tliem we assert, that the Reformers adopted Augustine’s views because satisfied, as the result of careful and deliberate investigation, that they were in accordance with the teaching of Scriptime ; that they were right in entertaining this conviction; that they brought out the evidence of the scriptural authority of the doctrines of Augustine much more fully and satisfactorily than he himself had done ; in short, that they proved conclusively and unanswerably, that Augustinianism or Calvinism is revealed to us by God in His word. The substance of what he seems to allege here against the Reformers, we have no doubt he would direct equally against those benighted men who in this nineteenth century are willing to acknowledge themselves Calvinists. He perhaps thinks that we too have been led to profess Augustinian or Calvinistic doc¬ trines, not from an intelligent and honest study of the sacred Scriptures, but from some adventitious, irrelevant, inadequate, perhaps unworthy, motive or influence, and that we are pervert¬ ing, or in some way or other misapplying, the materials furnished by Scripture, in order to procure support to our opinions. Dr Tulloch has no right to expect that any mere assertion of his on such a subject will carry much weight or excite much feeling. But since he has not hesitated to set aside the theology of the Reformation, the theology which has generally been professed in Scotland from the Reformation to the present day, and to do this in circumstances which did not admit of theological discussion, we think it probable that he is willing and ready to bring forward the grounds on which his views upon this subject are based. We must presume after what he has said, that he is prepared to give to the world a detailed exposure of the theology of the Reforma¬ tion, a new “ Refutation of Calvinism.” He can scarcely avoid attempting something of this sort, and we venture to assure him, beforehand, that he will not succeed. LUTHER.* It is admitted by all Christians that the church is, in some sense, the organ and the representative of Christ upon earth. This principle, true in itself, is very liable to be abused and perverted. It is perverted grossly in the hands of Romanists, when it is represented as implying that the church, as a visible society, has virtually the same power and authority, the same rights and pre¬ rogatives, as its Master in heaven. The general principle about the church, understood in this sense, and combined with the assumption that the church of Christ upon earth is the church which acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Christ’s vicar, is the foundation of the papal claims to supremacy and infallibility. The same principle is also employed largely to defend or palliate some of the more offensive consequences of these claims, and some of the more offensive modes of enforcing them. On the ground of this identification of Christ and the church, the opponents of the church come to be regarded as the enemies of Christ, and His vicar is held to be entitled to deal with them, so far as he can, just as Christ may deal with those who continue finally obstinate and impenitent enemies to His cause. In this way papists come to subordinate everything, in the mode in which they regard and deal with their fellow-men, to the fancied honour and interests of the church, and to look upon the oppo¬ nents of the church not as their fellow-men, whom they are bound to love, but simply as the enemies of Christ, whom they are entitled to injure. It is deeply engrained on the minds of Romanists, that those who are beyond the pale of the true church forfeit the * British and Foreign Evangelical Review , April 1856. 1. Vindication of Luther against his recent English Assailants, by Julius Charles Hare. 1855. 2. Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, Education and University Reform, chiefly from the Edinburgh Review , by Sir William Hamilton, Bart. 1853. Essay II.] LUTHER. 55 ordinary rights of men and members of society; and that, especially when they take an active and prominent part in opposing and injuring the church, they ought to be treated as outlaws or as wild beasts. It is this identification of the church and its visible head, the pope, with Christ Himself, that produces and accounts for that extraordinary subordination of everything to the interests of the church which is so remarkable a feature of popery; and that explains the persecutions which Romanists have at all times been quite willing to perpetrate. All this may be regarded as exhibit¬ ing the natural and appropriate result of popish principles, and as, in some sense, rather helping, when viewed in connection with certain tendencies of human nature, to palliate the cruelties which have disgraced the history of the Church of Rome. But there is an abuse of the principle which has been often acted upon by papists, though not often openly avowed, and which is altogether destitute of any appearance of excuse ; it is that of acting as if it were held that men who oppose and resist the Church of Rome not only forfeit thereby the ordinary rights and privileges of men, of neighbours, and of relatives, but lose all right even to claim that the ordinary rules of integrity and veracity should be observed in regard to them. It has been no uncommon thing for papists to act as if not only the social and domestic affections, and the duties connected with them, but even the laws of immutable morality were to be subordinated to the interests of the church. This is the principle involved in the decision of the Council of Constance, and often acted upon in the Church of Rome, about keeping faith with heretics. That decision was intended to sanc¬ tion the doctrine that heretics, the open enemies of the church, have no right to demand the fulfilment of engagements and pro¬ mises, and that no pledges given to such persons should ever be allowed to stand in the way of any scheme for promoting the church’s objects. These notions exert a constant and abiding influence upon the minds of most Romanists, even of many who would shrink from embodying them in formal propositions. The consummation of what is most discreditable in this matter is to be found in the fact, that some Jesuit writers have openly proclaimed the lawfulness of putting forth deliberate and intentional slanders for the purpose of injuring their enemies, — a fact established by Pascal in the fifteenth of his “ Provincial Letters,” and one that 56 LUTHER. [Essay II. ought to be remembered and applied in judging of the reliance to be placed upon the statements of Romish controversialists. With such views and impressions prevailing among Romanists, it was not to be expected that the Reformers, who did so much damage to the Church of Rome, would be treated with justice or decency. Accordingly, we find that a most extraordinary series of slanders against the character of the leading Reformers, utterly unsupported by evidence, and wholly destitute of truth and plausi¬ bility, were invented and propagated by Romish writers. Luther and the other Reformers were charged, in popish publications, with heinous crimes, of which no evidence was or could be pro¬ duced ; and these accusations, though their falsehood was often exposed, continued long to be repeated in most popish books. With respect to the more offensive accusations that used to be adduced against the Reformers, a considerable check was given to the general circulation of them, by the thorough exposures of their unquestionable falsehood which were put forth by Bayle in his Dictionary, a work which was extensively read in the literary world. Papists became ashamed to advance,, in works intended for general circulation, allegations which Bayle’s Dictionary had prepared the reading public to regard, without hesitation, as de¬ liberate falsehoods, though they continued to repeat them in works intended for circulation among their own people. Scarcely any Romish writers who pretended to anything like respectability, have, for a century and a half, ventured to commit themselves to an explicit assertion of the grosser calumnies which used to be adduced against the Reformers. Some of them, however, have shown a considerable unwillingness to abandon these charges entirely, and like still to mention them as accusations which were at one time adduced, and which men may still believe if they choose. But while Romanists have now ceased wholly or in a great measure to urge the grosser charges which they used to bring against the Reformers, their general principles and spirit continue unchanged : the outward improvement in their conduct being owing solely to fear or policy, and not to any real advancement in integrity and candour. It is emphatically true of almost all the defenders and champions of popery, that they fear nothing but a witness and a judge, and do not scruple to misrepresent and slan¬ der their enemies, so far as they think they can do this with Essay II.] LUTHEE. 57 impunity to themselves and benefit to their cause. They confine themselves now, in a great measure, to charges of a less heinous nature than those which before Bayle’s time they were in the habit of adducing, and to charges which have some appearance at least of evidence to rest upon. But these lighter and more plausible accusations are in general almost as unfounded as the others. Protestants, of course, do not regard the Reformers as either infallible or impeccable. They believe that most of them held views, upon some points, more or less erroneous, and that all of them gave abundant evidence that they were stained with the common infirmities of humanity. But they regard them as men who were specially qualified and raised up by God for the ad¬ vancement of His own cause, for bringing out the buried, truth and reforming the corrupted church, who were guided by, God’s word and Spirit to views, in the main accurate, of the leading principles of Christian doctrine, and who, in the habitual tenor of their lives, furnished satisfactory evidence of acting under the influence of real religion and genuine piety. Believing this con¬ cerning the Reformers, Protestants feel it to be both their duty and their privilege to defend them from the assaults of adversaries, and especially to refute any thing that may seem to militate against the truth of the statement now given, of what they believe as to the general character and position of these illustrious men. The great general position which Romanists are anxious to establish by all they can collect against the Reformers, from their writings or their lives, from their sayings or their doings, is this, that it is very unlikely that God would employ such men in the accomplishment of any special work for the advancement of His gracious purposes. In dealing with this favourite allegation of Romanists, Protestants assert and undertake to prove the follow¬ ing positions : — 1st, That the allegation is irrelevant to the real merits of the controversy between us and the Church of Rome, which can be determined only by the standard of the written word ; 2d, That the allegation is untrue, — in other words, that there is nothing about the character of the Reformers as a whole which renders it in the least unlikely that God employed them in His own special gracious work ; and, fid, That the general princi¬ ple on which the allegation is based can be applied in the way of retort, with far greater effect, to the Church of Rome. Protes¬ tants, by establishing these three positions, effectually dispose of 58 LUTHEE. [Essay II. the Romish allegation. It is with the second of them only that we have at present to do, and even on it we do not mean to enlarge. Romanists have taken great pains to collect every expression from the writings of the Reformers, and to bring forward every incident in their lives, that may be fitted — especially when they are all presented nakedly and in combination — to produce an un¬ favourable impression as to their motives and actions. In the prosecution of this work, they are usually quite unscrupulous about the completeness of their quotations and the accuracy of their facts, and in this way they sometimes manage to make out, upon some particular points, what may appear to ignorant or prejudiced readers to be a good case. In dealing with the materials which papists have collected for depreciating the cha¬ racter of the Reformers, and thus establishing the improbability of God having employed them as His instruments in restoring divine truth, and in reforming the church, there are three steps in the process that ought to be attended to and discriminated, in order to our arriving at a just and fair conclusion : — 1st, We must carefully ascertain the true facts of the case as to any statement or action that may have been ascribed to them or to any one of them ; and we will find, in not a few instances, that the allegations found in ordinary popish works on the subject are inaccurate, defective, or exaggerated, — that the quotation is garbled and mutilated, or may be explained and modified by the context, — or that the action is erroneously or unfairly represented in some of its features or accompanying circumstances. 2d, When the real facts of the case are once ascertained, the next step should be to form a fair and reasonable estimate of what they really involve or imply, taking into account, as justice de¬ mands, the natural character and tendencies of the men indivi¬ dually, the circumstances in which they were placed, the influences to which they were subjected, the temptations to which they were exposed, and the general impressions and ordinary standard on such subjects in the age and country in which they lived. 3d, There is a third step necessary in order to form a right estimate of the common popish charges against the Reformers, and of the soundness of the conclusion which they wish to de¬ duce from them, viz., that we should not confine our attention to their blemishes and infirmities, real or alleged, greater or smaller, Essay II.] LUTHER. 59 but take a general view of their whole character and proceedings, embracing, as far as we have materials, all that they felt, and said, and did, and endeavour in this way to form a fair estimate of what were their predominating desires, motives, and objects, of what it was that they had really at heart, and of what was the standard by a regard to which they strove to regulate their con¬ duct. A careful application of these obviously j ust and fair principles will easily dispose of the materials which papists have so assidu¬ ously collected for the purpose of injuring the character of the Reformers, and convince every intelligent and honest inquirer, that there is not one of the leading; men among; them who has not, with all his errors and infirmities, left behind him sufficient and satisfactory evidence, so far as men can judge of their fellow- men, that he had been born ag;ain of the word of God through the belief of the truth, that he had honestly devoted himself to God’s service, and that in what he did for the cause of the Reformation he was mainly influenced by a desire to promote the glory of God, to advance the prosperity of Christ’s kingdom, and to secure the spiritual welfare of men. But Romanists are not the only persons who have misrepre¬ sented and calumniated the Reformers. Many have sympathised with and abetted the efforts of Romanists to damage the character of the Reformers, who had not the palliation, such as it is, which they can plead of avenging the damage done to their church, and who seem to care nothing about Popery and Protestantism as such. What Dr M‘Crie said of John Knox holds equally true of the other Reformers, and has been perhaps more fully realised in the case of those of them who exerted a still wider and more com¬ manding influence : — “ The increase of infidelity and indifference to religion in modern times, especially among the learned, has contributed in no small degree to swell the tide of prejudice against our Reformer. Whatever satisfaction persons of this description may express or feel at the Reformation from popery, as the means of emancipating the world from superstition and priestcraft, they naturally despise and dislike men who were inspired with the love of religion, and in whose plans of reform the acquisition of civil liberty, and the advancement of literature, held a subordinate place to the revival of primitive Christianity.”* There has scarcely ever been an infidel or semi-infidel declaimer * Life of Knox, p. 357. 6th Ed. 60 LUTHER. [Essay II. against bigotry and intolerance, however insignificant, who has not attempted something smart about “ Calvin burning Servetus.” Both Lord Brougham and Mr Macaulay have sunk to the level of rounding off a sentence in this way. And Luther, from his peculiar position and history, and from his special weaknesses and infirmities, has furnished very copious materials to so-called Pro¬ testant, as wrell as to Popish, calumniators. A combination of circumstances has had the effect of late years of bringing out, in this country, from different classes of writers, a good deal of matter fitted and intended to damage the character of the Re¬ formers. Those who laboured long to un-Protestantise the English Church before they left it to join the Church of Rome, were, of course, anxious to depreciate the Reformers ; and New¬ man and Ward, wdio are now both Romanists, did what they could in this way. Moehler, a Romish divine of learning and ability, whose Symbolism has been much commended and read, has laboured skilfully to excite strong prejudices against the theo¬ logical views of the Reformers, and has succeeded all the better because of the appearance of candour and moderation which he presents, as compared with the generality of popish controversial¬ ists. Mr Hallam, in his u History of the Literature of Europe during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” was naturally led to speak of the writings of the Reformers, but having only a very partial acquaintance with their works, and not being able, as he candidly enough admits, to understand much of their theology, he very seriously misrepresents them, and especially Luther. Hallam’s great learning, accuracy, and impartiality upon general and ordinary topics, are universally admitted ; but he was very imperfectly acquainted ’with the writings of the Reformers ; and experience seems to afford abundant evidence that men may be candid and impartial on most questions of a historical, political, and literary land, and yet be strongly prejudiced on religious sub¬ jects. This we believe to be the case with Mr Hallam, while, as might be expected, his depreciatory criticisms upon the Reformers and the Reformation are now triumphantly quoted by Popish con¬ troversialists as the concessions of “ an eminent Protestant autho¬ rity.” And, lastly, Sir William Hamilton, whose reputation stands so deservedly high as a philosopher and a man of erudition, lias thought proper to go out of his way in order to indulge in some attacks upon the character of the Reformers, first in an article in Essay II.] LUTHER. 61 tlie Edinburgh Review* for 1834, on the Admission of Dissenters to English Universities ; and again, in 1843, in a pamphlet on the controversy about the appointment of pastors, which produced in that year the Disruption of the Church of Scotland. In consequence of these things, the late lamented Archdeacon Hare undertook the defence of Luther in a very elaborate and admirable dissertation, bearing the form of a note to his work on the “ Mission of the Comforter,” published in 1846. In this note, marked by the letter W, which extended to above 300 pages, Mr Hare, with great ability, with admirable scholarship, and a thorough knowledge of the subject, defended Luther from the misrepresentations of Hallam, Newman, Ward, Moehler, and Sir William Hamilton. Soon after, Sir William published his still incomplete edition of the works of Reid, with notes and supple¬ mentary dissertations, and subjoined to it an advertisement, dated November 1846, in which he promised to publish soon, and pre¬ viously to any other work, a production entitled, “ Contributions towards a True History of Luther and the Lutherans. Part I., containing notice of the Venerable Archdeacon Hare and his Polemic.” These “ Contributions” have not yet appeared ; but in 1852, Sir William gave to the world “Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, Education and University Reform,” in which, in republishing the article from the Edinburgh Review containing his original attack upon Luther, he added to it some notes, taking “ notice of Archdeacon Hare and his Polemic.” Mr Hare had been requested by many, who were satisfied and delighted with his defence of the Reformers, to publish his note as a separate work, and accordingly, after the publication, in 1852, of his “ Contest with Rome,” which we regard as upon the whole the ablest, and, in some respects, the most valuable of his works, his time, we believe, was chiefly occupied, amid the interruptions of declining health, in preparing materials for subjoining to his defence of Luther abundant proofs and illustrations, with an exposure of Sir William’s recent notes. It is a great loss to theological literature that Mr Hare’s health and life were not spared to enable him to complete this work. The “ Vindication of Luther,” published nearly a year ago, soon after his death, and now lying before us, is merely a revised re- * Yol. lx. 62 LUTHEK. [Essay II. publication of the note W in the “ Mission of the Comforter,” though forming by itself a goodly 8vo. All that was available of what he had been preparing for the new edition is the mere refer¬ ences to above 80 notes, which we have no doubt would have contained a treasure of interesting and valuable materials. Sir William’s notes to his Discussions do not contain, or profess to contain, the evidence of his most offensive charges against Luther — charges made nine years before — evidence which he has been repeatedly challenged to produce. With the exception, indeed, of a grand theological display, abounding in blunders, on the doc¬ trine of Assurance, Sir William’s new matter consists chiefly of an attack upon Mr Hare. Mr Hare might very easily have repelled and retorted Sir William’s charges against him, without producing any great amount of valuable matter ; but, from the number and character of the references which have been preserved and pub¬ lished, there is every likelihood that the notes would have been an enduring monument of his talents and scholarship, and of his many noble and beautiful qualities of character. We, therefore, deeply lament that he was not spared to complete this work, while we estimate very highly what he has done, and regard his “Vindi¬ cation of Luther” as a very valuable contribution to theological literature, and an important service rendered to the cause of that Protestant evangelical truth which Luther was honoured to be the great instrument of reviving. We believe that on some important points Mr Hare’s doctrinal views were defective and erroneous ; but he had certainly imbibed very thoroughly both the general spirit and the specific theology of Luther. He was firmly established, both theoretically and prac¬ tically, in Luther’s great article of a standing or a falling church, — • the doctrine of justification by faith alone. His cordial appreciation of this great doctrine, and his hearty love and esteem for Luther, whose qualities as a man were in many respects so very different from his own, are among the things which satisfy those who know him only from his writings, that he lived by faith on the Son of God, that he had a claim to the love of all Christ’s people for the truth’s sake that was in him ; while he combined, in no ordinary degree, almost all those claims to respect and affection which are inferior only to this one. We are convinced that Mr Hare’s re¬ putation, like Dr Arnold’s, will grow and extend after his death, and that even those who differed most widely from some of his Essay II.] LUTHER. 63 doctrinal views, will be more and more persuaded tliat bis early death was, humanly speaking, a serious loss to the cause of Christ. Mr Hare’s thorough knowledge of Luther, and cordial affection for him, admirably fitted him for defending the Reformer from the numerous attacks which have recently been made upon him from a variety of quarters. We do not say that all that he has written in vindication of Luther is characterised by strict impar¬ tiality and by rigid accuracy. Love may operate in perverting men’s judgments as well as hatred. But still love is the right state of mind to cherish in forming a judgment of our fellow-men, and its presence will pervert the judgment much less widely, and much less injuriously, than the opposite feeling. In regard to many subjects, indeed, it may be said that the prevalence of love in the heart is necessary to forming a sound and accurate judg¬ ment ; and the character of the Reformers is one of the subjects to which this observation applies. Mr Hare’s love to Luther has on one or two occasions led him to judge more favourably, or rather, less unfavourably, of Luther’s conduct than perhaps a review of the whole circumstances would warrant, and to soften or slur over some of his rash and offensive expressions. But while this may be conceded, it is not the less true that his representation of the character and opinions of Luther is immeasurably more just and accurate than that given by his opponents ; and that in his u polemic” with them, he has established a most decided su¬ periority. There is a great deal about Luther’s character and history to call forth admiration and love ; while there is also a good deal about him to afford an excuse to those who, from whatever cause, whether as papists or on some other ground, are disposed to regard him with opposite feelings. With many high and noble endow¬ ments, both from nature and grace, both of head and heart, which in many respects fitted him admirably for the great work to which he was called, and the important services which he rendered to the church and the world, there were some shortcomings and draw¬ backs both about his understanding and his temperament ; the results and manifestations of which have afforded many plausible handles to his enemies, and have occasioned corresponding annoy¬ ance and difficulty to his friends. Luther occupied a position, and exerted an influence in the history of the church, and altogether manifested a character, well 64 LUTIIER. [Essay II. fitted to secure for him the admiration of all who are interested in the advancement of Christian truth, or qualified to appreciate what is noble, magnanimous, fearless, and disinterested. We have abundant evidence of his continuing to retain the common infir¬ mities of human nature, aggravated in some respects by the system in which he had been originally educated, by the condition of so¬ ciety in the age and country in which he lived, and the influences to which, after he commenced the work of Reformation, he was subjected ; but we have also the most satisfactory evidence of his deep piety, of his thorough devotedness to God’s service, of his habitual walking with God, and living by faith in the promises of His word. No one who surveys Luther’s history and writings, and who is capable of forming an estimate of what piety is, can entertain any doubt upon this point. The leading service which Luther was qualified and enabled to render to the church, in a theological point of view, was the unfolding and establishing the great doctrine of justification, which for many ages had been grossly corrupted and perverted ; and bringing the truth upon this subject to bear upon the exposure of many of the abuses, both in theory and practice, that prevailed in the Church of Rome. His engrossment, to a large extent, with this great doctrine, combined with the peculiar character of his mind, led him to view almost every topic chiefly, if not exclusively, in its relation to forgiveness and peace of conscience, to grace and merit ; and thus fostered a certain tendency to exaggeration and extravagance in his doctrinal statements. Besides this defect in Luther’s theology, giving it something of one-sidedness, he had some features of character which detract from the weight of his statements, and from the deference to which otherwise he might have appeared entitled, and which we feel disposed to accord to such a man as Calvin. He was naturally somewhat prone to in¬ dulge in exaggerated and paradoxical statements, to press points too far, and to express them in unnecessarily strong and repulsive terms. And this tendency he sometimes manifests not only in speaking of men and actions, but even in theological discussions. He was not characterised by that exact balance of all the mental powers, by that just and accurate perception of the whole relations and true importance of things, and by that power of carefully and precisely embodying in words just what he himself had deliberately concluded, and nothing more, which, in some men, have so strong Essay II.] LUTHER. 65 a tendency to persuade us to give ourselves up to their guidance, under a sort of intuitive conviction that they will not lead us often or far astray from the paths of truth. In Luther’s works, with a great deal to admire, to interest and impress, we often stumble upon statements which remind us that we must he on our guard, that we must exercise our own judgment, and not follow him blindly wherever he may choose to lead us. The leading defects of his character may be said to be,— 1st, The impetuosity of his temperament, leading often to the use of exaggerated and intem¬ perate language, both in conversation and in writing ; though, as has been frequently and truly remarked, very seldom leading him into injudicious or imprudent actions , amid all the difficulties in which he was involved : and, 2d, A certain species of presumption or self-confidence, which, putting on the garb of better and higher principles, sometimes made him adhere with ‘great obstinacy to erroneous opinions, shutting his understanding against everything that could be brought forward in opposition to them ; and made him indulge sometimes in rather ridiculous boasting. The result of all these qualities was, that he has left many statements of an intemperate and exaggerated description ; which have afforded a great handle to his enemies, and which, when collected and set off by being presented in isolation from accompanying statements and circumstances, and in combination with each other, are apt to pro¬ duce a somewhat uncomfortable impression. And then consider how this extraordinary man, of so peculiar a mental character and general temperament, was tried and tested. He occupied a very singular position, and was subjected to very peculiar influences. He was tried in a very unusual measure, with almost everything fitted to disturb and pervert, to elevate and to depress, with fears and hopes, with dangers and successes. Let it be further remembered, that of this man, who was so constituted and so circumstanced, there have been preserved and published no fewer than about 2300 letters, many of them private and con¬ fidential effusions to his friends ; and that a great deal of his ordinary conversation or table talk has been recorded and trans¬ mitted to us, without our having any good evidence of its being accurately reported. It is surely not to be wondered at that it should be easy to produce many rash, extravagant, inconsistent, and indefensible sayings of Luther. And if, notwithstanding the tests to which he VOL. I. 5 66 LUTHER. [Essay IT. has been subjected, he still stands out as unquestionably a man of high religious principle, of thorough and disinterested devotedness to God’s service, and of many noble and elevated qualities, — all which most even of his depredators, except the Popish section of them, will probably concede, — how thoroughly base and despicable is it in any man to be grasping at opportunities of trying to damage his character and influence, by collecting and stringing together (perhaps exaggerating and distorting), his rash and in¬ consistent, or it may be extravagant and offensive, sentiments and expressions. Papists, of course, are labouring in their proper vocation in trying, per fas aut nefas , to damage Luther’s character. Popish controversialists are ever ready to sacrifice conscience, and every manly and honourable feeling, to the interests of the church ; and Tractarians, following in their footsteps, have imbibed a large portion of their spirit. Of Mr Hare’s u Vindication of Luther,” about 90 pages are devoted to an exposure of the Tractarian attacks upon him by Newman and Ward, who have since joined the Church of Rome ; about 40 to an exposure of a popish attack upon him by Moehler ; and the remaining 170 pages are occupied with an answer to the assaults of u the great Protestant authorities,” Mr Hallam and Sir William Hamilton. Newman had attacked Luther only incidentally, and some¬ what cautiously, in his book on u J ustification ; and though he is convicted of several misrepresentations of Luther’s opinions, he is upon the whole let easily off. Newman had spoken slight¬ ingly of Luther, as not being, like Augustine, a father of the church, but merely the founder of a school. This has given occasion to Mr Hare to indite the following very fine and striking passage •• — “ But though Luther was not what was technically termed a father , and could not be so, from the period when, for the good of mankind, it was or¬ dained that he should be born, yet it has pleased God that he, above all other men since the days of the apostles, should, in the truest and highest sense, be a father in Christ’s church, yea, the human father and nourisher of the spiri¬ tual life of millions of souls, for generation after generation. Three hundred years have rolled away since he was raised, through Christ’s redeeming grace, from the militant church into the triumphant ; and throughout those three hundred years, and still at this day, it has been and is vouchsafed to him, — and so, God willing, shall it be for centuries to come, — that he should feed the children of half Germany with the milk of the gospel by his Catechism ; that Essay II.] LUTHER. 67 lie should supply the poor and simple, yea, and all classes of his countrymen, with words wherewith to commend their souls to God when they rise from their bed, and when they lie down in it ; that in his words they should invoke a blessing upon their daily meals, and offer up their thanks for them ; that with his stirring hymns they should kindle and pour out their devotion, both in the solemn assembly and in the sanctuary of every family, that by his German words, through the blessed fruit of his labours, they should daily and hourly strengthen and enlighten their hearts, and souls, and minds, with that Book of Life in which God’s mercy and truth have met together, His righteousness and peace have kissed each other, and are treasured up for the edification of man¬ kind unto the end of the world. If this is not to be a father in Christ’s church, I know not what is. Nay, more, his spiritual children are not confined to his own country. The word of truth, which he was sent to preach, has sounded from land to land, and was heard in our land also, coming as it did from the home of our forefathers, for the purification of the church, and for the guiding of numberless souls away from a vain confidence in the works of the flesh, to a living trust in their Saviour.”* Mr Ward’s assaults, originally published in tlie British Critic , and afterwards collected in his book entitled “ Ideal of a Christian Church,” are likewise based chiefly upon Luther’s doctrine of justification, which is grossly misrepresented, in order to afford materials for accusing him of Antinomianism. Mr Ward is con¬ clusively convicted of gross incompetency and unfairness, nay, of bitter spite. But, really, the allegation that Luther was an Anti- nomian is so thoroughly contradicted by the whole tenor of his writings, and by the whole course of his life, and is so utterly destitute of all evidence, except some rash, unbecoming, and exaggerated statements about the law, the real meaning of which is evident enough to every candid inquirer, that we do not think it necessary to dwell upon this topic. Mr Hallam’s attack upon Luther rests chiefly upon the same general ground, and is directed to show that he has made state¬ ments of an Antinomian tendency. His mode of dealing with this subject has more the appearance of honest ignorance than Mr Ward’s. He is certainly, as Mr Hare has proved, and as indeed he himself acknowledges, very imperfectly acquainted with Luther’s works. He is also, from whatever cause, pretty strongly prejudiced against him. He plainly enough indicates that he had been somewhat influenced, in judging of Luther, by the re¬ presentations of Bossuet ; and as this is a topic to which * Pp. 83-84. 68 LUTHER. [Essay II. we shall have occasion afterwards to advert, in pointing out Sir William Hamilton’s obligations to tlie great popish cham¬ pion, we quote an interesting passage from this section of the Vindication : — “ An explanation, however, of this, and of much more, seems to be afforded by the first sentences in Mr Hallam’s remarks on Luther : ‘ It would not be just, probably, to give Bossuet credit in every part of that powerful delinea¬ tion of Luther’s theological tenets, with which he begins the History of the Variations of Protestant Churches. Nothing, perhaps, in polemical eloquence, is so splendid as this chapter. The eagle of Meaux is there truly seen, lordly of form, fierce of eye, terrible in his beak and claws. But he is too determined a partisan to be trusted by those who seek the truth without regard to persons and denominations. His quotations from Luther are short, and in French. I have failed in several attempts to verify the references.’ Mr Hallam, who here and elsewhere expresses such fervent admiration for Bossuet ’s eloquence, says of Luther’s Latin works, — ‘ Their intemperance, their coarseness, their inelegance, their scurrility, their wild paradoxes that menace the foundations of religious morality, are not compensated, so far at least as my slight ac¬ quaintance with them extends, by much strength or acuteness, and still less by any impressive eloquence.’ To me, I own, in the face of this mild verdict, Luther, — if we take the two masses of his writings, those in Latin and those in his own tongue, which display different characters of style, according to the persons and objects they are designed for, in the highest qualities of eloquence, in the faculty of presenting grand truths, moral and spiritual ideas, clearly, vividly, in words which elevate and enlighten men’s minds, and stir their hearts and control their wills, — seems incomparably superior to Bossuet ; almost as superior as Shakspeare to Racine, or as Ullswater to the Serpentine. In fact, when turning from one to the other, I have felt at times as if I were passing out of a gorgeous, crowded drawing-room, with its artificial lights and dizzying sounds, to run up a hill at sunrise. The wide and lasting effect which Luther’s writings produced on his own nation and on the world, is the best witness of their power. “ I should not have touched on this point unless it were plain that Mr Hallam’s judgment on Luther had been greatly swayed by the ‘ Histoire des Variations.’ It is somewhat strange, to begin one’s account of a man with saying that 1 it would not be just, probably , to give credit in every part' to what a determined, able, and not very scrupulous enemy says of him, writing with the express purpose of detecting all possible evil in him and his cause. In truth, what could well be less just than this supererogatory candour ? In no court of law would such an invective be attended to, except so far as it was borne out by the evidence adduced. Mr Hallam says he had failed in several attempts to verify the references. If he had succeeded, he would probably have found that the passages cited are mostly misrepresented. How far the misrepresentation is wilful I do not take upon myself to pronounced Bossuet’s mind was so uncongenial to Luther’s, so artificial, so narrow, sharing in the Essay II.] LUTHER. G9 national incapacity for seeing anything except through a French eye-glass ; his conception of Faith, as I have had occasion to remark elsewhere, was so meagre, so alien from Luther’s ; and the shackles imposed upon him by his church so disqualified him for judging fairly of its great enemy ; that we need not be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding in him when he came forward as an advocate in such a cause. Still, however fiercely the ‘ eagle of Meaux’ may have desired to use his beak and claws, he might as well have pecked and clawed at Mount Ararat as at him whom God was pleased to endow with a mountain of strength, when He ordained that he should rise for the support of the church out of the flood of darkness and corruption. “ Here, as the assertion I have made concerning Bossuet s misrepresenta¬ tions should not be made unsupported by proofs, I will cite two or three ex¬ amples, showing how the quotations from Luther, which in his pages seem very reprehensible, become innocent when viewed alongwith the context in their original home. Nor shall these examples be culled out from the six books employed in the attack on Luther. They shall be taken from the first sections of that attack ; thus they will better illustrate the manner in which it is carried on.”* This is followed up by what is certainly very conclusive proof that both Bossuet and Mr Hallam have put forth some gross mis¬ representations of Luther’s sentiments. Mr Hallam and Mr Ward are about equally incompetent to form a correct estimate of Luther’s theological views ; but Mr Hallam is much the more fair and honest of the two. Mr W ard labours to collect evidence from all quarters against Luther, and Mr Hare gives the following summary of the results of his re¬ searches : — u The evidence which Mr Ward’s learning has collected in this matter, is a quotation taken from the English translation of ‘Audin’s Life of Luther, two quotations from the English translation of ‘ Moehler’s Symlolik a quotation from an article of his own in the British Critic , which appears there to have been borrowed from the French translation of Moehler ; and certain extracts from an article in the Edinburgh Review, and from a pamphlet on the recent schism in the Church of Scotland. Yerily, a formidable array of witnesses, picked out 'with a due recognition of the judicial maxim, that secondhand testimony is to be rejected ! To one point, however, they do bear conclusive testimony, which is confirmed by all the rest of the volume, namely, to Mr Ward’s utter incompetency for pronouncing an opinion on any question relat¬ ing to the German Reformation.” f The quotations from Audin are not of much importance ; but Mr Hare subjects to a thorough scrutiny the materials which * Pp. 12-14. f P. 165. 70 LUTHER. [Essay II. Ward has borrowed from Moehler and Sir William Hamilton ; and the investigation of these things forms the most important portion of his Vindication. Moehler’s Symbolism has been so much praised of late, having been even pronounced to be the most formidable attack on Protestantism since the time of Bossuet, that it may be interesting to our readers to know something of the general character of this work, and of the answers it lias called forth. On these points Mr Hare writes as follows : — “ Here, — as Moehler’s work has been translated into English, as it has been much bepraised by our Romanisers, and has evidently exercised a great deal of influence among them, and as it is well calculated to foster most delusive prejudices against the Reformation, and in favour of the Church of Rome, in readers prepared by visions about the glories of the middle ages, and who are ready to regard the Protestant churches as outcasts from the pale of Christianity, because, through whatever cause, they have adopted a different form of government, — let me be allowed to remark, that, able as the SymboliJc certainly is, considering the cause it has to maintain, and plausible as it must needs seem to such as have nothing more than a superficial acquaintance with the topics which it discusses, still, in addition to the errors already spoken of, its value in the service of truth is destroyed by two pervading fallacies. In the first place, while the author’s professed object, as is intimated by his title, is to compare the Protestant Symbolical Books with those of the Romish church, in order to ascertain and examine the doctrinal antitheses between them, he soon finds"out that if he confines himself to these deliberate dogma¬ tical expressions of doctrine he shall not be able to make out a case ; there¬ fore he scrapes together all sorts of passages, not merely out of professedly dogmatical treatises — which, under certain restrictions, would be allowable — but out of occasional pamphlets, out of sermons, out of private letters, nay, even out of Luther’s ‘ Table Talk,’ to kindle and fan an odium which he can¬ not otherwise excite. Yet it is plain that such a procedure can only mislead and dupe the reader with regard to the great subject-matter of the contro¬ versy ; which is not, whether such and such individual Protestants may not at times have written extravagantly or unadvisedly, but is instituted to deter¬ mine the relative value of the body of truth set forth by each church in the solemn confession of its faith. Strange, too, it may seem, that the thought of the ‘ Lettres Provinciates’ did not come across him, and warn him of the tremendous retribution he might provoke. Moreover, after he has thus craftily shifted the whole ground of the contrast, so that, while it is nominally between the symbolical declarations of doctrine recognised by the opposite churches, in lieu of the Protestant symbolical declarations, he is continually slipping in whatever errors he can pick up in the most trivial writings of the Reformers, and these too not seldom aggravated by gross misrepresentations, — even this does not content him : a like trick must be played with the other scale. As the one side is degraded below the reality, the other is exalted i Essay II.] LUTHER. 71 above it. The fallacy spoken of above, in p. 32, runs through the whole book. The opposition of the Reformers is represented as having been directed not against the gross corruptions and errors which prevailed when they began the conflict, but against the modified exposition of Romish doctrine, drawn up with such singular adroitness at the semi-reformation of Trent : nay, even this is often refined and spiritualised by the interpolation of views belonging to the theology and philosophy of the nineteenth century. Hence it is not to be wondered at that Moehler’s work should impose on such readers as do not see through these fallacies, but suppose his representations of the opposite parties to be correct. “ Yet its influence ought to have been exploded long ago. For never in the history of controversies was there a completer victory than that gained by the champions of Protestant truth who replied to it. Indeed, the attack, in¬ stead of being injurious, was eminently beneficial to the German Protestants. It led them to examine the foundations of their strength— to bring out the divine armour of truth stored up in the writings of the Reformers. Among the answers which Moehler called forth, some, which are highly spoken o , for instance, Hengstenberg’s and Marheineke’s— I have not seen ; but the two that I have read are triumphant. That by Nitzsch is a masterly assertion and vindication of the great Protestant principles which Moehler assailed, and its calm and dignified tone and spirit, its philosophic power and deep Christian wisdom, render it one of the noblest among polemical an oiks. Baur, on tie other hand, takes up his Herculean club and smashes Moehler’s book to atoms. Immeasurably superior to his adversary, through his vast learning and won¬ derful dialectic power, he pursues him through sophism after sophism, unravels fallacy after fallacy, and strips off mis-statement after mis-statement, till ie leaves him at last in a condition of pitiable nakedness and forlornness. In several of Baur’s other works, the Hegelian predominates over the Christian, to the great disparagement and sacrifice of Christian truth ; and his criticism has of late years become extravagantly destructive : even in his answer to Moehler, his philosophy at times is too obtrusive. But his vindication of t e doctrines of the Reformation, and his exposure of the Tridentine fallacies, as well as of Moehler’s, is complete.” * Moehler lias produced and given prominence to wliat is cer¬ tainly the worst and most offensive passage that has yet been founc in Luther ; and Mr Hare has carefully considered it, and cone u- sively defended it —not certainly from the charge of great rashness, extravagance, and offensiveness, in point of phraseology, but from that which the words, taken by themselves, seem at first view to sugo-est, viz., of embodying a deliberate exhortation to the practice of Immorality. As this will probably continue for some tune to be a favourite topic of invective with Romanists and Romamsers, * Pp. 169-172. 72 LUTHER. [Essay II. it is proper tliat we should give some general idea of the point, while we must refer to the Vindication for particulars.* The passage from Luther, as given in the English translation of Moehler’s Symbolism f is this : u Sin lustily ( pecca fortiter ), but be yet more lusty in faith, and rejoice in Christ, who is the conqueror of sin, of death, and of the world. Sin we must, so long as we remain here. It suffices, that through the riches of the glory of God, we know the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the world. From Him no sin will sever us, though a million times in a day we should fornicate or commit murder.” The question here naturally occurs, To whom was this startling statement addressed ? And it is no unimportant point in Luther’s defence, that these words form part of a letter addressed to Melancthon, in 1521, when Luther was living in concealment in the Wartburg. Mr Hare refers to this topic in this way : — “ Verily it does seem here as though hell were casting up its spray into heaven. Still, after our ample experience of the manner in which words may be misrepresented, and after the thousand thousand proofs afforded by Luther’s writings and life that he did know something of the gospel, we will not be disheartened. At all events, we will try to make out what these awful words can mean, — to whom they can have been said, — for what purpose. Were they said to Simon de Montfort when he marched against the Albigenses ? or to Alva when he entered on his government in the Netherlands ? or to Louis XIY. ■when he revoked the edict of Nantes ? or to poor Alary, when she mounted the throne after the death of her brother Edward? Were they a dram administered to Charles IX. and to Catherine of Medicis on the eve of St Bartholomew ? or a billet donx sent to Charles II. during the progress of his conversion ? or were they a motto written up in the halls of the Inquisition ? or can it be that Luther was once engaged in a friendly correspondence with Munzer ? or with Alexander YI. ? No ; but to Melancthon, of all men that ever lived ! Not to Munzer ; not to Alexander YI.; not to Leo X. ; not to Clement VII. ; but to Melancthon ! A strange person, truly, to choose as the confidant of such a doctrine, — as the recipient of such an exhortation ! The tempter, against whom Luther so often battled, must for once have gained complete possession of him, and turned him into an instrument for destroying the soul of his younger friend.’’^ Mr Hare then proceeds to show, from a careful consideration of the circumstances in which, and the objects for which, the letter was written, and from an accurate analysis of the train of thought that runs through it, how it was that Luther came to use such * Pp. 178-194. f Vol. i., p. 183. t Pp- 179, 180. Essay II.] LUTHER. 73 words, without, of course, having had the remotest intention of teaching that sin was a light matter, or encouraging Melancthon to commit it. TVe must refer to the Vindication tor the details of all this, hut we will quote the concluding passage : — “ Now in the passage of Luther which we are considering, the real offen¬ siveness lies in the monstrous exaggeration of the language. The indignation bestowed upon him might, indeed, have been bestowed most deservedly upon the truly atrocious and blasphemous proposition whereby the venders of indul¬ gences, whom he assailed, tried to lure purchasers for their trumpery, 1 enias papales tantas esse , ut solvere vossint hominem , etiamsi quis per impossible Dei Genitricem violasset. Such a proposition is indeed an abomination in the sight of God and man ; yet this doctrine, which Mr Ward might well call too bad for the devils , the flagitious hierarchy encouraged ; or at least they would not repress and condemn their emissaries for proclaiming it, even when called upon and earnestly implored to do so. Luther’s proposition, on the other hand, is fundamentally true ; his words render it probable that he was think¬ ing of David’s crimes ; the addition of millies , millies, as everybody acquainted with his writings will recognise at once, is a mere Lutheranism. Most readers will remember his answer to Spalatin, with regard to the advice of his friends, who would have dissuaded him from venturing to Worms, that even if there ■were as many devils in Worms as there were tiles on the house-tops , still he would (jo thither. So, again, in his grand letter to the Elector from the \V artburg, when he declares his resolution of returning to Wittenberg, he says he will not be withheld by fear of Duke George. This I know full well of myself , if affairs at Leipsic were in the same case as now at Wittenberg , I would ride thither even though (your Electoral Grace must forgive my foolish speech) it were to rain pure Duke Georges for nine days , and each one of them were nine times more furious than this. These instances are notorious ; a multitude of similar ones might be cited from Luther’s writings, especially from those belonging to this critical period of his life, when all his powers were stretched beyond themselves by the stress of the conflict. To our nicer ears such expressions may seem in bad taste. Be it so. When a Titan is walking about among the pigmies, the earth seems to rock beneath his tread. Mount Blanc would be out of keeping in Regent’s Park ; and what would be the outcry if it were to toss its head and shake off an avalanche or two ? Such, however, is the dulness of the elementary powers, they have not apprehended the distinction between force and violence. In like manner, when the adamantine bondage in which men s hearts, and souls, and minds had been held for centuries, was to be burst, it was almost, inevitable that the power which was to burst this should not mea¬ sure its movements by the rules of polished life. Erasmus did so ; Melancthon did so : but a thousand Erasmuses would never have effected the Reformation ; nor would a thousand Melancthons, without Luther to go before him and to animate him.”* * Pp. 191, 192. 74 LUTHEE. [Essay II. We now proceed to consider Sir William Hamilton’s attacks upon Luther and the other Reformers. These Mr Hare has ex¬ posed fully and with severity — great, but not greater than they deserve. Sir William entered upon the work of assailing the character of the Reformers spontaneously and without call. In an article in the Edinburgh Review for 1834, on the Admission of Dissenters to English Universities, he laid hold of an excuse for making the averment,* “ That there is hardly an obnoxious doc¬ trine to be found among the modern Lutherans (the Rationalists) which has not its warrant and example in the writings of Luther himself and proceeded to establish this position by what he calls a u hasty anthology of some of Luther’s opinions, and in his own words , literally translated .” He then gives quotations from Luther, under the three heads of speculative theology, practical theology, and biblical criticism. Under the first head, his quota¬ tions consist only of four short passages upon the one subject of the procedure of God in regard to sin and sinners. Under the second, he merely gives some extracts from a single document, setting forth the grounds on which Luther and Melanctlion gave their consent to the Landgrave of Hesse marrying a second wife, while, at the same time, he continued to live with the first. He has thus brought forward only one topic under the head of specu¬ lative theology, and only one topic under the head of practical theology. And on neither of these two topics can it be said that the modern Lutherans follow the u warrant and example in the writings of Luther himself,” though it was professedly to establish this that Sir William collected his u hasty anthology.” Nine years afterwards — at the era of the disruption of the Church of Scotland — Sir William published a pamphlet on the election of pastors, entitled, “ Be not Schismatics, be not Martyrs by Mistake; a Demonstration that the principle of non-intrusion, so far from being fundamental in the Church of Scotland, is subversive of the fundamental principles of that and every other Presbyterian Church Establishment.” In this pamphlet he again, without any provocation, assailed the character of the Reformers, though this had nothing more to do with the election of pastors than with the admission of Dissenters into English universities. In this pamph¬ let, indeed, he retracted the charge which, nine years before, in * Yol. lx. p. 225. Essay II.] LUTHER. 75 the Edinburgh Review , lie had brought against the Reformers in connection with the Landgrave’s second marriage, that they were guilty in that affair of a “ skulking compromise of all professed principle.” But he retracted this charge only to substitute another in its room —viz., that they approved of polygamy as good and lawful, nay, that they wished to have polygamy sanctioned by the civil law, and did something, though unsuccessfully, in order to bring about this result. And to this new form of the clraige undci the head of practical theology, he added the offensive allegation, that Luther publicly preached in recommendation of incontinence, adultery, and incest. As some of these charges against Luther had not been broached before by any of his opponents, it will be proper to give the very terms in which they were, foi the fimt time, promulgated to the world, by Sir William Hamilton, at Edinburgh, in the year of grace 1843 : — “ Look, then, to the great author and the great guide of the great religious revolution itself,— to Luther and Melanctkon ; even they, great and good as they both were, would, had they been permitted by the wisdom of the world to carry their theological speculations into practice, have introduced a state of things which every Christian of every denomination will now confess, would not only have turned the Reformation into a curse, but have subverted all that is most sacred by moral and religious law. “Among other points of papal discipline, the zeal of Luther was roused against ecclesiastical celibacy and monastic vows ; and whither did it carry him? Not content to reason against the institution within natural limits and on legitimate grounds, his fervour led him to deny explicitly, and in every relation, the existence of chastity, as a physical impossibility, led lnm pub¬ licly to preach (and who ever preached with the energy of Luther .) inconti nence, adultery, incest even, as not only allowable, but, if practised under the prudential regulations which he himself lays down, unobjectionable, and even praiseworthy. The epidemic spread, — a fearful dissolution of manneis throughout the sphere of the Reformer’s influence was, for a season, the natural result. The ardour of the boisterous Luther infected, among otlieis, even the ascetic and timorous Melancthon. Polygamy awaited only the pei- mission of the civil ruler to be promulgated as an article of the Reformation , and had this permission not been significantly refused (whilst, at the same time, the epidemic in Wittenberg was liomceopathically alleviated, at least, by the similar but more violent access in Munster), it would not have been the fault of the fathers of the Reformation if Christian liberty has remained less ample than Mahometan license. As it was, polygamy was never abandoned by either Luther or Melancthon as a religious speculation both, in more than a single instance, accorded the formal sanction of their authority to its practice, — by those who were above the law ; and had the civil prudence 76 LUTHER. [Essay II. of the imprudent Henry VIII. not restrained him, sensual despot as he was, from carrying their spontaneous counsel into effect, a plurality of wives might now have been a privilege as religiously contended for in England as in Turkey.”* “ I do not found merely or principally upon passages known to Bossuet, Bayle, etc., and, through them, to persons of ordinary information. These, I admit, would not justify all I have asserted in regard to the character of the doctrine preached by Luther. “I do not found my statement of the general opinion of Luther and Melancthon in favour of polygamy on their special allowance of a second wife to Philip the Magnanimous, or on any expressions contained in their Consilium on that occasion. On the contrary, that Consilium, and the circumstances under which it was given, may be, indeed always have been, adduced to show that, in the case of the Landgrave, they made a sacrifice of eternal principle to temporary expedience. The reverse of this I am able to prove, in a chrono¬ logical series of testimonies by them to the religious legality of polygamy, as a general institution, consecutively downwards from their earliest commen¬ taries on the Scriptures and other purely abstract treatises. So far, therefore, was there from being any disgraceful compromise of principle in the sanction accorded by them to the bigamy of the Landgrave of Hesse, that they only, in that case, carried their speculative doctrine (held, by the way, also by Milton) into practice ; although the prudence they had by that time acquired rendered them, on worldly grounds, averse from their sanction being made publicly known. I am the more anxious to correct this general mistake touch¬ ing the motives of these illustrious men, because I was myself, on a former occasion, led to join in the injustice.”! It was in these circumstances, and with such a case before him, that Mr Hare prepared and published, in 1846, his elaborate and most valuable Note in defence of Luther in the second volume of the u Mission of the Comforter,” and revised it for republication in a separate form previously to his death in 1855, notwithstanding Sir William’s threat of an answer in 1846, and his attempt at self- defence, or rather at retaliation, in the notes to his u Discussions,” published in 1852. When a man in Sir William’s position comes forward ultroneously, and without call adduces such charges as these against Luther and his fellow-reformers, he must lay his account with his allegations being narrowly scrutinised, and his evidence, if he produce any, being carefully sifted. Sir William’s acknowledged eminence as a philosopher and a man of erudition, gives a certain influence to any thing he may choose to aver, and makes it the more necessary that such statements as those we have * “ Be not Schismatics , etc., pp. 7, 8. t Ibid, p. 59 of 2d Ed. Essay II.] LUTHER. 77 quoted from him should he scrutinised with care, and, if found erroneous, exposed with all plainness. The facts, that Sir William brought forward such charges, couched in such a tone and spirit, first in an article in the Edinburgh Review , on the Admission of Dissenters to English universities, and then again, nine years after, in a pamphlet on non-intrusion, or the election of pastors, indicate very plainly a certain animus with respect to the men so assailed : which is not disproved by his calling Luther and Melancthon “ great and good men and by his assuring us* that, “ so far from disliking Luther, we admire him with all his aberrations (for he never paltered with the truth), not only as one of the ablest, hut as one of the best of men.” On the same page where this profession occurs, Sir William has made the following statements about the Reformer, — statements, it should be noticed, published for the first time in 1852 -“Luther was betrayed into corresponding extravagances by an assurance of his personal inspiration ; of which, indeed, he was no less confident than of his ability to perform miracles. He disclaimed the pope, he spurned the church, but, varying in almost all else, he never doubted of his own infallibility .” The man who made these statements knows, and every man who has ever read anything concerning Luther knows, that in 1545, the year before his death, the great Reformer wrote a preface to a collected edi¬ tion of his works, which began with these words : — “ I have long and earnestly resisted those who wished my books, or rather the con¬ fusions of my lucubrations, to be published ; both because I was unwilling that the labours of the ancients should be covered up by my novelties, and the reader hindered from reading them, and because now, by God’s grace, there are many methodical books, among which the Commonplaces of Philip excel, by which the theologian and the bishop may be beautifully formed, especially since the sacred Scriptures may now be had in almost every language ; while my books, as the want of method in the events occasioned and necessitated, are, indeed, but a rude and indigested chaos, which it is not easy now even for myself to bring into order. ' Induced by these considerations, I wished all my books to be buried in perpetual oblivion, that there might be room for better ones.” This preface also contains the following state- * Discussions, 2d Edit., p. 506. 78 LUTIIER. [Essay II. ments : — “ But, before all tilings, I beseecli the pious reader, and I beseech him for our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, that he would read these productions with judgment, nay, with much compas¬ sion;” “I narrate these things, excellent reader, for this reason, that, if you are about to read my little works, you may remember that I have been one of those who, as Augustine writes of himself, have made progress by writing and teaching, and that I am not one of those who from nothing suddenly become great, though they have done, or tried, or experienced nothing, but with one glance at Scripture exhaust its whole spirit.” Sir William knows that in the same year, 1545, Melancthon, with Luther’s consent, published a collection of the “ Disputations or Propositions,” put forth and discussed by him in the theological school at Witten¬ berg, from 1519 to 1545; and that Luther wrote a preface to them, which began with these words : — “ I permit these 1 Disputa¬ tions or Propositions’ of mine, handled from the beginning of my cause in opposition to the papacy and the kingdom of the Sophists, to be published, chiefly in order that the greatness of the cause, and the success therein divinely granted to me, may not exalt me. For in these is clearly shown my ignominy, — that is, my weakness and ignorance, which led me at first to try the matter with the greatest fear and trembling.” Sir William knows, and even “ persons of ordinary informa¬ tion” know, that innumerable statements, similar in substance and spirit to what have been quoted from these two prefaces, are found in Luther’s writings ; and yet, knowing all this, he ventures to assert, that Luther had “ an assurance of his personal inspiration, and “never doubted of his own infallibility.” Every one knows, that on some occasions Luther showed a dogged obstinacy in maintaining errors, and an unwarranted confidence that they were truths, and that he occasionally talked about himself in a style that somewhat resembled presumptuous, self-complacent boasting. Sir William, we daresay, could easily produce a copious anthology of this sort. But this would be no sufficient proof of the truth of the charge, that Luther u was assured of his personal inspiration,” and “ never doubted of his own infallibility,” even though it were not contradicted by the passages we have quoted, and by many others of similar import. These passages conclusively disprove the charge, unless, indeed, it be alleged that they were altogether hypocritical, and expressed feelings which Luther never enter- Essay II.] LUTHER. 79 tained ; and no human being but a thorough-bred papist could he base enough to believe this. The adduction of this baseless charge against Luther, and the adduction of it for the first time in 1852, six years after Mr Hare had exposed the charges of 1834 and 1843, must satisfy eveiy intelligent man, that Sir William’s statements about the character of the Reformer are entitled to no weight or deference, and ought to be received with the strongest suspicion. Sir William has turned over a good many books, and picked up a good deal of information of a miscellaneous and superficial, though often recondite, description, upon some theological sub¬ jects, and evidently thinks that he is entitled to treat with con¬ tempt all the existing professional cultivators of theological litera¬ ture. The eminence he has reached in his own department, the confidence with which he dogmatises on theological and ecclesias- cal topics, and the real extent of his knowledge regarding them, though it is much less than he claims credit for, are fitted to give weight to his statements with a certain class of the community ; while, at the same time, as we are persuaded, and think we can prove, he has gone astray in almost all the instances in which he lias meddled with that class of subjects. Sir William resembles Bayle in many respects, — in the vigour and versatility of his in¬ tellect, in the variety and extent of his erudition, and in his pro¬ pensity to deal with ecclesiastical questions; but he is greatly inferior to that famous sceptic m real love for historical accuracy, in patient and deliberate investigation of the materials of proof, and, above all, in that sound judgment, strong sense, and practical sagacity, which, in dealing with historical evidence, are far more valuable than metaphysical depth or sub til ty. Sir W illiam has some of Bayle’ s bad qualities, without his good ones ; and this furnishes an explanation of the position which we do not hesitate to lay down, viz., that in all the leading instances in which he has taken up theological or ecclesiastical questions, he has exhibited not only blundering and inaccuracy, but a state of mind and feel¬ ing offensive to the real friends of truth and righteousness. We think the time has come when this position should be openly and explicitly laid down and pressed upon public notice, in order to prevent the mischief which the influence of Sir AAi 1 1 i am s name is fitted to do, in matters in which no deference whatever is due to him, and which no man must be perniitted to misrepresent ; and 80 LUTHER. [Essay II. we willingly avail ourselves of the assistance of Mr Hare's admir¬ able Vindication, in order to establish this, so far as concerns bis offensive attack upon Luther and his fellow-reformers. We have already mentioned that Sir William’s original attack upon Luther, published in the Edinburgh Review for 1834, and repeated in the u Discussions ” in 1852, consisted chiefly of an ascription to him of erroneous and dangerous opinions ; 1st, On speculative theology ; 2d, On practical theology ; and, 3d, On biblical criticism ; and that he promised to give Luther’s opinions u in his own words literally translated,” thereby professing to have himself translated Luther’s words from a personal examination of the original. The whole of what he produces as a specimen of Luther’s speculative theology, consists of four short sentences, amounting in all to eight lines, and bears upon the one point of the purposes and procedure of God in regard to sin and sinners. Now Mr Hare has proved that these eight lines, given originally in the Review without any references, and as if they were one continuous extract, are made up of four scraps from different parts of the treatise, “ l)e Servo Arbitrio;” and that they were taken not from the original, but from Bossuet’s u History of the Varia¬ tions of the Protestant Churches,” where they are given with some deviations from the orio-inal that are fitted to make them rather more offensive. Mr Hare’s proof that Sir William’s extracts had been taken mediately or immediately from Bossuet was so perfectly conclusive, that it could not possibly be answered or evaded, and Sir William was under the necessity of having recourse either to confession or to silence. He chose the former and more honour¬ able alternative ; though to a man of his peculiar temperament such a confession must have been very painful and mortifying, especially as in the interval between the commission of the offence and Mr Hare’s public exposure of it, he had disclaimed founding a upon passages known to Bossuet, Bayle, etc., and through them to persons of ordinary information.” As confession is not an exercise in which Sir William often indulges, and as our readers, who are probably more familiar with his boastings, may be anxious to see how he performs it, we give it in his own words : — “ In regard to the testimonies from Luther under this first head, hut under this alone , I must make a confession. There are few things to which I feel a greater repugnance than relying upon quotations at second-hand. Now those under this head were not taken immediately from Luther’s treatise, ‘ De Essay II.] LUTHER. 81 Servo Arbitrio,’ in which they are all contained. I had indeed more than once read that remarkable work, and once attentively, marking, as is my wont, the more important passages ; but at the time of writing this article, my copy was out of immediate reach, and the press being urgent, I had no leisure for a reperusal. In these circumstances, finding that the extracts from it in Tlieoduls Gastmalil corresponded, so far as they went, with those also given by Bossuet, and as, from my own recollection (and the testimony, I think, of IVerder inarm), they fairly represented Luther’s doctrine ; I literally translated the passages, even in tlieir order , as given by Yon Stark (and in Dr Kentsinger’s French version). Stark, I indeed now conjecture, had Bossuet in his eye. I deem it right to make this avowal, and to acknowledge that I did what I account wrong. But, again, I have no hesitation in now , after full examination , deliberately saying, that I do not think these extracts, whether by Bossuet, or by Stark and Bossuet, to be unfairly selected, to be unfaith¬ fully translated, to be garbled, or to misrepresent in any way Luther’s doctrine ; in particular his opinions touching the divine predestination and the human will.” * Sir William’s defence, in substance, is, that he, or rather Bossuet, had not really misrepresented Luther; and that the statements as they stand in the original are as strong and startling as in Bossuet’ s French or in his own English. This of course has nothing to do with the matter, in so far as it involves a question of scholar-like acting. But as, in this aspect of the affair, Sir William has frankly confessed that he acted wrong, we shall say nothing more about it. We cannot, however, concede that Bossuet and Sir William have correctly exhibited Luther’s actual statements. Mr Ilare has proved their incorrectness, though perhaps he has somewhat overrated the magnitude of the differences in point of substance between the original and the translations. There is only one of the four scraps to which Sir William in his defence refers specifically or with any detail ; and a brief notice of what he says about it will prove that even in what he says “ now, after full examination, deliberately,” he has not reached complete accuracy. The second of the four sentences given in the Review , — and given as if it were part of one and the same passage along with the other three, this of itself being fitted to convey an unfair impression, even though the whole had been correctly translated, — is in these words : “ All things take place by the eternal and invariable will of God, who blasts and shatters in pieces the freedom of the will;” and he now, “after full * Discussions, 2d. Ed. pp. 506-7. VOL. I. n 82 LUTHEE. [Essay II. examination,” gives it in his “ Discussions,” * in the same words, except that he substitutes “ which ” for “ who.” Bossuet’s French — Sir William’s original — is this : f “ Que sa prescience et la providence divine fait que toutes elioses arrivent par une immuable, eternelle, et inevitable volonte de Dieu, qui foudroie et met en pieces tout le libre arbitre.” Sir William’s remark upon this passage is as follows : “ I must not, however, here for¬ get to acknowledge an error, or rather an inadvertence of mine, which has afforded a ground for Mr Hare to make, as usual, a futile charge against Bossuet. In the second of the above extracts, not having Luther’s original before me, I had referred the relative pronoun to ( God,’ whereas it should have been to ( the will of God.’ In the versions of Stark and Bossuet it is ambiguous, and I applied it wrongly.” t Now it is not true, as Sir William here asserts, that it was his error or inadvertence in translating Bossuet’s “qui” by “who,” while it might equally mean “ which,” that led Mr Hare to charge Bossuet with misre¬ presenting Luther’s meaning. Mr Hare has said nothing suggesting or implying this, and he has made statements plainly precluding it. But the strange thing is, that while Sir William’s statement necessarily implies that in Luther’s original there is a relative pronoun, on the right application and translation of which the sense somewhat depends, the fact is, that no such relative 'pronoun exists except in Bossuet; that Sir William has not yet, “ after full examination,” fulfilled his promise to give us “ Luther’s opinions in his own words literally translated;” and that the difference between what Luther said and what Sir William continues to ascribe to him is not wholly unimportant. The original passage in Luther consists of two sentences as follow : “ Est itaque et hoc in primis necessarium et salutare Christiano nosse, quod Deus nihil prsescit contingenter, sed quod omnia incommutabili et setema, infallibilique voluntate et prsevidet et proponit et facit. Hoc fulmine sternitur et conteritur penitus liberum arbitrium. Ideo qui liberum arbitrium volunt assertum, debent hoc fulmen vel negare, vel dissimulare, aut alia ratione a se abigere.”|| * Pp. 507, 508. t Liv. ii. sect. 17. j P. 512. ]| Luther’s Latin Works, Jena, 1557, tom. iii. folio 170. We have added the next sentence, to exhibit the meaning mere fully. Essay II.] LUTHER. 83 Now there is no relative pronoun here, to connect the crushing of the free-will either with the Deus or the voluntas, as Bossuet and Sir William represent it. Sir William originally ascribed it to the Dens, he now ascribes it to the voluntas ; whereas Luther ascribes it to neither, but breaks off from them into a new sentence, and ascribes it to hoc fulmen. What this fulmen was must be ascertained from the general scope of the passage ; and when this is taken into account, it becomes perfectly manifest that the crushing of free-will is ascribed neither to the Deus nor to the voluntas, strictly speaking, but to the great truth or fact, that God certainly foresees and governs all things. Even if this difference were more insignificant than it is, this would be no excuse for giving so garbled an extract from Luther, and so incorrect a translation of his words. Bossuet did not promise to translate literally, and yet he has given Luther’s words more fully and correctly than Sir William, who did. Bossuet has acted unfairly, indeed, in over¬ leaping the barrier of the sentence, in extinguishing the fulmen, and in ascribing the crushing of the free-will directly to the voluntas, if not to the Deus. Sir William adopts this inaccuracy from him, and he continues to adhere to it even “ after full exa¬ mination” of the original ; while he also perpetrates the additional unfairness of leaving out the first part of the sentence, by the introduction of a portion of which even Bossuet indicated, that it was the foreknowledge and providence of God about which Luther was here discoursing. This is a very curious specimen of blundering. But its im¬ portance, we admit, lies chiefly in its bearing upon Sir William, and the question of the reliance to be placed upon the accuracy of his statements. That rash and exaggerated sentiments and expressions may be produced from Luther’s writings upon a variety of subjects, is quite well known, and no intelligent Pro¬ testant would think of disputing this. That statements of this sort are to be found in his treatise “ De Servo Abitrio,” in reference to the decrees and providence of God, has always been abundantly notorious. That some of the statements quoted by Bossuet and Sir William do, even as they stand in the original, express Cal- vinistic doctrines in an unnecessarily and unwarrantably harsh and offensive form, we do not hesitate to admit. Indeed, it is a very remarkable fact, that not only the rash and impetuous Luther but also the cautious and timid Melancthon, did, in their earlier 84 LUTHER. [Essay II. works, make more unwarrantable and startling statements about the decrees and the agency of God, in their bearing upon mens actions, than Calvin ever uttered. When the Lutherans, in the next generation, abandoned the Calvinism of their master, they were very much at a loss what to make of his treatise “ De Servo Arbitrio,” which, in its natural and obvious meaning, seemed to be the production of one who, as was said of Beza, was Calvino Calvinior. The most devoted admirers of the Megalander , as they usually called him, admitted, of course, that there are some rash and exaggerated statements in the work. But that is very little to their purpose ; for Calvinists, too, admit the truth of this, and contend that, even abstracting from everything that might rank under this head, the treatise plainly and explicitly asserts the fun¬ damental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology. In the year 1664 Sebastian Schmidt, an eminent Lutheran divine, and professor of theology at Strasburg, published an edition of Luther u De Servo Arbitrio,” copiously provided with annotations, u quibus,” as is set forth in the title-page, u B. Vir ab accusatione, quasi absolutum Calvinianorum, vel durius aliquod Dei decretum in libro ipso statuerit, prsecipue vindicatur.” The annotations, of course, are utterly unsuccessful in effecting the object to which they are directed, viz., proving that Luther did not, in this work, teach Calvinistic doctrines. No amount of straining or perversion is adequate to effect that. Schmidt’s annotations resemble very much a Socinian commentary upon the beginning of John’s Gospel; and it is rather a curious coincidence, that those scraps which Sir William has paraded are duly provided by Schmidt with annotations, intended to show, not that they present Calvinism in a harsh and offensive form, but that they do not go so far as to teach Calvinism at all. The compelling Sir William to confess publicly, that, in giv¬ ing a view of Luther’s opinions on speculative theology, he had got his whole materials at second hand, was an offence not to be forgiven ; and accordingly he brings out, in connection with this topic, an assault, or rather a series of assaults, upon the Arch¬ deacon, evidently intended to be murderous. This great philoso¬ pher, when he engages in theological controversy, exhibits odium plusquam theologicum. Our readers, we are sure, will not wonder at any little severity we have exhibited in dealing with him, when they read the following choice specimens of invective, culled from Essay II.] LUTHER. 85 a few pages of the notes to the u Discussions. Mi IXaie s obsei- vations under this head of speculative theology exhibit significant specimens of inconsistency , bad faith , and exquisite evroit . I shall adduce instances of each. IX ut his baseless abuse that I shall o\ er- pass.” “ He is only a one-sided advocate, an advocate from per¬ sonal predilection and antipathies ; and even as such, his arguments are weak as they are wordy.” u Lord Bacon says of some one, ‘ ■ has only two small wants ; he wants knowledge and he wants love. But with the Archdeacon, we cannot well restrict his wants to two ; for he lacks logic besides learning and love ; and a fourth — withal a worse defect — is to he added, hut a defect which it is always painful to be forced to specify.” “ Mr Hare is not the champion for Luther ; and if he be effectually counselled, the farrago will not again see the light” (this refers to Mr Hare s intimated pur¬ pose to republish Note W, — a purpose accomplished in the volume now lying before us), “ for it is simply a verbose conglomeration of what I shall refrain from characterising ; the author making more mistakes or misrepresentations than the note — however con¬ fessedly prolix and garrulous — exhibits paragraphs. But the Archdeacon of Lewes neither learns nor listens. He is not con¬ tent to enjoy his ecclesiastical good fortune in humility and silent thankfulness. He will stand forward ; he will challenge admira¬ tion ; he will display his learning ; he will play the polemic ; and thus exposes to scorn not merely himself,” hut also, as Sir William goes on to assert, with some detail, the church of which he was a dignitary. Now what is the cause, and what the ground of this violent outbreak, of this alarming exhibition of a philosopher in a fury ! The cause of it is simply this, that Mr Hare has laid be¬ fore the public conclusive proof that much, we do not «ay all, of what Sir William has here alleged against his antagonist, is tiue of himself. And the ground of it is nothing more than this, that Mr Hare’s work, when carefully scrutinized, exhibits a few in¬ stances of the oversights, errors, and partialities, which may he pointed out, more or less, in nineteen twentieths of the most re¬ spectable controversial works that ever were produced, and in which Sir William’s polemic specially superabounds. No man with a sound head and a sound heart can read Sir "W illiam s onslaught on Mr Hare, of which we have given some specimens, * 2d Edit. pp. 508, 524. 86 LUTHER. [Essay II. without seeing that the charges are grossly exaggerated, and have really no solid foundation to rest on. We would not go so far as to allege that all that Sir William charges upon Mr Hare is true of himself ; hut we have no hesitation in saying, that any one who might choose to allege this, could, without difficulty, produce a much more plausible piece of pleading in support of his allegation than Sir William has done. This is so manifestly the true state of the case, that we do not think it necessary to go into detail to defend Mr Hare against an assault which was evidently intended to destroy him, but which, from its very recklessness, has proved perfectly powerless. It was very natural that Sir William should take under his pro¬ tection Bossuet, to whom, in common with u persons of ordinary information,” he had been indebted for his specimen of Luther’s speculative theology ; and, accordingly, he says of him, u In this note I have spoken of Bossuet, signifying my reliance upon the accuracy of his quotations ; and I am as fully convinced of his learning and veracity as of his genius.”* As Mr Hare had ad¬ duced satisfactory evidence of Bossuet’s unscrupulous unfairness, Sir William could scarcely do less than guarantee his veracity ; and he could do this the more easily, as, in all probability, he never had carefully investigated the subject. But the truth is, that Bossuet’s character for veracity was conclusively settled, in the estimation of all intelligent and competent judges, before the publication of his “ History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches,” by the tremendous exposures made of him by Dr Wake, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, in his “ Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,” and his two Defences of it. We have no doubt that in these works, which have been repub¬ lished in Bishop Gibson’s “ Preservative against Popery,” Wake has conclusively convicted Bossuet of deliberate lying, in repeated instances ; and these not bearing merely on the primary subject of controversy between them, viz., the original publication of Bos¬ suet’s “ Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church,” but also on several other topics unconnected with it. And in regard to the “ History of the Variations,” though it is characterised by extraordinary skill and dexterity, and is indeed in all respects one of the most plausible and effective pieces of special pleading ever * P. 506. Essay II.] LUTHER. 87 produced, and though it generally avoids gross and palpable f alse¬ hoods, yet it, too, has, we think, been proved to be utterly destitute of fairness and candour. We think it scarcely possible for any man to read with care and discrimination, Basnage’s “ Histone de la Religion des Eglises Reformees,* without being satisfied of t ie truth of this statement. Papists still boast of his “ History of the Variations,” as unanswerable. We believe that it has been most thoroughly answered by Basnage, in so far as it is argumenta¬ tive, that every thing like argument in it has been completely demolished, and that its author has been sadly exposed; while we cannot but admit, that even when every thing needful to satisfy the understanding has been provided, the admirable skill and adroiteness of the advocate of error has not only made the best of a bad cause, but may probably have left some painful doubts and uncertainties upon the minds of a considerable class of readers. The argument of Bossuet’s work lies within a very narrow compass. It is this. Variations in doctrine afford an evidence ot error ; Protestants have from the first been constantly varying m the doctrines they professed to hold : and, therefore, their views are erroneous. In opposition to this, it has been pio\ec, , That the maxim about variations proving errors is not true, or is only partially true, in the sense in which alone it can serve Bos¬ suet’s purpose in argument ; 2d, That some of the variations which he ascribes to Protestants are produced, and that many more are greatly swelled in importance and magnitude, by 11s own misrepresentations ; and, 3d, That the argument, m so tar as it has any weight, maybe retorted with far greater force upon the Church of Rome. These positions have been proved by Uasnage in the most satisfactory and conclusive manner ; so that, so tar as argument is concerned, the book has been thoroughly cemo is ec . But Bossuet’s great art throughout the whole work is, that lie las contrived to bring in, in the most skilful and dexterous way, a great deal that is fitted to damage the characters of the Refor¬ mers, and thus to leave an uncomfortable impression upon men s minds, even when his argument, properly so called, is seen to e wholly untenable. Bossuet’s want of integrity, so far as this wore is concerned, is exhibited chiefly in producing and magnifying * Last Edit., 2 vols. 4to, 1725. 88 LUTHER. [Essay II. variations, by misrepresenting the views of the Reformers and other Protestants ; and we think it scarcely possible for any one to read Basnage carefully, without being convinced, that it was only policy that restrained him from practising the grosser and more palpable frauds in which most popish controversialists in¬ dulge, and that with admirable skill he has systematically carried his misrepresentations just as far as he thought, upon the whole, to be safe or expedient. AUe have really no pleasure in making such statements about Bossuet, who, in spite of his want of integrity in matters in which the interests of his church were concerned, was not only possessed of splendid mental endowments, but even of something like a certain elevation and nobility of general character. Integrity in matters in which the interests and reputation of the church are concerned, it is hopless to expect of almost any popish controversialist. Ar- nauld and Nicole, the famous Jansenists, were the two other great contemporary champions of popery ; and they have certainly fur¬ nished far better evidence that they wTere really men of religious and moral principle than can be produced in favour of Bossuet. And yet we have great doubts whether they held fast their in¬ tegrity. We greatly admire all these men, though we do not put them in the same category ; and while we would not pervert or explain away any matters of fact as to what they said or did, we feel strongly disposed to palliate their aberrations, by laying a por¬ tion of the responsibility upon the demoralizing and conscience- searing system to the influence of which they were subjected. It always deepens our indignation against the Man of Sin, the Mystery of Iniquity, when our attention is called to any thing which reminds us that that system reduced a man so noble in many respects as Bossuet was, to such artifices, and imperiled, at least, the integrity of such men as Arnauld and Nicole. We dis¬ miss this subject with the following admirable remarks of Mr Hare on the famous “History of the Variations, ’ which we be¬ lieve to be just and sound : — “ Indeed, if anything were surprising among the numberless oya, of literature, one should marvel at the inordinate reputation which the ‘ Histoire des Variations’ has acquired, not merely with the members of a church glad to make the most of any prop for a rotten cause, but among Protestants of learning and discernment. One main source of its celebrity may he in that spirit of detraction which, exercises such a baneful power in all classes of man- Essay II.] LUTHER. 89 kind, ever since Cain slew his brother on account of his righteousness ; in the eagerness with which all listen to evil-speaking and slander, finding little diminution of their pleasure though it be strongly seasoned with lying ; in that want of sympathy with heroic and enthusiastic spirits which is so preva¬ lent among men of the world, and the great body of men of letters, and their consequent satisfaction at seeing what towers beyond their ken cast down to the ground. Able as the ‘ Histoire des Variations’ doubtless is, if regarded as the statement and pleading of an unprincipled and unscrupulous advocate, it is any thing but a great work. For no work can be great unless it be written with a paramount love of truth. This is the moral element of all genius, and without it the finest talents are worth little more than a con¬ juror’s sleight-of-hand. Bossuet, in this book, never seems even to have set himself the problem of speaking the truth, as a thing to be desired and aimed at. He pretends to seat himself in the chair of judgment, but without a thought of doing justice to the persons he summons before him. He does not examine to ascertain whether they are guilty or not. His mind is made up beforehand that they are guilty ; and his only care is to scrape together what¬ ever may seem to prove this, that he may have a specious plea for condemning them. Never once, I believe, from the first page to the last, did he try heartily to make out what the real fact was. He is determined to say all possible evil of the Reformers, to show that they went wrong at every step, in every deed, in every word, in every thought : to prove that they are all dark¬ ness, with scarcely a gleam of light. Hence his representation of Luther is no more like him than an image made up of the black lines in a spectrum would be like the sun. Bossuet picks out all the bad he can find, and leaves out all the good. But as even this procedure would poorly serve his purpose, the main part of his picture consists of sentences torn from their context ; which, by some forcible wrench, some process of garbling, by being deprived of certain limiting or counterbalancing clauses, by being made positive instead of hypothetical, or through some of the other tricks of which we have seen such sad instances in these pages, are rendered very offensive. With regard to the Landgrave’s marriage, his treatment of Luther is more like the ferocity of a tiger, tearing his prey limb from limb, and gloat¬ ing over it before he devours it, than the spirit which becomes a Christian bishop.” * This leads us to advert to Sir William’s charges against Luther under the head of practical theology. We have already mentioned that the only materials originally produced under this head were extracts from the document in which Luther, Melancthon, and some other divines of that period, gave their permission or consent to the Landgrave of Hesse marrying a second wife while his first wife continued to live with him. This story is, of course, a great * Pp. 272-274. 90 LUTIIEE. [Essay II. favourite with popish controversialists. It is an especial favourite with Sir William. He produced it in the Edinburgh Review in 1834 ; and again, a second time, nine years later, in his pamphlet in favour of the intrusion of ministers, though he now changed materially the nature of the accusation which, in connection with this matter, he adduced against the Reformers. In the notes to the original article, as republished in the “ Discussions" in 1852, he lias not brought forward much additional matter, so far as Luther and Melancthon are concerned ; the chief fruits of his continued researches into this apparently 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, with all the publi¬ cations relative to this story, and that he has collected a consider¬ able quantity of additional matter (certainly unknown before to “ persons of ordinary information”), in order to blacken the character of Melander and Lening, two Protestant ministers who signed the document about the marriage alone; with Luther and Melancthon, and who might, without any detriment to the public, have been left in the obscurity from which Sir William’s extra¬ ordinary information has dragged them. It is unpleasant to have to discuss such a subject as this, and it is not easy to see what benefit the public can derive from the discussion of it ; but if Sir William Hamilton persists in dwelling upon it, and in pressing it upon public attention, and if he is resolved to employ it for unjustly damaging the character of the Reformers, he thereby imposes upon others a necessity of dealing with it, instead of leaving it wholly in his hands, and allowing him to use it for purposes which many believe to be unjust and injurious. Sir William may probably allege that he is merely bringing out what is true, and that all truth ought to be proclaimed and made known. We do not admit that all that he has put forth upon this subject is true ; and if it were, we would still take the liberty of regarding it as not creditable to any man to manifest a special anxiety to press such truths upon public attention without any apparent call to do so, and to labour to bring them out in their most offensive and aggravated form. Circumstances may occur in which anything that is really true may be brought out and proclaimed without impropriety by parties concerned in, * P. 515. Essay II.] LUTHER. 91 or called to meddle with it ; but it is not the less true that we are entitled to judge of men by the selection they make of the topics which they seem most anxious to press upon our notice. Sii William, no doubt, will claim to himself the credit of having been influenced in all he has done in this matter by pure love of truth ; but we think we can venture to assure him, that his character would have stood much higher this day in the estimation of honour¬ able inen, if he had never meddled with the second maniage of the Landgrave of Idesse, and had left it to be handled by Romanists and Romanisers. Wre do not mean to go into details upon this painful subject. We can merely suggest a few hints, as to what ought to be thought of this affair, and of feii William s mode of dealing with it. Luther’s conduct in this matter has not been approved of by Protestants, but, on the contrary, lias been given up as indefen¬ sible. They have differed somewhat in the severity of their cen¬ sures, and in the grounds on which they rest their condemnation of his conduct, but they have not undertaken to vindicate it. Basnage, in his reply to Bossuet’s “ History of the Variations, at once admits that Luther’s conduct was wrong ; and so does Seckendorff, in his great work, u De Lutlieranismo.’ This, un¬ doubtedly, is the right and honest course to pursue in the mattei ; though it is no doubt quite fair to see that the case is fully and correctly stated, and not exaggerated or perverted. Mr Hare has successfully exposed several unfair and malicious misrepi esenta- tions of Bossuet in his commentaries upon this subject ; and lias also pointed out the unfairness of the selection of the passages by Sir William from the principal document connected with this affair. Upon this last point he says : — “ When we compare them with the whole body from which they are torn, they who admire ingenuity, in whatsoever cause it may be displayed, w ill be struck with the dexterity shown in garbling the opinion of the divines, so as to render it as offensive as possible. The main part of it, wherein they per¬ form their duty of spiritual advisers honestly and faithfully, telling the Land¬ grave of the evils likely to arise from his conduct, and of the Divine wrath which he was provoking by his sinful life, is wholly left out ; so that it seems as if they had had no thought of their pastoral responsibility, but readdy con¬ sented to do just what the Landgrave wished, and were solely deterred by fear of the shame it might bring on themselves and on their cause.”* * P. 241. 92 LUTHER. [Essay II. The proper antidote to this unfairness of Sir William’s, is to give the document in full. This Mr Hare has done, and to his pages we must refer for it.* Mr Hare has brought out fully the leading features of this transaction, and has suggested almost everything that could be said in palliation of the conduct of the Reformers in this matter. He goes rather farther than we are prepared to do in palliation of what they did. We cannot but admit that his love for Luther has somewhat perverted his judg¬ ment, — has made him judge rather too favourably. At the same time, he has proved conclusively, that there were some material palliations of their conduct ; and has shown that it involves gross ignorance or injustice to judge of the bare facts of the case by the notions and feelings of our own age and country, 'without taking into account the views that prevailed on such subjects in the sixteenth century, and the way in which they were then often discussed. This is of itself sufficient to establish the injustice and unfairness of the course which Sir William has pursued in the matter. But let us briefly advert to his more formal charges, based upon this transaction. Originally he accused them of the “skulking compromise of all professed principle;” meaning, of course, that in giving their consent to the Landgrave’s bigamy, they sanctioned what they knew to be sinful, under the influence of selfish and secular motives, connected with the general interests of the Reformed cause, to which the good-will and the support of the Landgrave were very important. This is the view usually given of the transaction by popish controversialists. But Sir William, in his pamphlet in favour of intrusion, withdraws this charge, and substitutes another in its room ; alleging that they approved of polygamy as lawful and warrantable, and, of course, acted in the matter in accordance with their own convictions, — their anxiety for the concealment of the marriage arising, on this second theory, not from the belief that it was sinful, but merely from prudential considerations to avoid scandal. He adheres to this latter view in his “ Discussions.” Accordum to the former O view of the matter, the conduct of the Reformers in consenting to the Landgrave’s second marriage was a sin, being produced by the operation of sinful motives, and tending directly to bring about the commission of sin. According to the latter Hew, it was an * Pp. 235-241. Essay II.] LUTHER. 93 error of opinion, or wliat, from its heinous and offensive character, might be called a heresy. But though the charge, as originally put, involved a sin, and in its second form was merely an error, most people in modern times will probably regard it as being quite as damaging to the character of Luther and Melancthon to have inculcated the lawfulness of polygamy, as to have been tempted, upon a particular occasion, to have given consent to the doing of what was sinful. Mr Hare concurs in the general idea involved in Sir TV illiam s second deliverance upon the subject, viz., that the conduct of the Reformers is to he regarded rather as an error than as a sin, though he reaches that conclusion by a different course, and maintains the incorrectness of several of Sir TV illiam s positions, especially of his leading one, which ascribes to Luther and Mel- ancthon a belief in the lawfulness of polygamy under the Christian dispensation. The leading features in his view of the case are exhibited in the following quotations : — “ "When we examine the whole opinion connectedly, we are compelled to reject the excuse which Sir W. Hamilton so kindly proposes, in order to rescue Luther from the fangs of the Edinburgh Reviewer. lor, from first to last, it is plain that the license, which the divines declare themselves unable to condemn, is meant by them to be regarded as a dispensation, and not as authorising or sanctioning polygamy ; and this is the main reason why they are so earnest in requiring that the second marriage, if entered upon, should be kept secret, lest it should be looked upon as the introduction of a geneial practice. Polygamy, as a general practice, they altogether condemn ; because they conceive that our Lord’s words in the passage referred to re-establish the primary, paradisiacal institution of monogamy . At the same time, while they see that polygamy, though contrary to the original institution, is sanctioned in the Old Testament, both by the practice of the patriarchs and by the ex¬ press recognition of it in the Book of Deuteronomy, they do not find any passage in the New Testament directly and absolutely forbidding it. Ileie we should bear in mind what their rule, especially Luther’s, was. When the word of God seemed to him clear and express, then everything else was to bow to it : heaven and earth might pass away, but no tittle of what God had said. On the other hand, where no express Scripture could be produced, he held that all human laws and ordinances, and every thing enjoined by man’s understanding on considerations of expediency, however wide that expediency might be, is so far flexible and variable, that it may be made to bend to im¬ perious circumstances in particular cases. u Tiius the document itself forces us to decline Sir W. Hamilton’s plea, that Luther was merely giving his sanction in a single instance to that which 94 LUTHER. [Essay II. lie desired at heart to establish generally, the patriarchal practice of po¬ lygamy.”* Then follows a careful investigation of Luther’s general views on the subject of polygamy, as indicated in his writings, and of his presumed concurrence in the suggestion which Melancthon made to Henry VIII. of England, that it would be less objection¬ able to take a second wife than to divorce his first ; after which he states thus the ground on which he thinks Luther acted in sanctioning the Landgrave’s second marriage : — “ But though we must reject the plea that the advice given to the Land¬ grave is an instance of the predilection which the Reformers, on principle, entertained for polygamy, the evidence adduced abundantly proves, that, in sanctioning a dispensation in what appeared to them a case of pressing need, they were not acting inconsistently, but in thorough consistency with the principles which they had avowed for years before. To us, indeed, the notion of such a dispensation will still be very offensive ; but we must beware, as I have already remarked, of transferring the moral views and feelings of our age to Luther’s. The canon law admitted the necessity of dispensations ; which, in matrimonial cases, were especially numerous. One of the main ob¬ jects of the scholastic casuistry was to determine under what limitations they are admissible, as may be seen in our own authors on this branch of practical theology, such as Taylor ; and the great importance of casuistry is beginning to be recognised anew by recent writers on ethics. The ignorant prater may cry, that Luther ought to have thrown all such things overboard, along with the other rubbish of Romanism. But it was never Luther’s wont to throw things overboard in a lump. His calling, he felt, was to preach Christ cruci¬ fied for the sins of mankind, — Christ, of whose righteousness we become par¬ takers by faith. Whatever in the institutions and practices of the church was compatible with the exercise of this ministry, he did not assail unless it was flagrantly immoral. The sale of dispensations, the multiplication of cases for dispensations, in order to gain money by the sale of them, he regarded as criminal ; and the abolition of such dispensations, where they have been abolished, the reprobation they lie under, are owing, in no small measure, to him. But the idea of law which manifested itself to him, convinced him that positive laws can only partially express the requirements of the supreme law of love, for the sake of which they must at times bend ; and when he con¬ sulted his one infallible authority, he found that his heavenly Master’s chief outward conflict during His earthly ministry, was to assert the supremacy of the law of love, which the Pharisees were continually infringing, while they stickled pertinaciously for the slightest positive enactment.”! f Pp. 256, 257. * Pp. 242-3. Essay II.] LUTHER. 95 He sums up the matter in this «vvay : — “ Such, then, is the amount of Luther’s sin, or rather error— for sin I dare not call it — in this affair, in which the voice of the world, ever ready to believe evil of great and good men, has so severely condemned him, without investi¬ gation of the facts ; although the motives imputed to him are wholly repug¬ nant to those which governed his conduct through life. He did not compro¬ mise any professed principle, as the reviewer accuses him of doing : he did not inculcate polygamy, as the pamphleteer charges him with doing. But inas¬ much as he could not discover any direct, absolute prohibition of polygamy in the New Testament, while it was practised by the patriarchs and recognised the law, he did not deem himself warranted in condemning it absolutely, when there appeared, in special cases, to be a strong necessity, either Avith a view to some great national object, or for the relief of a troubled conscience. Here it behoves us to bear in mind, on the one hand, what importance Luther attached, as all his writings witness, to this high ministerial office of relieving troubled consciences ; and it may mitigate our condemnation of his error, which, after all, was an error on the right side, its purpose being to substitute a hallowed union for unhallowed license,— if we remember that Gerson had said openly, a century before, expressing the common opinion of his age, that it was better for a priest to be guilty of fornication than to marry. Such was the moral degradation of the church under the Egyptian bondage of ordi¬ nances, that even so wise and good a man could deem it expedient to sacrifice the sacred principles of right and purity, the sense of duty, and the peace of the soul, for the sake of upholding the arbitrary enactment of a tyrannical hierarchy. Indeed, the clamour Avhich has been raised against Luther for this one act by the Romish polemics, is perhaps, among all cases of the beam crying out against the mote, the grossest and the most hypocritical. “ Nor should Ave forget what difficulties have in all ages compassed the settlement of special matrimonial cases. They may perhaps be less noAV in England than in other countries, notwithstanding the grievous scandals which attend them even here ; and there is always a prejudice inclining men to sup¬ pose that their OAvn condition is the normal one for the whole human race : but if Ave compare the laAvs of marriage which prevail in the various branches of Christendom, and know any thing of their moral effects as manifested in family life, we shall perceive how hard it is to lay down any one inviolable rule. What the obscurity and uncertainty of the Uav was in Luther’s time, we may estimate from the conflicting answers which were returned to the questions mooted with reference to Henry VIII.’s divorce. On the other hand, we should try to realise what the Bible was to Luther, — the source of all wisdom, the treasure-house of all truth, the primordial code of all law, the store-room from which, Avith the help of the Spirit, he was to bring forth every needful weapon to fight against and to overcome the world and the devil,— how, if the Bible had been put in the one scale, and all the books of all the great thinkers of the heathen and Christian world had been piled up in the other, they Avould not have availed, in his judgment, to SAvay the balance so much as 96 LUTHER. [Essay II. a hair’sbreadth. It was not much the practice of his age — least of all was it Luther’s — to estimate the lawfulness and propriety of an act by reference to its general consequences. He did, indeed, bethink himself of the evil that would ensue, if the dispensation were regarded as a precedent, and therefore did he insist on its being kept secret : but he did not duly consider how im¬ possible it was that such a step, taken by a man of so impetuous a character, should be kept secret ; nor how terrible the evils would be if every pastor were to deem himself authorised to give similar counsel ; nor how perilous it is to take the covering of secrecy for any acts, except such as are sanctioned by the laws of God and man, while the moral feeling of society throws a veil over them.” * Since it is necessary to discuss sucli painful and delicate topics, in consequence of Sir William’s offensive conduct, in forcing them upon public attention, we prefer employing the words of another to our own. We are very thankful to Mr Hare for vindi¬ cating Luther so well, and we shrink from enlarging upon the subject. But justice demands one or two observations. Sir William alleges that Luther maintained the lawfulness, or, as he says, “ the religious legality,” of polygamy, even under the Christian dispensation ; and he has been threatening the world for nearly thirteen years with the publication of what he calls u an articulate manifestation,” u a chronological series of testimonies,” in support of this charge. There is nothing new, certainly, in this allegation. It was brought forward by Bellarmine,f who has been followed in this by the generality of popish controversialists. It has also been adduced by the defenders of polygamy, that they might have some respectable countenance to their abominations, as may be seen in the famous, or rather infamous, u Polygamia Triumphatrix ” of Lyser. We do not suppose that Sir William’s u articulate manifestation,” if it ever see the light, will contain any thing but what has been known and discussed before. There is, indeed, some difficulty in ascertaining precisely and certainly what Luther’s views were on some points connected with polygamy. There is some confusion and inconsistency in his statements. At one time he certainly drew somewhat wide and incautious inferences from the practice of the patriarchs in this respect, extending to polygamy what our Saviour said of divorce, that, under the old economy, God permitted it because of the hardness of men’s hearts. But he seems at length to have become quite settled in the con- * Pp. 269-271. f De Matrimonii Sacramento, c. x. Essay II.] LUTHER. 97 viction, tliat under the Christian dispensation polygamy was for¬ bidden by the authority of our Saviour ; and if so, Sir William’s allegation that “ polygamy was never abandoned by Luther as a religious speculation,” is unfounded. But it must be noticed and remembered that Sir William lias gone farther than this, and asserted * that Luther and Melancthon wished polygamy to be sanctioned by the civil authorities, and did something, though unsuccessfully, directed to bring about this result. All this is fairly implied in the language he has employed ; and this involves a new charge, one which, so far as we know and remember, has not before been advanced against them either by papists or polygamists. This point specially needs to be proved ; and when Sir William produces his u articulate manifestation,” this special discovery of his own must be duly commended and established, by an exhibition of the proof which has eluded the researches of all previous depreciators of the Reformers. We are not quite satisfied, as we have hinted, with some of the grounds on which Mr Hare has based his vindication of Luther in this matter. We do not see that anything short of Sir William’s position, that Luther believed in u the religious legality ” of polygamy, is altogether adequate to take his conduct out of the category of a sin, and to invest it with the character of an error. We believe that the transaction involved both an error in judgment and a sin in conduct, the error, indeed, somewhat palliating the sin. Luther and Melancthon held, as Mr Hare has shown, that this was a matter on which dispensations might sometimes be granted for special reasons, on extraordinary emergencies. And this belief may be said, in a sense, to have palliated their conduct, by bringing the subject of a dispensation before them as what might be lawfully entertained. But even if this opinion had been true, instead of being erroneous, the question would still remain, whether or not this was a case for a dispensation to marry a second wife ; and, at this point, we fear it must be admitted that the element of direct and palpable sinfulness comes in. Even suppos¬ ing that dispensations may be lawful in some cases of this sort, there seems to be no fair ground for holding that the Landgrave’s was a case warranting a dispensation ; and what is specially per¬ tinent to the point in hand, there is no sufficient ground to believe VOL. I. * See quotation, pp. 75, 76. 7 98 LUTHER. [Essay II. that Luther and Melanctlion really believed it to be a case warrant¬ ing a dispensation. We cannot but conclude, from a deliberate survey of the whole case, that Luther and Melanctlion were substantially satisfied that the Landgrave, in marrying a second wife, was guilty of sin ; and that, therefore, in giving their consent to his doing this, they were themselves sinning. It was a solitary offence, with much to palliate it on a variety of grounds, but still it was a sin, committed under the influence of temptation ; and as such it ouoht to be condemned. O It is an interesting and instructing circumstance, that one spot, in some respects similar, stains the character of John Knox; and we could not possibly find words that would, in our judgment, describe Luther’s conduct in this matter more correctly than those in which Dr MLrie has described a transaction in the life of our own Reformer : — “In one solitary instance, the anxiety which he felt for the preservation of the great cause in which he was so deeply interested, betrayed him into an advice, which was not more inconsistent with the laws of strict morality, than it was contrary to the stern uprightness and undisguised sincerity, which characterised the rest of his conduct.”* The third head of Sir William’s original attack upon Luther was Biblical Criticism ; and under this head he collected, chiefly from the u Table Talk,” some rash and offensive statements ascribed to Luther, in which he is represented as 'speaking disparagingly of some of the books of Scripture. Mr Hare has here again con¬ victed Sir William of several blunders, and one of them Sir William has been constrained to confess in the notes to his “Discussions.”! But this topic is not worth dwelling upon. To collect and parade an “ anthology” of rash and exaggerated state¬ ments from Luther, and especially to take materials for doing this from the “ Table Talk,” is about as unfair an occupation as can well be conceived ; and if Sir William had confined himself to this, we would not have thought it worth while to have given him any disturbance, beyond denouncing his conduct in the terms it deserved. But it must not be forgotten that there is one other very gross and heinous charge which Sir William has brought against Luther, a charge never, so far as we know, adduced before, and of which, * P. 360. t P. 517, 6th Ed. Essay II.] LUTHER. 99 though it was fabricated by himself, and published to the world nearly thirteen years ago, he has not yet attempted to produce any evidence. It is stated and disposed of by Mr Hare in the following brief extract : — “ The other charges, that Luther ‘ publicly preached incontinence, adul¬ tery, incest even, as not only allowable, but, if practised under the prudential regulations which he himself lays down, unobjectionable, and even praise¬ worthy,’ cannot be refuted in the same summary manner. I might cite a number of passages against incontinence from his writings : I might show that he often expressed a wish that adultery were punished capitally. But I will not waste words upon such accusations, proceeding from a witness whose testimony has been proved again and again to be utterly worthless. When a dear friend, whose faith and righteousness have been approved during a long life, under many severe trials, is said to have committed unheard-of enormi¬ ties, without any specification of when, where, how, or what, one is fully warranted in replying that the assertions cannot possibly be true. Therefore I will merely defy Sir W. Hamilton to bring forward evidence in support of these atrocious charges. Should he attempt to do so, and adduce any passages beyond those which have been satisfactorily explained by Harless in the seventh volume of his Journal, I shall deem myself bound to use my best endeavours 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 certain sayings, which explicitly refer solely to cases of impotence, as substantiating his allegations. Should he shrink from this test, finding that he cannot stand it, what can a generous, nay, what can an honest man do in his place, but come forward with an open recantation and a humble acknowledgment of the wrong he has done to one of the noblest pillars of Christianity, one of the greatest benefactors of man¬ kind?”* Sir William has certainly brought himself under very peculiar obligations to prove, if he can, his own special charges against Luther, viz., that he wished to have polygamy sanctioned by the civil authorities, and that he recommended, under certain restric¬ tions, incontinence, adultery, and incest. And these, after all, are the most important points involved in this controversy, whether as affecting the character of Luther or Sir William Hamilton. If Sir William cannot conclusively establish these charges, there are no words too strong to characterise his conduct in adducing them. And yet we do not suppose that his friends will advise him to attempt to establish his accusations. He is sure to fail in the attempt. We do not pretend to possess a very thorough ac¬ quaintance with Luther’s 'writings ; but, from what we do know * Pp. 286, 287. 100 LUTHER. [Essay II. of liis works and of his character, we are very confident that these odious charges cannot he established ; while we are well aware that, if the attempt is made, this will involve the bringing forward of a great deal of matter most unsuitable to be made the subject of public discussion. Sir William, indeed, has placed himself in such a situation that he can neither speak nor be silent without justly in¬ curring discredit and reproach. He has been much better employed since 1843 than in defending his extraordinary pamphlet of that year. He has, since that time, rendered most important services to the world in the highest departments of philosophical speculation. He has yet much to do in developing and promulgating his philo¬ sophical views ; and we trust he will be spared to do this. W e are not in the least afraid of him. We have perfect confidence in the goodness of our cause, and in the imprudence of our opponent. We have exposed, with all plainness, his attack upon the character of the Reformers, undeterred by the warning which the very peculiar complexion of his assault upon Archdeacon Hare seems fitted and intended to convey ; and we have done so because we believed this to be the discharge of an important public duty. But we would rather avoid incurring, unnecessarily, the responsi¬ bility of calling him out again on theological and ecclesiastical questions ; because we are very certain that this is a field where he can gain no credit to himself and confer no real benefit on his fellow-men, and where he might exhaust time and strength that may be employed more honourably for himself, and more bene¬ ficially for the world. We have been, of necessity, so much engrossed with the weaknesses and infirmities of Luther, — with the defects of his character, — that it would be an act of injustice to him if we were to conclude, without reminding oiu* readers, of his strong claims to our esteem and affection as a man, and of the invaluable services which he was made the instrument of renderino; to the church and the world. The first of these points is beautifully touched upon by Mr Hare, in the conclusion of his “Vindication: ” — “To some readers, it may seem that I have spoken with exaggerated ad¬ miration of Luther. No man ever lived whose whole heart, and soul, and life, have been laid bare as his have been to the eyes of mankind. Open as the sky, bold and fearless as the storm, he gave utterance to all his feelings, all his thoughts : he knew nothing of reserve : and the impression he produced on his hearers and friends was such, that they were anxious to treasure up every Essay II.] LUTHEE. 101 ■word that dropped from his pen or from his lips. No man, therefore, has ever been exposed to so severe a trial : perhaps no man was ever placed in such difficult circumstances, or assailed by such manifold temptations. And how has he come out of the trial ? Through the power of faith, under the guardian care of his heavenly Master, he was enabled to stand through life ; and still he stands, and will continue to stand, firmly rooted in the love of all who really know him. A writer quoted by Harless* has well said, ‘ I have con¬ tinually been more and more edified, elevated, and strengthened, by this man of steel, this sterling soul, in whom certain features of the Christian character are manifested in their fullest perfection. His image, I confess, was for some years obscured before my eyes. I fixed them exclusively on the ebul¬ litions of his powerful nature, unsubdued as yet by the Spirit of the Lord. But when, on a renewed study of his works, the holy faith and energy of his thoroughly German character, the truth of his whole being, his wonderful childlikeness and simplicity, revealed themselves to my sight in their glory ; then I could not but turn to him with entire, pure love, and exclaim, His weaknesses are only so great , because bis virtues are so great." f These are the feelings which every rightly constituted and adequately informed mind will cherish towards Luther as a man ; and the services which he was enabled to render to the church and the world were such as to entitle him to he ever regarded with the profoundest admiration and gratitude. His great leading ser¬ vice, in so far as the highest of all interests are concerned, was the entire destruction of the doctrine of human merit, and the thorough establishment of the great scriptural truth of a purely gratuitous justification, through faith alone as the means or instru¬ ment of uniting men to Jesus Christ, and of applying to them all that He did and suffered in their room ; together with the vigorous and unshrinking application of these great principles to the expo¬ sure of all the mass of erroneous doctrines and of unauthorised and sinful practices, by which the Church of Rome had been lead¬ ing men, formally or virtually, theoretically or practically, to per¬ vert the gospel of the grace of God, and to build their hopes for eternity upon a false foundation. Under this general description may be comprehended, more or less directly, most of the theology which the writings of Luther contain. This was the work which God raised him up and qualified him to achieve ; and a more im¬ portant work, one more fraught with glory to God and benefit to man, was probably never committed to any one who had not been endowed with the gift of supernatural inspiration. Luther’s pre- * vii. 2. f Pp. 293-4. 10 2 LUTHER. [Essay II. vious training and experience before he appeared publicly as a Reformer, were manifestly fitted and intended to lead him to understand practically the true way of a sinner’s acceptance and deliverance from guilt and bondage ; for, after being awakened to some sense of divine things, and of his own relation to God, he went long about to establish his own righteousness, before he was brought into the glorious liberty of God’s children. This was evidently the best preparation for the work to which he was destined. He had tried all other methods of obtaining deliverance and peace, with the utmost earnestness, and in circumstances in many respects favourable. He had been driven from every refuge of lies, and shut up to an absolute submission to the righteousness of God, — the righteousness which is of God by faith. He had been compelled, and he had been enabled, to fight his way through all the formidable obstacles which the current doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome interposed to men’s rightly dis¬ cerning and appreciating their true condition as helpless sinners, and the scriptural method of their deliverance, and was thus eminently fitted for opening up to the miserable victims of Romish delusion, the danger to which they were exposed, and the only sure way in which deliverance and enlargement were to be ob¬ tained. This object he zealqusly and faithfully prosecuted during the remainder of his life, keeping it principally in view in his exposition of divine truth, and in his interpretation of the word of God. The doctrine of justification, notwithstanding the peculiarly full, formal, and elaborate exposition which the Apostle Paul was guided by the Spirit to make of it, became veiy soon involved in obscurity and error ; and though some, no doubt, in every age — apparently decreasing, however, in number, in every succeeding century — were practically, and, in fact, led by God’s grace to rest for their own salvation upon the one foundation laid in Zion, yet it is, to say the least, somewhat doubtful whether, after the age of the men who had held personal intercourse with the apostles (from none of whom have we anything like detailed expositions of Christian doctrine), any man can be produced who has given, or who could have given, a perfectly correct exposition of the whole of Paul’s doctrine upon this vitally important subject. Confusion and error upon this point continued to increase and extend, — even Augustine giving the weight of his deservedly high authority to Essay II.] LUTHER. 103 views defective and erroneous regarding it, — until, by tlie admir¬ able skill with which the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome were adapted to foster and satisfy those notions, upon this subject, to which depraved men are naturally disposed, all sciip- tural views of the method of justification had, for many centuries before the Reformation, disappeared from the world ; and while there was still a vague, unmeaning, and inoperative acknowledg¬ ment of Christ as a Saviour, the great body of His professed fol¬ lowers were practically and in reality relying upon their own works and merits, and upon the works and merits of other sinful cieatures like themselves, for the salvation of their souls. This was the condition in which Luther found the professing church in regard to theology and religion. He was guided, by the work of the divine Spirit upon his own understanding and heart, through the word, to appreciate aright men’s utter helpless¬ ness and inability to do anything to merit or deserve the foigive- ness of their sins and the enjoyment of God’s favour ; to see that salvation, and all its blessings, are purchased for men by Christ, and are freely imparted to them individually by God’s grace through the instrumentality of faith ; and to feel that the practical reception of these doctrines is the only sure provision foi produc¬ ing holiness of heart, and peace and joy in believing. And his life was mainly devoted to the exposition of these fundamental piin- ciples of Christian truth, and the application and enforcement of them in opposition to all the corruptions and abuses, theoietical and practical, of the Church of Rome. He was enabled to biing out his Hews on these subjects so clearly and convincingly, and to establish them so firmly upon the basis of scriptural authority, that in substance they were adopted by all the other Reformers, em¬ bodied in the confessions of all the Reformed churches, including the Church of England, and that they were always held with peculiar clearness and steadiness in the Lutheran Church, until the rationalism of last century swept away all regard to the autho¬ rity of God’s word, and all right conceptions of men’s actual re¬ lation to God and the gospel method of salvation. There is little else in Luther’s theological works than what may be said to be involved, more or less directly, in the exposition and application of these great truths ; but there is all this set forth with much clear¬ ness and vigour, and applied with much energy and success. He scarcely seems ever to have proposed it to himself as an object, to 104 LUTHER, [Essay II. open up the whole system of scriptural truth in its connection and details, and to unfold it in its various aspects. Human merit and ability on the one hand, and on the other full and purely gratuitous justification, as indispensably necessary for men, and actually pro¬ vided and offered by God through Christ, are at once the points from which he ever starts, and the centres around which he ever moves ; and by thoroughly establishing the one upon the ruins of the other, he has thrown a flood of light upon the most funda¬ mental articles of Christian truth, and upon the interpretation of the most important portions of the word of God. Luther* can scarcely he said to have investigated, with much care, or to have discussed, with much success, any department of divine truth, which was not more or less directly connected with these fundamental points ; but then, both from the nature of the case and the forms which the corruption of the divine method of justification had assumed in the Church of Rome, the exposition and application of these topics led him to traverse a much wider field of divine truth than might at first sight be supposed. Still, as he certainly did not possess the comprehensive far-reaching intellect of Calvin, he views most topics only in their hearings on a sinner’s acceptance, without always taking in all the different aspects in which they aye presented to us in Scripture. It may be worth while to illustrate this by an example. Luther, especially during the earlier part of his career (and the same holds true, in some measure, of his immediate followers), in treating of the worship of God, and the load of ceremonies with which the Church of Rome had encumbered and disfigured it, manifests an inadequate sense of the sinfulness of idolatry, viewed simply as such, or as a direct offence against God, and scarcely any sense of the sinfulness of man’s introducing rites and cere¬ monies into the worship of God, simply upon the ground that God had not authorised or required them. He seems to think that the great evil of the Romish rites and ceremonies, — even those which, upon scriptural principles, should he chiefly and primarily de¬ nounced as idolatrous, and therefore directly and immediately involving a sin against God, independently of all other considera¬ tions and consequences, — lay in the notion of merit that was conjoined * The remainder of this Essay is taken from Dr Cunningham’s MS. Lectures on Church History, and did not appear in the Review. — Eds. Essay II.] LUTHEE. 105 with them , — in the idea which the church inculcated, that through these rites and ceremonies men were either meriting God’s favour, or at least securing for themselves an interest in the merits of other creatures. No doubt this view might he justly regarded as being the crowning iniquity of the popish system, that which most directly and immediately brought it to bear injuriously upon the salvation of men. But Luther seems to have seen little evil in these rites and ceremonies, except for the opinion of their meri¬ toriousness, inculcated along with their observance ; and would probably have been little disposed to object to them had they not been formally and explicitly represented by the church in this light, which, of course, brought them into collision with the Scrip¬ ture doctrine of justification. But this view, though true, so far as it went, and very important, did not go to the root of the matter ; and it was assigned to Zwingle, and still more fully to Calvin, to bring out the guilt of idolatry, as directly and imme¬ diately, in every instance, a sin against God, irrespective of all other consequences, — and to establish further the important prin¬ ciple, that God has given sufficiently clear indications in His word, that it is His will that no rites and ceremonies are to be introduced into His worship, except those which He himself has sanctioned, — a principle which might have been commended to Luther’s approba¬ tion, if not by its direct and appropriate scriptural evidence, though that is clear enough, at least through an appeal to experience, which clearly proves, that whenever unauthorised rites and cere¬ monies are introduced into the worship of God, there is a strong and never failing tendency in men to regard the observance of them as meritorious in God’s sight. So far as concerns the exposition of those fundamental truths, on which he chiefly dwelt, the main grounds on which, with some show of reason, h3-has been charged with exaggerated and para¬ doxical statements, are his indiscriminate abuse of the law, his seeming to deny that it has any legitimate bearing upon regenerate men, and to deny also, that there is anything really good or holy, even in believers. The way in which Luther sometimes speaks of the Law, especially in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, is certainly unbecoming and indecent ; but it is plain enough, from a fair and impartial survey of his whole doctrine upon this subject, that he really meant nothing more in substance than to shut it out, as Paul does, from all direct share in the 106 LUTHER. [Essay II. justification of a sinner, and to illustrate its utter unfitness to serve the purposes of tliose who are seeking justification by deeds of Law. Some of his incautious statements about the relation of believers to the Law, gave rise afterwards to a controversy in the Lutheran Church, which was settled at length, along with many of those other internal disputes, in the Formula Concordia?, in 1588, under the title, “ De tertio usu Legis but Luther certainly never really gave any countenance to Antinomian principles, and strenuously inculcated the necessity and obligation of holiness of heart and life.* And his declarations about the non-existence of anything truly good or holy in regenerate persons, though some¬ what strongly and incautiously expressed, did not really mean more than what we all believe to be a great scriptural truth, viz., that the best actions of believers are stained with such imperfec¬ tion and sin, that they can have nothing justifying, and nothing properly and intrinsically meritorious, about them. But the great error of Luther, that which gives the most unfa¬ vourable impression of his character and mental structure, and which, in its influence, most extensively injured his usefulness and obstructed the cause of the Reformation, was his obstinate adherence to the unintelligible absiu’dity, commonly called Consubstantiation, — the real presence, not of Christ but of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, or the co-existence, in some way, of the real flesh and blood of Christ, in, with, or under, in, cum , or sub, the bread and wine in the Eucharist. This was a real remnant of Popery, to which, after throwing off almost everything in the doctrine of the Papists upon this subject that makes it valuable to them and offensive to us, viz., transubstantiation, or the change of the sub¬ stance of the one into that of the other, as implying the annihilation of the substance of the bread and wine, — the sacrifice of the Mass, — and the adoration of the host founded on this transubstantiation, he adhered with an obstinacy and intolerance most discreditable and most injurious to the Reformed cause. This was the chief subject of controversy, among the Reformers, in the earlier period * Epitome, sect. vi. Tittmann Libri Symbolici Ecclesise Evangelicee. The first use of the Law, was to restrain the open outbreakings of depravity ; the second, to convince men of sin, and to lead them to Christ ; and the third, respected its bearing on believers as a rule of life. This subject, of the use of the Law under the Gospel dispen¬ sation, is" stated with admirable clear¬ ness and precision, accuracy and fulness, in our own Confession, c. xix., especially sects. 5 and 6. Essay II.] LUTHER. 107 of their labours. The controversy upon this point occupied a great deal of time and attention that might have been much better employed in opposing the common enemy ; it produced, at length, an entire separation and much alienation of feeling among them ; it thus led to other disputes and contentions, and tended at last to fix down the Lutheran Church in a much wider deviation from the scriptural orthodoxy of Calvin upon other points than Luther himself could have consistently approved of, or than, without this separation or alienation, would probably liave been exhibited. The chief responsibility of controversies, and of all the evils that flow from them, lies upon those who take the wrong side on the merits of the points in dispute, because, if they had taken the right side of the question, as they ought to have done , there would have been no controversy. And in this Sacramentarian Contro¬ versy, as it was called, Luther certainly appeared to as little advantage in the moral character of the spirit which he manifested, as in the soundness of the doctrine which he maintained. Papists have been accustomed to dwell, with great complacency, on the changes which took place in Luther’s views during several years after he published his thesis upon Indulgences ; and on this ground to taunt him with his inconsistencies, and to taunt Pro¬ testants with being blind followers of the blind. Audin says,* u What is the Lutheran doctrine ? Is it faith minus indulgences, as in 1518 ; faith minus the priesthood, as in 1519 ; faith minus the sacraments of orders and extreme unction, as in 1520 ; faith with only two sacraments, as in 1521 ; or faith minus the mass and the worship of the saints, as in 1522.” So far as the charges here referred to affect Luther himself, they merely indicate the gradual progress of an honest mind, following the guidance of the Spirit and word of God from darkness to light ; and as to Protestants, even those of them who are commonly called Luthe¬ rans from their adopting the leading views of divine truth, in which Luther soon settled, they do not affect them at all. But these men seem determined to make Luther a Pope, whether he himself, and those who have adopted his leading principles solely because they believe them to be sanctioned by Scripture, will or not. They are so prepossessed with the duty of receiving their own opinions implicitly from the mouth of a fellow sinner, that * P. 93. 108 LUTHER. [Essay II. they seem to be incapable of conceiving of such a thing as other men deriving theirs from the word of God, and believing only what they are persuaded is sanctioned by its statements. Protes¬ tants do not regard Luther as a Pope ; they ascribe to him no in¬ fallibility, they receive no doctrine because he taught it ; and as to Luther himself, he always fully confessed, that when he first raised his voice against indulgences, he was little better than a blind papist ; that he was involved in great ignorance and error ; that he had yet a great deal to learn, and that he learned slowly and gradually. He retracted his errors fully and frankly, whenever he was convinced of them, and during the whole progress of his Hews, gave the most satisfactory evidence of thorough integrity and love of truth. And it should further be noticed, that before he appeared publicly as a Reformer, he had already adopted, in sub¬ stance, upon the testimony of God’s word, all those fundamental principles in regard to the natural condition of man, and the way of his acceptance and deliverance, which he continued to hold through life ; and that the changes which his opinions underwent after that period, arose mainly, as is evident from even Audin’s statement, from his gaining progressively a deeper insight into the mystery of popish iniquity, from the expansive influence of the vital principles of Christian truth which God had implanted in his heart, in throwing off, one after another, the foul incrustations in which Popery wraps men’s spirits, and from his applying fully and fearlessly, the touchstone of the word of God, and of the great doctrine of a free justification purchased by Christ and imparted through the faith that unites with Him, to all the fearful mass of corruptions by which the Romish system has perverted the prin¬ ciples of God’s oracles and the gospel of His grace.* Luther’s opinions seem to have become settled within five or six years after the publication of his thesis ; and we do not find any evidence, that after that period they received any material modi¬ fication. It may be proper to allude, in conclusion, to a question which has been much discussed in subsequent times, viz., whether Luther held the peculiar opinions on doctrinal points which are usually associated with the name of Calvin. When Luther’s fol¬ lowers, in a subsequent generation, openly deviated from scriptural K * Luther’s Confessions and Retractations. Essay II.] LUTIIEE. 109 orthodoxy on these points, they set themselves to prove that Luther had never held Calvinistic principles ; and for several suc¬ ceeding generations, Lutheran authors, in general, indulged in the most bitter and malignant vituperation of Calvin and his doctrines, more even than that which generally prevailed among writers of the Church of England during last century. But we have no hesitation in saying, that it can he established beyond all reasonable question, that Luther held the doctrines which are commonly regarded as most peculiarly Calvinistic, though he was never led to explain and apply, to illustrate and defend some of them, so fully as Calvin did. We need go no further in proof of this, than to his famous work, u De Servo Arbitrio,” published in 1525, in reply to Erasmus, in which he has unequivocally asserted the most peculiar and generally obnoxious tenets of Calvinism, in respect to God’s sovereign agency in preordaining all things ; in conferring, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own wall all spiritual blessings ; and in thus determining, according to His own good pleasure, the eternal destinies of men ; and has asserted them with an unshrinking boldness, and, we might say, with a rashness and offensiveness of statement which can certainly not be paralleled in the works of Calvin himself. There is no ground for alleumir that Luther ever retracted the sentiments contained O o in this work. Indeed, at a much later period of his life, in 1537, he expressly declared that of all his works, his treatise u De Servo Arbitrio,” and his larger u Catechism,” were the only ones which he now regarded as written with due care and accuracy . The Lutherans are, therefore, obliged to attempt to explain away the strong statements of this very valuable work, and to extract out of them their manifestly Calvinistic sense, under the cover of admitting, that the work does contain some rash and incautious declarations ; and in perusing some of their attempts of this sort, one is often reminded, by the boldness of their perversions, of a Socinian commentary upon the first chapter of John’s Gospel. It has also been asserted, that in his commentary upon Genesis,* the last work he published, he substantially though not formally, retracted any peculiarly Calvinistic principles which he might previously have taught. But there is no good ground for this allegation; for, upon a fair examination of the passages in the * C. 26. 110 LUTHER. [Essay II. commentary, it appears plain, that they do not contain, even in substance, any retractation of his former views, but merely cautions to guard against the abuse of them, — against their being applied in an erroneous and injurious way; while, it is certain, that cautions to the same effect as full and strong, and in eveiy respect as judicious and practical, abound in the writings of Calvin himself. It is highly creditable to Luther, that while he was not led to dwell at much length upon the illustration and defence of some of the doctrines which are commonly reckoned Calvinistic peculiari¬ ties, he yet had the sagacity to see, that without including in his system these peculiar doctrines, it was impossible to maintain and to expound fully and consistently, the sovereign agency of God in the salvation of sinners, or to give to the Sovereign Ruler and Disposer of all things, the place which He claims to Himself. * * Hottinger's Historia Ecclesiastica , tom. viii., p. 640-50. THE REFORMERS AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE.* Sir William Hamilton,! in the course of his attack upon Arch¬ deacon Hare, introduces a lengthened and elaborate historico-theo- logical statement, chiefly upon the subject of Assurance. We quote the passage as it is the text of our present discourse : — “ Assurance , Personal Assurance, Special Faith ( the feeling of certainty ) that God is propitious to me, that my sins are forgiven, — ( Fiducia'Plerophoria Fidei, Fides Specialis ), — Assurance was long universaHy held in the Protestant communities to be the criterion and condition of a true or saving faith. Luther declares that ‘ he who hath not assurance spews faith out ;’ and Melancthon, that ‘ assurance is the discriminating line of Christianity from Heathenism.’ Assurance is, indeed, the punctum saliens of Luther’s system, and an unac¬ quaintance with this, his great central doctrine, is one prime cause of the chronic misrepresentation which runs through our recent histories of Luther and the Reformation. Assurance is no less strenuously maintained by Calvin ; is held even by Arminius ; and stands, essentially, part and parcel of all the confessions of all the churches of the Reformation, down to the Westminster Assembly. In that synod assurance was, in Protestanism, for the first, in¬ deed only time, formaUy declared ‘ not to he of the essence of faith and, * British and Foreign Evangelical Preview. October 1856. Discussions on PhHosophy and Literature, Education and University Reform, etc. By Sir Wm. Hamilton, Bart. 1853. f In the interval between the pub¬ lication of the former article and the present one, Sir William Hamilton died, and Dr Cunningham, in his in¬ troductory remarks, thus refers to the event : — “ The knowledge, if we had possessed it, that he was to die so soon, would assuredly have modified some¬ what the tone in which the discussion was conducted, — would have shut out something of its lightness and severity, and imparted to it more of solemnity and tenderness ; and the knowledge which we did possess, that he, as well as ourselves, was liable every day to be called out of this world and sum¬ moned into God’s presence, ought to have produced this result.” — Eds. 112 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. accordingly, the Scottish General Assembly has subsequently, once and again, condemned and deposed the holders of this, the doctrine of Luther, of Calvin, of all the other churches of the Reformation, and of the older Scottish church itself. In the English, and more articulately, in the Irish establishment, assurance still stands a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief. (See Homilies , Book I., Number iii., Part 3, specially referred to in the eleventh of the Thirty -nine Articles ; and Number iv., Parts 1 and 3; likewise the sixth Lambeth Article.) Assurance was consequently held by all the older Anglican churchmen, of whom Hooker may stand for the example ; but assurance is now openly disavowed without scruple by Anglican churchmen, high and low, when apprehended ; but of these, many, like Mr Hare, are blissfully incognisant of the opinion, its import, its history, and even its name. “ This dogma, with its fortune, past and present, affords, indeed, a series of the most curious contrasts. For it is curious that this cardinal point of Luther’s doctrine should, without exception, have been constituted into the fundamental principle of all the churches of the Reformation ; and, as their common and uncatholic doctrine, have been explicitly condemned at Trent. Again, it is curious that this common and differential doctrine of the churches of the Reformation should now be abandoned virtually in, or formally by, all these churches themselves. Again, it is curious that Protestants should now gene¬ rally profess the counter doctrine, asserted at Trent in condemnation of their peculiar principle. Again, it is curious that this, the most important variation in the faith of Protestants, as, in fact, a gravitation of Protestantism back to¬ wards Catholicity, should have been overlooked, as indeed, in his days, unde¬ veloped, by the keen-eyed author of ‘ The History of the Variations of the Protestant churches.’ Finally, it is curious that, though now fully developed, this central approximation of Protestantism to Catholicity should not, as far as I know, have been signalised by any theologian, Protestant or Catholic ; whilst the Protestant symbol (‘ Fides sola justificat f — ‘ Faith alone justifies’), though now eviscerated of its real import, and now only manifesting an unim¬ portant difference of expression, is still supposed to mark the discrimination of the two religious denominations. For both agree that the three heavenly virtues must all concur to salvation ; and they only differ, whether faith, as a word , does or does not involve hope and charity. This misprision would have been avoided had Luther and Calvin only said, ‘ Fiducia sola justificat ,’ — ‘ Assurance alone justifies ;’ for on their doctrine assurance was convertible with true faith, and true faith implied the other Christian graces. But this primary and peculiar doctrine of the Reformation is now harmoniously con¬ demned by Catholics and Protestants in unison.” * We liope to be able to prove that this elaborate statement contains about as large an amount of inaccuracy as could well have been crammed into tlie space which it occupies ; and, if we succeed in doing this, we may surely expect that Sir William’s * Discussions, 2d Ed., pp. 508-9. Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 113 authority upon theological subjects will henceforth stand at least as low as zero. It may help us to form an estimate of the accuracy of Sir William’s history of this subject, if we begin with a brief state¬ ment of what were the views of the Reformers and the Romanists upon this point, and of what was the general course which the discussions regarding it followed. That the Reformers gener¬ ally held very high views upon the subject, — that they were in the habit of speaking very strongly of the importance and neces¬ sity of men being personally assured about their own salvation, — is of course well known to every one who has the slightest acquaintance with their history and writings. The causes that tended to produce a leaning towards what may he regarded as exaggerated views and statements upon this subject, were chiefly these two : — 1st, Their own personal experience as converted and believing men ; and, 2d, The ground taken by the Romanists in arguing against them. The Reformers, speaking of them generally as a body, and with reference to their ordinary condition, seem to have enjoyed usually an assurance of being in a state of grace and of being warranted to count upon salvation. God seems to have given to them the grace of assurance more fully and more generally than He does to believers in ordinary circumstances. And this is in accordance with the general course of His providential procedure. The his¬ tory of the church seems to indicate to us two positions as true, with reference to this matter, viz., — 1st, That assurance of salva¬ tion has been enjoyed more fully and more generally by men who were called to difficult and arduous labours in the cause of Christ, than by ordinary believers in general. And, 2dly, That this assurance, as enjoyed by such persons, has been frequently trace¬ able to special circumstances connected with the manner of their conversion as its immediate or proximate cause. So it certainly was with the Reformers. The position in which they were placed, and the work they were called upon to do, made it specially neces¬ sary that they should enjoy habitually the courage and the strength which spring from a well-grounded assurance of salva¬ tion. This, accordingly, God gave them ; and He gave them it in many cases, as He has often done in subsequent times, by so regu¬ lating the circumstances which preceded and accompanied their conversion, as to satisfy them, almost as if by a perception of VOL. I. 8 114 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. their senses, that they had passed from death unto life. The Reformers having been in general, for these reasons and by such processes, assured, ordinarily, of their own salvation, were not unnaturally led, from this cause, to give great prominence to the subject of assurance, and to regard and to represent it as in some way or other necessarily connected with the Christian faith, and as an indispensable constituent element of the Christian character. But, in the second place, the Reformers wrere the more in¬ duced to adhere to this view, and to exert themselves to establish and defend it, in consequence of the ground that was taken up by their popish antagonists. The Romanists then, as well as now, were accustomed to allege that it was impossible for Protestants to have any certainty of the soundness of their views, or of the safety of their position, — that though they might be able to pro¬ duce plausible and apparently satisfactory pleadings in support of what they taught, they could have no adequate ground for perfect assurance of its truth ; while Romanists had a firm ground for absolute certainty in the testimony or authority of the church. There were three important subjects to which chiefly the Romanists were accustomed to apply this alleged point of contrast between their position and that of the Reformers. They were accustomed to allege that Protestants, upon Protest¬ ant principles, could have no certainty, and nothing more than a probable persuasion, 1st, That the books generally received, or any particular books specified, were possessed of divine au¬ thority; or, 2d, That this and not that was the meaning of a scriptural passage, or the substance of what Scripture taught upon a particular topic; or, 3d, That any particular individual was now in a state of grace and would be finally saved. The more reasonable Romanists did not deny that there were rational considerations bearing upon the establishment of the divine autho¬ rity of the books of Scripture, sufficient to silence and confute infidels ; or that, by the ordinary rules and resources of exegesis, something might be done towards settling the meaning of many scriptural statements; or that men, by a diligent and impartial use of scriptural materials, combined with self-examination, might attain to good hope with respect to their ultimate salvation. But they denied that Protestants could ever attain to full and per¬ fect certainty upon any of these points, — could ever reach such Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 115 thorough and conclusive assurance as the authority of the church furnished to those who received it. Protestants, in dealing with this allegation, were not unnaturally led to maintain, that upon all these subjects they had, or might have, not merely a probable persuasion, but a strict and absolute certainty, and to labour to unfold the grounds of the certainty to which they laid claim. It was here that many of the Reformers were led to propound views which appear to have been somewhat extreme and exaggerated, both in regard to the kind and degree of the certainty they con¬ tended for, and the grounds on which they professed to establish its reality and legitimacy. Protestants are not infallible any more than papists. Neither the great Reformers of the sixteenth cen¬ tury, nor the great systematic divines of the seventeenth, are to be implictly followed. The truth is, that God has never yet given to any body of uninspired men to rise altogether, and in every respect, in their mode of dealing with the doctrines of His word, above the influence of their circumstances. There has never been any uninspired man, or any company of uninspired men, that has not given some indication of the imperfection of humanity, in their mode of dealing with some portion or other of divine truth. The Reformers, as a body, are unquestionably more entitled to deference in matters of theological doctrine than any other body of men who have adorned the church since the apostolic age. But there can be no reasonable doubt that there are some doctrinal points on which many of them have gone astray, either from retaining something of the corruption of the popish system which they had abandoned, or, what is about equally natural and probable, in consequence of the imperfection of human nature, from running into an extreme opposite to that which they had forsaken. It is pretty evident that the papists, by taunting the Reformers with their want of certainty on the three points to which we have referred, drove them into the assertion of extreme and untenable positions. The Reformers claimed for their convictions and con¬ clusions, on these questions, a kind and degree of certainty which the nature of the subject did not admit of, and they fell into further errors in endeavouring to set forth the grounds or reasons of the certainty or assurance for which they contended. They contended that they had, or might have, a perfect and absolute certainty in regard to all those matters, — a certainty resting not 116 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. only upon rational grounds and a human faitli, as it was called, but upon supernatural grounds and a divine faith, such as their popish opponents were accustomed to ascribe to the authority of the church, when it set forth any doctrine and called upon men to believe it as revealed by God. And as a substitute for the authority of the church, the popish ground for an absolute assurance and divine faith, the Reformers were accustomed to bring in the agency of the Holy Spirit, as producing certainty or assurance ; and they did this not unfrequently in a way that seemed to be liable to the charge at least of confusion and irrelevancy. The Reformers ought not to have allowed the Romanists to drag them into perplexed metaphysical discussions as to the nature and grounds of the certainty with which they held their convic¬ tions upon the important topics to which we have referred. They would thus have escaped the temptation to which, we think, it must be admitted, they sometimes yielded, of straining matters in order to get something like a ground for a kind and measure of certainty which the nature of the case did not admit of. It was enough that they could produce adequate rational grounds for all their convictions, — grounds which fully satisfied their own minds, and which they could defend conclusively against the objections of gainsay ers, as being sufficient and satisfactory reasons of assent. This was all that their opponents had a right to demand ; and this was all that could legitimately come into a controversial discussion. The vividness and efficacy of these con¬ victions might be somewhat affected by the kind and degree of evidence bearing upon the particular topic under consideration, or by the qualities of their mental constitution and habits, or by other collateral and adventitious influences. But a real conviction or assent, based upon rational grounds, which were perfectly satisfactory to their own minds, and the relevancy and validity of which they could triumphantly defend against all opponents, was quite sufficient, whether this might be called a certainty of faith or not ; and if this conviction did not produce, in their minds, such a sense or feeling of assurance as they desired, — if it did not prove so practically efficacious as they wished, — it would be quite reasonable that they should ask the special blessing of God, the agency of the Holy Spirit, to bring about these results. And their prayers might be answered, the Spirit might be given, and the Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 117 strongest, the most vivid, and the most efficacious certainty or assurance might be produced, without anything like a special revelation, and without the introduction of any new or additional grounds or reasons for the conviction. The Reformers, however, in their eagerness to claim for their convictions the very highest certainty or assurance, and to assign an adequate cause foi this, by substituting the Holy Spirit instead of the church, went some¬ times to the unwarrantable extreme of ascribing to the Holy Spirit not merely a subjective influence upon men s understandings and hearts, but an objective presentation of new and additional grounds and reasons for belief. These general observations apply to the way in which the Reformers met the allegations of the Romanists about their want of certainty or assurance in regard to all the three subjects formerly mentioned, viz., the divine authority of the books of Scripture, the meaning of scriptural statements, and the certainty of peisonal salvation. In order to have a sure, and at the same time a com¬ pendious way of getting the highest assurance, even the ceitainty of faith, upon all these subjects, they substituted the Holy Spirit instead of the church ; and to make this serve the same purpose in argument as the church does among Romanists, they were led to employ some modes of statement about the Spirit s operation which are not sanctioned by Scripture, though exhibiting perhaps rather confusion of thought than positive error. Rut wre cannot dwell upon this general topic, and must return to the special sub¬ ject of the assurance of personal salvation, with which alone we have at present to do. The Reformers in general enjoyed ordinarily the assured belief that they were in a state of grace, and would be finally saved. They felt the importance of this grace in the arduous woi k in which they were engaged. They saw abundant ground in Seiip- ture for the general position, that believers might be and should be assured of their own salvation. They inculcated this position upon their followers, persuaded that personal assurance would at once tend to preserve them from the perverting influence of popish sophists, and fit them for doing and bearing all God’s will con¬ cerning them. The Romanists, on the other hand, laboured to show that believers could have no full and well-grounded assurance that they had attained to a condition of safety, except either by special revelation, or by the testimony of the church ; their object 118 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. of course being to make men feel themselves entirely dependent upon the church for security or certainty on all subjects of interest and importance, and to deprive them of the energy and confidence which a well-founded assurance of personal salvation was fitted to produce, in contending against the prestige of ecclesiastical authority and influence. The Reformers, in order to show that the assurance which might be attained without either a special revelation or the testimony of the church, was full and perfect, were led to identify it with our belief in the doctrines of God’s word, and to represent it as necessarily included or implied in the act or exercise of justifying and saving faith ; nay, even sometimes to give it as the very definition of saving faith, that it is a belief that our own sins have been forgiven, and that we have been brought into a state of grace. This seemed to be an obvious and ready method of giving to the belief of our personal safety for eternity the very highest degree of certainty, and hence many of the Reformers were tempted to adopt it. This view was certainly exaggerated and erroneous. It is very evident that no man can be legitimately assured of his own salvation simply by understanding and believing what is contained or implied in the actual statements of Scripture. Some addi¬ tional element of a different kind must be brought in, in order to warrant such an assurance ; something in the state or condition of the man himself must be in some way ascertained and known in order to this result. It may not, indeed, always require any lengthened or elaborate process of self-examination to ascertain what is needful to be known about men themselves, in order to their being assured that they have been brought into a state of grace. The circumstances that preceded and accompanied their conversion may have been such as to leave them in no doubt about their having passed from darkness to light. Their present consciousness may testify at once and explicitly to the existence in them of those things which the Bible informs us accompany salvation. But still it is true, that another element than any thing contained in Scripture must be brought in as a part of the foundation of tlieir assurance. And when they are called upon to state and vindicate to themselves or to others the grounds of their assurance, they must of necessity proceed, in substance, in the line of the familiar syllogism, u Whosoever believeth in the Lord J esus Christ shall be saved ; I believe, and therefore,” etc. Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 119 There is no possibility of avoiding, in substance, some such process as this ; and while the major proposition is proved by Scripture, the minor can be established only by some use of materials derived from consciousness and self-examination. There are no positions connected with religion which can be so certain as those which are directly and immediately taught in Scripture, and which are usually said to be believed with the certainty of faith or of divine faith. The introduction of an element, as necessary to the con¬ clusion, derived from a different source, viz., from the knowledge of what we ourselves are, must be admitted in fairness to compli¬ cate the evidence, and to affect the kind, if not the degree, of the certainty or assurance that may result from it. It is unv an ant- able to give as the definition of saving faith, the belief that my sins are forgiven ; for it is not true that my sins are f 01 giv en until I believe, and it holds true universally, that God requires us to believe nothing which is not true before we believe it, and which may not be propounded to us to be believed, accompanied at the same time with satisfactory evidence of its truth ; and if so, the belief that our sins are forgiven, and that we have been brought into a state of grace, must be posterior in the order of nature, if not of time, to the act of faith by which the change is effected, and cannot therefore form a necessary constituent element of the act itself, cannot be its essence or belong to its essence. It is not very surprising that Luther should have made rash and exaggerated statements upon this subject as he did upon others. But it is certainly strange, that a man of such wonderful soundness and penetration of judgment as Calvin should have said, as he did say,* “We shall have a complete definition of faith, if we say that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds and confirmed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit and that this in substance should have been pretty generally, though not uni¬ versally, received as a just definition or description of saving faith, both by Lutheran and Calvinistic divines, for the greater part of a century. We cannot but look upon this as an illustration of the pernicious influence of men’s circumstances upon the forma- * Instit. 1. iii., c. ii. sec. 7. 120 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. ion of tlieir opinions — a view of the matter decidedly confirmed by the fact that neither Luther nor Calvin, nor the other eminent divines who have sanctioned this notion of the nature and im¬ port of faith, have been able to carry it out in full consistency, but have become entangled in contradictions. Luther, indeed, contradicted himself very explicitly upon this point; for while there are passages in his works which very unequivocally repre¬ sent personal assurance as necessarily involved in saving faith, and while this doctrine is taught in the Confession of Augs¬ burg,* and in the Apology for it,f — both which works are sym¬ bolical in the Lutheran Church — it is easy enough to produce from his writings passages in which a broader and more correct view is given of the nature of saving faith, as having respect directly and primarily only to truths and promises actually con¬ tained in Scripture, and, of course, only secondarily and infe- rentially to anything bearing upon our personal condition and prospects. Calvin never contradicted himself so plainly and palpably as this. But in immediate connection with the defi¬ nition above given from him of saving faith, he has made statements, with respect to the condition of mind that may exist in believers, which cannot well be reconciled with the formal defi¬ nition, except upon the assumption that the definition was intended not so much to state what was essential to true faith and always found in it, as to describe what true faith is, or includes, in its most perfect condition and in its highest exercise. As the passage is valuable in itself, and is well fitted to throw light upon the real views of the Reformers, and to illustrate the danger of judging of what these views were from a superficial examination of their writings or of isolated extracts from them, we shall quote it at some length, though we fear most men will be of opinion that Calvin has not very fully solved the difficulty which he started : — “ But some one will object that the experience of believers is very different from this ; for that, in recognising the grace of God towards them, they are not only disturbed with inquietude which frequently befalls them, but some¬ times also tremble with the most distressing terrors. The vehemence of temp¬ tations to agitate their minds is so great that it appears scarcely compatible with that assurance of faith of which we have been speaking. We must, there¬ fore, solve this difficulty, if we mean to support the doctrine we have advanced. * Art. iv. f Tittmann’s Libri Symbolici Ec- clesiee Evangelical, pp. 13 and 58. Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 121 When we inculcate that faith ought to be certain and secure, we conceive not of a certainty attended with no doubt, or of a security interrupted by no anxiety ; but we rather affirm that believers have a perpetual conflict with their own diffidence, and are far from placing their consciences in a placid cahn never disturbed by any storms. Yet, on the other hand, we deny, how¬ ever they may be afflicted, that they ever fall and depart from that certain confidence which they have conceived in the divine mercy. The Scripture proposes no example of faith more illustrious or memorable than David, espe¬ cially if you consider the whole course of his life. Yet that his mind was not invariably serene appears from his innumerable complaints, of which it will be sufficient to select a few . To render this intelligible, it is necessary to recur to that division of the flesh and the spirit which we noticed in another place, and which most clearly discovers itself in this case. The pious heart, therefore, perceives a division in itself, being partly affected with delight through a knowledge of the divine goodness, partly distressed with sorrow through a sense of its own calamity ; partly relying on the promise of the gospel, partly trembling at the evidence of its own iniquity ; partly exult¬ ing in the knowledge of life, partly alarmed by the fear of death. This varia¬ tion happens through the imperfection of faith ; since we are never so happy during the present life as to be cured of all diffidence, and entirely filled and possessed by faith. Hence those conflicts, in which the diffidence which adheres to the relics of the flesh rises up in opposition to the faith formed in the heart. But if in the mind of the believer assurance be mixed with doubts, do we not always come to this point, that faith consists not in a certain and clear, but only in an obscure and perplexed knowledge of the divine will respecting us ? Not at all. For if we are distracted by various thoughts, we are not therefore entirely divested of faith ; neither, though harassed by the agitations of diffi¬ dence, are we therefore immerged in its abyss ; nor if we be shaken, are we therefore overthrown. For the invariable issue of this contest is, that faith at length surmounts those difficulties from which, while it is encompassed with them, it appears to be in danger.”* Other proofs might be adduced that the Reformers, when judged of as they should be, by a deliberate and conjunct view of all they have said upon the subject, did not carry their doctrine of assurance to such extremes as we might be warranted in ascrib¬ ing to them because of some of their more formal statements, intended to tell upon their controversies with Romanists regarding this matter. And more than this, the real difference between the Reformers and the Romanists upon the subject of assurance, when calmly and deliberately investigated, was not quite so important as the combatants on either side imagined, and did not really respect the precise questions which persons imperfectly acquainted with * B. iii. c. ii. s. 17, 18. 122 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. the works on both sides, might naturally enough regard it as involving. With respect to the nature of saving faith, the principal ground of controversy was this, that the Romanists held that it had its seat in the intellect, and was properly and fundamentally assent ( assensus ), while the Reformers in general maintained that it had its seat in the will, and was properly and essentially trust ( jiducia ). The great majority of eminent Protestant divines have adhered to the views of the Reformers upon this point, though some have taken the opposite side, and have held faith, properly so called, to be the mere assent of the understanding to truth propounded by God in His word ; while they represent trust and other graces as the fruits or consequences, and not as constituent parts and elements, of faith. This controversy cannot be held to be of veiy great importance, so long as the advocates of the position, that faith is in itself the simple belief of the truth, admit that true faith necessarily and invariably produces trust and other graces, — an admission which is cheerfully made by all the Protestant de¬ fenders of this view, and which its popish advocates, though refusing in words, are obliged to make, in substance, in another form. There is an appearance of greater simplicity and meta¬ physical accuracy in representing faith as in itself a mere assent to truth, and trust and other graces as its necessary consequences. But the right question is, What is the meaning attached in Scrip¬ ture to the faith which justifies and saves ? Upon this question we agree with the Reformers in thinking, that in Scripture usage faith is applied, in its highest and most important sense, only to a state of mind of which trust in Christ as a Saviour is a necessary constituent element. This question about the nature of justifying faith is not determined in the Westminster Confession, the leading symbol of the great body of Presbyterians throughout the world ; and it is well that it is left in that condition, for if it had been settled there in accordance with the views of the Reformers and the compilers of the Confession, this would have excluded from the Church of Scotland Dr John Erskine and Dr Thomas Chalmers. There was not among the Reformers, and there has not been among modern Protestants, unanimity, as to what is involved in the Jiducia which is included in justifying faith. The generality of modem divines and some of the Reformers held that this Jiducia Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 123 was just trust or confidence in Christ s person, as distinguished from mere belief of the truth concerning Him, and as involving some special application or appropriation to ourselves of the dis¬ coveries and provisions of the gospel, hut not, directly and immediately, any opinion or conviction as to our actual personal condition ; while the generality of the Reformers, and some modern divines, especially those known in Scotland as Marrow men, have regarded it as comprehending this last element also, and have thus come to maintain that personal assurance is neces¬ sarily and directly included in the exercise of saving faith, or belongs to its essence. But though a considerable number of the Reformers held this view, and although, as we have explained, they were probably led into the adoption of it by their controversy with the Romanists, yet the truth or falsehood of this view did not form the real or main subject of controversy between them. The leading topic of discussion was this, Whether, without any special revelation, be¬ lievers could and should (possent et cleberent ) be assured of their justification and salvation ? This was practically the question that was controverted. It is one of great practical importance, and orthodox Protestant divines, in general, have continued ever since to concur with the Reformers in answering it in the affirmative. But though this was practically the real point controverted, — though the papists were most anxious to persuade men that they could attain to no certainty upon this point, except either by a special revelation or by the testimony of the church, — yet this was not just the precise form which the question assumed in the controversy ; and the reason of this was one which we have already hinted at, viz., that the more reasonable Romanists shrank from meeting the question, as thus put , with a direct negative, and fell back upon the topic of the kind or degree of the assurance or cer¬ tainty that was ordinarily attainable by believers. Into this dis¬ cussion of the nature and grounds of the certainty that might attach to this matter, the Reformers were unfortunately tempted to follow their opponents. In the heat of controversy many of them were led to lay down the untenable position, that the cer¬ tainty or assurance ordinarily attainable by believers was of the highest and most perfect description, — that it was the certainty of faith, or, as they sometimes expressed it, the certainty of divine faith, the same certainty with which men believe in the plainly 124 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. tr I revealed doctrines of God’s word. And then, again, it was as an argument or proof in support of this extreme and untenable position as to the hind or degree of certainty , that they were led on to assert, that this personal assurance was necessarily involved in justifying faith, — nay, was its distinguishing characteristic, and belonged, of course, to its essence. That the account now given of the subordinate, and as we might call it, accidental, place held in the doctrinal system of the Re¬ formers by their extreme views of the nature of the certainty or assurance which they asserted, and of the argument which they advanced in support of it, is well founded, may be shown by the important fact, that while many of them taught these views in their private writings, and in some of their polemical and practical treatises, they did not introduce them into their Confessions of Faith, into compositions intended to be symbolical and to define the terms of ministerial communion. They are taught, indeed, as we have mentioned, in the Confession of Augsburg, and the Apology for it. They are also set forth pretty explicitly in the Saxon and Wirtemberg Confessions, which are both Lutheran documents, — the first having been composed by Melancthon, and the second by Brentius.* But they are not taught in the Confes¬ sions of the Reformed or Calvinistic Churches. The earliest Con¬ fessions of the Reformed Churches are the two Confessions of Basle, and there is no statement of them to be found there. Calvin had undoubtedly taught in his u Institutes,” and also in his u Cate¬ chism” of Geneva, that saving faith necessarily includes or implies personal assurance. But he did not introduce any statement to this effect into the Confession of the French Protestant Church. It is doubtful, indeed, whether Calvin composed the French Confes¬ sion, or only revised and sanctioned it. But this latter view is enough for our present purpose ; and besides, if the Confession was not originally composed by Calvin, it was composed by Antony Chandieu or Sadeel, and he had taught in his own writings the same views as Calvin upon this subject, though neither he nor Calvin seems to have thought of introducing them into the Con- fession. In the Palatine or Heidelberg Catechism, which was not originally intended to be symbolical, but was rather adapted for popular instruction, faith is described as necessarily com- * Harmonia Confessionum Fidei, Geneva, 1581, p. 154-5, 160, 207-9. Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 125 prebending assurance.* The Belgic Confession, composed in 1563, contains no assertion of these views, though its authors probably believed them, as they afterwards added the Heidelbeig Catechism to their Confession as symbolical. The latter Heir etic Confession, composed in 1566, and approved of by most of the Reformed Churches, gives no countenance to these peculiar opinions. And lastly, the Synod of Dort, in 1618, representing almost all the Reformed Churches, not only gave no sanction to these views, but made statements which can scarcely be reconciled with them, and which form part of the evidence by which it may be shown, that a more careful and exact analysis of these matters was leading men’s minds rather in a direction opposite to the v iews of the Reformers upon this subject, and thus paving the way for the more explicit rejection of them by the "W estnrinstei Assembly. Now, let it be remembered that we do not assert that the authors of these documents did not hold the same views as Luther and Calvin upon the subjects of faith and assurance, and the re¬ lation subsisting between them. We concede that, generally speaking, they did hold the same views as these leading Reformers. We concede, too, that in some of these Confessions there are ex¬ pressions employed which indicate, plainly enough, to competent judges, that they held these views. But these concessions being made, we still think it a consideration of great importance, that * (Q. 21.) It seems to have been chiefly the Geneva and the Heidelberg Cate¬ chisms that Perkins had in view in an interesting passage in his “Reformed Catholic,” published in 1598. P erkins was a very eminent divine, a thorough Calvinist, and a man of distinguished piety. The passage we refer to may be regarded as an evidence that, before the end of the sixteenth century, some of the most competent judges were seeing that the language of the Reformers upon this subject required some modi¬ fication. It is as follows “ This doctrine (that of implied or infolded faith) is to be learned for two causes : First of all, it serves to rectify the consciences of weak ones, that they be not deceived touching their estate. For if we think that no faith can save but a full persuasion, such as the faith of Abraham was, many truly bearing the name of Christ must be put out of the roll of the children of God. We are, therefore, to know that there is a growth in grace as in nature ; and there be differences and degrees of true faith, and the least of them all is infolded faith. Secondly, this point of doctrine serves to rectify and in part to expound sundry catechisms , in that they seem to propound faith unto men at so high a reach as few can attain unto it, — defining it to be a certain and full persuasion of God’s love and favour in Christ ; whereas, though every faith be from its nature a certain persuasion, yet only the strong faith is the full persuasion. Therefore faith is not only in general terms to be defined, but also the de¬ grees and measures thereof are to be expounded, that weak ones, to their comfort, maybe truly informed of their estate.” — Perkins' Reformed Catholic , pp. 274-5. 126 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. they did not distinctly embody them in their Confessions of Faith, as this proves that they did not really occupy any such place in their system of theology as some of their statements, made in the heat of controversy, might lead us to suppose. The account we have given of the views of the Reformers and the Romanists upon the subject of faith and assurance, and of the course which the discussion regarding it took, is sufficient, at once and of itself, if it be well-founded, to overturn some of Sir Wil¬ liam’s leading positions in his history of this matter. But we must now look at his statements more closely and directly. His first leading position is this : — u Assurance, Personal Assurance, Special Faith (the feeling of certainty that God is propitious to me, that my sins are forgiven, — Fiducia, Pleroplioria Fidei, Fides Specialis ), Assurance was long universally held in the Protestant communities to he the criterion and condition of a true or saving faith.'" Here the first thing to be noted is the assumption, that u personal assurance, special faith, — fiducia, pleroplioria fidei, fides specialist do, in the writings of the Reformers, all mean one and the same thing; and that this one thing is u the feeling of certainty that God is propitious to me, that my sins are forgiven.” We could easily show that this as¬ sumption involves great ignorance of the usus loquendi of the Reformers, that the different words are used in different senses, and that the same word is used in different senses by different authors. But it is not worth while to dwell upon this point. The statement, that u assurance was long universally held in the Pro¬ testant communities to be the criterion and condition of a true and saving faith” is not correct. For it has been proved, that Peter Martyr, Musculus, and Zanehius, three of the most eminent divines at the period of the Reformation, did not hold this view of the nature of saving faith. The allegation, that “ assurance is the punctum saliens of Luther’s system” is one which no man, ac¬ quainted with Luther’s writings, can believe. The assertion, that “ assurance stands, essentially, part and parcel of all the Con¬ fessions of all the churches of the Reformation, down to the Westminster Assembly,” is utterly untrue. We have already explained how this matter stands as a question of fact, in regard to the earliest and most important Confessions. If Sir William’s assertion had any foundation in truth, the passages teaching the doctrine of assurance might easily be produced. But no such Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 127 passages have been, or can be, produced, because they have no existence. Sir William is, in substance, right in saying, that in the West¬ minster Assembly assurance was formally declared not to be of the essence of faith ; and he is right also in saying, that this was then done for the first time by an ecclesiastical synod, though, as we have already remarked, the Synod of Dort paved the way for it. It is of more importance to remark, that this decision of the W est- minster Assembly has been generally acquiesced in ever since by the great body of Calvinists and Presbyterians over the world. Sir William’s next statement, viz., that on the ground of this deliverance of the Westminster Assembly, “the Scottish General Assembly has once and again deposed the holders of this, the doctrine of Luther and Calvin, of all the other churches of the Reformation, and of the older Scottish Church itself,” is a curious mixture of truth and error, though the error preponderates. If the doctrine that assurance is not of the essence of faith be plainly asserted in the standards of a church, and be thus explicitly assented to by every minister as a condition of his ordination, it does not appear why it should be held up as something monstrous, that men who may come afterwards to reject this doctrine, should forfeit their office as ministers in that church, though it would no doubt be a very painful thing to have to cut off a brother who held no erroneous views except upon this one point. Sir William’s statement is plainly fitted and intended to convey the impression that cases of this kind have occurred in the Church of Scotland, or, that men have been deposed merely because they held the views of the Reformers upon this point, while they were not charged with any Other doctrinal errors. This impression is erroneous. No such cases have ever occurred. In the only instances, and they have been very few, in which ministers holding that assurance is of the essence of saving faith, have been sub¬ jected to ecclesiastical discipline, this error was held in conjunction with the much more serious one of universal atonement, or universal pardon, which it naturally tends to introduce ; and it was no doubt the maintenance of this second and more serious error that reconciled the heart and conscience of the church to the infliction of censure. Sir William’s assertion, that the doctrine of assurance being of the essence of faith was that “ of the older Scottish Church itself,” 128 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. has an appearance of truth about it, but it is fitted likewise to convey a false impression of the facts of the case. There is suffi¬ cient evidence that the older Scottish Church, or the first genera¬ tion of Protestant ministers in Scotland, held in general the same views of faith and assurance as were taught by Luther and Calvin. But they had not embodied these views in any public symbolical documents, or required the belief of them as a term of ministerial communion ; and yet this is plainly the impression which Sir William’s statement is fitted to produce. In the old Scottish Confession of Faith, prepared by John Knox, and adopted by the General Assembly in 1560, these views are certainly not asserted. It contains nothing on this, or any other subject, which might not be assented to by men who had subscribed the W est- minster Confession. The only thing bearing upon these views that can, in any sense, be regarded as a deliverance of the church, is, that the National Covenant of 1581 contains a condemnation of the “general and doubtsome faith of the Papists ; ” — a state¬ ment which, whatever we may know' otherwise of the opinions of its authors, is far too vague to commit the church, or any who subscribed the document, to the definite doctrine, that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. Sir William’s next statement is an astounding one: “In the English, and more articulately in the Irish Establishment, assurance still stands a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief.” This, we presume, will be a piece of news to the clergy of the English and Irish Establishments. We venture to assert, that not one of the 18,000 or 20,000 clergymen who represent the United Church of England and Ireland, has ever imagined that he had come under an obligation to believe and to teach “assurance;” — by which, of course, Sir William means, as the whole scope of the passage shows, notwithstanding the obscurity and confusion of his language, the doctrine that assurance of personal salvation is essen¬ tial to, and is necessarily included or implied in, justifying faith. But Sir William has referred to proofs and authorities upon this point, and what are they ? lie gives them thus : — “ See Homilies, book i., number iii., part 3, specially referred to in the eleventh of the Thirty-nine Articles ; and number iv., parts 1 and 3 ; likewise the sixth Lambeth Article.” The authorities here referred to are two, Hz., the first Book of the Homilies, and the Lambeth Articles. Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 129 Now, in regard to tlie Books of the Homilies, we think it can be shown, 1st. That they are not properly symbolical hooks of the Church of England, so that the clergy are to be held bound to maintain and teach every thing contained in them ; and, 2d. That though the Homilies contain plain enough indications that the views entertained by most of the Reformers were held also in the Church of England, they do not exhibit distinct and definite statements of these peculiar opinions. The extent to which the Church of England is committed to the Homilies is this, that in her 35th Article she has declared that “ the second Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and whole¬ some doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies ; and . therefore we judge them to be read in churches by ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understood by the people,” — and that the 11th Article refers to one of the Homilies for a fuller setting forth of the doctrine of justi¬ fication. Now this does not necessarily imply, and has never been regarded as implying, that the Church of England took her ministers bound to believe and to teach every thing contained in these books. The Homilies were intended to furnish materials for popular instruction, and not to regulate the terms of mi¬ nisterial communion. A conscientious man, who had subscribed the Articles, would not, indeed, consider himself at liberty, without first renouncing liis position, to oppose the general scope and main substance of the views of doctrine and duty contained in the Homilies ; for, by subscribing the Articles, he has declared this to be godly and wholesome : but the most conscientious men would deny that they were committed to all and every thing contained in the Homilies. And they would take this ground, not from loose views of what subscription to symbols implies, but because they have never subscribed the Homilies, or done any thing equivalent to this. In short, what is said in the Articles about the Homilies does not make the Homilies Articles, does not raise them to the same level, does not incorporate them with that primary and fundamental symbol. The statement in the 7th Article, that “ the three Creeds ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy writ,” no doubt incorporates the Creeds with the Articles, and makes them equally binding ; but nothing like this is said about the Homilies, and therefore they stand upon a different footing. On these grounds YOL. I. 9 130 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. we contend, that an incidental statement of the doctrine of assur¬ ance in the Homilies, would not have afforded an adequate ground for Sir William’s allegation, that this doctrine “ still stands a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief.” We have now to remark, in the second place, that anything said about this doctrine in the Homilies is not only incidental, but indefinite. The principal passages bearing upon the point are these: — “For the right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe that the Holy Scriptures and all the foresaw! articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God's merciful promises, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ ; whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey His com¬ mandments.” And again : u And this [a quick or living faith] is not only the common belief of the articles of our faith, but is also a true trust and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and a stedfast hope of all things to he received at His hands.” While these statements are quite explicit in rejecting the idea that saving faith is the mere belief of the truth, they do not definitely decide in favour of any one precise view of the nature, object, and grounds of the fiducia, or trust, which they describe. When these matters came to be more exactly and elaborately discussed in the seventeenth century, distinctions were introduced and applied, which tended to throw much light upon the subject, and which now require to be known and kept in view, in order that we may form a right estimate of the true import even of the vague and indefinite statements of former writers. It may be proper to illustrate this point by a specimen or two, as it admits of extensive application. Le Blanc, professor of theo¬ logy at Sedan to the French Protestant Church, of whom we shall have afterwards occasion to speak more fully, gives the fol¬ lowing statements of the differences which have been exhibited among Protestant divines upon this subject : — “ Hie observandum est, pdiiciam apud doctores Reformatos pluribus modis sumi, adeoque plures eorum qui hac in parte diverse loquuntur, idem reapse inter se sentire ; alios vero qui videntur eodem modo loqui, revera tamen quoad sensum inter se discrepare.” If this be so, it would require a great deal more of careful and patient research than Sir William ever gave to this or to any other theological subject, to enable him to thread his way through i - Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 131 its intricacies, and to entitle him to speak with confidence of his success in doing so. Again, Le Blanc says, more particularly — “ Prsecipui vero scholae Reformat* tlieologi de fiducia varie loquuntur, dum quidarn dicunt fiduciam esse partem fidei primariam, et proprium illiu3 actum, alii vero istud negant et docent fiduciam esse quidem fidei prolem atque effectum, sed non tamen actum ejus proprie dictum ; ac practerea fiducise nomine, alii quidem istud, alii vero aliud, intelligunt.” He then mentions form different senses in which this fiducia , trust or confidence, has been understood by Protestant divines, the first two of which are thus described : — “ Primum ergo, fiducise nomine intelligitur actus- file per quem in Deum recumbimus, illi innitimur, et ei adbseremus, tanquam fonti et authori salutis, ut vitam et salutem ab eo consequamur. Secundo, fiducia apud multos designat firmam persuasionem de gratia et venia a Deo impetrata et de nostra cum eo reconciliatione.” * TruTetine explains the distinctions applicable to this matter with his usual masterly ability, in this way : — “ Diversitas quse inter orthodoxos occurrit oritur ex diversa acceptione jiducix , quse trifariam potest sumi. 1. Pro fiduciali assensu seu persuasione quse oritur ex judicio practico intellectus de veritate et bonitate promissionum evangelicarum, et de potentia, voluntate, ac fidelitate Dei promittentis. 2. Pro actu refugii et receptionis Cbristi, quo fidelis, cognita veritate et bonitate promissionum, ad Cbristum confugit, ilium recipit et amplectitur et in illius meritum unice recumbit. 3. Pro confidents seu acquiescentia et tranquilli- tate animi quse oritur ex refugio animse ad Cbristum et ejus receptione. Primo et secundo significatu fiducia est de essentia fidei et bene a theologis dicitur ejus forma ; sed tertio, recte ab aliis non forma sed effectus fidei dici- tur, quia nascitur ex ea, non vero earn constituit.”f We have made these quotations chiefly for the purpose of illus¬ trating the position, that as these distinctions were not present to the minds of the Reformers, but were the growth of later specula¬ tion, we should not attribute to them any one of these distinct and definite opinions, without specific evidence bearing upon the precise point to be proved, and should not allow ourselves to be carried away by the mere words, trust and confidence, certainty and assur¬ ance, without a full and deliberate consideration of the whole evidence bearing upon the meaning of the statements. The * Theses Sedaneuses, de fidei justi- f Loc. xv. qu. x. s. 3, v., also qu. ficantis natura et essentia, up. 213, xii. s. 4. 224. 132 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. statements may be so definite as to indicate what of the views that were subsequently developed were held by the parties under consideration or they may not. The statements of the Catechisms of Geneva and Heidelberg are so expressed, as to convey the doc¬ trine that personal assurance is of the essence of saving faith ; the Confessions of the Reformed churches do not in general teach this doctrine ; and the Homilies of the Church of England resemble more the Confessions than the Catechisms. Even if they wTere symbolical and authoritative, they would not make u assurance,” in the precise and definite sense in which Sir William here uses the word, u a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief.” Sir William’s second proof of his position is the u sixth Lam¬ beth Article.” The history of the Lambeth Articles affords an irrefragable proof that Calvinism was the generally received doc¬ trine of the great body of the highest authorities in the church and universities of England, and of the mass of the English clergy, in the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth and of the sixteenth century : while nothing is more certain and notorious than that they never received the sanction of the church in its public, official character ; that they never were imposed by any authority, civil or ecclesiastical ; and that there is not a shadow of ground for alleg¬ ing, that any Anglican clergyman is, or ever was, under any appearance of obligation to believe or teach anything contained in them, the sixth Article or any of the other eight. But even if the Lambeth Articles were symbolical and autho¬ ritative, they would not impose an obligation to teach the precise and definite doctrine which is the subject of Sir William’s allega¬ tion. The sixth Article is in these words : — u Homo vere fidelis, id est, fide justificante prseditus, certus est pleroplioria fidei, de remis- sione peccatorum suorum et salute sempiterna sua per Christum.” It would manifestly require something much more definite than this, to tie down men to the maintenance of the position, that per¬ sonal assurance is necessarily included in saving faith and belongs to its essence. It simply says, u A true believer is certain with the assurance of faith.” It does not say that every believer is so, at all times ; it defines nothing about the nature of the process by which the certainty is produced, or the ground on which it rests ; it specifies nothing of the relation subsisting between faith and assurance : and on these grounds it is totally unfit for the purpose for which Sir William referred to it. The truth is, that a man Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 133 might honestly subscribe this Lambeth Article, without being thereby committed to more than the position which, as we have explained, formed the real subject of controversy between the Reformers and the Romanists, viz., that the believer may and should he assured of his forgiveness and salvation. Sir William, however, not only asserts that assurance, in the sense in which it has been so often explained, “ still stands a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief” in the English Establishment, hut he further says, that it does so “ more articulately” in the Irish. lie gives no other references than those we have examined, to the Homilies and the Lambeth Articles, and of course none hearing upon the alleged greater “ articulateness” of the Irish Church in this matter. The truth probably was this : Sir "W illiam must have known that the Lambeth Articles are not, and never were, of any authority in the Church of England ; and he would scarcely have ventured to refer to them as establishing anything about the obligations of the clergy of that church. But he had probably read somewhere that the Lambeth Articles, though never imposed upon the Church of England, were, through Archbishop Usher s influence, sanctioned and adopted in the Church of Ireland, a statement which is true in substance, though not strictly correct ; and this was probably the whole of the knowledge on the ground of which he thought himself entitled to assert the greater articu¬ lateness of the Irish Church, and to refer to the sixth Lambeth Article. In “the Articles of Religion agreed upon by the arch¬ bishops and bishops, and the rest of the clergy of Ireland, in the Convocation holden at Dublin in the year of our Lord God 1615, the whole of the Lambeth Articles are embodied, though with some additions and verbal alterations. The subject of assurance is thus stated in No. 37, under the head “Justification and F aith :” — “ By justifying faith, we understand not only the common belief of the articles of Christian religion, and a persuasion of the truth of Gods word in general, but also a particular application of the gracious promises of the gospel to the comfort of our own souls ; whereby we lay hold on Christ with all His benefits, having an earnest trust and confidence in God, that He will be merciful to us for His only Son's sake. So that a true believer may be certain by the assurance of faith of the forgiveness of his sins, and of his everlasting salvation by Christ.”* * Hardwick's History of the Articles , Appendix, No. vi., pp. 347, 348. 134 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. It is somewhat difficult to say whether this could, with truth, be said to be more u articulate” than the statements quoted from the “ Homilies.” The first sentence does seem to embody rather more of the tone and spirit of the Catechisms of Geneva and Heidel¬ berg, though it is very far from being explicit in declaring their peculiar Hews upon this point. But then, in the second sentence, which is in substance a translation of the sixth Lambeth Article, there is an alteration which rather tells on the other side, — “ may be certain,” instead of u certus est ;” a change which confirms the view above given of the real meaning of the Article, and brings it nearer to the great fundamental Protestant position, vere fidelis potest et debet certus esse. There is nothing, then, in these Irish Articles of 1615 to commit any one who may receive and adopt them, to the doctrine that assurance is of the essence of faith. Sir William, however, probably meant the greater articulateness, which he predicated of the Irish Church, to refer to the more formal ecclesiastical sanction given to these statements in the Irish than in the English Establishment ; and our answer to this is, that for two centuries past neither the Irish Church nor any of its bishops or clergymen, have furnished any ground whatever for the allegation, that they were under any obligation to teach the doctrine of assurance, beyond what is implied in subscription to the English Articles. There was a period, indeed, when the Irish Articles, and, of course, the Lambeth Articles, were invested with some authority in Ireland, but that period was brief, and has long since gone by. An investigation into the history and standing of the Irish Articles can now possess a merely historical value, and determines no question of present duty. It is curious and interest¬ ing, however ; and we would refer those who desire full information upon this subject to Hardwick’s “History of the Articles of Reli¬ gion,” — a book which, notwithstanding its strong anti-Calvinistic prejudices, we cannot but commend most highly for ability and learning and general fairness.* We must again request our readers to notice and remember what is suggested by the fact, that Sir William made this assertion about the Churches of Eng¬ land and Ireland. But perhaps Sir William’s grandest display is to be found in the second paragraph of the passage on which we are commenting, * C. viii. and Appendix vi. Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 135 where he brings out the “ series of the most curious contrasts which “ this dogma, with its fortunes, past and present, affords.’ He swells the number of these curious contrasts, by repeating what is really one and the same idea, in two or three diffcient forms. lie gives five “ curious contrasts,’ but the first tlnee turn upon a single point, and the substance of them may be embodied in one position, which, indeed, is the sum and substance of what Sir William is most anxious to establish, viz., that the whole of the Reformed churches have not only abandoned the doctrine of assurance, the fundamental doctrine of the Reformation, but have all adopted the opposite popish doctrine, which was taught by the Council of Trent when it condemned the doctrine of the Reformers. Before adverting to this leading position, we must notice his fourth and fifth specimens of “curious contrasts.” He states them thus : — “ Again, it is curious, that this, the most important variation in the faith of Protestants, — as, in fact, a gravitation of Protestantism back to Catholicity, — should have been overlooked, as, indeed, in his days undeveloped, by the keen-eyed author of ‘ The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches. Finally, it is curious, that, though now fully developed, this central approxi¬ mation of Protestantism to Catholicity should not, as far as I know, have been signalised by any theologian, Protestant or Catholic. If this variation was “ undeveloped” in Bossuet’s time, it does not seem “curious’ that it should have been overlooked by him, even though he was “keen-eyed; ’ while we admit that it is “ curious,” if true, that “ it should not have been signalised by any theologian, Protestant or Catholic,” until Sir William Hamilton discovered and promulgated it. But the truth is, that this varia¬ tion, — for there was a doctrinal variation upon this point, though certainly it was not of such magnitude as Sir W illiam alleges, was developed in Bossuet’s time, and was not overlooked by him, but was distinctly set forth, though not much enlarged upon, m his “ History of the Variations.” Indeed, all Sir V illiam s asser¬ tions upon these points are wholly untrue. That this variation was not overlooked by Bossuet, is proved by the following extract from his “ History of the A ariations. “ Les ministres qui ont ecrit dans les derniers terns, et entr’autres, M. de Beaulieu (Le Blanc), que nous avous vu a Sedan, un des plus savans et des plus pacifique de tous les ministres, adoucissent le plus qu’ils peuvent le dogme * Liv. xiv. s. 90. 136 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. de l’inamissibilite de la justice et vieme celui de la certitude de salut: et deux raisons les y portent : la premiere est l’eloignement qu’en ont eu les Lutheriens, a qui ils veulent s’unir a quelque prix que ce soit : la seconde est l’absurdite et l’impiete qu’on decouvre dans ces dogmes, pour peu qu’ils soient penetres. . . . . Toutes les fois que nos Reformes desavouent ces dogmes impies, louons- en Dieu, et, sans disputer davantage, prions les seulement de considerer que le Saint Esprit ne pouvait pas etre en ceux qui les ont enseignes, et qui ont fait consister line grande partie de la Reforme dans de si indignes idees de la justice Chretienne.” So far from this variation not having been signalised before, it actually formed one leading subject of a controversy that was carried on between theologians of distinguished eminence, both Protestant and Romanist, before the publication of Bossuet’s “ History of the Variations;” and as this topic not only conclu¬ sively disproves Sir William’s assertions, but is fitted to throw light upon the general subject under consideration, wre will give a brief notice of the controversy referred to. In 1665, Louis le Blanc, Lord of Beaulieu, Professor of Theology in the College of the French Protestant Church at Sedan, a man of great ability and learning, published “ Theses Theologicae de Certitudine quam quis habere possit et debeat de sua coram Deo justificatione.” In these Theses, he described it as -a misrepresentation of papists, to allege that Protestants held, among other things, that personal assurance was necessarily com- prehended in justifying faith and belonged to its essence ; and explained what he held to be the doctrine generally taught by Protestants upon this subject. He represented their doctrine as being substantially this, that believers can and should be assured of their being forgiven and being in a state of grace, and that the want of this assurance was faulty and sinful ; but that this assur¬ ance was not the proper act of justifying and saving faith, and did not belong to its essence, since faith might exist for a time without it ; that it was a result or consequence of faith, posterior to it in the order of nature, and frequently also of time ; that though this assurance might be called an act of faith, it was but a secondary and reflex, not a primary and direct act of faith ; and that while the certainty attaching to this personal assurance might be called a certainty of faith, it was so named in an im¬ proper sense, since it did not rest immediately and exclusively upon what was actually contained in God’s word, but partly also upon a reflex act concerning ourselves. These are, in sub- Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 137 stance, the views, in regard to faith and assurance, which are set forth in the Westminster Confession, prepared twenty years be¬ fore ; and Le Blanc, without any parade of proofs or authorities, declared them to be then generally prevalent among Protestants. The prevalence of these views, of course, implied, and was seen and admitted to imply, a variation, or a departure from those held by the generality of the Reformers. About seven years after, in 1672, the famous Antony Aroauld, Doctor of the Sorbonne, the friend and associate of Pascal and Nicole, published his work entitled, “Le Renversement de la Morale de Jesus Christ, par les Erreurs des Calvinistes touchant la Justification and as he meant to make the doctrine of assui- ance play an important part in proving that the Calvinists over- turn the morality of Jesus Christ, he adduced at length the evidence that Calvinists teach that “ every believer is assured with the certainty of divine faith of his own justification and salvation andf he gives “ a refutation of a professor of Sedan, who had abandoned the common sentiments of his sect, concern¬ ing the certainty of divine faith, which they think that e\ ery beTiever has of his justification and salvation.” Arnauld’s evi¬ dence in support of the ascription of this opinion to Protestants is derived chiefly from the writers of the sixteenth century, and ter¬ minates with the Synod of Dort, in 1618, which, he alleges, sanctioned it ; and as Le Blanc in his Theses had not produced any authority, Arnauld, in refuting him, just referred to the evi¬ dence he had already adduced. In 1674, Le Blanc published “ Theses Theologicse de fidei justificantis natura et essentia, in quibus varise Protestantium sententke referuntur et expen duntui, et breviter refelluntur quae super ea re quidam liber recens Sci ip- tori harum Thesium imputat.” These Theses as well as the former ones were afterwards embodied in his great work com¬ monly called “ Theses Sedanenses,” of which the third edition was published at London in 1683. In these Theses concerning the nature and essence of justifying faith, he goes very fully into the whole subject, examines the authorities bearing upon it, and defends himself from the charges which Arnauld, in his “ Ren- versement ,” had brought against him, of abandoning the common views of Protestants, and of concealing and misrepresenting their * Liv. ix. c. iii. and iv. f Liy. x. c. iv. 138 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. true doctrines. Le Blanc, of course, did not deny that there had been many eminent Protestant divines who taught that personal assurance was necessarily included in saving faith. But he con¬ tended and proved, that from the time of the Reformation down¬ wards, there had always been some eminent Protestant writers who had taken a broader and more correct view of the nature of saving faith and of the relation between it and assurance, — that, in recent times, the number of divines who held this view had been progressively increasing, — that, nearly thirty years before this, it had obtained a great triumph, by being distinctly set forth in the Westminster Confession, whose sentiments upon this point had been generally approved of by Protestant writers ; and that, on all these grounds, Arnauld and the papists were acting unwar¬ rantably in asserting that the opposite view was that which had always been and still was, held by Protestants. He claims in sup¬ port of his views the concurrence of Zanchius, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Perkins, Bishop Davenant, and the other English di¬ vines who attended the Synod of Dort, Ames, Du Moulin, Walseus, Witticliius, Mestrezat, etc. Pie expresses his con¬ currence in the 7 statements of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and repeatedly refers to it* in disproof of the allegation of the Romanists, that opposite views had up till that time been generally maintained among Protestants. Le Blanc admitted that, in the earlier period, views different from his and from those of the Westminster Confession, were more generally preva¬ lent ; but he contended that, in later times, matters had changed, and the balance had turned to the other side. He, of course, did not deny that there had been a variation here in the history of Protestant doctrine, though he did not think the change which had been brought about was one of great intrinsic importance, and maintained that, from the beginning, there had been some Protestants who held the views which had ultimately gained the ascendency. This elaborate dissertation of Le Blanc was not only approved of in general by Protestant divines, but it convinced an eminent Romish theologian of that period, Le Fevre, a doctor of theology of the Faculty of Paris, that Arnauld had misrepresented Protest¬ ants, in ascribing to them generally the doctrine of assurance. He * Pp. 211, 216, 221, 222, 229. 139 Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. expressed this opinion in a work written against Protestantism ; and this again called forth the redoubtable Jansenist, who pub¬ lished, in 1682, “Le Calvinisme Convaincu de nouveau de Dogmes Xmpies contre ce qu’en on ecrit, M. Le Fevre, etc., et M. Le Blanc,” etc. In this work Arnauld went over the ground again without throwing much additional light upon it, or shaking any of Le Blanc’s main positions. In the meantime a new combatant had entered the field. This was the famous Peter Jurieu, a man of singular talents and activity, who had formerly been professor at Sedan. In 1675, he published his “ Apologie pom* la Morale des Beformes, ou Defense de leur doctrine touchant la Justification, la perseverance cles vrais saints, et la certitude que cliaque fidele peut et doit avoir de son salut,” in reply to Arnauld’s “ Renversement.” . This work Claude, the most distinguished defender of Protestantism in Fiance, pio- nounced to be u one of the finest books that had appeared since the Reformation ” The first two books of it treat of justification and perseverance, and the third and last of certitude or assurance. He takes very much the same ground as Le Blanc, denying that Arnauld was entitled to charge upon Protestants in general the doctrine that assurance is of the essence of faith, though admitting that this doctrine was extensively taught among them in the six¬ teenth century. He adduces a portion of the e\ idence of this, ie f erring to Le Blanc’s Theses for additional testimonies, and shows very ably and ingeniously, that neither the earlier nor the latei doctrine was chargeable with the odious consequences which Arnauld had laboured to fasten upon them. He takes some pains to bring out the difference between the belief men have in articles of faith, and the assurance they have of their own forgiveness, and to show that men might doubt about their salvation without ceas¬ ing to be true believers. He exposes very ably and cone lash ely the futility of the attempt of Arnauld to draw an argument in favour of popery from the concessions made by Le Blanc and others, as to the variations in the doctrine of Protestants, and ev en an approximation again in some minor doctrinal matters to the Church of Rome ; and points out the folly of making so much ado about differences of so little intrinsic importance as those which had been exhibited, or might still subsist, among Protestants on the subject of assurance. Le Blanc and Jurieu were both men of very fine talents and 140 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. of extensive learning. Both have rendered important services to the cause of truth, and both have also done it some injury. Le Blanc had a great desire to reconcile the differences of contending sects and parties, and laboured to show that the points of difference among them, when calmly and deliberately examined, were not of great importance, and resolved many of them into mere logomachies. He applied this principle to some of the topics controverted between Protestants and Papists, and not merely to topics so unimportant, comparatively, as assurance, but even to some branches of the great doctrine of justification, — a circumstance of which Nicole has skil¬ fully availed himself in his work entitled, u Prejuges Legitimes centre les Calvinistes.” As Le Blanc brought extensive theological learning, and a singularly ingenious and discriminating mind, to bear upon this subject, his “ Theses Sedanenses” must be regarded as a dangerous book for the young student of theology, who might be in danger of being misled by it into an under-estimate of the im¬ portance of having clear views and definite convictions upon many topics usually discussed in polemic divinity ; while it is certainly a work of the very highest value to the more mature theologian. Jurieu is probably very much under-estimated by those whose knowledge of him lias been derived, not from the perusal of his own writings, but from other sources. His reputation lias suffered greatly in consequence of his having quarrelled with Bayle, who, after having formerly praised him and his writings in the highest terms, pilloried him through the whole of his Dictionary, mak¬ ing frequent occasions for assaulting him. Jurieu had some qualities which laid him open to such assaults. With great ability and penetration, and great mental energy and activity, he had a rashness and recklessness about him that often led him into scrapes, and affored many a handle to his enemies, — to personal enemies, as Bayle, — or to opponents in controversy, as Bossuet. He threw himself with such eagerness into every one of the many contro¬ versies in which he encased, that he seemed for the time to see everything through that medium, appeared to contend for victory quite as much as for truth, and was ever anxious to turn every thing to the account of the present controversial occasion. All this produced sometimes a carelessness and rashness both in the statement of facts and in the employment of arguments, which his friends could not defend, and which his enemies skilfully improved. Tins was just the kind of man whom Bayle was peculiarly qualified Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 141 to expose ; and he lias done liis best to turn his opportunities to good account. But all who are acquainted with J urieu s works, know that he was a man of very fine powers, that he has rendered very valuable services to truth in the discussion of some important questions, and has inflicted some deadly wounds even upon such opponents as Bossuet, Arnauld, and Nicole. Though his reputa¬ tion has been damaged by Bayle’s Dictionary, yet the mischief has been in some measure repaired by a very full, elaborate, and in¬ teresting life, in which justice is done him, in Chauffepie s Supple¬ ment to Bayle.* Arnauld, Le Blanc, and Juneu, are all first-class names in theological literature. Their labours ought to have been known to a man of Sir William’s pretensions, and yet we have seen that he has asserted, that a topic which formed a subject of formal and lengthened controversy between them, was unnoticed and unknow n until it was u signalised” by himself. We could easily prove that this variation has been u signalised” by many theologians. Lut it is unnecessary to dwell upon this point. We shall quote one specimen, as it embodies at the same time a good summary of the chief reasons that tended to produce the change. It is taken from a common work of an eminent divine, published in the latter part of the seventeenth century, u Marckii Compendium Theologias.” f “Non diffitendum interim, de hac ipsa fiduciali applicationediversum sen- tire quoque nostros. Dum antiquiores juxta catachesim nostram faciunt liunc Actum fidei essentialem, ad justificationem et salutem necessarium, sed non absque antecedenti amplexu et connexa resipiscentia concipiendum ; Recentiores vero plures voluntpotius esse earn fidei ipsius et justificationis con- sequens, quod abesse possit, fide et salute manente, 1. Turn obmultorum \ere Christum apprehendentium perpetuas dubitationes ; 2. Turn ad vitandas magis Pontificiorum, Arminianorum, et schismaticorum strophas, qui vel homines ad securitatem hoc fidei actu duci, vel obligari ad falsurn credendum cum remissio fidem sequatur, vel pro omnibus juxta hoc officium credendi mortuum esse Christum, clamant ; 8. Turn denique, quod hsec fiducia magis Dei beneficium speciale paucioribus proprium, quarn officium commune sit.” We should now proceed to the more formal consideration of the leading position which, as we have seen, forms the substance of Sir William’s first three “ curious contrasts,” — viz., that the whole of the Reformed churches have not only abandoned the * Yol. iii. f C. xxii. sec. 23. 142 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. doctrine of assurance, the fundamental doctrine of the Reforma¬ tion, but have all adopted the popish doctrine which was taught by the Council of Trent, when it condemned the doctrine of the Reformers. But we are prevented from going so fully into the discussion of this position as we would have liked to have done, and had collected materials for doing. We have now only space for a few hints. Sir William calls the doctrine of assurance — that is, of course, the doctrine that assurance of personal salvation is necessarily in¬ cluded in saving faith — the “ fundamental principle of all the churches of the Reformation,” “the common and differential,” “ the primary and peculiar,” doctrine of the Reformation. Some of the Reformers made strong and exaggerated statements about the importance of their peculiar opinions upon this point ; and Nicole, and other old popish controversialists, in dealing, as with a known and familiar thing, with that variation, which was un¬ known to all theologians until Sir William “signalised” it, have endeavoured to show that a change upon a topic so important should have led men to return to the Church of Rome. Yet neither Reformers nor Romanists, even in the heat of controversy, have ever put forth such extravagant exaggerations upon this point as those we have quoted from Sir William. To represent the doc¬ trine of assurance as “the fundamental principle of all the churches of the Reformation,” carries absurdity upon the face of it. From the very nature of the case, no doctrine upon such a subject could be the fundamental principle of the Re¬ formed churches. If the Reformers had been contented, as they should have been, with asserting the general position that be¬ lievers can and should be assured of their own salvation, and if the Romanists had ventured to meet this general position with a direct and unqualified negative, even in that case, no sound- minded man, whatever he might have been tempted to say in the heat of controversy, could have deliberately regarded this differ¬ ence as fundamental. But while this was really and practically the controversy between them, yet, as we have explained, the formal or technical ground of contention was reduced within still narrower limits, — the papists professing to deny the doctrine of their opponents only with this explanation, that by assurance they meant the infallible certainty of divine faith, by which men be¬ lieved the great doctrines of religion ; and many of the Reformers, Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 143 injudiciously and incautiously accepting this explanation, and bring¬ ing forward the notion that personal assurance is necessarily in¬ cluded in saving faith, as an argument in support of it. The controversy thus turned in form upon the kind or measure of the certainty attaching to men’s convictions on the subject of their owrn state and prospects, and the grounds on which the actual certainty contended for might be established. It is impossible that any particular doctrine upon such points as these could u have been constituted into the fundamental principle of all the churches of the Reformation and, therefore, Sir William’s position might be safely and reasonably rejected, even by those who have no great knowledge of these matters. Sir William plainly asserts, that a precise and definite doctrine upon this subject was, in opposition to the Reformers, laid down by the Council of Trent, and that this popish doctrine has now been adopted by all the Protestant churches. But this notion, though not altogether destitute of an apparent plausibility, has no real foundation in truth. It is no doubt true that in so far as there has been a deviation from the views generally held by the Reformers, it lias proceeded in a direction which tends to diminish the differences between Protestants and papists. But, indeed, it can scarcely be said with truth, that either the Reformed Churches or the Church of Rome were formally and officially committed to any very definite doctrine upon this subject. There is nothing, as we have seen, precise and definite upon this topic in the Con¬ fessions of the Reformed churches. There is nothing so definite in any of the Calvinistic Confessions of the sixteenth century, in favour of assurance being of the essence of saving faith, as there is in the Westminster Confession on the other side. With respect to the deliverances of the Council of Trent upon this subject, we have to remark, 1st, That they condemned several positions which had not been laid down by the Reformed churches, but merely put forth by individual Reformers, and which Protestants, both at the time and since, have thought untenable and exaggerated ; 2d. That a difference of opinion existed in the council itself, and that this prevented their giving any very definite, positive deliverance. Catharinus, one of the most eminent divines of that period, maintained in the council views upon the subject of assurance substantially the same as those held by the generality of the Reformers ; he continued to hold these views ; and after all the 144 THE REFORMERS • [Essay III. deliverances of the council had been passed, he maintained that none of his positions had been condemned, and that he was still at liberty to profess them. Indeed, while the whole tone and spirit of the deliverances of the council upon this subject is adverse to the views of the Reformers, its chief formal deliverance is just this, “ Nullus scire valet certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse falsum , se gratiam Dei esse consecutum ; ”* where the matter is thrown back very much upon the point, that the certainty claimed is the certainty of faith, and where some additional materials for me¬ taphysical speculation are provided, by the clause we have put in italics. The view we have given of these points, in their bearing upon the state of the question, is fully confirmed by what we find in Cardinal Bellarmine when treating of this topic.f After admitting the existence of different opinions on the subject in the Council of Trent and in the Church of Rome, he gives this as the doctrine held by the great body of Romish theologians in opposition to the errors both of Protestants and Romanists, “ Non posse homines in hac vita habere certitudinem fidei de sua justitia, iis exceptis quibus Deus speciali revelatione hoc indicare dignatur ; ” and in giving more formally the state of the question, he puts it in this way, “ Utrum debeat aut possit aliquis sine speciali revelatione, certus esse certitudine fidei divinae, cui nullo modo potest subesse falsum , sibi remissa esse peccata.” Here we see the controversialist stands intrenched behind the “ certitudo fidei1 divinae cui nullo modo,” etc., and calls upon his opponent to prove that the certitude or assurance to which he lays claim, is possessed of such qualities, and is based upon such grounds, as these phrases are understood to indicate. But while the great popish controversialist takes care at first to intrench himself behind these safeguards, he afterwards brings out somewhat more fully and freely, though still not without precaution, what he and Romish writers in general have inculcated upon this point, i He lays down and under¬ takes to prove the four following positions : “ 1. Non posse haberi certitudinem fidei de propria justitia,” — a denial of the Protestant “potest;” 2- “ Neminem teneri ad illam habendam etiamsi forte posset haberi,” — a denial of the Protestant “ debet 3. “ Non expedire ut ordinarie habeatur 4. “ Reipsa non haberi * Sess. vi. c. ix. t De Justific. lib. iii., c. ii. et iii. t C. viii. Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 145 nisi a paucis, quibus a Deo specialiter justificatio propria reve- latur.” These positions formed then, and in substance they form still, the real points of divergence between Protestants and Papists upon the subject of assurance. The technicalities of the controversy are somewhat altered , while its substance remains the same. The grand question still is, as it has always been, Is it practicable, obligatory, and expedient, that believers should be assured of their justification and salvation? Upon this question the Reformed churches have always maintained, and still maintain, the affirma¬ tive ; while the Romanists, for obvious reasons, have always taken the other side. Modern Protestants, as the result of a more careful, deliberate, and unembarrassed examination of the subject, than the Reformers were able to give to it, have become indifferent about the question, whether this assurance should be called the certainty of faith, or have plainly admitted that this designation was an improper one ; and they have modified also an extreme view about the precise relation subsisting between assurance and saving faith, — a view which seems to have been suggested by a desire to establish the warrantableness of this designation. This is really the sum and substance of the variation, — of the change which has taken place. We are confident that no one who is competently acquainted until this subject, and who surveys the history of the discussions regarding it, with calmness and deliberation, can fail to see that this is the true state of the case. And if this, or anything like this, be indeed the true state of the case, what an extraordinary misrepresentation must be the view given of the matter by Sir William Hamilton ! His view is to be exposed and overthrown by establishing these two positions : 1st, That, from the nature of the case, no doctrine upon the subject of assurance could have been the fundamental principle of the Reformers ; and, 2d, That the difference between the Reformers and the generality of modern Protestant divines is not one of fundamental importance, even when regarded merely in its relation to this non-fundamental sub¬ ject, and, of course, sinks into insignificance when viewed in its relation to the general system of Protestant doctrine. Sir William seems to have been half conscious of this ; and therefore he makes an attempt, in conclusion, to involve the great Protestant doctrine of justification in one common ruin with the comparatively small doctrine of assurance. He represents it as a YOL. i. 10 146 THE REFORMERS [Essay III. consequence of the change which he alleges has taken place in the views of Protestants in regard to assurance, that u the Protestant symbol (‘Fides sola justificat, — Faith alone justifies’), though now eviscerated of its real import, and now only manifesting an unim¬ portant difference of expression, is still supposed to mark the dis¬ crimination of the two religious denominations. For both agree that the three heavenly virtues must all concur to salvation, and they only differ, whether faith, as a word, does or does not involve hope and charity.” This would he the most dangerous of all Sir William’s misrepresentations, were it not rendered innocuous by its extravagance. Even if the deviation from the views of the Reformers, and the return to popish notions upon the subject of assurance, had been as great as Sir William represents it, this would not have affected the differences between Protestants and Romanists upon anything really involved in the doctrine of justi¬ fication. Sir William’s statement, though applied only to the doctrine that faith alone justifies, seems fitted and intended to convey the impression, that the whole Protestant doctrine of justi¬ fication has been exploded and abandoned ; and, therefore, the first remark we have to make upon it is this, — that there are some im¬ portant differences between Protestants and Romanists on the sub¬ ject of justification which are not directly touched even by the position, that faith alone justifies. We refer, of course, to the vitally important questions, 1st, as to the meaning and import, and, 2d, as to the cause, or ground, or foundation, of justification. Even though the doctrine that faith alone justifies were u eviscer¬ ated,” Protestants might and should maintain their whole contro¬ versy with Romanists upon these fundamental points. We remark, in the second place, that all that is important in the Protestant doctrine, as comprehended under the head that faith alone justifies, is untouched by any change that has taken, or could, take place, in regard to assurance. The two main questions usually discussed between Protestants and Romanists under this head are these : 1st, Is there anything else in men themselves which stands in the same relation to justification as faith does ? — Protestants answering this question in the negative, and Papists contending that there are six other virtues, as they call them, including, of course, hope and charity, which stand in the veiy same relation to justification. Protestants admitted that all these virtues do and must exist in justified men, and might thus, in a sense, be said, to use Sir Wil- Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 147 Ham’s phrase, “ to concur to salvation but they wholly denied that they have any such bearing as faith has upon the justification of a sinner. 2d, In what capacity or respect is it that faith jus¬ tifies ? Is it as an instrument, or as a condition, or as a meri¬ torious cause ? Surely it is quite plain, that, even if a man had come to believe all that is taught by the Council of Trent upon the subject of assurance, he might still, without any inconsis¬ tency, maintain all the doctrines of the Reformers upon these important points. Sir William adverts to the fact, that the deviation from the views of the Reformers upon the subject of assurance, which he represents as an abandonment of “ the fundamental principle of all the Reformed churches,” is embodied in the Westminster Confession ; and yet there can be no doubt that the whole doc¬ trine of the Reformers upon the subject of justification is set forth with most admirable fulness and precision in the lltli chapter of that document, while no ingenuity, however great, could devise even a plausible pretence for alleging that there is any inconsistency in this. We have some apprehension that the controversial spirit is rising and swelling in our breast, and therefore we abstain from making any reflections upon the extraordinary inaccuracies which wTe have considered it our duty to unfold. But we would like to attempt something in the way of expounding and inculcating the great truth taught in Scripture, and set forth in the West¬ minster Confession, upon the subject of assurance. That it is practicable, obligatory, and expedient, that believers should be assured of their justification and salvation, was, not certainly, u the fundamental principle of all the Reformed churches,” but the fundamental principle of the teaching of the Reformed churches on the subject of assurance. It is fully and clearly declared in the Westminster Confession. It has been held professedly by the whole body of Calvinistic divine's, both before and since the varia¬ tion which Sir William has signalised. And yet we fear it has at all times been too much neglected, both theoretically and practi¬ cally, viewed both as declaring a truth and enforcing a duty. We believe that the prevailing practical disregard of the privilege and the duty of having assurance, is, to no inconsiderable extent, at once the cause and the effect of the low state of vital religion o amongst us — one main reason why there is so little of real com- 148 REFORMERS AND DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. [Essay III. munion with. God as our reconciled Father, and so little of real, hearty devotedness to His cause and service. Some sense of the sin and danger of neglecting this subject occasionally arises in men’s minds, and is, from time to time, pressed upon the notice of the church, but in many cases such attempts have only led to con¬ troversial discussions, and have failed in producing any beneficial practical results. It is not easy to keep the exact high road of truth ; and men, filled with some one important idea or object, are very apt to run into exaggerations and extremes. Upon no sub¬ ject has this been more conspicuously the case than on that of assurance ; partly, perhaps, because of the influence of Luther, Calvin, and their associates. It has happened repeatedly in the history of the church, that pious and zealous men, impressed with the importance of getting a larger share of attention to the subject of assurance, have been led into the adoption of untenable and erroneous positions concerning it. Then the champions of ortho¬ doxy have budded on them armour, and have demonstrated by irrefragable logic, that these positions are characterised by, it may be, confusion, inconsistency, and error ; and then men, satisfied upon this point, settle down again upon their lees, and think no more of the importance of coming to a decisive adjustment upon the question as to what is their present relation to God, and what are their future prospects. This is the abuse, not the use of con¬ troversy. The uses of theological controversy are, to expose error, and to produce and diffuse clear and correct opinions upon all points of doctrine. It is the church’s imperative duty to aim at these objects, and controversy seems to be as indispensable with a view to the second as to the first of them. But it is an evil and an abuse, when the exposure of error is made to serve as a substi¬ tute for the realization and application of wdiat is admitted to be true. This has repeatedly, in the history of the church, taken place in regard to the subject of assurance ; and this result, again, has, we are persuaded, been productive of injurious consequences to the interests of true religion, and tended to keep the church at a low point in the scale of devotedness and efficiency. MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OE ENGLAND.* These are two great works, of permanent value, and must be regarded as most important accessions to the theological literature of the present age. They are, indeed, almost wholly republications of books which have been in existence for nearly three centuries. But many of the books of which they are composed were so scarce as to be practically inaccessible, and they are now brought within the reach of all, and provided fully with every necessary literary apparatus. Bretschneider of Gotha started the idea of editing and publishing a complete Corpus Beformatorum, and began with putting forth, in 1834, the first volume of the whole writings of Melancthon. The work proceeded very slowly, one volume onl) being usually published annually. Bretschneider died during its progress, and the work has very recently been brought to a close under the superintendence of Bindseil, who is professor of philo¬ sophy and librarian at Halle. The last volume, the twenty-eighth, was just ready in time to admit of its being deposited in the founda¬ tion-stone of the pedestal of a brazen statute of Melancthon, erected at Wittembcrg, on the 19th of April last, the tricentenary anniversary of his death. "We do not know whether the works of any more of the Reformers are to be brought out in the same style, * British and Foreign Evangelical The Works of the Parker Society. Review, Jan. 1861. 1841-1855. Philippi Melanthonis Opera qihe supersunt omnia. 1834- 1860. 150 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. and with similar completeness and apparatus. It would certainly be an inestimable service to theological literature to produce such an edition of the whole works of the other leading Reformers. But the length of time that has been occupied with the publication of Melancthon is somewhat discouraging. It is a great boon, however, to have given us such an edition of the whole works of the “ Preceptor of Germany.” The Parker Society was instituted in 1840, u for the publica¬ tion of the works of the fathers and early writers of the Reformed English Church and in the course of fourteen years gave to the ■world fifty-five volumes of most interesting and valuable matter, including a most important collection of Letters not before published, which had been written by the English Reformers to their continental correspondents, and have been preserved in different libraries, but especially in that of Zurich. The Parker Society was instituted, and its proceedings were conducted, under the influence of decidedly anti-Tractarian views. It was intended to bring out the predominance of the doctrinal and evangelical element, as opposed to the sacramental, the hierarchic, and the ritualistic, among the founders of the Church of England, — the thoroughly anti-popish character of the whole position they assumed, — their full sympathy in spirit and feeling, and their substantial identity in opinion, with the continental Reformers ; in short, to make it palpable that the Church of England, as settled in the time of Edward and Elizabeth, was very different, in the most important respects, from what it was made by Charles and Laud, and from what the Tractarians have again attempted to make it. The works of the Parker Society contain a great storehouse of matter of the highest value and importance, viewed both historically and theologically. As a whole, they thoroughly establish the true historical position of the Church of England, as settled by its fathers and founders ; and, at the same time, furnish materials amply sufficient to prove, that the great leading anti- Popisli, anti-Tractarian, evangelical features of its constitution, in so far as they agreed with those of the continental Reformed churches, are truly scriptural and primitive. A similar work was attempted, and to a considerable extent executed, in the early part of this century, by the Rev. Leigh Richmond, whose pastoral labours and popular writings were so largely blessed. When it was attempted to put down the piety Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 151 and orthodoxy that grew up so remarkably in the Church of England, in the end of the last and the beginning of the present century, by the allegation, that those who held evangelical and Calvinistic views might indeed be Methodists and Dissenters, but could not be regarded as true Churchmen, it was thought proper to bring out the evidence, that the fathers and founders of the Church of England,— the great body of the most influential divines of that church during the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, not only held what are commonly reckoned evangelical views con¬ cerning the doctrines of grace, but were chiefly decided, though moderate, Calvinists. With this view Mr Richmond undertook, with the assistance of some friends, to edit a republication of “ The Fathers of the English Church.” This work was published in portions from 1807 to 1812, it was completed in eight volumes, and exerted an extensive and wholesome influence. It is, of course, greatly inferior in extent and completeness, and in its literary apparatus, to the works of the Parker Society. But there is one point in which it has the advantage of its successor, \iz., in going back to the men who suffered for their Protestanism in the reign of Henry VIII. The Parker Society restricted itself, with the exception of Tyndale, to works published after the accession of Edward, whereas Richmond’s “Fathers of the English Church gives us the works of Frith, Barnes, Lancelot Ridley, and otlieis, who were confessors or martyrs under Henry, who are on e\ eiy account deserving of the highest respect and esteem, and who have left behind them unequivocal evidence that they had embraced the whole substance of the theological views of Augustine and Calvin. The Parker Society, by its invaluable series of publications, may be said to have finally established beyond the possibility of answer, the true theological views and position of the great body of the fathers and founders of the Church of England ; to have proved conclusively, that nearly all the Anglican Protestant divines who flourished during the reign of Edward and Elizabeth were, like the Reformers of the continent, Calvinistic in their doctrinal views, and that they did not reckon of much importance, or defend confidently and on high grounds, the points on which the Church of England differed, as to government and worship, from the con¬ tinental churches. Men who have been trained up in the denial of these positions may continue to adhere to their old prejudices ; 152 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. but we scarcely think it possible that another generation can grow up in the disbelief of them, unless great care be taken to shut out everything like intelligent, independent, and candid investigation. In the discussions which have taken place in regard to the theological views that prevailed among the founders of the Church of England, and might, therefore, be supposed to be embodied in her public symbols, Melancthon has usually had much prominence assigned to him, and has been turned to great account, especially by those who were anxious to disprove the opinion upon this sub¬ ject which we have represented as now fully established. He has been employed, as a sort of medium of probation, for showing that the founders of the Church of England were not Calvinists. It has been strenuously contended, that the men who prepared and established the Anglican symbols had adopted the theological views of Melancthon, and that his views were opposed to those of Calvin and the other Reformers. It is in this way that the republica¬ tion of Melancthon’ s works, and the series of works by the Parker Society, are historically connected with each other; so that we must take them both into account in seeking to form a right estimate of the original theology of the Church of England, and especially of its accordance with that of the generality of the Re¬ formers. Before attempting some explanation of this matter, it may be proper to point out somewhat fully the position, influence, and tendencies of Melancthon, in a theological point of view. For nearly the whole of Luther’s public life, Melancthon, who was one of his colleagues in the University of Wittemberg, was closely and intimately associated with him in all his labours, and undoubtedly rendered important services to the cause of the Refor¬ mation and the interests of Protestant truth. It would be easy enough to point out how much benefit resulted to the Church, from the influence upon each other and upon their common cause, of these two men, acting together with the utmost harmony during a long period, though so strikingly different from each other both in talents and character, both in gifts and graces. But we cannot dwell upon this. Melancthon’s actions and writings do not afford nearly such abundant materials as Luther’s do, that furnish a handle to his enemies to depreciate his character; though his friends, that is, the friends of the Reformation, have beeu perhaps more perplexed as to the way in which they ought to estimate and represent it. In many respects he was a perfect contrast to Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 153 Luther. He had none of Luther’s vehemence and impetuosity of temperament, none of his presumption and self-confidence. He had less, not only than Luther, but than the generality of men, of irritability and pugnacity ; and on all these accounts he both in¬ curred less personal enmity, and has left scarcely any materials in the way of violent invective, intemperate language, rash and exaggerated statements, to be collected by his enemies, and paraded to the injury of his character. There is scarcely anything that gives so much advantage to a man’s enemies as the use of intem¬ perate language, or that affords more ready and more plausible materials for exciting a prejudice against him. And as Melanc- tlion did not indulge in this practice, his reputation has not been exposed to the same rude assaults which have been so often directed against Luther’s. A recent popish publication says that all the Reformers, w ith 'perhaps the exception of Melancthon, were coarse hypocrites, while the fact is, that there are much more plausible grounds for charging Melancthon with hypocrisy than any one of them, if by that be meant keeping back his real opinions, and acting as if they were different from what they were. The character of Melancthon is one which it is indeed very diffi¬ cult to describe with fairness and accuracy ; and, with the materials we possess, it would be an easy matter for an ingenious person to draw two different sketches of him, which might represent him in very different lights, and which yet might both possess not only plau¬ sibility, but a considerable portion of truth. Bossuet has de\ oted the 5th book of his “History of the Variations to Melancthon, and has exerted his great skill and ingenuity in exaggerating and aggravating all his weaknesses and infirmities, in putting the voist construction upon all his shortcomings in word and deed, and thus producing the most unfavourable impression of his charactei and motives ; and the various features which he has introduced into the picture, can be all supported by a certain amount of plausible evidence. On the other hand, Scott, in his very valuable con¬ tinuation of “ Milner,” * gives his general opinion of Melancthon in the following words : — “ On the whole, after reading nearly two thousand of his letters and numerous others of his papers and writings, I confess that I cannot but regard him as one of the * Vol. ii. p. 150. 154 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. loveliest specimens of tlie grace of God ever exhibited in our fallen nature.” And though this may surely be regarded as somewhat of an exaggerated statement, yet we have no doubt that Scott has given such explanations of what seems at first sight most objec¬ tionable in Melancthon’s public conduct, especially in regard to the Interim, and has produced such abundant and satisfactory materials in proof of his personal excellence, as to afford conclu¬ sive evidence to any person of candour and impartiality, that he was not only a man of genuine piety and decided Christian prin¬ ciple, but that he was eminently distinguished by the unusual de¬ gree in which he possessed and exhibited some, though certainly not all, of the graces of the Christian character. But our object is not to settle what Melancthon’s character was, or to describe it and show it forth. It is rather to indicate some of the lessons which a survey of his character and history may be fitted to suggest to students of theology and to ministers of the gospel. And this, were it to be done at length and in detail, would be a task of considerable difficulty. It brings us at once into contact with what is by far the most serious and important difficulty, in surveying the history of the church and of theological discussions, viz., hitting the right medium in judging of men and actions, between bigotry on the one hand, and latitudinarianism on the other ; between sanctioning, on the one side, a contentious and pugnacious spirit, leading men unnecessarily to disturb the peace of the church by fighting for points which are unimportant in themselves, which divide the friends of Christ’s cause, and which there may be no very obvious and urgent call to contend for in existing circumstances ; and sanctioning, on the other, the selfish and cowardly disposition, combined with an inadequate sense of the claims of truth, which so often leads men to decline contending when contending is a duty even at all hazards, under pretence that the matters in dispute are unimportant. Both tendencies have been very fully exhibited in the history of the church, and in their practical operation have been fraught with the greatest mischief. The tendency to latitudinarian indifference is usually exhibited when religion is in a low or declining condition. The tendency to unnecessaiy contention about matters unimportant in them¬ selves, or not coming home to our circumstances, and not requiring at the time to be contended for, is usually a symptom of a some¬ what more healthy condition of things — a condition in which Satan Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 155 scarcely ventures to attempt, in tlie first instance, to seduce men into latitudinarian indifference to truth, but seeks rather to take advantage of their zeal for truth, combined, of course, as it is in all men, with the operation of inferior motives, to involve them in unnecessary contentions about unimportant matters, that 'waste their strength and energy, that lead the love of many to wax cold ; and thus tend to bring on that low and declining state of leligion in which the opposite policy of tempting men into latitudinal ian indifference to truth may be tried with success, and tried with the more success, because of the natural reaction from the lov, -minded and offensive bigotry that preceded it. On this general ground, we are persuaded that unnecessary contentions about matters w hicli do not deserve, or do not at the time require, to be contended foi, is the temptation with which good and pious men, occupying public situations, are most apt to be beset, and against which, therefore, they ought most carefully to guard. Latitudinarian indifference to truth does not very easily find its way into the hearts of men, who have any real sense of divine things and of their own responsibility to Giod, and who are raised by Christian principle above the influence of selfish and worldly moth es in tlieii grosser and more palpable forms ; whereas there are many worldly and selfish motives, neither so low in themselves, nor so palpable in their ordinary operation, as the love of money, which aie \ ei \ apt to mingle with men’s zeal for truth, and tend to inv ol\ e them in the guilt of being wanton disturbers of the peace, or obstructors of the unity and harmony, of the church. And the instances hav e always been, and still are, numerous and deplorable, in which a few men, influenced probably in the main by pious and creditable motives, but generally possessing somewhat less than the ordinary share of good sense and sound judgment, and more than the 01 di¬ nary share of vanity and self-conceit, by taking up and fighting some point, perhaps unimportant in itself, or not lying within the sphere of their responsibility, have gained for themselves some notoriety, and have succeeded in doing a good deal of mischief. These reflections, of course, have suggested themselves rather in the way of contrast with those which the case of Melancthon is more directly and immediately fitted to call forth. Melancthon mi questionably exhibited the opposite, or latitudinarian, extreme of compromising or sacrificing the claims of truth ; and it is as a warning against this danger, that his example ought to be chiefly 156 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. and most directly applied. But we have thought it proper to make these observations, that it might not he supposed that the danger of imbibing his spirit, and of following his example, is the only one against which men are called upon to guard, or that there is no risk of good men being tempted to engage in unnecessary conten¬ tion, or in wanton disturbance of the peace and harmony of the church. The great error and sin of Melancthon was, that in order to put an end to contention, and to promote peace and union, he was tempted, upon a variety of occasions, to do or to give his consent to what plainly amounted to a compromise or sacrifice of scriptural doctrine, — to a sinking or abandoning of a testimony which he was called upon to bear for God’s truth. This appeared chiefly in the form of his being willing to slur over important truths in vague and general expressions, which might be adopted by different parties who were not really agreed ; and this not for the purpose of ascertaining how far parties who confessedly differed, and who still meant to keep up a distinct testimony upon the points in which they differed, agreed with each other, — for this, in certain circumstances, might be both lawful and expedient, nay, even obligatory, — but with the express and avowed object of the parties uniting together upon the footing of abandoning any other public testimony for truth than the very vague and general one in which they might have come to agree. This, of course, was the object aimed at in all the conferences and negotiations which he had with the Romanists, and in all the discussions which took place with regard to the Interim. And this is a course that is generally full of peiil and beset with temptation — temptation to be unfaithful to the truth to which men have been enabled to attain, and which it is still incumbent upon them to hold fast and to set forth. No one, indeed, would deny, as an abstract truth, that indivi¬ duals and churches may have been led in providence to assert and to embody, in their public profession, truths which, though it was at the time a duty to contend for them because they were openly impugned, are yet not of so much intrinsic importance as to autho¬ rise their being made permanently grounds of division and separa¬ tion ; and that, therefore, it is an open question for individuals and churches to consider occasionally, as they may seem called in providence, whether the maintenance of some particular doctrine, as a part of their public profession, should continue to prevent their miion with others with whom, on other points, they are Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 157 agreed. But though it would he manifestly absurd to deny this as a general position, its practical application is attended w itli gi c at difficulty, and requires much care and caution, much prudence and circumspection. The practical question in such cases will usually turn mainly upon the point, whether the dropping a truth from a public profession, or wrapping it up in more vague and general terms, really amount, in the circumstances, to a virtual denial of it, or involve, in any way, a dereliction of the duty which men owe to it. And when the question is brought to this point, there are usually strong temptations, covered over with plausible pretences, which are likely to lead men to compromise truths which they ought to have maintained. Melancthon, probably, would never have been prevailed upon to renounce or deny, in words, any of the doctrines of the Augs¬ burg Confession, but he was tempted, again and again, to do what, in all fair and honest construction, amounted to a virtual renuncia¬ tion or denial of them, though, no doubt, he did not regard it in that light. And, indeed, the great lesson which his conduct is fitted to impress upon us is this, that in certain combinations of circumstances, there is great danger that even good men may be tempted, from a desire of peace and unity, to compromise the truth of God which had been committed to them, and that against this danger, and everything that might lead to it, we are lequired most carefully to guard. There can be no doubt that an unsciip- tural longing for peace and unity — for there is such a thing, springing, of course, not from pure Christian love, but from the infusion of some carnal and worldly motives and influences, or from mere natural temperament — has, on a variety of occasions, led to corruption and compromise of God s truth, on the part both of individuals and churches. And we are thus reminded that, in so far as concerns the discharge of the duty which we owe to God’s truth, we are surrounded with dangers upon the right hand and the left, and that we have much need to examine carefully the motives by which we may be influenced in these matters, and to seek and depend upon divine guidance and direction — practis¬ in'1-, indeed, because of the abounding difficulties of the subject, much forbearance in judging of others, and exercising much rigour in judging of ourselves. The grievous shortcomings of Melancthon in this matter, his beiim so often led into what amounted to a virtual betrayal or 158 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. compromise of truth, have been usually ascribed to the timidity of his disposition. But this is to be taken with some explanation. There is no reason to believe that Melancthon dreaded any tem¬ poral consequences to himself, or that he was influenced by a re¬ gard to any selfish or worldly considerations in the gross and open form in which they usually present themselves to men’s minds — in other words, by anything really inconsistent with moral inte¬ grity. He was afraid of the evils of contention, and he was afraid of injuring the cause which he loved ; and these motives, good in themselves, but operating with unreasonable and undue force, and leading to an inadequate sense of the claims of divine truth, and of the responsibility connected with its full and honest maintenance, and tending to exclude a due measure of reliance upon God’s providence and promises, led him into those compro¬ mises by which he grievously injured truth and damaged his own reputation. In this way he has become useful to the church, partly, at least, by exhibiting to future generations a striking warning, that even good men, who are raised above the influence of fear and selfishness in their gross and palpable forms, may yet, through certain weaknesses and infirmities, be led to do much injury to the cause which they sincerely desire, and would be vail¬ ing at all merely personal sacrifices, to promote. Luther has given a most interesting testimony to Melancthon' s superiority to fear and worldliness, in all matters that concerned himself personally, while he thought him unnecessarily and weakly anxious about the public cause ; and we have also a similar testi¬ mony from Calvin, in a letter addressed to Melancthon himself, while faithfully expostulating with him about his conduct in the adiaphoristic controversy — a letter which is most honourable to its author, while it does ample justice to him to whom it was ad¬ dressed. “ Though I am confidently persuaded you never were driven by the fear of death to turn aside a hairbreadth from the line of duty, yet it is possible your mind may be open to the influ¬ ence of fear of a different description. I know how you shrink from the charge of a repulsive rigidity and stiffness. But remem¬ ber the servant of Christ must make light when duty requires it of his reputation, as well as his life. Not that I am so little acquainted with you, or so unjust to you, as to think you like vainglorious and ambitious men, dependent upon the breath of popular applause. But I doubt not you are sometimes subject to Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 159 compunctious visitings of tliis kind : — ‘ Is it the part of a wise and considerate man to divide the church for trifles? Is not peace so precious, that it deserves to be purchased at the price of some inconveniences ? "YVTiat madness is it so tenaciously to hold to every punctilio as to risk the whole substance of the gospel ? ’ I suspect that you were formerly too much affected by such sug¬ gestions urged upon you by artful persons, and I candidly state my apprehensions to prevent the divine greatness of soul which I know belongs to you being now restrained from freely exerting itself. I would rather suffer along with you a thousand deaths, than see you survive a surrender of the truth. Perhaps my fears are vain, but you cannot too carefully guard against giving the wicked any occasion of triumph through the faults of your temper.” * Melancthon’s weaknesses and infirmities originated partly in his intellectual tendencies and capacities, though even these, it should ever be remembered, are very much under the control of moral causes, and are, therefore, comprehended within the sphere of moral responsibility. He seems to have had considerable diffi¬ culty in making up his own opinion, clearly and decidedly, upon great questions, especially those which were fraught with important practical bearings ; and this appeared very clearly in the history of his theological sentiments. Melancthon adopted, generally speak¬ ing, the theology of Luther ; and, perhaps, it may be said that the chief, if not the only real service which he rendered to the cause of sound Christian theology, was, — that he explained and de¬ fended the leading tenets of Luther with much dexterity, perspi¬ cuity, and elegance, abstaining commonly from those exaggerated and paradoxical statements, by which Luther sometimes gave unnecessary offence and called forth needless prejudice, — and that he thus contributed largely to their reception among the educated and intelligent classes. This was the service for which Melanc¬ thon was specially fitted ; this was the work which he performed ; and, in performing it, he became the instrument of conferring important benefits upon the church, and greatly advancing the cause of scriptural truth. This statement, however, must be re¬ stricted in its application to the doctrines which Melancthon con tinued decidedly and permanently to hold, among those great * Scott, vol. iii. pp. 393-4. 160 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV truths which Luther was chiefly instrumental iu restoring to the church. And there are some points in Luther’s system of theo¬ logy, in regard to which it is not easy to determine with cer¬ tainty whether Melanctlion continued really to hold them or not. There is, indeed, good reason to fear that his dubious and uncertain course in regard to some doctrinal points, tended, in the Iona' run, to favour the introduction into the Lutheran Church of a much more lax and unsound system of theology. He seems to have attained at length to sound and scriptural views on the sacra- mentarian controversy, and to have abandoned Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation, or the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucha¬ rist. But he never had the courage and manliness, even after Luther’s death, to make a pud lie and explicit declaration 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 closer approximation to the standard of truth, the tendency upon other points of still greater importance seems rather to have been in the opposite direction. His principal works, of a more strictly theological kind, are the “ Apology for the Confession of Augsburg,” and the u Loci Com¬ munes.” The Apology may be justly regarded as a very valuable and satisfactory vindication of the leading Protestant doctrines, in so far as they occupied a prominent place in Luther’s teaching, and had been set forth in the Augsburg Confession, not directly including, however, what are usually reckoned the peculiarities of the Calvinistic system; though Luther certainly held these peculiar doctrines, and there is no good reason to think that he ever aban¬ doned them. Melanctlion, so far as we can judge from his Apo¬ logy, seems for the time to have been benefited rather than injured by the perilous negotiations in which he was involved at the diet of Augsburg in 1530, and in which he showed such deplorable weakness ; and this work contains no evidence of what has sometimes been alleged, viz., that Luther’s controversy with Erasmus led Melanctlion to modify some of the views which he had formerly held, but which Luther continued to maintain, as to the natural bondage or servitude of the human will in reference to everything spiritually good.* * Scott is very anxious to make out that the two letters which Melanctkon is alleged to have addressed to the Car¬ dinal Legate Campeggio at the Diet Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 161 The first edition of liis Loci Communes was published in 1521, when he was only twenty-four years of age. He published a second, greatly enlarged and altered, in 1535 ; and again a third, with considerable, though less important, changes, in 1543 ; and it is the alterations introduced into these different editions, that have occasioned the chief difficulties and discussions as to the real sentiments of Melancthon upon some doctrinal questions.* In the first edition he had maintained the very highest predestinarian and necessitarian tenets. He there asserted, that u since all things hap¬ pened necessarily according to the divine predestination, there is no such thing as liberty in our wills “ that the Scriptures teach that all things happen necessarily “ they take away liberty from our wills by the necessity of predestination.” This was a doctrine which Calvin never taught, and which forms no necessary part of the Calvinistic system, though it has been held by some Calvinistic theologians. Calvin held, and the Westminster Standards ex¬ pressly teach, that man, as originally created, had a liberty of will, which fallen man has not ; and consequently, he held, that any necessity or bondage which he ascribed to the human will as it is, was based, not upon man’s mere relation to God as a dependent creature, — not upon God’s predestination, or His foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass and His certainly executing His decrees in providence, although He does so, — hut upon the entire depravity which has been superinduced upon his nature by the fall. The high doctrine, which Melancthon originally taught, he seems to have soon abandoned, as it is wholly expunged from the two sub¬ sequent editions of the Commonplaces. But there is good reason to doubt, whether in abandoning this doctrine, which Calvin never held, he did not cast off along with it some principles which are plainly taught in the word of God, and which have been generally held by Calvinistic divines. Melancthon, indeed, asserted in all the editions of his Commonplaces, and seems, upon the whole, to of Augsburg, must have been forgeries (vol. i. App. ii. p. 537). But we fear there is no sufficient ground to deny their genuineness, which is admitted by Dr Merle D’Aubigne, vol. iv. p. 258, and by Bretschneider, tom ii. p. 168. * Scott has given a brief summary of the differences among the various editions of this work, of which the earlier ones have become extremely scarce (vol. ii. c. xii. p. 182-9). A complete collection of the whole ma¬ terials bearing upon the history of this work, including a reprint of the three different editions entire, and a vast amount of literary information, occupies the whole of the 21st and 22d volumes of the works of Mel¬ ancthon. VOL I. 11 162 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. have maintained consistently through life, the doctrine which was held in common by Luther and Calvin, as to the entire depravity of human nature and the utter impotency of the will of man, as he is, to any spiritual good ; although (for there is scarcely any¬ thing about Melancthon in which we are not annoyed with deductions and drawbacks) there are not wanting some expres¬ sions in the later editions, which have afforded plausible grounds to those who took the unscriptural side in what was called the Synergistic controversy that disturbed the Lutheran Church chiefly after his death, for alleging, — that he was not wholly opposed to some sort of co-operation or synergism of the human will with the gracious agency of God, even in the first movements towards regeneration. Calvin published, in 1543, cotemporane- ously with the last edition of Melancthon’ s Commonplaces, his u Defensio sail* et orthodox* doctrinse de Servitute et liberatione liumani arbitrii,” and prefixed to it a dedication to Melancthon, in which he spoke of him in the most friendly and eulogistic terms ; and Melancthon, in acknowledging it,* says that he agreed with Calvin’s views upon these subjects, but still with a qualification, which, with a man of his temperament, so unwilling on some occasions to speak out his mind fully and openly, might cover or conceal differences not immaterial. After giving a brief summary of his opinions upon these subjects, he adds, u et quidem scio li*c cum tuis congruere, sed sunt ira^yrepa et ad usum accommodata.” We do not estimate the authority of Melancthon so highly as to be very anxious to get his testimony in favour of Calvin’s views ; but it is only fair to Melancthon himself, to give due weight to a statement of agreement which is creditable to him, especially as nothing has been produced from his works sufficiently explicit to prove, that he ever materially deviated from scriptural truth upon these important points. There is reason to fear that he abandoned, or, at least, that he became utterly afraid to state distinctly and explicitly, the doctrine of predestination, or unconditional personal election to eternal life, as taught in Scripture, and held and expounded by Augustine and Calvin. The section upon predestination in the later editions of his Commonplaces, may be regarded, with some plausibility, either as a specimen of great confusion, or of studied * Scott, iii. p. 376. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 163 and careful reticence ; but in no other light can it be justly repre¬ sented. And in either case, considering what he had taught upon this subject in the first edition, there is reason to fear that his timidity, his tendency to shrink from decided views upon great and difficult questions involving important practical bearings, had led him, in his heart, to abandon an important scriptural truth, though he had not the courage openly and fully to admit and proclaim the conclusion to which he had come, if, indeed, he had come to any very definite conclusion regarding it. With respect to the great doctrine of justification by faith through the imputed righteousness of Christ, — the establishment of which was the distinguishing service which Luther was hon¬ oured to render to the cause of truth and religion, — it is but justice to Melancthon to say, that in whatever vague, general, and ambiguous terms he might have been tempted to express it, in order to promote peace, and effect an adjustment with the Church of Rome, his own actual sentiments regarding: it seem never to have varied, or to have been turned aside from scriptural truth. It was asserted, indeed, by a body of Lutheran theologians, in 1569, a few years after his death,* that on one occasion he had used this expression, “ quod prcecipue fide justificamur,” which was certainly a deplorable and shameful compromise of the sola fides , for which Luther and he had so long and so strenuously contended ; but then, it is added in the way of palliation, that this was done “tempore magnse angustke et metus,” and that he afterwards condemned it himself. His works, however, steadily and con¬ sistently maintain the scriptural doctrine of justification, and he has rendered no unimportant service to the cause of Christian truth by his defence of this fundamental doctrine of the Reforma¬ tion. Bossuet, indeed, after having laboured to prove that Me¬ lancthon’ s opinions upon most points were loose and fluctuating, held with no firmness and stability, is candid enough to admit, that there was one point on which he did not vary, and which formed an impassable barrier between him and the Church of Rome, — the only thing, indeed, as Bossuet alleges, which fixed him firmly upon the Protestant side, — and this was the doctrine of jus¬ tification by imputed righteousness, f f Histoire des Variations, lib. sect. 29, 30. * Weisman Historia Ecclesiastica, vol. ii. p. 201. v. 164 MELANCTIION AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. Whatever, then, may have been Melancthon’s personal ex¬ cellencies as a man and a Christian, and whatever his sendees to the cause of Protestant truth, we see about him very plain in¬ dications of tendencies, which should impress us with a sense of the great danger of imbibing his spirit and following his example, in matters connected with the public interest of God’s cause. He had about him weaknesses and infirmities which tended to lead him, first, to adopt erroneous and defective views of divine truth ; and second, to fail in doing full justice in the face of dangers and difficulties, even to what he still believed to be true. Our first duty, so far as concerns the public interest of God’s cause in the world, is to find out the truth which is sanctioned by His word, — and then to assert, maintain, and defend it, so far as we have any call or opportunity to do so, — guarding with special care against any course of action which might be fairly held to involve, directly or by implication, a renunciation or denial of any part of it. And these are not duties in which the example of Melancthon is fitted to afford us much direct assistance, though it may serve as a beacon to warn us against dangers and temptations that might lead us to come short in the discharge of them. There is much about Melancthon, the influence of which is fitted to add grace and beauty to our Christian profession, to lead us to adorn the doctrine of our God and Saviour, and to commend it to the favourable acceptance of others; but these things, however valuable, are of less intrinsic importance, than the great duty of ascertaining and holding up the whole truth of God, and of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. The question as to the precise views of Melancthon upon some of the theological topics to which we have now referred, has been pretty fully discussed in this country, in connection with the con¬ troversy as to the doctrinal sense of the articles of the Church of England, and the opinions of those who framed them. It is very certain that, during the whole of the long reign of Elizabeth, — in many respects the most important and interesting period in the history of the Church of England, — the great body of her divines, and of her ecclesiastical authorities, including every name of emi¬ nence to be found in her communion, were Calvinists. It is equally certain that, for the last two centuries, a decided majority of her clergy have been anti-Calvinists, while there has always Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 165 been a respectable minority who adhered to the theology of .Augustine and the Reformers. As the articles ha\ e continued unchanged for 300 years, while the theological views that prevailed in the church have varied so much, this has led at diffei cut times to a great deal of discussion as to what the articles leally mean, or were intended to mean, and as to what subsciiption to them may be fairly held to imply. Calvinists generally have con¬ tended that the natural, obvious sense of the articles is Calvin¬ ism, — moderate Calvinism indeed, cautiously and temperately expressed,— that the great body of those who prepared the articles in Edward’s time, as well as of those who adopted and esta¬ blished them in the beginning of Elizabeths reign, with very little change, and exactly as they now stand, were Calvinists, ■ and that, on all these grounds, Calvinists need have no hesi¬ tation in subscribing them. The more timid and charitable Calvinists have been disposed to admit, that theie is an open¬ ing left for men subscribing the articles who had not embraced the peculiarities of Calvinism ; while many profess their inability to conceive how this can be done, without puting the ai tides to a degree of straining and torture that is unwarrantable and dangerous. The Armmians, of course, labour to show, that there is nothing in the articles to preclude them from subscrib¬ ing them ; and the more intelligent, conscientious, and modest among them, scarcely venture to take higher ground than this, — not presuming to deny the perfect warrantableness of Cal¬ vinists entering the ministry of the Church of England, and undertaking all the obligations which this implies. Some of the more reckless among them, as for instance Bishop Tomline, Archdeacon Daubeny, and Archbishop Laurence, have ventured to assert that the articles explicitly contradict the Calvinistic doctrine, and of course should shut out all who adhere to it. But the more moderate Arminians have generally leant rather to the side of merely asking admission for themselves without pretending to exclude their opponents. Bishop Burnet was pre¬ eminently qualified to judge on such a question, both in its historical and theological aspects ; and he, though himself a decided Arminian, has candidly admitted, that u the 17th aiticle seems to be framed according to St Austin s doctrines, that it is \ ery probable that those who penned it meant that the deciee was absolute ; ” and that “ the Calvinists have less occasion for scruple 166 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. (in subscribing it than the Arminians) since the article does seem more plainly to favour them.”* The aspects in which this subject obviously presents itself are not such as to reflect much credit upon the Church of England. It is a very awkward and painful thing to see so much controversy going on among themselves, as to what those articles which they have all subscribed really mean, or were intended to mean. Some contend that they teach Calvinism ; others, that they teach Arminianism ; others, that they teach both ; and others again, that they teach neither, but some other scheme of doctrine differ¬ ent from both. Sometimes they denounce one another as dishonest in subscribing the articles in a sense of which they do not fairly admit; and sometimes they unite in lauding the wisdom and moderation of their church, in leaving an open door for the admission of men of different and opposite opinions. It is quite possible that churches may carry to an unwise and unreasonable extent, the number and minuteness of the doctrinal definitions, which they embody in their symbolical books, and to which they require conformity. But there is no ground whatever to believe that the framers of the English articles were in the least influenced by any such wise and moderate views as have been sometimes ascribed to them ; the articles were expressly and avowedly intended u for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the estab¬ lishing of consent touching true religion and a considerable number of them are occupied with topics which are comparatively unimportant in a general summary of Christian doctrine. The way in which the controversy has been conducted upon the anti-Calvinistic side, has certainly not been creditable to most of those who have taken part in it. In general, those who have denied the Calvinism of the English articles have displayed a low standard, both of knowledge of the subject, and of fair dealing. The study of systematic theology has always been greatly neglected in the Church of England, partly, perhaps, because of the equivocal character of the theology of her articles, and of the earnest desire of many of her clergy to make her theology more equivocal than it is ; and, without a thorough acquaintance with systematic theology, both in its substance and its history, men are very incompetent to discuss the questions, whether the articles are * Exposition of Articles, art. 17, p. 165. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 167 Calvinistic or Arniinian, or both, or neither. Such questions cannot of course be intelligently or satisfactorily handled, except I, y iiioii who thoroughly understand what C alvinism is, and what Anninianism is ; and this cannot be attained without a real familia¬ rity with the works of the ablest men who have discussed these subjects on both sides, and at different periods. A man may be an Arminian though he is not aware of it, and even honestly, though ignorantly, denies it ; and this ignorance and confusion as to what Calvinism is, and as to what Arminianism is as opposed to it, are plainly exhibited by the late Mr Stanley Faber, and by Mr E. Harold Browne, the present Norrisian Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. There is, indeed, good reason to believe, that there prevails among the clergy of the Church of England, a great want of intelligent acquaintance even with the status qucestionis in the controversy between the Calvinists and the Anninians. T\ e would not hesitate to undertake to prove, that the same charge might be established against almost all who have at any time professed to show that the English articles are not Calvinistic.' We are not, indeed, inclined to speak with much severity of those who merely plead, that, while they cannot see satisfactory giounds for embracing the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, they, at the same time, do not see that these doctrines are so plainly and ex¬ plicitly set forth in the articles, as to make it impossible for them to subscribe them. This ground may be maintained with consi¬ derable plausibility, and when maintained without any palpable violations of integrity and propriety, would not exclude its sup¬ porters from a fair claim to respect. But wre cannot make the same admission in regard to those men wdio boldly aver that the articles shut out Calvinism, and that they cannot be honestly subscribed by Calvinists. Before proceeding to make some observations upon the subject * We are glad to be able to shelter ourselves in making these statements, which might seem invidious and pre¬ suming, under the high authority of the late Dr M‘Crie. In one of the notes to his admirable and delightful ■work, the “ Life of Andrew Melville,” he says, “ The publications against Cal¬ vinism which have lately appeared in England, are in their statement of the question unfair, in their reasoning shallow, and in respect of the know¬ ledge which they display of the history of theological opinions contemptible.” (C. x. p. 332, edit, of 1856.) We take the liberty of adopting this statement, and ’of adding, that it is equally appli¬ cable to “ the publications against Calvinism which have appeared iu England” during the forty years which have intervened since the ap¬ pearance of Dr M‘Crie’s work. 168 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. of the theology of the Church of England, it may he proper to give some notices of the literature of the question, or of the leading features in the history of the very interesting controversial discus¬ sions which have been carried on regarding it. That during the whole reign of Elizabeth, and the greater part of that of James, Calvinism prevailed almost universally among the men of ability and learning, of station and influence, in the Church of England, and was then generally regarded as being most fully accordant with its authorised symbols, has been incontrovertibly established, by evidence multifarious in kind and superabundant in degree. This is proved by the vdiole history of the proceedings connected with the Lambeth articles and the cases of Baro and Barret in 1595, the Irish articles in 1615, and the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. The discussion of this topic as a subject of public controversy, seems to have commenced with the proceedings in the case of Dr Richard Montague, one of the leading agents of Archbishop Laud, in introducing Tractarianism and Arminianism. His work entitled “ Appello-Caesarem” was published in 1625. It was intended to defend himself against the charge, founded upon a previous work, of leaning towrards Arminianism and Popery; and it attempted to show that the Arminian and semi-Popish views objected to, were not contra¬ dicted by anything in the authorised formularies of the church. The House of Commons, which at that time wras very theological and very sound in its theology, passed a vote condemning his Appeal, as tending to bring in Popery and Arminianism, in opposi¬ tion to the religion by law established. But what was of more importance so far as the interests of truth are concerned, the work was formally and elaborately answered by Dr George Carleton, then Bishop of Chichester, vdio had been a few years before the head of the English delegates sent to the synod of Dort, and had proved himself fully wTorthy of so honourable a position. Dr Carleton’s work was published in 1626, and is entitled “Examina¬ tion of those things wherein the author of the late Appeal taketh the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to be the doctrines of the Church of England.” The work is one of much interest and value, both from its author and the position it occupies in the controversy. It is remarkable, among'other things, for the distinct assertion, that there had been, up till that time, no real differ¬ ence in doctrinal matters between the Conformists and the Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 169 Puritans. Carleton died in 1628, and tlirougli Laud s influ¬ ence Montague was appointed to succeed liim in the see of Chichester. Arminianism continued to advance, and, in 1630, P Lynne, the famous lawyer, published his u Anti- Arminianism, or the Church of England’s old antithesis to new Arminianism. This is a a ast collection of documentary evidence to prove, that from the earliest times, and especially since the commencement of the Reformation in the time of Henry "VIII., the Church of England had been decidedly opposed to Arminian views, and had professed the great principles of Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrine. This woik ga\ e mortal offence to Laud and his faction, who were now all-povei- ful, and was understood to be the principal cause of the baibarous punishment which was soon afterwards inflicted upon 1 lynne, though his Histriomastix was made the pretence for it. It is a remarkable instance of providential retribution, that I rynne be¬ came ultimately the chief instrument of accomplishing Cantei- bury’s Doom,” as he called one of his books against Laud, and bringing him to the scaffold. Prynne was a man of great xeseaich and industry, as well as thorough integrity. But he had not a well-balanced or discriminating mind. He had a much greater power of swallowing than of digesting. He was in the habit rather of numbering than weighing his proofs and testimonies. His u Anti- Arminianism,” therefore, like his other works, contains a prodigious storehouse of materials, in the way of quotations and references, much more than sufficient in the gross to establish his leading position, but requiring some caution and sifting in the paiti- cular application of them. He declares that up till the time when he wTote he could mention only five men who had come foivaid publicly to defend Arminianism. These were Barret and Baro, whose cases wTere mixed up with the history of the Lambeth ar¬ ticles, and the proceedings against whom sufficiently proved that, in the last decade of the sixteenth century, the whole learning and influence of the Church of England were Calvinistic, Thompson, who, he says,* uras u a dissolute, ebrious, profane, luxurious, English-Dutchman,” and who, in 1614, published a treatise against the perseverance of the saints, which was answered 6} Dr Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury,— Montague, already men- * P. 260. 170 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. tioned, successively Bishop of Chichester and Norwich, — and Dr Thomas Jackson, a man of a much higher class than any of them. Prynne’s testimonies certainly require to be winnowed, hut we have no doubt that he has produced and indicated materials, which, taken in cumulo , are amply sufficient to prove ten times over, that during the whole century intervening between the time when he wrote and the first dawning of the Reformation under Henry VIII., the prevailing current of opinion with all competent judges among the clergy of the Church of England was Calvinis- tic, as opposed to Arminian, — and that the fundamental principles of Calvinism, though cautiously and temperately expressed, were embodied, and were intended to be embodied, in the church’s authorised formularies. The next work in the order of time is the great storehouse of materials on the Arminian side. It is by Dr Peter Heylin, a wor¬ shipper and tool of Laud, whose life he wrote, under the desig¬ nation of Cyprianus Anglicus. Heylin’ s work was published in 1659, and is entitled u Historia Quinqu-Articularis, or a Declara¬ tion of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more par¬ ticularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism.” It contains an elaborate discussion of most of the materials bearing upon the question, as to the original theology of the Protestant Church of England. The materials are discussed and applied with a good deal of ingenuity and boldness, and the work is in many respects well fitted to make an impression, because of its author’s apparently full knowledge of the subject, and the confi¬ dence with which he takes up his positions. Heylin had very much the same intellectual defects as Prynne, and in addition, we fear, he laboured under more serious infirmities as a thorough and unscrupulous partizan. He had read a great deal, but he was very imperfectly acquainted with theology properly so called, and Archbishop Usher once said of him that he should be sent to learn his catechism. He has been convicted of having exhibited in this and in his other works a great deal of blundering and mis¬ representation. So certain and notorious is this, that Archdeacon Blackburne, in the u Confessional,” * did not hesitate to describe him as “ a man lost to all sense of truth and modesty whenever * P. 153, 2d Edition. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 171 the interests or claims of the clrureh came in question ; ” and that the late Dr M‘Crie, after exposing a strange display of ignorance made by Bishop Coplestone, adds, “ a modern writer who could trust Heylin as an authority deserved to fall into such ridiculous blunders.” * This work of Heylin was answered by Henry Hickman, a man of very superior learning and ability, and one of the ministers ejected by the Bartholomew Act of 1662. His reply was pub¬ lished in 1673, and entitled, “ Historia Quinqu-Articularis Exar- ticulata, or Animadversiones on Dr Heylin’ s Quinquarticular History.” This work of Hickman’s is a very masterly and effec¬ tive exposure of Heylin’ s incompetency, especially in the more theological departments of the argument, and it contains within a short compass a large amount of accurate and important informa¬ tion, embodied in a very terse and vigorous, though unpolished, style. It ought to have deprived Heylin of all respect and influ¬ ence, and must have done so if it had been read. But it does not seem to have ever attained any considerable circulation, and, in consequence, the great body of the English clergy continued, like Coplestone, to believe Heylin, and to u trust in him as an au¬ thority.” The next occasion on which the question of the Calvinism of the English articles was discussed, was when it was brought, some¬ what incidentally, into the Arian controversy. In 1721 Dr Waterland published a work entitled, u The Case of Arian Sub¬ scription Considered,” in answer to the attempt which had been made by Dr Samuel Clarke to show, that those who, like himself, denied the true and proper divinity of the Son, could honestly assent to the formularies of the church. Dr Sykes, who was one of Clarke’s leading supporters, and who showed himself ever ready and willing to defend any bad cause that needed sup¬ port, published a reply to this, called, u The Case of Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles considered.” In this pamphlet he laid down the position, that the articles are, and were intended by their compilers to be, Calvinistic ; and that Dr Clarke and his friends could as clearly prove, that Arians could honestly subscribe them, as Dr Waterland and his friends could prove, that Arminians could do so. This was rather galling as an argumentum ad * Life of Melville , p. 333. 172 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. hominem, and Waterland published a u Supplement to tlie Case of Arian Subscription,” in which he attempted to answer this and the other arguments of Sykes, while Sykes rejoined in a Reply to the Supplement. Waterland certainly has not made much of the point raised by Sykes about the Calvinism of the articles ; he has done little more than give a brief summary of the materials col¬ lected by Heylin ; and this was rather low work for a man of Waterland’s high and well-merited reputation. Sykes, who was no more a Calvinist than a Trinitarian, has certainly not proved that an Arian subscriber can make out as plausible a case as an Arminian one ; but he has proved, and in this he has defeated his antagonist, that the fathers and founders of the Church of Eng¬ land were Calvinists, and intended the articles to be taken in a Calvinistic sense. Waterland, indeed, in discussing this point, gives plain indications of not knowing well what to say, or where to plant his foot. lie sets out with boldly averring — u For my own part I think it has been abundantly proved that our articles, liturgy, etc., are not Calvinistical.” But after giving a summary of this abundant proof, and having had to face the I7tli article, he winds up with this very lame and impotent conclusion — u the presumption rather lies against Calvinism ; ” “I am rather of opinion that the article leans to the anti-Calvinian persuasion.”* This is not very encouraging, but most who have since discussed this subject on the same side, have referred to and commended Waterland’s pamphlet, apparently for the purpose of giving their cause the prestige of his well-earned reputation for great ability and learning, and for invaluable services to truth in defending the proper and supreme divinity of our Saviour. About fifty years after this, a variety of causes led to the renewal of discussions concerning the meaning and object of the English articles, such as, the publication of u Blackburne’s Con¬ fessional,” advocating veiy loose and unsound views on the general subject of creeds and confessions, but at the same time maintain¬ ing, that Sykes had conclusively established against Waterland the Calvinism of the articles, — the application to Parliament in 1772 by many clergymen to be released from the obligations of subscription, — and the expulsion of the u Methodist” students from Oxford. Sir Richard Hill, brother of Rowland, defended the * Works by Bishop Van Milder t, vol. ii. pp. 341, 352-3. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 173 expelled students, by showing that their opinions on doctrinal sub¬ jects were the same as those of the founders of the Ohuich of England, in a pamphlet entitled, “ Pietas Oxoniensis and when Dr Iso well published a reply to this, it called forth, in 1769, from Toplady, then a young man, but of very fine talents and of great promise, a crushing answer, entitled, “ The Church of England vindicated from the charge of Arminianism, and the case of Arminian subscription particularly considered.” This, he after¬ wards expanded into a regular treatise, which he published in 1774, in two volumes, entitled, (i Historic proof of the Doctrinal Cal¬ vinism of the Church of England ” This work is highly credit¬ able to his talents and learning, and is perhaps, upon the whole, the most complete and satisfactory book we have, devoted to this subject. He is perfectly conclusive in discussing all the main topics that bear upon the settlement of the question, but he gets rather beyond his depth in dealing with what he calls the Axmi- nianism of the Church of Rome, a subject with which he was evidently acquainted very imperfectly. The only work of that period, on the other side, which has attained to any standing, or is now known, is Dr TV inchester s “ Dissertation on the 17th Article,” published in 1773, a temperate and sensible work, though not displaying much either of strength or ingenuity in managing the cause. It was republished in 1803, both separately and in the u Churchmans Remembi ancei . We have already had occasion to refer to the revival of the discussion about the historic Calvinism of the Church of England, in the end of the last century and the beginning of the present, in consequence of the great advance which then took place in Christian piety and orthodoxy. In reply to the numerous and virulent attacks then made on the evangelical clergy, Mr Cheiton published, in 1801, a volume entitled, “ The True Churchman Ascertained, or an apology for those of the regular clergy of the Establishment, who are sometimes called Evangelical Ministers. This is an able and elaborate work, and certainly establishes satis¬ factorily, that those of the evangelical clergy who were moderate Calvinists held the same doctrinal views as the fathers and founders of the Church of England. In 1803, Archdeacon Daubeny, some of whose statements in his previous publications, had been refuted by Overton, produced a bulky reply to the u True Churchman, in an octavo volume of nearly 500 pages, to which he ga\ e a title, 174 MELANCTIION AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. framed after a model which was common enough among the older controversialists, hut which modern civilisation has exploded. It was called “ Yindiciae Eccleske Anglican®, in which some of the false reasonings, incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresenta¬ tions, in a publication entitled, etc., are pointed out.” Overton’s «Ti me Churchman” is singularly free from “ false reasonings, incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresentations,” while Daubeny’s Yindiciae superabounds in these beauties, as was con¬ clusively proved in two works published in 1805, the one entitled, “ Candid Examination of Daubeny’s Yindiciae,” republished from the Christian Observer, and the other by Mr Overton, entitled, “Four Letters to the Editor of the Christian Observer .” In 1802, a pamphlet -was published, chiefly occasioned by Overton’s work, entitled, u The Articles of the Church of Eng¬ land proved not to be Calvinistic,” by Dr Kipling, Dean of Peterborough, and Deputy Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. This production has been very highly commended, but it is, we think, a singularly poor affair. Its leading feature is the adduction of statements and quotations, as anti-Calvinistic, which no intelligent Calvinist would hesitate to adopt. As this is really a prominent characteristic of most of the works on the same side, it may be proper to signalise it, by quot¬ ing Overton’s description of it as exhibited by Kipling, and in contrast with the applause with which his work was received. “ No reasoning can be more futile than that of Dr Kipling upon this sub¬ ject. It is capable of the fullest demonstration, that, by the same process, the learned Dean might prove the complete anti-Calvinism of Calvin himself. It is a fact, which nothing but the most perfect disingenuity or ignorance of the subject can controvert, that nine-tenths at least of the arguments ex¬ tracted from our Articles and Liturgy, by which the Dean endeavours to prove the utter repugnancy of these forms to the theology of Calvin, may also be ex¬ tracted from Calvin’s own writings. Yet this reasoning of Dr Kipling is continually represented as ‘ demonstrative and incontrovertible ;' as possessing ‘ uncommon merit as ‘ invincible ,’ and not less clear than ‘ mathematical demon¬ stration itself as having ‘ proved to demonstration ' the point he had to estab¬ lish ; 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 the professed guardians of truth and religion, by writers who highly extol each other as learned divines ! " * * Four Letters. Let ii. p. 29. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 175 All the expressions here quoted were actually applied to Dr Kipling’s production by the reviewers and pamphleteers of the period. The “Bampton Lecture” for 1804 was preached by Dr Richard Laurence, then Regius Professor of Hebrew in Oxfoid, and aftei- wards Archbishop of Cashel, and it is entitled, “ An Attempt to illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which the Cal¬ vinists improperly consider as Calvinistic.” Dr Laurence was a man of superior learning and ability ; he has made some \ aluable contributions to our theological literature; his “ Bampton Lecture contains a great deal of interesting and valuable mattei, it has been republished repeatedly — the fourth and last edition lia\ ing come out in 1853 — and it is now justly regarded as the standaid work on the Arminian side. On these grounds, it will he needful for us to notice it more fully. At present we merely mention it in its chronological order. The controversy was renewed by the publication, in 1811, of Bishop Tomline’s well-known work, “The Refutation of Calvinism.” He had given, in a previous work, “ Elements of Christian Theo¬ logy,” the common Arminian interpretation of the Articles ; and in the “Refutation” he gives fully the argument against Calvinism, not only from Scripture and the Fathers, but also from the his¬ tory and formularies of the Church of England. This woik was at one time prodigiously commended. Indeed, we have a recollec¬ tion of having once looked into a book by an Episcopalian clergy¬ man, in which it was extolled as one among the fom* or five greatest works (“ Butler’s Analogy” being mentioned as one) the Church of England lias produced. The book has long since found its level, and is now regarded as a very mediocre production, display - ing considerable diligence in the collection of materials, but an utter wrant either of ability or of fairness in the application of them. Scott’s “ Remarks” upon it are a full and conclusive, though, from the plan pursued of following his opponent step by step, a some¬ what tedious exposure of the “ Refutation and they establish the great superiority, in all respects, of the rector over his bishop, of the inmate of the humble parsonage of Aston Sandfoid o\ ei the occupant of the venerable palace of Buckden. . The “ Inquiry into the Doctrines of the Reformation, and of the United Church of England and Ireland, respecting the ruin and recovery of Mankind,” published in 1814, by the Rev. IV. B. 176 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. Mathias of Dublin, is a valuable compilation, consisting almost wholly of extracts, and turning to good account, so far as the “ United Church” is concerned, the writings of its fathers and founders, which had been made accessible by Leigh Richmond’s work formerly referred to. This brings us down to the present day, when the discussion about the theological views of the founders and the formularies of the Church of England has been renewed, and in a somewhat dif¬ ferent aspect, in connection with the controversy about baptismal regeneration. Dr Goode, now Dean of Ripon, to whose great learning and ability as an opponent of Tractarianism, and a de¬ fender of evangelical truth, we have repeatedly borne a cordial testimony, published, in 1849, a most valuable and important work on this subject, entitled, u The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants,” — the great general object of which was to show, that those who rejected the Tractarian doctrine of baptismal regeneration, might conscien¬ tiously undertake all the obligations connected with the ministry of the church, including, of course, the use of the baptismal service. One leading argument which lie employs, in order to establish this general position, is in substance this : No one who embraces the Calvinistic system of theology can consistently believe the high church doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; the great body of the fathers and founders of the Church of England, the men who pre¬ pared her formularies, her articles and liturgy, in the reign of Edward, and established them, with scarcely any change and al¬ most precisely as we now have them, in the reign of Elizabeth, were Calvinists ; and, consequently, there can be no inconsistency between a reception of these formularies and a rejection of the Tractarian doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The different positions which go to make up this argument, Dr Goode has discussed with great talent and erudition. We are not called upon to express an opinion upon the question, whether he has fully established his general conclusion. We have not, indeed, examined the whole matter with sufficient care, to entitle us to pronounce a judgment upon the main question in¬ volved. But we have no doubt that he has conclusively established the position, that the great body of the leading English divines, both during the short reign of Edward and the long reign of Elizabeth, were Calvinists, and, of course, would not admit any- Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 177 thing into the public formularies of the church which was incon¬ sistent until Calvinism. To the proof of that position he has devoted the third chapter of his work, consisting of above one hundred pages, “ on the school of theology to which our reformers and early divines belonged.” He has not contented himself, as most controversialists on such questions do, with merely borrowing the materials provided by his predecessors, but has subjected the whole of the old materials to a fresh and independent examination ; and has also turned to good account some very important new materials, furnished by the “ Zurich Letters,” now, for the first time, published by the Parker Society. He lias not spent much time in refuting the attempts of the Arminians to establish their position. He is occupied mainly with adducing the direct positive evidence on the other side; and that evidence is such as to be plainly and palpably unanswerable. With all competent and fair- minded men, it must now be held to be settled, that the reformers and the early divines of the Church of England belonged to the Calvinistic school of theology. It follows from this that there can be nothing in her formularies which does not admit, at least, of a Calvinistic interpretation ; while it may still be a question, to what extent they have introduced their Calvinism into the formularies, and thus, in a sense, imposed it upon the church. Archdeacon Wilberforce, who had not then joined the Church of Pome, published an answer to Dr Goode’s book, under the title of “ The Doctrine of Holy Baptism,” displaying, as all his works do, very considerable learning and ingenuity. He does not give much prominence to the consideration of the question, whether the founders of the Church of England were Calvinists or not. He, in a great measure, evades this question, and considers it his best policy to rest directly and immediately upon the position, that the formularies, as they stand, do clearly and certainly teach baptismal regeneration — teach it so clearly and certainly, that no indirect or collateral evidence can affect the proof of this doc¬ trine being taught in them. He asserts, indeed, that the formu- laries of the Church of England were not drawn up by Calvinists ; but for the proof of this, so far as the articles are concerned, he just refers to Laurence’s “ Hampton Lectures;” and in regard to the mass of conclusive evidence adduced by Dr Goode on the other side, he can scarcely be said even to look at it. He protests “ against the injustice with which Goode treats Archbishop VOL I. 12 178 MELANCTIION AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. Laurence,* and opposes to his “ hostile judgment” a high eulogium pronounced upon the “ Bampton Lectures” by Mr Stanley Faber, in his work on “Primitive Election.” Mr Faber has not shown such a discriminating judgment, or such a full and comprehensive knowledge of the bearings and relations of the subject of which he treats, as to entitle his opinion, upon any topic involved in the discussion, to much respect. But still Laurence was a man of very superior learning and ability. His “Bampton Lecture” is the most learned and elaborate attempt that has ever been made to show, that the articles of the Church of England are not Calvinistic, and it seems to be now generally regarded by the Arminians as their standard defence. In addition to the com¬ mendations of it by Faber and Wilberforce, it is represented as satisfactory and conclusive, along with Winchester’s Dissertation on the 17th Article, by one quite entitled to be ranked with these men, the late Archdeacon Hardwicke, whose striking and pre¬ mature death, a year or two ago, among the Pyrenees, was uni¬ versally regarded as a great loss to our theological literature.! On these accounts it will be proper to give a somewhat fuller notice of Laurence’s work ; and this will lead us into the merits of the subject. The injustice with which Wilberforce alleges that Goode treated Laurence, is brought out in the following passage : — “ I cannot but enter my humble protest against the remarkable partiality and superficial character of the work above referred to (Archbishop Laurence’s “Bampton Lectures”), and, consequently, the erroneous nature of the view it gives of the subject of which it treats ; and I trust that the few facts I am about to mention will be sufficient to put the reader on his guard against its statements.”! We give only one specimen of the facts by which Goode has established the truth of this charge : — “ And here, again, I must notice the remarkable partiality displayed by Archbishop Laurence in his “Bampton Lectures.” From a perusal of these Lectures, one might suppose that Melancthon was the only one of the foreign Beformers invited to this country by Cranmer, and the invitations addressed to him are very carefully recorded ; while the fact is that, with this single ex¬ ception, ahnost all, if not all, who were invited to this country by Cranmer, f Effects of Baptism, p. 55, 2d Edit. * P. 235. f History of the Articles, p. 372. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 179 to aid him in the work of Reformation, were of the Reformed churches, and therefore of Zwinglian or Calvinistic views.” * In addition to the facts adduced by Goode, we may mention some specimens of Laurence’s mode of discussing this subject, which will convince most men that, to whatever cause it is to be ascribed, he was incapable of exercising discrimination or of mani¬ festing ordinary fairness, when he had Calvin or Calvinism to deal with. He thus announces his general opinion of Calvin, which will probably be received by most people as a novelty. “No man, perhaps, was ever less scrupulous in the adoption of general ex¬ pressions, but perhaps no man ever adopted them with more mental reservations, than Calvin.” f The man who could believe and assert this would assuredly scruple at nothing. LU Horribile quidem decretum fateor !’ were the precise expres¬ sions which he used when shuddering at his own favourite idea of irrespective reprobation.” f The quoting Calvin’s words, in order to convey to English readers the idea, that he confessed that his doctrine concerning the divine decree was horrible — when it is notorious and unquestionable that he only intended to represent it as awful, fitted to call forth deep emotions of awe and solemnity, as an inscrutable and alarming mystery, just as he speaks of the “ liorribilis Dei majestas,” || is merely an instance of the universal unfairness exhibited by the Anglican Arminians. There is not a man among them, from the highest to the lowest, who has been able to deny himself the pleasure and the triumph of quoting Calvin’s alleged confession about the “horrible decree.” Thus far Lamence stands on the same level with a crowd of associates — defendit numerus ; but in the way in which he has brought out this point, there is a special unfairness which has not often been equalled. “Irrespective reprobation” (an expression which of itself conveys a misrepresentation) is not the subject of which Calvin is speaking. He is treating only of the implication of the human race in the penal consequences of Adam’s first sin, and of the purpose and agency of God in relation to the fall and its results. It is surely time that anti-Calvinists, who profess any regard for truth or decency, should drop this topic of the “horrible decree,” after having made it do duty for a couple of centuries. * P. 65. f Sermon viii., Note 4, p. 375. t Sermon ii., p. 45. || Inst. lib. iii., c. 20, s. 17. 180 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay. IY. In liis destitution of solid proof to show that the compilers of the English articles did not embrace the theological views of Cal¬ vin, he has recourse to the following curious piece of evidence : — “ If Calvin’s system had been adopted by our Reformers, never surely would they have inserted among our articles that of Christ’s descent into hell, which seems to have been directly levelled against one of his peculiar opinions, and one which he thought important.” * What connection there can he between the grounds for believing either that the English Reformers had, or that they had not, adopted Calvin’s system of theology, and the mode in which they dealt with a topic so irrelevant and so unimportant, comparatively, as Christ’s alleged descent into hell, it would puzzle most men of common sense to discover. But, besides, the statement of Laurence about the descent into hell, in its relation to Calvin’s opinions, is quite inconsistent with the notorious facts of the case. The English article (the 3d) is simply an adoption of the article in what is commonly called the Apostle’s Creed, which is just the creed of the Roman Church. This topic of the descent into hell, did not finch its way into the Roman creed till the fifth century, and it certainly ought never to have been introduced into any creed or confession. What tempted the compilers of the English articles to devote one of them to this topic, it is not easy to under¬ stand, even though there were some at the time who denied it. But Laurence’s notion, that it is u directly levelled against one of Calvin’s peculiar opinions,” is simply preposterous. It is perfectly notorious that Calvin rejoiced and exulted in the article in the creed about the descent into hell, as explicitly sanctioning u one of his peculiar opinions;” and he even seems to have so far yielded to a common infirmity of human nature, as to have been disposed, because of its containing this article, to think more favourably of the claim put forth by the Church of Rome, on its behalf, to an apostolic origin.! Laurence takes great pains to make out, as affording a pre¬ sumption against the English articles being Calvinistic, that in 1553, when they were first established, Calvin was not much known in England, — that his peculiar theological system had not then attracted much notice, and was not generally received even in the continental Reformed churches; and Faber has followed * P. 245. t Inst. lib. ii. c. xvi. s. 8 and 18. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 181 liim in this course of argument.* The alleged facts are greatly overstated ; and though they were all true, they would not furnish even a presumption in favour of the conclusion deduced from them. Calvin had fully set forth his system of theology in the first edition of his “Institutes” in 1536 ; and from the time of his return to Geneva in 1541, he occupied a position of prominence and influence in the Protestant world, certainly inferior to that of no other man, instructing the churches everywhere by his writ¬ ings, and guiding them by his counsels. Cranmer had lepeatedly sought his advice, and urged him to correspond with King Edwaid. In the beginning of 1552, before proceeding to draw up articles for the Church of England, Cranmer’ s mind was much set upon the preparation of a general confession of faith for the Protestant churches, and with this view he invited to England Calvin, 13 ul- linger, and Melancthon. Calvin’s great work, the Consensus Genevensis, or treatise de iEtema Dei Predestinatione, was pub¬ lished in 1551, or very early in 1552, and we have direct and explicit evidence that it did exert an influence on the deliberations and consultations which were going on in England in the couise of that year, in connection with the preparation of the articles. It is but fair to mention, that this evidence was unknown to Laurence, having been published for the first time, by the I aikei Society, in 1846, in the third series of the “ Zurich Letters ; but it affords a good illustration of the truth, that a just cause is always advanced by the progress of research and discovery. It is found in a letter of Traheron, Dean of Chichester, and Librarian to King Edward, written to Bullinger in September 1552, while the articles were under consideration, and undergoing the revision of a aliens parties, civil and ecclesiastical, but not yet published. “ The Greater number among US, of whom I own myself to he one , embrace the opinion of John Calvin , as being perspicuous and most agreeable to Holy- Scripture. And we truly thank God, that that excellent treatise of the very I learned and excellent John Calvin, against Pighius and one Georgius Siculus, i should have come forth at the very time when the question began to be agi¬ tated among us ; for we confess that he has thrown much light upon the sub¬ ject, or rather so handled it, as that we have never before seen anything more learned or more plain.” f *- Laurence, pp. 44, 144, 236; Faber on Primitive Election , p. 356. f Zurich Letters , 3d series, p. 325. Since writing this, we happened to notice that this, and some other ex¬ tracts from Traheron’s letters to Bul¬ linger, had been published by Hottin- ger, from the original in Zurich, in 182 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. But, in truth, this discussion about Calvin is, to a consider¬ able extent, irrelevant, — at least the proof of the Calvinism of the English Reformers and their formularies is not dependent upon the settlement of this point, and, indeed, cannot be materially affected by it. No one ascribes the Calvinism of the English Reformers to the personal influence of Calvin and his writings. It is to be traced chiefly to the study of the word of God and of the writings of Augustine. To the study of the writings of Augustine, is to be traced, instrumentally, a large proportion of the piety and orthodoxy that adorned the church for above 1000 years before the Reformation. The great body of the Re¬ formers, on the continent, embraced Calvinism, even those who published their views before Calvin’s name was known, and almost all of them ascribed much influence to Augustine’s works in the formation of their opinions. This holds true also of the earliest English Reformers. Tyndale, Frith, and Barnes, who suffered martyrdom in the time of Henry VIII., were evidently familiar with the writings of Augustine, and from the study of his works and of the word of God they had become Calvinists. Calvinism, indeed, was not a new or unknown thing in England even before the Reformation. The three greatest men the church of that country had produced were Anselm and Bradwardine, both Arch¬ bishops of Canterbury, and Wycliffe, professor of theology at Oxford ; and these men were all Calvinists — Anselm, indeed, in a less developed form, but Bradwardine and Wycliffe most fully and explicitly. These things are all well known, and in this state of matters it is mere unworthy trifling to seek, as Laurence does, to find even a presumption bearing upon the subject of the Calvinism of the English Reformers, in a minute investigation of the ques¬ tion how far Calvin and his writings were known to them or con- O suited by them in the year 1552. W e have said enough, we think, to show that, on this question at least, Archbishop Laurence is entitled to no deference whatever ; and that in point of accuracy of statement and solidity of argu¬ ment, he has sunk to the level of the generality of those who, from ITeylin downwards, have undertaken the defence of the same cause. his Hist. Eccles., tom. viii. p. 721-4 ; but they were certainly very little known in this country till published by the Parker Society. The apology for Lawrence was suggested to us by a statement to the same effect, made by Wilberforce, in attempting to de¬ fend him against Goode, p. 237. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 183 But it is quite possible, notwithstanding all we have seen, that the book may contain sufficient materials to prove that the articles are not Calvinistic. The leading feature of the book,— determining, however, rather the form into which the materials are thrown than the substance of the materials themselves, — is, that it professes to bring out fully and precisely the doctrines that generally prevailed in the Church of Rome before the Reformation ; and, since the doctrines of the articles were very much directed against the errors that prevailed, to employ a knowledge of the errors for ascertaining the precise import of the correctives applied. This process is in its general character fair and reasonable, but it requires a more thorough knowledge of the whole subject, and a larger amount both of ability and candour, than Laurence possessed, to turn it to good account, and to bring, out, of its application results that can be relied upon. The way m which he applies his general principle is to this effect. He brings out fuJ y the thoroughly unsound and Pelagian character of the views which generally prevailed in the church, and especially among the schoolmen, the leading divines of the period, on the subjects o original sin, free will, merit, justification, and predestination. He then assumes, that from the extreme unsoundness of the popish doctrine, no very large amount of soundness, nothing of. an Augustinian or Calvinistic character in the Protestant corrections of it, need be supposed to be necessary or even probable,— that there might probably be a full and ample repudiation of the popish error without any leaning towards the other extreme. . ihe practical application he makes of this notion, is to establish it as a sort of general rule, that there is a presumption in favour of the lowest and most moderate interpretation of the doctrinal statements of the Reformers, provided they are still held so sound and evangelical as to convey a condemnation of the grossly. I e agian views which generally prevailed before the Reformation. Liu there is really no weight in all this. The general position, that a knowledge of the precise opinions which prevailed before the Reformation may be usefully applied in ascertaining the exact import and bearing of the statements adopted by the Reformers upon the same points, is certainly well founded. But there is no ground for the notion which constitutes Laurence’s peculiar principle, viz., that there is a general presumption in favour of the Protestant deviation from ante-Reformation Pelagianism being 184 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. the smelliest which the words used will admit of. We know of no ground for any such presumption, and we cannot admit it. Our conviction is, that the great glory of the Reformation, in a doctrinal point of view, is that the Reformers, and especially Calvin, saw and proclaimed that it was necessary, as the only thorough and permanent counteractive to the gross Pelagianism of the Church of Rome and to all the practices based upon it, to go back, decidedly and avowedly, even above and beyond the Calvinism of Augustine to the Calvinism of the New Testament. This certainly was the ground taken by the great body of the continental Reformers, though Melanctlion, whose weaknesses and infirmities were so great and palpable, partially abandoned it. And if it is alleged that the Reformers of England took lower and narrower ground than this, and contented themselves with merely condemning and lopping off some of the grosser and more offensive developments of the prevailing Pelagianism, this must be es¬ tablished, not by vague and baseless presumptions, but by direct and positive proof, by a deliberate and detailed examination of the actual doctrines they have propounded on every topic of impor¬ tance. Laurence has no difficulty in showing, that the doctrines which generally prevailed before the Reformation on the subjects of original sin, free will, justification, and merit, were of a thoroughly Pelagian complexion, and, of course, might have been contradicted and excluded by statements, upon the part of the Re¬ formers, which did not go beyond the standard of what might now be called Arminianism. But this is of no real value in proving that they stopped there, and did not go on to bring out, as the only complete and effectual antidote to the Pelagianism of the schoolmen, at least the whole Calvinism of Augustine. It is chiefly, however, with Laurence’s discussion of the subject of predestination that we have to do at present. And this differs in several respects from the other topics introduced. On the subjects of original sin, free will, grace, justification, and merit, while there is but one doctrine that is true, there is room for a considerable variety of opinions, more or less plausible, and more or less nearly approximating to the truth, the difference being in degree rather than in kind. But in regard to predestination, there are really just two sides, clearly and distinctly defined, and every man who has formed an intelligent judgment upon the matter must be either a Calvinist or an anti-Calvinist, — that is, he Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 185 must either assert or deny, that God has from eternity chosen some men, certain persons of the human race individually, to salvation, through Christ, and has determined to effect and secure their salvation in accordance with the provisions of the covenant of grace. Another difference is, that Pelagian or Arminian views in regard to predestination were not so generally prevalent in the Church of Koine as in regard to the other topics. Some of. the most eminent of the schoolmen, while supporting Pelagian views on depravity, justification, and grace, continued to hold, in sub¬ stance, Augustinian views in regard to predestination. Their unsoundness in regard to the one class of topics, was owing to the want of a careful and humble study of the Bible, and to the low state of personal religion, and their comparative soundness on the other, was to be ascribed to the strength and vigour of their intellects, and their fondness for prosecuting profound specula¬ tions ; while the Calvinism of the Reformers indicated at once and in combination, the deepest sense of divine and eternal things, in regard to those matters which bear more immediately upon personal duty and experience, and the most profound and elevated conceptions about the deep things of God. Ignorance, or disregard of these points of difference, and of the facts connected with them, has led to a thorough failuie in Laurence’s attempt to apply his general principle to the subject of predestination. He misrepresents the views that generally prevailed in the church before the Reformation, describing them as more anti-Calvinistic than they were, and he utterly fails to bring out any substantial difference, though he professes to lia^ e done so, between the doctrine which he ascribes to the schoolmen, and that which he ascribes to Melanctlion and the Lutli eians, and which he represents as the doctrine of the English Refoimers. Mr Mozley, a man of a far higher order of intellect, and much more profoundly versant in the subjects of which he tieats, has proved, in his work on Predestination,* that Laurence has mis¬ understood and misrepresented the views of Thomas Aquinas, the greatest and most influential of all the schoolmen, and has shown that the angelic Doctor, instead of being a low Arminian, as Laurence alleges, was in substance an Augustinian and a C al¬ vinist. Mozley, like most men who have intellect enough and * C. x. p. 280-5. 186 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. erudition enough to understand this matter, believes and maintains, that there is “ no substantial difference between the Augustinian and Thomist and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.” * Lau¬ rence evidently did not understand the status qucestionis in the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. He had no clear and definite conception of what Calvinism is, and of what Armi- nianism is, as opposed to it. Laurence ascribes a certain doctrine on the subject of predestination to the schoolmen and to the Church of Rome ; and then he alleges that the Lutherans, with whose theological views he identifies those of the Church of Eng¬ land, “ differed from the Church of Rome in several important particulars;” nay, that “they were entirely at variance with her upon the very foundation of the system.” f The doctrine which he ascribes to the Church of Rome is simply Arminianism, in the form of an alleged election of individuals to salvation, founded on a foresight of their faith, holiness, and perseverance ; and the doctrine of the Lutherans and Anglicans, alleged to differ from this, “ upon the very foundation of the system,” just consists of the very same Arminianism, that is, of the same denial of the fundamental principle of Calvinism, put in the form or based upon the ground of an assertion, that election is merely a choice of men in the mass, or taken collectively, to the enjoyment of outward privileges, which they may improve or not as they choose. Laurence’s argument is, that since there existed this fundamental difference between the Church of Rome and the Lutheran and Anglican Reformers, it is probable that the latter did not deviate further from the Romish doctrine than this difference indicates. There is a deplorable amount of ignorance and confusion in all this, and though it has not much connection with the argument upon the subject imme¬ diately under consideration, it may be proper to give some explana¬ tions concerning it, especially as we find some additional blundering on the same subject, and in a different direction, among some of those who have taken part in this controversy on the same side with Laurence. Dr Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, in his Letters to Dr Kippis, published in 1773, in adverting to the alleged Calvinism of the Church of England, ventured upon the assertion, that, “ at the time just preceding the Reformation, the Church of Rome, in * Note xxi. p. 413. f P. 163, 164. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 187 respect to predestination, grace, free will, and perseverance, was truly Calvinistical.” This idea tickled the Anglican Arminians greatly. They chuckled over it as a proof that the Church of England must he anti-Calvinistic ; while, at the same time, they must have felt somewhat doubtful about the accuracy of the statement as to the matter of fact. Dr Winchester, whose Dis¬ sertation on the seventeenth Article was published very soon after, adopted it as true, and founded an argument upon it,* and he was followed in this both by Bishop Tomline, in his Elements of Christian Theology, f and by Archdeacon Daubeny, in his Vin- dicke.i Laurence knew too much of the subject to swallow this ; and, besides, his argument led him to take the opposite tack, to found much upon the opposite position, that the Church of Rome was thoroughly Arminian. The argument of Tucker and his followers was this, the Church of Rome was Calvinistic, and therefore the Church of England is probably Arminian. The argument of Laurence was, the Church of Rome was grossly Arminian, and therefore there is a strong probability that the Church of England, in reforming herself, would not go so far awray as to embrace Calvinism, but would be contented with adopting a less gross and more refined Arminianism. The com¬ mon conclusion is false, the argument in both cases is weak and untenable, and the main fact asserted is, in both cases, altogether inaccurate. Before the Reformation, the Church of Rome could not be said to be either Calvinistic or Arminian, that is, she had not formally and officially committed herself to either side in this great controversy. She had always professed great respect for the opinions of Augustine, and for the decisions of the Afiiean Synods and the Council of Orange in the Pelagian controversy ; and she had never, as a church, formally and officially given any doctrinal decision inconsistent with that profession. Thus far she might be said to be Calvinistic. But on the other hand, it is cer¬ tain, that doctrines of a Pelagian and semi-Pelagian cast had been long sanctioned by a very large portion of her most influen¬ tial authorities, and especially by many of the schoolmen ; so that, before the Reformation, Pelagianism might be said to per¬ vade nearly the wdiole of the ordinary teaching of the church, though it had never been formally sanctioned as authoritative and * P. 79. f Vol. ii. p. 320. % P. 80. 188 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. binding. In these circumstances, the Church of Home could not with propriety be said to be either Augustinian or Pelagian, although, in somewhat different senses and aspects, both designa¬ tions might be applied to her. The Reformers, both in England and on the continent, were led, almost to a man, by the study of the Bible and of the works of Augustine, and, as we believe, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, to repudiate the Pela- gianism or Arminianism which prevailed all around them in the ordinary teaching of the church, and to fall back upon the Cal¬ vinism of the New Testament and of the Bishop of Hippo. But, as the church officially was not at the time committed to oppose Augustinian, or to support Pelagian, views, the topics involved in that controversy did not form any proper part of the dispute be¬ tween the Reformers and the Church of Rome ; and, in conse¬ quence, they were not subjected to a full, searching, and exhaustive discussion, until they came to form the subject of disputes among Protestants themselves, in contending first with the Lutherans, when they had thrown off the Calvinism of then’ master, and afterwards with the Arminians. It was on this ground that the doctrine of predestination was not formally discussed and decided on in the Council of Trent. It was, however, incidentally brought under the consideration of the Council in connection with the subject of free will and justi¬ fication; and the account which Father Paul lias given of the debate that took place, decidedly confirms the impression, which the whole history of all the discussions that ever have taken place upon these matters is fitted to produce, viz., that there is a clear line of demarcation between the fundamental principle of the Augustinian or Calviiiistic, and the Pelagian or Arminian, systems of theology, — that the true status qucestionis in the controversy be¬ tween these parties can be easily and exactly ascertained, — that it can, without difficulty, be brought to a point where men may and should say either Aye or No, and, according as they say the one or the other, may be held to be, and may be warrantably called, Calvinists or Arminians.* But, though the doctrine of predesti- * It is not difficult to show, that it is one and the same great controversy in its main substance and leading fea¬ tures, which has been carried on, in every age, by the Augustinians, Tho- mists, Dominicans, Jansenists, and Calvinists on the one side, and by Pelagians, Scotists, Franciscans, Je¬ suits, and Arminians, on the other. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 189 nation was discussed in the Council of Trent, and discussed on the same grounds on which it always has been and must be dis¬ cussed, between Calvinists and Arminians who understand what they are about, no decision was pronounced upon the subject in any of the leading aspects of the question, and the members of the church were left quite free, as the J ansenists always contended, to maintain, if they chose, the whole theological system of Augustine. The Church of Borne has since, indeed, become more deeply tainted with Pelagianism by the doctrinal decisions pronounced in the cases of Baius, Jansenius and Quesnel. But we are not aware that there is even now any decision of that church, which stands in the way of her members maintaining the whole sub¬ stance of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. While it is certain that the great body of the Beformers adopted in substance the theological system of Augustine, and while it is certain that the system of Augustine was in its funda¬ mental characteristic features, just the system of Calvin, the differences between the views of Augustine and Galvin being greatly less in point of intrinsic importance than the differences between Augustine’s views and any form whatever of anti-Cal¬ vinism , — it is not disputed that there were considerable differences among individuals and sections of the Beformers, in the way and manner in which their theological views were developed and applied. Constitutional capacities and tendencies, intellectual and moral, peculiar habits of thought and feeling, specialities occurring in the course of their studies and occupations all these variously modified, no doubt, operated in different ways, and to a considerable extent, in influencing their mode of conceiving, repie- senting, and applying doctrines which were in substance the same. And these causes of diversity amid unity ought to be taken into account, and fairly estimated and allowed for, not in judging of truth, but in judging of the men, and in exhibiting towards them due forbearance and fairness. The men among the Beformers who exhibited the highest mental powers, and exerted the largest amount of influence as individuals in their different spheres, viz., Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and Knox, were all unequivocal, decided, outspoken Calvinists, and did not hesitate to bring out, defend, and apply their principles. Melanctlion went from one extreme to another, and the cause of his deviations, both from sound doctrine and sound practice on 190 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. public questions, is plainly to be traced to weaknesses and infir¬ mities, palpably discernible botli in liis mental and moral consti¬ tution. There is no evidence that Luther ever abandoned or retracted his Calvinism, but there are indications that, in the latter part of his life, he became, probably through Melancthon’s in¬ fluence, less anxious to give it prominence, and more concerned about guarding against the abuse of it. No other leading man among the Reformers went so far astray in doctrinal matters as Melanctlion. Bullinger was a Calvinist, though a very cautious aud moderate one, shrinking from some of the more precise and stringent statements of Calvin on particular points. He became more decided and outspoken in maintaining Calvinistic principles as he advanced in life, and as some indications appeared of differ¬ ences among Protestants themselves, of deviations tending in an anti-Calvinistic direction. We believe that Bull in o'er had more influence with the English Reformers, and upon the Reformation they effected, than either Melanctlion on the one side, or Calvin on the other ; and whether it was because of influence exerted by him or not, the actual theological views adopted by Cranmer and embodied in the articles, more nearly resembled, in point of fact, the opinions of Bullinger than those of any other eminent man of the period. It is quite true that Cranmer and his associates, wdio mainly determined the character of the English Reformation, were a good deal Melancthonian in them general character, tendencies, and sym¬ pathies. Cranmer resembled Melanctlion both in his excellencies and his defects, and would, we fear, in similar circumstances, have gone as far in sacrificing principle and in compromising truth, as Melanctlion was ready to have done at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. Indeed, it is, and will always remain, something of a mystery, how Cranmer contrived to thread his way through the rocks and quicksands of Henry’s reign, without sacrificing his in¬ tegrity. The English Reformers were, upon the whole, cautious and timid men, who leaned decidedly to the side of peace, quiet¬ ness, compromise, and who were trained by their peculiar, and in many respects unfavourable, circumstances, to the habit of avoid¬ ing, as far as possible, to give offence. There was a decided want of men among them who were possessed of a high and commanding order of intellect, or of the capacity of bold, vigorous, and inde¬ pendent thinking. There was not one man among them qualified Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 191 by a combination of intellectual and moral qualities, to stamp liis image, as an individual, upon his age or country. There is not one of them who has taken a high place or exerted a lasting influence as a theologian, in the exposition and discussion of important doc¬ trinal questions. There was no native Englishman of the period equal in point of ability and learning, as a theologian, to either of the two men, Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, whom Cranmer succeeded in getting over from the continent, — whom he placed in the most influential situations, the divinity chairs of Cambridge and Oxford, — with whom, during almost the whole reign of Edward, he was intimately associated, — who must have exerted a great in¬ fluence over his mind, — and who were decided Calvinists. There is not one of those who acquired distinction in the church before the accession of Elizabeth who can be regarded as a first-class theologian. Bishop Jewel is the first Anglican churchman to whom we would be disposed to concede that title, and he, as was said by Froude, one of the founders of Puseyism, wrote “ very much like an irreverent dissenter.” Latimer and Hooper were excellent and most valuable men, great preachers, and eminently practical and useful, but they had neither capacity nor taste for the higher departments of theological speculation. Bishop Ridley had probably more influence with Cranmer, and was per¬ haps an abler man, than either of them, but he was not a man of a high order of intellect, and it was probably to this and to the want of any great familiarity with theological discussions, and not merely to a feeling of reverential modesty, that we owe his well- known statement about predestination and cognate topics — “In these matters I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost none otherwise, than the very text doth, as it were, lead me by the hand.” There is an element of truth and beauty in this sentiment. But it is thoroughly one-sided, it is wholly un¬ suitable to what has long been the actual condition of the church, and in its practical application, it is chiefly to favour the supporters of error, those who find their advantage in confusion and obscurity. Ridley’s notion sounds well, and is apt to make an impression at first upon the minds of men who have not examined the subject or studied its history. It might have been practicable and safe to act upon it, if errors and heresies had never arisen to disturb the peace and purity of the church. The great controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries against the Arians and Pelagians put 192 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. an end to the condition of things in which it might have been possible to act upon Ridley’s notion. This condition of things can never return, and it is now the church’s imperative duty to seek, by turning Scripture to the fullest possible account, by bringing out and combining all that it teaches, explicitly or by good and necessary consequence, to unfold plainly and distinctly the whole scheme of divine truth, and to refute and expose the errors and heresies which may still be striving to gain an ascendency. The character and tendencies of Cranmer and Ridley, deter¬ mined, to a large extent, the general type of the English Reforma¬ tion. It was in the main cautious, timid, compromising. This applies to some extent even to its theology, hut not to such an extent as to have made the theology Arminian, or even neutral, but only so far as to have made it moderate Calvinism. The proof that the great body of those who were concerned in pre¬ paring the English articles in the reign of Edward, and in estab¬ lishing them again in the reign of Elizabeth, were in their own personal convictions Calvinists in doctrine, though averse to all extreme views, and to all strong and incautious statements, and anxious to guard against the practical abuse of their doctrines, is, we are persuaded, perfectly conclusive and unanswerable. As a whole, it cannot be touched ; and the evidence in support of this position is gaining in strength, and has gained in our own day, by the progress of research and investigation. We cannot, of course, pretend either to adduce the evidence, or to answer what has been brought forward on the other side. Those who wish to see this evidence fully adduced and cleared from objection, will find all this in the books already mentioned, by Prynne, Hickman, Top- lady, Overton, and Goode ; and if they are capable of estimating evidence, and possessed of a reasonable measure of impartiality and candour, they will not be moved by anything that has been produced upon the other side by Heylin, Winchester, Daubeny, Tomline, and Laurence. The Calvinism, however, of the fathers and founders of the Church of England, does not at once and ipso facto settle the Calvinism of the articles and the liturgy. It proves, indeed, that there is nothing anti-Calvinistic in the formularies of the church, and that no Calvinist need have any hesitation about appro'', dug of them, unless they could be shown to be palpably self -contradic¬ tory. But still it is possible, that, though Calvinists themselves, Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 193 they may have abstained from making an explicit profession of Calvinism a term of communion. They may have intended to leave an open door both for Calvinists and Arminians, and with this view may have prepared their public symbols in such indefi¬ nite and ambiguous terms as would exclude neither, because they might be assented to by both. This is about as much as the more respectable Arminians venture to assert, and it is all to which they can manage to give anything like plausibility. We are not concerned to prove that Arminians cannot honestly subscribe the articles. This is a question not so much for strangers, as for themselves and for their fellow-churchmen. But the ground taken by such men as Daubeny, Tomline, and Laurence, that the articles are inconsistent with Calvinism, and must exclude all honest Calvinists, we cannot but protest against as an outrage upon historic truth. We have never been able to understand how any one but a Calvinist could comfortably subscribe the 17th ar¬ ticle. But we have no wish to press this. We admit that it is very cautiously and temperately expressed, and that it would have been easy if its compilers had so intended, to have made it more strin¬ gently, explicitly, and undeniably, Calvinistic. What we maintain is, that its most natural and obvious meaning is Calvinistic, — that there is no evidence, internal or external, fitted to lead us to doubt, that it teaches, and was intended to teach, Calvinism, — and that all the attempts which have been made to show that it is positively anti-Calvinistic, have been mere exhibitions of incom¬ petency or of something worse. We can only make a few observations upon the 17tli article. The most important parts of the article, the beginning and the end, are as follow : — “ Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to ever¬ lasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be en¬ dued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by His Spirit working in due season : they through grace obey the calling : they be justified freely : they be made sons of God by adoption : they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ : they walk reli¬ giously in good Avorks, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlast¬ ing felicity. “ Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be VOL. I. 13 194 MELANCTHON AND TIIE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. generally set forth to us in holy Scripture, and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.” Now the first reflection that occurs on reading this is, that there is not one word or phrase in it to which any Calvinist can object, or ever has objected. Every Calvinist sees in it a plain and explicit statement of his fundamental principle, that God hath from eternity chosen some men in Christ, and resolved to deliver and save them, and that, in consequence of this election, these men, so chosen, are enabled to believe in Christ, are justified and regenerated, are enabled to lead holy lives, and are preserved unto salvation. This is plainly what the article states, and this is just a simple unequivocal declaration of the fundamental, the only fundamental, principle of Calvinism. Calvinists could easily in¬ troduce certain expressions, suggested by later controversies and the sophisms and evasions to which they gave rise , which would make the article more undeniably and exclusively Calvinistic ; hut no one has ever felt the slightest difficulty about the statements, as plainly and obviously, without comment or explanation, teaching the Calvinistic doctrine of election. It has been strongly alleged by Arminians, that the caution or caveat contained in the last sentence is inconsistent with Calvin¬ istic opinions, and was intended to exclude them. But this is a sheer misrepresentation. No Calvinist has ever had the slightest difficulty about approving of this caveat, because it is quite notori¬ ous, that this mode of speaking is universal among Calvinistic divines in unfolding the practical application of their doctrine, — that the second part of the statement is given in the veiy words of Calvin himself, — and that the first part of it, too, is found in substance, though not verbatim , in his writings. No Calvinist can have any difficulty in showing the perfect consistency of this caveat with his doctrine concerning predestination. But no Arminian can give any intelligible reason why such a caveat should have been introduced, except in connection with a previous statement of Calvinistic predestination. It is only the Calvinistic, and not the Arminian, doctrine that suggests or requires such guards or caveats ; and it is plainly impossible that such a state¬ ment could ever have occurred to the compilers of the articles as proper and necessary, unless they had been distinctly aware, that they had just laid down a statement which at least included the Essay IV.] THE CIIUECII OF ENGLAND. 195 Calvinistic doctrine. Calvinists have always regarded it as a strong confirmation of their doctrine, that the Apostle Paul so plainly intimates, that he expected that almost as a matter of course, men would adduce against his doctrine the same objections which have, in every age, been adduced against Calvinism, but which nobody would ever think of adducing against Arminianism. Upon the same principle, the caveat introduced into the end of the 17th article, is a plain proof that the Calvinistic doctrine was at least included in the preceding statements. The common allegation, that this caveat excludes Calvinism, is purely ridiculous. While Calvinists find nothing in the 17th article but what is in full accordance with their ordinary train of thinking, and with the usual language of their most eminent writers, Arminians are obliged to distort and pervert it. Bishop Tomline, in his Elements of Christian Theology, does it in this way.* “ Those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, are that part of mankind to whom God decreed to make known the gospel ; and it is to be observed, that this expression does not distinguish one set of Christians from another, but Christians in general from the rest of mankind ; and, conse¬ quently, ‘ to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation,’ does not mean actually saving them, but granting them the means of salvation through Christ.” This surely ought to repel and disgust honest men, and yet it is in substance the interpretation which must be put upon the article, as well as upon the statements of Scripture, by the Armi¬ nians. Sometimes the idea is put in a more gross and offensive form, as when Dean Kipling, in discussing this subject, lays it down as the doctrine of the founders of the Church of England, that u every person is an elect, whom some duly authorised minister of the gospel has baptized in the Christian faith ;”f and sometimes it is glossed over with more skill and plausibility, as by Archbishop Laurence in his “Lamp ton Lectures.” But the leading idea is the same, “ chosen in Christ ” means, chosen as Christians, i.e., chosen to enjoy the outward privileges of the clrarch ; and as to God’s having decreed to deliver them from curse and damna¬ tion, and to bring them by Christ to eternal salvation, this just means that God decreed to give to them the enjoyment of the outward means of grace, the final result being left entirely * Yol. ii. p. 301. t P. 86. 196 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. dependent upon themselves, upon their improvement of their privileges. Laurence dwells at considerable length upon the expression u chosen in Christ ,” and labours to show that this was intended to support Arminianism, and to exclude Calvinism, alleging that the expression was selected for the purpose of intimating that u God predestinated His elect in Christ, or the Christian Church , to salvation,” — that the only election is, “the election of a collective mass on account of Christ,” — and that He “ predestinates to the adoption of children, those wTho duly receive and apply the means of salvation which He lias thus gratuitously provided for them.” * The argument founded upon the expression u chosen in Christ ,” the only thing in the leading section of the article alleged to have the appearance of being anti- Cal vinistic, can be easily dis¬ posed of. 1st. In the clause “ whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind,” the words “ in Christ ” alleged to teach the Arminian notion of the election of the visible church to the outward means of grace as being the only election, were added on the revision of the articles in Elizabeth’s reign, in 1562, having formed no part of the article as it was prepared in Edward’s reign. But the insertion of these words could not have been intended to serve an Arminian purpose, for it is notorious, and is generally conceded by our opponents, that most of those who had the management of the ecclesiastical affairs in Elizabeth’s reign, were decided Calvinists, even when this is not conceded in regard to Cranmer and his associates. This concession indeed could not decently he refused, when it is notorious that, in 1562, immediately after the articles as they now stand had been passed in convocation, Bishop Jewel wrote to Peter Martyr, then at Zurich, in the following terms : — “ As to matters of doctrine, we have pared every thing away to the very quick, and do not differ from your doctrine by a nail’s breadth.”f 2d. The phrase “ chosen in Christ,” is a scriptural expression ; * P. 161, 168-9. Goode has dis¬ tinctly charged Laurence with assert¬ ing that “ the doctrine of our church is, that the elect people of God are all the baptized,” and with making the “ monstrous statement, that all in the visible church are to be considered as the elect ” (p. 54, 90) ; and this charge is undoubtedly true, in substance, though Laurence has not perhaps brought out his notion quite so fully and explicitly. f Zurich Letters , 1st series, p. 59. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 197 and as the Calvinists of course think that they can interpret it in entire accordance with their theological views, it is just as un¬ warrantable to infer Arminianism, as it would be to infer Cal¬ vinism, from the mere adoption of it. 3d. The expression is used in the whole series of undeniably Calvinistic confessions, both in those prepared before and after the Arminian controversy — in the Scottish Confession of 1560, as well as in the Westminster one, in the French, Belgic, and Hel¬ vetic, and in the canons of the synod of Dort. All these things are quite notorious, and they are perfectly conclusive against Laurence’s argument ; but the Anglican anti- Calvinists seem to be ignorant enough of theology, to look upon him as an oracle, and to believe such statements as these because he makes them. The truth is, that the first attempt to employ this expression in a controversial way for Arminian purposes, was made by the Lutherans, when, in the latter part of the sixteenth centurv, they were shuffling out of the Calvinism of their master. They wished still to maintain, if they could, that election was gra¬ tuitous, — a position which even Melancthon held to the last, — and that it was not to be traced to anything in men themselves. These positions of course cannot be held intelligently and consistently by any but Calvinists. But first the Lutherans, and afterwards Arminius, attempted to involve this whole matter in obscurity and confusion, by representing Christ as the cause and foundation of election, and by trying to show that this implied, that men were elected as Christians, or because of their relation to Christ. Calvinists had no difficulty in showing the sophistical and evasive character of this attempt, and proving that under a profession of honouring Christ, it assigned to Him a place in the scheme of salvation which Scripture does not sanction ; and that in so far as men are concerned, it plainly implied, when stripped of the vagueness and confusion thrown around it, either, that election is only to the outward privileges of the church, or that, if it be supposed to refer to eternal life, it is based upon a foresight of men’s faith, — that is, that it is not gratuitous, but really founded upon something in men themselves. The exposure of this Lutheran and Arminian sophistry produced some interesting, though occasionally rather intricate, discussion, on topics which seem to be utterly unknown among the Anglican Arminians, but which are now quite indispensable to a thorough acquaintance 198 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. with the subject, and of which a masterly summary is given in Turretine’s Theolog. Elenct.* There is nothing, then, in the 17th article, but what in its natural and obvious meaning is most fully accordant with Cal¬ vinism, and seems to have been intended to teach the fundamental principle of that system of theology, while the attempts which have been made to disprove this, and to bring in an Arminian interpretation of it, can be shown to be utterly unsuccessful. This is quite sufficient to establish the Calvinism of the article, especially when viewed in connection with the known sentiments of its compilers. But the evidence is further strengthened by com¬ paring it with the section on predestination in the later editions of “ Melancthon’s Commonplaces.” All who deny the Calvinism of the article maintain that it was derived from Melancthon’ s writ¬ ings, and was intended to embody the views which he came ulti¬ mately to adopt. But we think it scarcely possible for any one at all versant in these matters, to compare the article with Mel- ancthon’s section on predestination, without seeing a marked con¬ trast between them. We cannot give quotations, or go into any detail upon this point; but we think it manifest, that the 17th article is much more clearly and explicitly Calvinistic, or rather, is much more like, and comes much more near to, Calvinism, than anything to be found in Melancthon’s later writings. If the compilers of the articles had really meant to leave the only ques¬ tion of fundamental importance on the subject of predestination undecided, — and this, as we have said, is about as much as the more respectable defenders of Arminianism usually venture to allege, — they had before them, in the section upon this subject in the later editions of u Melancthon’s Commonplaces,” a very fair attempt at saying nothing — that is, at professing to explain the matter without decidedly and explicitly taking either side. But they did not take this course ; for the 17th article is, to say the very least, not nearly so obscure and ambiguous as the exposition of Melancthon ; from which the inference is plain, that though on some points they may have followed Melancthon, they here put themselves under the surer and steadier guidance of Calvin, or, at least, of Bullinger. Arminians, in discussing this subject, usually try to take ad¬ vantage of the concession, which we cannot withhold from them, * Loc. iv. Qu. x. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OE ENGLAND. 199 that the founders of tlie Church of England were moderate, as distinguished from extreme, or ultra-Calvinists, and that the doc¬ trine of the article is moderate Calvinism. They are disposed to scout the idea of moderate Calvinism as an inconsistency and absurdity, — to insinuate that men should not he held to he Calvinists at all unless they have embraced all the points of the system in its most detailed and developed form, — and to allege that since this is not true of the Anglican Reformers, they should not be regarded as Calvinists. This whole notion is plainly exaggerated and un¬ tenable, and confounds things that differ. It is quite warrantable and fair to press men with the consequences or results of the prin¬ ciples they profess, in order to show them that, in right reason, they ought either to abandon their principles, or else embrace the ulterior views to which they can be shown legitimately to lead. Rut it is unwarrantable to draw inferences as to what, in point of fact, men’s principles are, from our views of what consistency would seem to require of them. Men are not to be disbelief ed when they tell us, as a matter of fact, that in their coin ictions they have come thus far, but that they stop here, merely because we think that either they should not have come so far, or that, if they did, they should have advanced farther. The subject we are at present considering is essentially a matter of fact a question as to what views certain men did embrace and profess and it should be determined by the ordinary evidence applicable to such a matter of fact, viz., the statements and procedure of the parties themselves, and not by any inferences and deductions of ours, in the soundness of which they do not acquiesce. These Anglican Arminians, most of whom have given abundant evidence that they do not understand what Calvinism is, presume to set up an aibi- trary standard of Calvinism ; and if men do not come up to this standard, they infer, not merely that they are not Calvinists, but that they do not, in point of fact, hold, whatever they may profess, any of the leading doctrines usually regarded as Calvinistic. All this is utterly unwarrantable and extravagant, and it is the more so when we have to deal, as in this case, not merely with the pei- sonal convictions of individuals, but with the public formularies which they prepared for the church. The same qualities and in¬ fluences which made Cranmer and his associates only moderate Calvinists, in their own personal convictions, were likely to operate still more powerfully when they were preparing public documents 200 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. for tlie church, to which other men were to be required to assent. Here it is quite natural to expect, that they would be still more moderate Calvinists than they were in their own individual con¬ victions.* All this is quite natural and intelligible, and it affords no reasonable ground for doubting that, as individuals, they honestly and sincerely held all the Calvinism which, by their statements and actions, they have professed, or that they really meant to embody, in the formularies of the church, all the Calvinism which is there indicated. Moderate Calvinism, as distinguished from Calvinism of a more definite and detailed description, may be an indication of something defective in men’s mental and moral capacities or tendencies, or, it may be traceable to some qualities and feelings, good and creditable in the main, but carried out to an unwarrantable excess. But this is no reason why men should have ascribed to them inferences and deductions from their prin¬ ciples which they do not themselves perceive or admit, or should have any doubt thrown upon the trustworthiness of their profes¬ sions as to what they do hold. For ourselves, we do not affect the designation of moderate Calvinists. We believe the whole Calvinism of the canons of the synod of Dort, and of the Confession of the Westminster Assembly, and we are willing to attempt to expound and defend, when called upon, the whole doctrine of these symbols, to show that it is all taught or indicated in Scripture. We have been only confirmed in our Calvinism by all the study we have given to this subject. But while our own personal convictions of the truth of * It is common in works intended to disprove the Calvinism of the 17th article, to give numerous and length¬ ened extracts from Calvin. One- fourtli part of the whole of Winches¬ ter’s pamphlet upon the subject, and one-third of Kipling’s, is made up in this way. This has a great appear¬ ance of fairness, but it is really a con¬ troversial artifice. It is intended to deepen the impression of the discre¬ pancy between Calvin and the article, though there is no fair comparison between a brief, summary statement of a doctrine intended for a public formulary, and the minute details, perhaps incautious and exaggerated expressions, that are to be expected in elaborate expositions and defences of the doctrine, prepared by an indivi¬ dual, and intended merely for general perusal. The question is not, whether the compilers of the articles agreed in all respects with Calvin, as an indivi¬ dual, but whether they professed the fundamental principles of the system of theology usually called after his name. The only fair comparison is between the 17tli article and the state¬ ments on predestination contained in the Calvinistic confessions prepared about the same time ; and here cer¬ tainly there is no inconsistency, scarcely even an apparent discre¬ pancy. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 201 a fully-developed Calvinism have become confirmed by continued study, we have, at the same time, and by the same process, been taught a larger measure of forbearance towards those who differ from us on some of the questions connected with these profound and mysterious subjects, — and especially, towards those who do not see their way to go so far as we think warrantable, in explaining and defining some points, and who, while, it may be, not explicitly denying what we believe to be true, yet rather shrink from the more detailed and definite explanations which we regard as true and warrantable. The more we have studied these subjects, the more have we become convinced, that the one fundamental prin¬ ciple of Calvinism, — that the admission or denial of which consti¬ tutes the real line of demarcation between Calvinists and anti- Calvinists, is the doctrine of predestination in the more limited sense of the word, or of election, as descriptive of the substance of the teaching of Scripture with regard to what God decreed or purposed from eternity to do, and does or effects in time, for the salvation of those who are saved ; and that every man ought to be held by others, and ought to acknowlege himself, to be a Calvinist, who believes that Gocl from eternity chose some men, certain per¬ sons of the human race, absolutely and unconditionally to sal¬ vation through Christ, and that He accomplishes this purpose, or executes this decree in time, by effecting and securing the salva¬ tion of these men in accordance with the provisions of the covenant of grace. Of all the doctrines usually discussed between Calvinists and Arminians, and commonly held by Calvinists to be taught in Scripture, this doctrine of election is at once the most important in itself, and the most clearly revealed in God’s word. In regard to the other doctrines of the Calvinistic system of theology, as set forth by the synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly, we believe, 1st, That they can be all sufficiently and satisfactorily established by scriptural evidence bearing directly upon each par¬ ticular topic ; and 2d, That they may be all legitimately and con¬ clusively deduced in the way of consequence or inference from the great doctrine of election. It is men’s duty to ascertain what God has revealed upon all these matters in His word, and to exercise their rational faculties in estimating and developing the logical relations of these doctrines with each other. And, for ourselves, we have no doubt that the full legitimate use and improvement of the word of God and of our rational faculties, ought to lead men 202 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. to tlie firm belief and the open maintenance of the doctrines ge¬ nerally held by Calvinists, with regard to what is commonly, though improperly, called reprobation, the nature and extent of the atone¬ ment, the certain and insuperable efficacy of grace, and the final perseverance of all believers. We believe that when men deny, or even decline or refuse to profess, the doctrines generally held by Calvinists upon these subjects, they are, in so far, to be held as coming short in the discharge of their duty and the improve¬ ment of their privileges in regard to the truth of God. But we are disposed to practise more of indulgence and forbearance towards perplexities and confusions, or even positive errors, on these questions, than on the great fundamental principle of elec¬ tion, partly because of the difference among them in respect of intrinsic importance, and partly because of the difference in the clearness and fulness of the Scripture evidences by which they are supported. At present, however, we have to do, not with abstract specula¬ tions, but with the construction of evidence bearing upon a matter of fact, viz., what opinions were actually held by certain parties. The general allegation here is, that the founders of the Church of England were not Calvinists ; and one reason adduced in support of it is, that while there may be some ground for holding that they believed in the Calvinistic doctrine of election, they did not believe in certain other doctrines which have been usually regarded as necessary parts of the Calvinistic system of theology. And our general answer, based upon the grounds already referred to, is, that it is unwarrantable to draw inferences as to what men’s opinions in point of fact are, from what consistency on their part, seems to us to require ; and that we not only acknowledge, but must claim, every man as a Calvinist who believes in the Calvin¬ istic doctrine of election, even though, from disadvantages and drawbacks in some of the features of his mental and moral consti¬ tution, or of his position and opportunities, he may be involved in perplexity and confusion, or even positive error, in regard to some of the other doctrines usually held by Calvinists. This is a suffi¬ cient answer to the argument in general ; and when we examine the special grounds by which the general position is commonly supported, we find that they can be shown to be irrelevant, inac¬ curate, and inconclusive. We can only refer to them, and that only in their purely historical aspects, as bearing upon the matter Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 203 of fact wliicli we have been investigating. They are chiefly these : — I. The 17th article, it is said, cannot be Calvinistic, because it contains nothing whatever about reprobation, which is alleged to be an essential part of the Calvinistic system. Reprobation properly means a statement of the doctrine of Scripture as to what God pm’posed from eternity, and does in time, in regard to those men who ultimately perish. Now, every Calvinist admits, that there is comparatively little indicated in Scripture concerning this awful and mysterious subject, and that what can be known about it must be partly learned in the way of inference and deduction, from the much clearer and fuller information given in Scripture concerning God’s purposes and procedure in regard to those who are saved. This consideration shows the unworthy and dishonour¬ able character of the efforts usually made by Arminians to thrust in the discussion of reprobation before that of election, notwith¬ standing that the latter is both much more important in itself, and much more fully revealed in Scripture, than the former. But this consideration also shows how probable it is, that men of a timid and cautious temperament, though firmly believing in the doctrine of election, might not hold themselves called upon to say anything about reprobation, especially when preparing public formularies. This idea was acted upon at that period by men who were un¬ doubtedly Calvinists. There is no statement of reprobation in the Scottish Confession of 1560, or in the Second Helvetic of 1566, which was approved of by almost all the Reformed churches, though the authors of these documents were decided Calvinists, and the documents themselves are undoubtedly Calvinistic. This topic is stated very briefly and compendiously even in the French and Belgic Confessions ; and it was only the perverse, offensive, and discreditable conduct of the Arminians at the synod of Dort, in thrusting this topic into prominence and priority, that rendered it necessary for the church to put forth a somewhat fuller state¬ ment of its nature and position. It is indeed the proceedings of heretics that have all along, and in every age, produced and necessitated the more full and detailed explanations and definitions which the church has been led to put forth. And one reason why heretics have such a bitter hatred of these explanations and defini¬ tions is, because they feel that in this way their errors are exposed, and grave suspicions are sometimes excited as to their integrity. 204 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. But we have said more than enough to show that the omission of any mention of reprobation affords no presumption against the Calvinism of the 17th article. II. Another favourite allegation of the Arminians upon this subject is, that the articles and liturgy cannot be Calvinistic, because they teach the doctrine of universal redemption, and this entirely precludes Calvinism. This topic is thus put by Water- land, in a passage which has been often quoted or referred to since by controversialists on the same side, and which is a fair enough specimen of the accuracy of the facts and the conclusiveness of the reasonings prevalent in that class of writers : — u In the year 1618, our divines, at the synod of Dort, had commission to insist upon the doctrine of universal redemption as the doctrine of the Church of England, which one doctrine, pursued in its just con¬ sequences, is sufficient to overthrow the whole Calvinian system of the five points.”* Now, the assertion that the English divines, at the synod of Dort, had commission to insist upon the doctrine of universal redemp¬ tion, is not true, though it is not wholly destitute of a colourable pretext. No such commission or instruction was given to them, or was acted on by them, though some of them were favourable to that doctrine. And Waterland, we believe, could have pro¬ duced, if called upon, no direct authority for the statement, except an unsupported assertion of Heylin’s. The futility of the argu¬ ment drawn from this doctrine against the Calvinism of the Church of England, will appear from the following considerations : — 1. This doctrine of universal redemption is of such a nature that, as experience proves, it is easy to produce abundance of quotations that seem to assert it, and that do assert something like it, from authors who did not believe it, and never intended to teach it. 2. A great variety of doctrines pass currently under the gene¬ ral name of universal redemption, graduating from the grosser form, which would exclude not only all Calvinistic principles, but all light conceptions of a vicarious atonement, even as held pro¬ fessedly by Arminians themselves, to the comparatively harmless form, in which it seems to be little else than an unwarranted and exaggerated mode of embodying the truth, that the offers and * Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription Works, vol. ii. p. 348. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND. 205 invitations of the gospel are to be addressed to all men, to men indiscriminately "without distinction or exception. 3. It is perfectly certain that a considerable number of eminent divines, who undoubtedly believed the whole of what is usually held by Calvinists, both in regard to election and reprobation, have professed to maintain the doctrine of universal redemption. This does not afford a presumption that the doctrine is true, but it furnishes a proof, that the fact that men hold it is no evidence that they are not Calvinists. This statement applies to Cameron and Amyraut, to Daillee and Claude, to Davenant and Baxter, and to come down to our own times, to Thomas Scott and lialph Wardlaw. We have never been at all impressed with the reason¬ ings of these men in favour of universal redemption, but we can¬ not, because of what we reckon their error upon the subject, consent to their being handed over to the Arminians. Waterland’s statement is peculiarly inexcusable, because the mention of the synod of Dort ought to have suggested to him the name of Bishop Davenant, and he ought to have known that we have a work of Davenant’ s, entitled, u Dissertationes Duse prima de Morte Christi, altera de Prsedestinatione et Keprobatione,” and that, while the first of these is a very able defence of the doctrine of universal redemption, as it has been usually held by men who pro¬ fessed Calvinistic views upon other points, the second is a most thorough and masterly exposition and defence of the views ordi¬ narily held by Calvinists in regard to election and reprobation. Indeed, we do not believe that there exists a better or more satis¬ factory vindication of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, in both its branches of election and reprobation, than the second of these two Dissertations.* III. The third and last of the positions sometimes taken up by those who deny the Calvinism of the English articles and liturgy is, that these formularies are opposed to the doctrine of the certain perseverance of all believers or saints, and that this * Davenant’s “Animadversions” on Hoard’s “ God’s Love to Mankind” is better known, and displays the same high qualities. But so far as general impression and effect are concerned, it has the great disadvantage of being literally a reply to Hoard’s treatise, the whole of which is inserted, and then answered step by step ; whereas the “ Dissertation on Predestination and Reprobation” is a formal discus- sion, scientifically and scholastically digested and arranged, and taking up the different branches of the subjects in their due logical order. 206 MELANCTITON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. doctrine is a necessary part of Calvinism. It is certainly a neces¬ sary part of Calvinism, tliat all those whom God has absolutely chosen to salvation shall be saved ; and no man ever held the Cal- vinistic doctrine of election without believing this. But this is not the question that is discussed in connection with the views of some of the early English divines about perseverance or apostasy. They all admitted that all the elect would certainly persevere, and could not fall away, but some of them seem to have held that some men, though not elected to salvation, might attain to faith and conversion, and yet, because not elected, might fall away and finally perish. It has been alleged that the 16th article of the Church of England sanctions this view, and we admit that there is a good deal to countenance it in Augustine. There is no real difficulty in the 16th article, which Calvinists have always subscribed with¬ out hesitation, as being true so far as it goes, and as not contra¬ dicting any of their principles. Augustine’s error and confusion upon this subject seems to be traceable in some measure to his having embraced, more or less fully and explicitly, the mischievous heresy of baptismal regeneration ; and it is probably owing to the same cause, that there have always been, from the time of Bishop Overall down to the present day, some highly respected Anglican divines who preferred the opinion of Augustine to that of Calvin in regard to the possible apostasy of some who had been brought to faith and repentance, while agreeing with them both in main¬ taining the great principle, that God from eternity chose some men, certain persons, to salvation, and that in carrying out this electing purpose He effects and secures the salvation of every one of those whom He has chosen in Christ.* It is quite unwarrant¬ able to represent this as a difference of vital importance between Augustine and Calvin, in relation to the great distinctive features of the theological system which they held in common, and which they have done more than any uninspired men to commend to the acceptance of the people of God And it is deserving of special notice, that on this particular point, Cranmer followed Calvin, and not Augustine ; f so that we have the fullest and most direct * A very good specimen of this may be found, in a work entitled “The Union between Christ and His People, four Sermons preached before the University of Oxford,” by Dr Heurt- ley, the present able, excellent, and accomplished Margaret Professor of Divinity there, f Goode, p. 52. Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 207 authority for maintaining, that nothing of an anti-Calvinistic complexion upon the subject of perseverance or apostasy is, in so far as the intention of the compilers is concerned, to be found in the Anglican formularies. We have spoken strongly as to the futility of the arguments derived from these subjects of reprobation, universal redemption, and perseverance, in support of the alleged matter of fact of the anti-Calvinism of the Anglican formularies ; for it is, we think, very clear and certain, that no considerations deduced from these topics can be of any avail in weakening the evidence for, or in strengthening the evidence against, the position, that these sym¬ bols teach, and were intended to teach, the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology. But while we cannot allow that there is any difficulty whatever in disposing of the attempts to refute the historical proof of the doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England, by inferences derived from these doctrines, we willingly admit that these doctrines in themselves, viewed in their nature and meaning, in their evidence and application, and in their relation to each other, and to the scheme of divine truth as a whole, involve profound and inscrutable mysteries. They lead at once into the most arduous and difficult questions with which the mind of man has ever grappled. The investigation of the doctrines of reprobation, universal redemption, and persever¬ ance, requires us to grapple with the most arduous and difficult of all topics in the fields both of scriptural exegesis and theolo¬ gical speculation ; and no one has ever prosecuted this investiga¬ tion in a right and becoming spirit without having been impressed with a sense of the profound difficulties attaching to it, and with¬ out being led, in consequence, to regard differences of opinion on some points with forbearance and kindly consideration, how¬ ever decided may have been the conclusions to which he himself has come. Still men should ascertain and profess the whole of what is taught or indicated on these subjects in Scripture, and they should not allow mere caution or timidity, or any other feeling or motive, even though it should assume the form of reverence or modesty, to interfere with the discharge of this duty. While reticence, perplexity, confusion, and even positive error upon some of the features of these profound and solemn subjects may be treated with forbearance, all due allowances being made for peculiarities 208 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IY. in men’s constitution and circumstances, they should never be approved of or encouraged. Men should be warned of these shortcomings and infirmities, and exhorted to guard against them. We are persuaded that there are many of the evangelical clergy in the Church of England, who come far short of doing justice to God’s truth in these matters, nay, come far short even of what their own convictions, defective and confused as they often are, should lead them to do. There are not a few of the evangelical clergy, men of genuine and elevated piety, and faithful and de¬ voted ministers, who, while really believing in the Calvinistic doctrine of election, seem to shrink from making an explicit public profession of their judgment, or from giving it anything like prominence. We suspect that in some instances they are half afraid to think or read, or speak about the subject of election, lest they should he led to form, or should be suspected of having formed, definite or decided opinions on what are reckoned the higher or more mysterious departments of the subject, connected with reprobation, the extent of redemption, and the certainty of perseverance. Whatever may be the precise cause of this mode of acting, and whatever the precise forms it may assume in different individuals, it is a great weakness and infirmity, and it involves or produces a neglect or disregard of the duty they owe to God’s truth, and to God’s cause on earth as virtually identified with the proclamation or diffusion of His truth. From the number and variety of the grounds on which men of this class, who are substantially Calvinists at heart and in their own convictions, labour to excuse themselves from openly and explicitly admitting and proclaiming this, — ranging from the elevated sophistry of men of high intellect and learning like Mr Mozley, down to the mawkish sentimentality of the weakest of the brethren, — it would almost seem as if an open profession of Calvinism still led, in the Church of England, to something like martyrdom. We fear that some of the evangelical clergy, who are really Calvinists in substance and at heart, are deficient in the manly, outspoken independence and courageous integrity of the Newtons and Scotts of a former genera¬ tion. We believe that it would advance the peace of mind of many of these excellent men, and increase their efficiency and usefulness as preachers of the gospel and defenders of God’s truth, if they would bring out their theological convictions more definitely and prominently — if, by a deeper study of these subjects, Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 209 they were led to form, and if, by a deeper sense of the responsi¬ bility connected with this department of the duty of Christian ministers, they were led to profess more detailed and definite views of doctrine, and thus to identify themselves more cordially and avowedly with the leading principles of that system of theology, which has been embraced in substance by a large proportion of the ablest and best men that have ever adorned the Church of Christ, — which was adopted by the whole body of the Reformers, with scarcely a single exception, and even by those timid and cautious men who presided over the Reformation of the Church of England, and prepared her authorised formularies. We believe that one reason why so many of the evangelical clergy rest contented with very obscure and indefinite views upon many theological subjects is, that, from a variety of causes, they are led to shrink from investigating them ; and that their Cal¬ vinism, such as it is, is to he traced, not to a careful study of the subject, or the exercise of their mental powers, but rather to their own personal experience. There is not a converted and believing man on earth, in whose conscience there does not exist at least the germ, or embryo, of a testimony in favour of the substance of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. This testimony may be misun¬ derstood, or perverted, or suppressed ; hut it exists in the ineradi¬ cable sense which every converted man has, that if God had not chosen him, he never would have chosen God, and that if God, by His Spirit, had not exerted a decisive and determining influence in the matter, he never would have been turned from darkness to liojit, and been led to embrace Christ as his Saviour. This is really the sum and substance of Calvinism. It is just the intelli¬ gent and hearty ascription of the entire, undivided glory of their salvation, by all who are saved, to the sovereign purpose, the infinite merit, and the almighty agency of God, — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And all that Calvinists ask is, that men who have been constrained to believe, and feel this to be true in surveying the way by which God has led them, would embody their convictions in distinct and definite propositions; and that finding these propositions fully supported by the sacred Scriptures, they would profess and proclaim them as a portion of God’s re¬ vealed truth. There is, indeed, a vast amount of evidence that can be adduced in favour of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when this doctrine VOL. I. 14 210 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. is looked at nakedly and by itself — evidence from Scripture, reason, and experience, — evidence which is fitted to impress, and has im¬ pressed, equally men of the highest and most soaring intellect, and of the most devoted and childlike piety. But at present we have to do not with arguments and proofs, but only with authori¬ ties and testimonies ; and on this subject the general position we are anxious to impress is this, that in favour of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, as descriptive of the substance of what Scrip¬ ture teaches with respect to the divine purposes and procedure in regard to the salvation of those who are saved, there is a mass of testimonies in the experiences, convictions, and impressions of reli¬ gious men, greatly superior both in amount and value, to what may appear upon a superficial view of the matter. These testi¬ monies, indeed, are often clouded and obscured, brought out in a very vague and imperfect way, and enveloped in much darkness and confusion. But still, viewed collectively and in the mass, and estimated fairly in a survey of the history of the church and of the experience of God’s people, they do furnish a powerful con¬ firmation to the proper proofs from Scripture and reason, for the Calvinistic representation of what God purposes and does for the salvation of His chosen. And with respect to that department of the general subject on which not Calvinists but Arminians are so fond of enlarging, viz., the purposes and procedure of God in regard to those of the human race who ultimately perish, Calvinists undertake to show — 1st, That they only follow, humbly and reverentially, the im¬ perfect indications given us in Scripture on this profoundly mysterious subject ; 2d, That while desirous to dwell chiefly upon the subject of election, as being both more important in itself, and more fully and clearly set before us in Scripture, they have been compelled, by the perverse and vexatious importunity of their opponents, to give more prominence to the subject of reprobation than they had themselves any desire to give it ; and 3d, That the inscrutable mysteries attaching to this subject, apply in reality not to the Calvinistic representation of it, but to the actual realities of the case, — to facts which all parties admit, and which all are equally bound, and equally unable, to explain, — the facts, viz., of the fall of the whole human race into an estate of sin and misery, and of this fearful state becoming permanent in regard to a portion of the race ; in other words, the one great fact of the existence and the Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 211 permanence of moral evil among God’s rational and responsible creatures. The Bible assumes or asserts, while it scarcely professes to ex¬ plain, these two great facts of the fall of the whole human race into a state of sin and misery, and of the result that a portion of the race is to be left for ever in that condition. But its leading primary object is to unfold the great scheme of mercy, by which God has effectually provided for the salvation from this state of sin and misery of an innumerable multitude, which, for anything that has been made known to us, may, in the ultimate result of things, comprehend a great majority of the descendants of Adam. God has devised such a scheme as this, to the praise of the glory of His grace. He has made it known to us, that we may share in its blessings, — that we may attain to salvation ourselves, — may assist, as the instruments, in His hand, in promoting the salvation of our fellow-men, — and may be prepared for ascribing, with all our hearts, in time and through eternity, glory, and honour, and blessing to Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and made us kings and priests unto God and His Father. ZWINGLE, AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS* It is a very common practice of popish writers to represent Protestantism and tlie Reformation as thoroughly identified with Luther, with his character, opinions, labours, and achievements. Protestantism, according to a mode of representation in which they are fond of indulging, and which is not destitute of a certain measure of plausibility, is a new religion never heard of till it was invented by Luther, and traceable to him alone as its source and origin. Having thus identified the Reformation and Protestantism with Luther, they commonly proceed to give an account of him whom they represent as the author of our faith, bringing out, with great distortion and exaggeration, everything about his character and history, about his sayings and doings, which may be fitted to excite a prejudice against him, especially as contem¬ plated in the light in which they, not ice, represent him, viz., as the author and founder of a new religious system. Independently of the utterly unfounded and erroneous assumptions in point of principle and argument, on which this whole representation is based, it is altogether untrue, as a mere historical fact, that Luther occupied any such place in regard to the Reformation and Protes¬ tantism, as Papists, — for controversial purposes, — are accustomed to assign to him. He was not the only person who was raised up at that period to oj)pose the Church of Rome, and to bring out * British and Foreign Evangelical Review, October 1860. Essay V.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 213 from the word of God other representations of apostolic Chris¬ tianity than those which the papacy inculcated and embodied. It is quite certain that, in different parts of Europe, a considerable number of persons, as early as Luther, and altogether indepen¬ dently of him, had been led to deduce from the sacred Scriptures doctrines substantially the same as his, even the doctrines which may be said to constitute the fundamental principles of Protestan¬ tism. In France, Lefevre andFarel, of whom so very interesting an account is given by Dr Merle D’Aubigne in the 12th book of his u History of the Reformation,” * had been led to adopt, and to promulgate, to a certain extent, the leading doctrines of the Reformation before Luther appeared publicly as a Reformer ; and they certainly stand much more in the relation of something like paternity to Calvin, and to all that he was honoured to achieve, than Luther does. And if an open breach with the Church of Rome, and the organisation of a Protestant Church, previously to and independently of Luther, are insisted upon as necessary to the character and position of a Reformer, we can point to Zwingle and his associates, the Reformers of German Switzerland. Zwingle, indeed, was honoured to perform a work both as a reformer and as a theologian, which entitles him to special notice ; and we intend at present giving a brief account of the doctrines which he taught, the place which he occupied, and the influence which he exerted, in regard to theological subjects, k The important movement of which Zwingle might be said to be the originator and the head, was wholly independent of Luther ; that is to say, Luther was in no way whatever, directly or indi¬ rectly, the cause or the occasion of Zwingle being led to embrace the views which he promulgated, or to adopt the course which he pursued. Zwingle had been led to embrace the leading- principles of Protestant truth, and to preach them in 1516, the year before the publication of Luther’s Theses ; and it is quite certain, that all along he continued to think and act for himself, on his own judgment and responsibility, deriving his views from his own personal and independent study of the word of God. This fact shows how inaccurate it is to identify the Reformation with Luther, as if all the Reformers derived their opinions from him, * Yol. iii. 214 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. and merely followed Ills example in abandoning the Church of Rome, and organizing churches apart from her communion. Many at this time, in different parts of Europe, were led to study the sacred Scriptures, and were led further to derive from this study views of divine truth substantially the same, and decidedly opposed to those generally inculcated in the Church of Rome. And, more particularly, it is certain that Luther and Zwingle, — the two men who, in different countries, may be said to have originated the public revolt against Rome and the organisation of Protestant churches, — were wholly independent of, and unconnected with, each other, in the formation of their opinions and their plans, and both derived them from their own separate and independent study of God’s word. We need not dwell upon Zwingle’ s general character as dis¬ tinguished from his theological opinions, for, indeed, it has never been subjected to any very serious or formidable assaults. He was, in a great measure, free from those weaknesses and infirmities which have afforded materials for charges, in some degree true, and to a much greater extent only plausible, against both Luther and Melancthon. He usually spoke and acted with calmness, prudence, and discretion, and, at the same time, with the greatest vigour, intrepidity, and consistency. He gave the most satisfac¬ tory evidence of being thoroughly devoted to God’s service, and of acting under the influence of genuine Christian principle ; and his character was peculiarly fitted, in many respects, to call forth at once esteem and affection. He has been sometimes charged, even by those who had no prejudice against his cause or his principles, with interfering too much in the political affairs of his country, and connecting religion too closely with political movements. And, indeed, his death at the battle of Cappell has been held up as an instance of righteous retribution, — as an illustration of the scriptural principle, that “ he that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword.” Though this view lias been countenanced by some very eminent and influential names in the present day, we are by no means sure that it has any solid foundation to rest upon. We do not know any scrip¬ tural ground which entitles us to lay it down as an absolute rule, that the character of the citizen and the patriot must be entirely sunk in that of the Christian minister, — anything which precludes ministers from taking part, in any circumstances, in promoting Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 215 the political wellbeing of their country, or in seeking, m the use of lawful means, to have the regulation of national affairs directed to the advancement of the cause and kingdom of Christ. Ministers certainly show a spirit unworthy of their office, and indicate the low state of their personal religion, when they ordi¬ narily give much time or attention to anything but the diiect and proper business of their office, and when they act as if they believed that the success of Christ’s cause was really dependent upon political changes, upon results to be accomplished by human policy and human laws ; and scarcely anything short of downright immorality tends more powerfully to injure their usefulness, than engaging keenly in the ordinary contentions of political partizan- ship which may be agitating the community. But since they arc not required to abandon wholly the discharge of the duties, 01 the exercise of the rights, which devolve upon them as citizens, or to become indifferent to the temporal welfare or prosperity of . their country ; and since it can scarcely be disputed that, in point of fact, the way in which national affairs have been regulated and national laws framed, has often materially contributed to the obstruction or the advancement of Christ’s, cause, it seems scarcely fair at once to condemn the conduct of those who may have done something directed to the object of securing the right regulation of national affairs, by means of vague allegations about the spirit of Christianity and the use of carnal weapons, etc., etc., without a careful examination of the particular things done, Mewed in connection with the whole circumstances in which they took place. Many countries were so situated at the time of the Refoimation, that it was scarcely possible to keep political and religious matters entirely distinct, and scarcely practicable for men who veie interested in the welfare of true religion, to abstain from taking part in the regulation of national affairs ; and the narrower the sphere of action, the more difficult, or rather impracticable^ did such separation and abstinence often become. What John Knox did, was compelled to do, and did wTith so much advantage to his country, in Scotland, it was at least equally warrantable and necessaiy for Zwingle to do in the small canton of Zurich, and in the Helvetic confederation. And while this may be said gene¬ rally of his taking some part in the regulation of the public affairs of his country, we are not aware that any evidence has been produced, that he either recommended or approved of any of the 216 ZWINGLE, AND THE Essay V.] public proceedings of Zurich and her confederate cantons, which were clearly objectionable on grounds of religion, equity, or policy. It is well known that he disapproved, and did what he could to prevent, the steps that led to the war in which he lost his life ; and it was in obedience to the express orders of the civil authorities, and in the discharge of his duties as a pastor, that, not without some melancholy forebodings, he accompanied his countrymen to the fatal field of Cappell. We cannot dwell upon this subject, but we have thought it proper to express our doubts, whether the disapprobation which some eminent men in the present day have indicated, of Zwingle’s conduct in this respect, is altogether well founded. We confess we are inclined to regard this disapproba¬ tion as originating rather in a narrow and sentimental, than in an enlarged and manly, view of the whole subject ; and to suspect that it may have been encouraged by an unconscious infusion of the erroneous and dangerous principle of judging of the character of Zwingle’s conduct by the event, — of regarding his violent death upon the field of battle as a sort of proof of his Master’s displeasure with the course he had pursued. But we cannot dwell upon historical and biographical matters, and must proceed to notice Zwingle’s theology. Though he preached the gospel, and inculcated the leading principles of Protestantism in 1516, it was not till 1519 that he was called to come forth publicly in opposition to the Church of Home, and it was in 1522 that his first works were published; so that, as his death took place in 1531, when he was only forty- seven years of age, his public labours as a Reformer extended only over a period of twelve, and as an author over a period of nine, years. And when we attend to the multiplicity and abundance of his public labours, and the character of the four folio volumes of his works produced in this brief space, we are constrained to form the highest estimate both of his ability and his industry. His works are chiefly occupied with the exposition of Scripture, and with unfolding and defending the doctrines which he had deduced from the word of God, in opposition to the errors of the Papists and the Anabaptists, — or, as he commonly called them, the Catabaptists, — and in opposition to Luther and his followers, on the subject of the presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Eucharist. It is deplorable, indeed, to find, that through Luther’s error and obstinacy, so large a portion of the brief but most valuable life of Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 217 Zwingle was of necessity occupied in exposing tlie unintelligible absurdity of consubstantiation. Zwingle was not endowed with the fire and energy, with the vigorous and lively imagination, or with the graphic power of Luther, but his understanding, upon the whole, was sounder, and his mental faculties were better regulated and more correctly balanced. He had not been led either by the course of his studies, or by his spiritual experience, — that is, God’s dealings with his soul in leading him to the knowledge and belief of the truth, to give such prominence as Luther did, to any particular departments or aspects of divine truth. He ranged somewhat more freely over the whole field of Scripture for truths to bring out and enforce, and over the whole field of popery for errors to expose and assail ; and this has given a variety and extent to his speculations, which Luther’s works do not perhaps exhibit in the same degree. And as he was eminently distinguished for perspicacity and soundness of judgment, he has very generally reached a just conclusion, and established it by judicious and satisfactory arguments from Scrip¬ ture. There are errors and crudities to be found in Zwingle s works, but they are not perhaps so numerous as in Luther s ; and several instances occur in which, on points unconnected with the sacramentarian controversy, and without mentioning Luther s name, he has corrected some of the extravagancies and over¬ statements in which the great Saxon Reformer not unfrequently indulged. Indeed, considering the whole circumstances in which Zwingle was placed, the opportunities he enjoyed, the occupations in which he was involved, and the extent to which he formed his views from his own personal independent study of the sacred Scriptures, he may be fairly said to have proved himself quite equal to any of the Reformers, in the possession of the power of accurately discovering divine truth, and establishing it upon satis¬ factory scriptural grounds. His theology upon almost all topics of importance, derived from his own independent study of the word of God, was the same as that which Luther derived from the same sacred and in¬ fallible source, as was fully proved by the articles agreed upon at the conference at Marburg, in the year 1529. This conference is one of the most interesting and important events in the history of the church, both in its more personal and in its more public aspects. It was a noble subject for the graphic pen of Dr Merle 218 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. D’Aubigne, who has certainly done it ample 'justice, and whose narrative of it, in the thirteenth hook of the 11 History of the Re¬ formation,”* is singularly interesting, and admirably fitted to exert a useful and wholesome influence. We do not know that ever, on any other occasion in the history of the church, four such men as Luther and Melancthon, Zwingle and CEcolampadius, met together in one room, and sat at the same table discussing the great doc¬ trines of theology. Luther’s refusal to shake hands with Zwingle, which led that truly noble and thoroughly brave man to burst into tears, was one of the most deplorable and humiliating, but at the same time solemn and instructive, exhibitions of the deceitfulness of sin and of the human heart, the world has ever witnessed. The importance of the Marburg conference, in its more public aspects, lies in this, that it was the first formal development, both of the unity and the divergence of the two great sections of the first Reformers, who had, independently of each other, derived their views of divine things from the studv of the word of God. At this conference, the leading doctrines of Christianity were / embodied in fifteen articles, and both parties entirely agreed with each other in regard to fourteen and two-thirds of the whole — comprehending almost everything that could be regarded as funda¬ mental in a summary of Christian truth. Even in regard to the Lord’s Supper, they agreed upon most matters of importance, and differed only on this question, “ Whether the true body and blood of Christ be corporally present in the bread and wine ? ” and in regard to this question of the corporal presence, they promised to cherish Christian love towards one another u as far as the con¬ science of each will allow”' — u quantum cujusque conscientia feret.” Luther’s conscience, unfortunately, would not allow him to go far, in the way of Christian love, towards those who denied the unintelligible dogma which he defended so strenuously; and the mischiefs that arose from this controversy, and from the way in which it was conducted, especially by Luther and his fol¬ lowers, including its indirect and remote consequences, have been incalculable in amount, and are damaging the cause of Protes¬ tantism, and benefiting the cause of popeiy, down to the present day. Luther and his followers are the parties responsible for this controversy, and for all the mischief which, directly and indirectly, * Vol. iv. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 219 immediately and remotely, it has occasioned, 1st, 3nd principally, because they were palpably and wholly wrong on the merits of the question ; and, 2d, because they also displayed a far greater amount of the injurious influences which controversy usually exerts upon the spirit and conduct of men, than their opponents did. How many have there been in every age who, while desti¬ tute of all Luther’s redeeming qualities, have displayed largely the grievous infirmities which he exhibited in the sacramentarian controversy, and, like him, have laid all the responsibility of this upon their conscience , which compelled them to stand fast for the truth ; and how great the mischief which persons of this stamp have done to the church, by their number and audacity, notwith¬ standing their insignificance individually ! * The subjects on which the orthodoxy of Zwingle has been chiefly assailed are the doctrine of original sin and the salvation of the heathen ; and, on the ground of statements which he made on these subjects, the papists have been accustomed to accuse him of Pelagianism and Paganism. In regard to the first of these topics, viz., the doctrine of original sin, on which Bossuet and other papists have adduced heavy charges against Zwingle s orthodoxy, as if he denied it altogether, it has, we think, been proved that when a full and impartial view is taken of his whole doctrine, he does not materially deviate from the standard of scriptural ortho¬ doxy on the subject of the natural and universal depravity of man; and that the peculiarities of his statements, upon which the charge is commonly based, really resolve into differences chiefly about the precise meaning and the proper application of words. He seems to have been anxious to confine the proper meaning of the word peccatum to an actual personal violation of God s law, and to have been disposed to call the natural depravity of man, the source or cause of actual transgression, by the name of a disease, morbus , rather than of a sin or peccatum. But though he attached unnecessary importance to this distinction, he has clearly defined his meaning, explained in what sense men s natural propensity to violate God’s law is, or is not , peccatum; he has fully expressed his * The articles of the Conference at Marburg are given entire in Hospi- -uan’s “Historia Sacramentaria,” Pars altera, p. 77 ; Hottinger’s “ Historia Ecclesiastica,” tom. viii. p. 444. They are also given, but not quite so fully and accurately, in Melchior Adam’s Vitae Germanorum Theologorum, Vita Zwinglii, p. 32. 220 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. accordance in the great scriptural doctrine, that all men do, in point of fact, bring into the world with them a depravity of nature, a diseased moral constitution, which certainly, and in every in¬ stance, leads them to incur the guilt of actual transgressions of God’s law, and which, but for the interposition of divine grace, would certainly involve them in everlasting misery. The Marburg Articles were prepared by Luther, who had been led to entertain suspicions of Zwingle’s orthodoxy upon other points than the real or corporal presence, and among others on original sin, and were no doubt intended by him to test Zwingle’s soundness in the faith. Yet Zwingle had no hesitation in subscribing the proposition which Luther prepared upon this point, viz., “credimus peccatum originis, ab Adamo in nos carnali generatione propagatum, tale peccatum esse, quod omnes homines condemnet, et nisi Christus opem nobis sua morte et vita tulisset, seterna morte nobis in eo moriendum fuisset, neque unquam in regnum dei et beatitudinem asternam pervenire potuissimus.” * This in all fairness must be held to establish Zwingle’s substantial orthodoxy in regard to the univer¬ sality, and the fatal consequences, of man’s natural depravity ; and the suspicion afterwards, expressed by Luther as to Zwingle’s soundness upon this subject, without any new cause having been afforded for the suspicion, should be regarded merely as a specimen of the unjust and ungenerous treatment which he too often gave to the sacramentarians and others who opposed him. It is proper to mention that Milner has given a very defective and unfair re¬ presentation of Zwingle’s views upon this subject, as if he were anxious to establish a charge of error against him, and that the unfairness of Milner’s statements has been pointed out, and Zwingle satisfactorily vindicated from the imputation, by Scott, in his excellent continuation of Milner. Zwingle’s adoption of this article upon original sin also proves, that he did not deviate quite so far from sound doctrine, in his views about the salvation of the heathen, as might at first sight appear from some of his statements upon this point. He has, indeed, plainly enough intimated, as some of the fathers have done, his belief that some of the more wise and virtuous heathen were saved and admitted to heaven ; and in specifying by name some of the individuals among them whom we might expect to meet there, * Art. iv. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 221 such as Hercules and Theseus, he has certainly not shown his usual good sense. But he never meant to teach (and his subscrip¬ tion to the above-quoted article, as well as the whole tenor of his writings, proves it) that men may he saved “by framing their lives accorclino; to the light of nature, and the law of the religion they profess.” * On the contrary, he constantly taught that men, if saved at all, were saved only on the ground of Christ’s atone¬ ment, and by the operation of God’s grace. But he thought, without any sufficient scriptural warrant, that the benefits of Christ’s death might be imparted to men, and that their natures might be renewed by God’s agency, even though they were not acquainted with any external supernatural revelation , and that some of the heathen did manifest such moral excellence as to in¬ dicate the presence of God’s special gracious agency. This was certainly seeking to be wise above what is written. We are not called upon to be making any positive affirmations as to what God can do or may do, in extending mercy to individuals among men. But the principle is clearly revealed to us in Scripture, that the general provision which God has made for saving men individually from their natural guilt and depravity, is by communicating to them, through the medium of an external revelation, and impress¬ ing upon their hearts by His Spirit, some knowledge of the only way of salvation through a Redeemer and a sacrifice ; and this truth, solemn and awful as it is, we are bound to receive as the ordinary rule of our opinions and practice, abstaining from all unwarranted speculations, and resting satisfied in the assurance, that the Judge of all the earth will do right. Still there may be said to be less of error and presumption in the notion, that a knowledge of divine truth has been communicated extraordinarily to some men who were not acquainted with an external super¬ natural revelation, than in the notion, that men may be saved merely by framing their lives according to the light of nature, and the particular religion, whatever it may be, with which they may happen to have been acquainted ; and, to the benefit of this differ¬ ence in degree, such as it is, Zwingle is entitled, though his mode of discussing the subject cannot be vindicated. There is nothing in the articles of Marburg bearing very directly and explicitly upon the doctrines which are usually re- * Westminster Confession , c. x. 222 ZWINGLE, AND THE Essay V.] garded as the peculiarities of the Calvinistic system, though we are persuaded that none hut Calvinists can hold, with full intelli¬ gence and thorough consistency, the great scriptural doctrines which are there set forth, concerning the natural guilt and de¬ pravity of man, the way of salvation through Christ, gratuitous justification, and the production of faith and regeneration by God’s immediate agency. Still, as some men do not perceive and admit the necessary connection between these great doctrines and what they call the peculiarities of Calvinism, the question may still be asked, whether Zwingle agreed with Calvin in those peculiar doc¬ trines with which his name is usually associated ? And in answer to this question, we have no hesitation in saying, — what is equally true of Luther, — that though Zwingle was not led to dwell upon the exposition, illustration, and defence of these doctrines, so fully as Calvin, and although he has not perhaps given any formal deliver¬ ance on the irresistibility of grace and the perseverance of the saints, in the distinct and specific form in which these topics came to be afterwards discussed, yet in regard to the universal foreordi¬ nation and efficacious providence of God, and in regard to election and reprobation, he was as Calvinistic as Calvin himself. It is rather singular that both Mosheim and Milner have denied this position, though it can be most fully established. Mosheim says, that “ The celebrated doctrine of an absolute decree respect¬ ing the salvation of men, which was unknown to Zwingle , was in¬ culcated by Calvin;”* and Milner says, “On a careful perusal of Zwingle’ s voluminous writings, I am convinced that certain peculiar sentiments afterwards maintained by Calvin, concerning the absolute decrees of God, made no part of the theology of the Swiss Reformer.” f This statement of Milner’s is very cautiously expressed, and contains no specification of the precise points upon which Zwingle and Calvin are said to have differed. But it is quite plain, from the whole scope of the passage where this extract occurs, that Milner just means, in substance, to say, as Mosheim does, that while Luther, as he admits, though Mosheim denies this too, was. on the subject of predestination and the decrees of God, a Calvinist, Zwingle was not. Scott, however, whose representa¬ tions of the theological sentiments of the Reformers are very full * Murdock’s Translation by Eeid, p. 664. f Century xvi. c. 12. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 223 and accurate, and whose Continuation of Milner is, on this ac¬ count, peculiarly valuable and deserving of the highest commen¬ dation, has fully proved that the representations of Mosheim and Milner upon this point are perfectly erroneous. It is indeed scarcely possible that they could ever have read Zwingle’s a Elen- chus in Strophas Catabaptistarum,” or his treatise, u De Provi- dentia Dei.” In these treatises he has clearly and unequivocally expressed his sentiments upon this subject, in full conformity with those afterwards taught and expounded by Calvin, while it cannot be alleged that he has contradicted them in any part of his writ¬ ings. It may be worth while to give one or two brief extracts from these works in confirmation of this position. In his u Elen- chus,” * he gives the following statement as a summary of Paul’s argument in the Epistle to the Romans : — u Fide servamur, non ex operibus. Fides non est liumanarum virium sed dei. Is ergo earn dat iis quos vocavit, eos autem vocavit quos ad salutem des- tinavit, eos autem ad banc destinavit quos elegit, elegit autem quos voluit, liberum enim est ei hoc atque integrum, perinde atque figulo, vasa diversa ex eadem massa educere. Hoc breviter argumentum et sunnna est electionis a Paulo tractate.” And, in his commentary upon this summary of Paul’s argument, he makes it clear beyond all possibility of reasonable doubt, that he believed, upon Paul’s authority, that God, by an absolute decree, chose some men to everlasting life, and made effectual provision that they should be saved, — a choice or election made without regard to any¬ thing foreseen in them, but solely according to the counsel of His own will. And in his treatise, u De Providentia Dei,” he has a chapter, the 6th, on u Election,” in which he fully explains his views in such a way as to leave no room for doubt as to their im¬ port, and makes some statements even about reprobation, quite as strong as any that ever proceeded from Calvin. Indeed he here expressly tells us that, in his early life, when he was engaged in the study of the Schoolmen, he held, as most of them did, what we should now call the common Arminian doctrine of God’s elect¬ ing men to life because He foresaw that they were to repent and believe the gospel, and that they would persevere in faith and good works. “ Quse mihi sententia, ut olim scholas colenti pla- cuit, ita illas deserenti et divinorum oraculorum puritati adhserenti, * Opera, tom. ii. p. 34, a. 224 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. maxime displicuit.” * And then he proceeds to show, with a clear¬ ness and a force not unworthy of Calvin himself, that this Arme¬ nian doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the perfections and moral government of God, and necessarily makes men, whatever its supporters may profess to maintain about the divine sovereignty, the absolute arbiters of their own everlasting destiny, — the true authors of their own salvation. Many other extracts of a similar kind will be found in Hottin- ger and Scott.f They are amply sufficient to establish, that Zwingle concurred with Luther in teaching those great doctrines which have brought so much odium on the name of Calvin, before that great man had been led even to form his views of divine truth ; for Luther’s treatise u De Servo Arbitrio” was published when Calvin was seventeen, and Zwingle’s treatise “ De Provi- dentia Dei” when Calvin was twenty years of age. These misstatements of Mosheim and Milner about the theo¬ logical views of Zwingle, are rather remarkable specimens of the u humanum est errare,” and are fitted to remind us of the little reliance that should be placed upon second-hand authorities. Mosheim further lays it down, that Zwingle and Calvin differed from each other, not only in regard to predestination, but also in regard to the power of the civil magistrate in religious matters, and the doctrine of the sacraments. On the first of these points, Mosheim is right in saying of Calvin, “ that he circumscribed the power of the magistrate in matters of religion within narrow limits, and maintained that the church ought to be free and inde¬ pendent, and to govern itself by means of bodies of presbyters, synods, or conventions of presbyters, in the manner of the ancient church, yet leaving to the magistrate the protection of the church, and an external care over it.” These were the views of Calvin , and they have been the views ever since of the great body of those who have usually been ranked under his name, as opposed to Erastianism on the one hand, and to Voluntaryism on the other. But Mosheim falls into inaccuracy and exaggeration when, in contrast with these views of Calvin, he alleges, that u Zwingle assigned to civil rulers full and absolute power in regard to reli¬ gious matters, and, what many censure him for, subjected the * Opera, tom. i. p. 366, l. t Hottinger, tom. viii. p. 616-650. Scott, vol. iii. p. 142-152, and 194- 231. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 225 ministers of religion entirely to their authority.” There is no warrant for ascribing such extreme views upon this subject to Zwingle, who, though he did not restrain the power of the civil magistrate within such narrow bounds as Calvin assigned it, was not nearly so Erastian as Mosheim himself and the generality of Lutheran writers. There is no ground, indeed, for believing that Zwingle ever attained to a distinct conception of the great scrip¬ tural principle, which has been generally held by Calvinists, viz., that Christ has appointed in His church a government in the hands of ecclesiastical office-bearers, distinct from, independent of, and not subordinate in its own sphere to, the civil magistrate. But he certainly showed that he was decidedly in advance of Luther and Melancthon on this question, and that he was alto¬ gether opposed to the leading principle which chiefly Erastus laboured to establish, by ascribing fully and unequivocally the power of excommunication solely to the church itself, and not to the civil magistrate. And with respect to the wider and more general subject of the province and function of the civil magis¬ trate in regard to religion, Zwingle may perhaps be regarded as holding the main substance of what sound principle demands, in maintaining, as it can be proved that he did, that all the powers conceded to the civil authorities of Zurich in religious matters, v ei e exercised by them as representing the church, and only with the church’s own consent. We do not believe that the church can lawfully concede or delegate to the civil authorities any power which Christ has conferred -upon her. But still there is a funda¬ mental difference between this principle of Zwingle’ s and the proper Erastian tenet, which ascribes to the civil magistrate juris¬ diction or authority, not merely circa sacra , but in sacris , as inhe¬ rently attaching to his office.” * But, perhaps, the most interesting topic of discussion connected with the investigation of the opinions of Zwingle, is his doctrine on the subject of the sacraments. A very general impression prevails, and it is certainly not altogether without foundation, that Zwingle held low and defective views upon this subject. He is usually alleged to have taught, that the sacraments are just * On this subject, see Zwingle, De vera et falsa Religione. De magis¬ trate, tom. ii. p. 232-3, and Subsidium sive Coronis de Eucharistia, p. 248. VOL. I. Gerdes’s Historia Reformationis, tom. i. p. 286-7, and Supplement to Pre¬ face. Scott iii. pp. 32 and 91. 15 226 ZWINGLE, AND THE Essay V.] naked and bare signs or symbols, emblematically and figuratively representing or signifying scriptural truths and spiritual blessings; and that the reception of them is a mere commemoration of what Christ has done for sinners, and a profession which men make be¬ fore the church or one another, of the views which they have been led to entertain upon the great doctrines of Scripture concerning the way of salvation, as well as a public pledge to follow out con¬ sistently the views thus professed; and there are undoubtedly statements in Zwingle’s writings which seem fairly enough to imply, that this was the whole doctrine which he taught concern¬ ing the sacraments. This doctrine was generally regarded by Protestants, especially after Calvin had published his views upon the subject, as being defective, and, though true so far as it went, yet coming far short of bringing out the whole truth taught in Scripture regarding it. And as the papists were accustomed to bring it as a serious charge against the Reformers, that they ex¬ plained away the whole mystery and efficacy of the sacraments, the Protestant churches became anxious to disclaim the view which Zwingle had seemed to sanction. Accordingly, in the original Scottish Confession, prepared by John Knox, and adopted by the church in 1560, it is said, “We utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs.” * Similar disclaimers are to be found in many of the other Confessions of the Reformed churches, and in the writings of the generality of the Protestant divines of that period ; though there is some good reason to doubt, whether there be adequate grounds for alleging that Zwingle held the sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs, and though there is considerable diffi¬ culty in ascertaining, in some cases, what those meant to affirm who were anxious to repudiate this position. It is very manifest that Zwingle, disgusted with the mass of heresy, mysticism, and absurdity, which had prevailed so long and so widely in the church on the subject of the sacraments, leant very strongly to what may be called the opposite extreme of excessive simplicity and plain¬ ness. It is not wonderful that he did not succeed perfectly in hitting the golden mean, or that the reaction against the monstrous and ruinous system which had been wrought out and established in the Church of Rome, tempted him to try to simplify the sub- * C. 21. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 227 ject of the sacraments beyond what the Scripture required or sanctioned. We believe that he did, to some extent, yield to this temptation ; but we are persuaded, at the same time, that he ren¬ dered services of the very highest value to the church, by the light which he threw upon this important and intricate subject. There is some difficulty in ascertaining precisely what Zwingle’s views upon the subject of the sacraments were, and there is some ground to think that, towards the end of his life, he ascribed a higher value and a greater efficacy to these ordinances than he had once done. In his great work, “ X)e Vera et Falsa Religione,” published in 1525, he admits that he had spoken of the sacraments somewhat rashly and crudely, and indicated that his views were advancing in what Protestants generally would reckon a sound direction. It is true, indeed, that, in a later work published in 1530, his u Ratio Fidei,” he continued to assert, u sacramenta tam abesse ut gratiam conferant, ut lie adferant quidem aut dispen- sent.” But many Protestants who were far enough from regard¬ ing the sacraments as naked and bare signs, have denied that the sacraments confer grace ; * and, indeed it is only in a very limited and carefully defined sense, that any persons, intelligently opposed to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, admit this position. In a work published in the same year, in defence of his “ Ratio Fidei,” he declared, that he was quite willing to concur in anything that might be said in commending and exalting the sacraments, pro¬ vided that what was spoken symbolically was understood and applied symbolically, and that the whole honour of whatever spiritual benefit was derived, was ascribed to Gocl, and not either * We may give a specimen of what is a common mode of speaking among Protestant authors, from Willet’s Sy¬ nopsis Papismi, Cont. xi., q. ii., p. 463 : — “The sacraments have no power to give or confer grace to the receiver, neither are they immediate instruments of our justification ; instrumental means they are to increase and con¬ firm our faith in the promises of God ; of themselves they have no operation, but, as the Spirit of God worketli by them, our internal senses being moved and quickened by those external ob¬ jects. Neither do we say that the sacraments are bare and naked signs of spiritual graces, but they do verily exhibit and represent Christ to as many as by faith are able and meet to apprehend Him. So to conclude ; look how the word of God worketh, being preached, so do the sacraments ; but the word doth no otherwise justify us but by working faith at the hearing thereof, so sacraments do serve for the increase of our faith ; faith is not a servant and handmaid to the sacra¬ ments, but faith is the more principal, and the sacraments have no other use or end than as they are helps for the strengthening of our faith. Grace of themselves they can give or confer none.” 228 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. to tlie person administering them, or to any efficacy of the out¬ ward elements or actions. And in the last work which he wrote, and which was not published till after his death, the “ Expositio Fidei,” he gave some indications, though perhaps not very explicit, of regarding the sacraments not only as signs but as seals, — as signs and seals not only on the part of men, but of God, — as signifying and confirming something then done by God through the Spirit, as well as something done by the receiver through faith. This is the great general principle which has been usually held by Protestants upon the subject, and is commonly regarded as constituting the leading point of difference between what is often represented as the Zwinglian doctrine of the sacraments being only naked and bare signs, and that generally held by the Protestant churches. We cannot assert that Zwingle has brought out very distinctly and explicitly this important principle, that the sacraments are signs and seals on the part of God as well as of men ; and, therefore, we cannot assert that his doctrine, though it is true so far as it goes, brings out the whole of what Scripture teaches upon this subject, or deny that he leant unduly and excessively to the side of plainness and simplicity in the exposition of this topic. But we are persuaded that he manifested very great strength and vigour of mind in his speculations upon this matter, and that he aided greatly the progress of scriptural truth in regard to it. It was in tlie highest degree honourable to Zwingle that he so entirely threw off the huge mass of extravagant absurdity and unintelligible mysticism which, from a very early period, had been gathering round the subject of the sacraments, and which had reached its full height in the authorised doctrine of the Church of Rome. This was an achievement which Luther never fully reached, either in regard to baptism or the Lord’s Supper. Zwingle’ s rejection of the whole of the erroneous and danger¬ ous doctrine in regard to the sacraments which had been incul¬ cated by the schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Church of Rome, was, in the circumstances in which he was placed, one of the most arduous and honourable, and, in its consequences, one of the most important and beneficial achievements which the his¬ tory of the church records. The great general principles by which Zwingle was guided in the formation and promulgation of his views in regard to the sacraments were these : — 1st, That great care should be taken to avoid anything which might appear Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 229 to trench upon the free grace of God, the meritorious efficacy of Christ’s work, and the almighty agency of His Spirit in bestowing upon men all spiritual blessings ; and, 2d, That whatever exter¬ nal means of grace may have been appointed, and in whatever way these means may ordinarily operate, God must not be held to be tied or restricted in the communication of spiritual benefits to the use of anything of an external kind, though lie has Himself appointed and prescribed it ; and, 3d, That the most important matter connected with the subject of the sacraments, is the state of mind and heart of the recipient ; and that, with reference to this, the essential thing is, that the state of mind and heart of the recipient should correspond with the outward act which, in parti¬ cipating in the sacrament, he performed. Zwingle was deeply persuaded, that the right mode of investigating this subject was not to follow the example of the Fathers, in straining the imagi¬ nation to devise unwarranted, extravagant, and unintelligible notions of the nature and effects of the sacraments, for the pur¬ pose of making them more awful and more influential, but to trace out plainly and simply wliat is taught and indicated in Scripture regarding them. By following out this course con¬ scientiously and judiciously, he was led, in the first place, to repudiate the whole huge mass of absurdity and heresy which the fathers and the schoolmen had accumulated around this subject ; and, in the second place, to lay down and to apply the three great general principles above stated, which were fitted not only to exclude much grievous error, but to bring in much important and wholesome truth. Zwingle, in these ways, ren¬ dered valuable service to the church, and lias done much to put the general subject of the sacraments upon a sound and safe footing. Zwingle’s mental constitution gave him a very decided aver¬ sion to the unintelligible and mystical, and made him lean towards what was clear, definite, and practical. He had a strong sense of the great injury that had been done to religion by the notions which had long prevailed in regard to the sacraments. And under these influences, it is not surprising that, while discarding a great deal of dangerous error, he should have left in abeyance some portion of wholesome truth. He leant to the side of what was clear, palpable, and safe, and, in the circumstances in which he was placed, this was the right side to lean to. It is not surprising 230 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. that he did not stop precisely at the right point, and that he carried the work of demolition somewhat too far. And when we consider what a mass of unintelligible and incredible absurdities, to the deep degradation of the human intellect, — and what a mass of heresies, perverting the way of salvation and tending to ruin men’s souls, — had been invented by the fathers and the schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Church of Rome on the subject of the sacra¬ ments, we cannot but sympathise with Zwingle’s general spirit and tendencies in regard to this matter, and rejoice in the large measure of success which attended his investigations. It is indeed a matter of fundamental importance, and perhaps more indispens¬ able than anything else towards preparing men for a rational, intelligent, and beneficial reception of the sacraments, and guard¬ ing against self-deceit and danger in the use of them, that they have distinct and accurate conceptions of what the outward ele¬ ments and actions signify or represent, and of what is professed or implied in the reception of them ; that is, of what is the state of mind and heart on the part of the recipient which the reception of them indicates or proclaims. It is in a great measure from inattention to this fundamental point, that so many in every age have been led to participate in the sacraments, who were thereby making a false profession, and of course injuring their own souls ; while they were entertaining unfounded expectations of getting spiritual blessings without having any anxiety or concern about what is ordinarily necessary with a view to that result. Zwingle rendered a most important service, by bringing out this great principle, which had been almost entirely buried, and pressing it upon the attention of the church. He came short indeed of the truth in his doctrine as to the nature and efficacy of the sacra¬ ments, by not bringing out fully what God does, or is ready and willing to do, through their instrumentality, in offering to men and conferring upon them, through the exercise of faith, spiritual blessings. But he laid a good foundation, on which the whole truth taught in Scripture might be built, when he directed special attention to the true significance and import of the outward ele¬ ments and actions; and pressed upon men the paramount necessity of seeing to it, that the state of their mind and heart corresponded with the outward signs which they used, — with the outward actions which they performed. To all this amount of commendation in connection with the Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS- 231 exposition of the sacraments, we believe Zwingle to be well entitled, while the true amount of bis shortcoming or deficiency it is not very easy to estimate. Indeed, in regard to this latter point, it should not he forgotten, that of the important document commonly called the u Consensus Tigurinus,” — in which was embodied a state¬ ment of the fundamental principles about the sacraments, which were held in common by the churches of Geneva and Zurich, as represented by Calvin and by Bullinger the successor of Zwingle, — Calvin declared his conviction, that “ if Zwingle and CEcolam- padius, these most excellent and illustrious servants of Christ, were now alive, they would not change a word in it.” * We do not consider it necessary to dwell longer upon the ex¬ amination of the opinions of Zwingle in regard to the sacraments. Indeed we do not intend to bring forward anything farther that is connected with the personal history of the great Reformer of German Switzerland, f We propose now to give some exposition of the general doctrine or theory of the sacraments, as it has been held by the Reformed churches, — and especially as it has been * Niemeyer’s “ Collectio Confes- sionum,” p. 201. t There are lives of Zwingle in Melchior Adam’s “Vitae Germanorum Theologorum,” p. 25, and in Chauf- fepie’s Continuation of Bayle’s Dic¬ tionary, tom. iv. Hess’s “ Life of Zwingle,” which was translated into English, and published in this country in the early part of this century, is not a work of much value. Much better is “ Ulrich Zwingli et son Epoque,” translated from the German of J. J. Hottinger, and published at Lausanne, in 1844 ; and still better and much more complete is Christoffel’s “Zwingli, or the Rise of the Reforma¬ tion in Switzerland,” translated from the German, by John Cockran, Esq., and published by Messrs Clark at Edin¬ burgh, in 1858. There is a full discus¬ sion of theprincipal charges whichhave been adduced against Zwingle, and of the leading misrepresentations which have been put forth of his life and doc¬ trines, in the “ Apologia pro Zwinglio et ejus Operibus,” prefixed by his son- in-law Gualther, to the folio edition of his works, published in 1581, and in “ Hottingeri Historia Ecclesiastica,” tom. viii. p. 285-400. Much interest¬ ing matter concerning Zwingle’s life and labours will be found in Ruchat’s “ Histoire de la Reformation de la Suisse,” tom. i. and ii. , Gerdes’s “ Historia Reformationis,” tom. i. and ii., and Scott’s “ Continuation of Mil¬ ner,” vols. ii. and iii. Of Zwingle’s own works, several, having a symboli¬ cal character, are given in Niemeyer’s “Collectio Confessionum,” viz., “Ar- ticuli sive Conclusiones," Ixvii., occu¬ pying a similar place to Luther’s “ Theses,” but exhibiting a much fuller view of scriptural antipapal truth, his “Ratio Fidei” presented to the Em¬ peror at the diet of Augsburg, in 1530, and his “ Expositio Christianae Fidei” written in 1531 and published after his death. Of his other works those which are perhaps the most important, as giving within a comparatively brief compass most information as to his doctrines upon points Avhich are still interesting, are the Explanation of the sixty-seven Articles, the “ Commen- tarius de vera et falsa Religione,” and the treatise “ De Providentia Dei.” 232 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. set fortli in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms which were prepared by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and which are still received as symbolical by the great body of Presbyterians over the world. A grievous corruption of the scriptural doctrine of the sacra¬ ments appeared very early in the church ; it spread far and wide, and exerted a most injurious influence upon the interests of true religion. Confusion and exaggeration very early appeared in speaking of these ordinances, or the u tremendous mysteries,” as some of the Fathers called them; and this confusion and exag¬ geration soon led to a substitution of the mere observance of out¬ ward rites for the weightier matters of the law, — for the essential features of Christian character and conduct. Even in the second century, we find plain indications of a tendency to speak of the nature, design, and effects of the sacraments, in a very inflated and exaggerated style, — a style very different from anything we find in the New Testament. We have a striking instance of this in the famous passage on the Eucharist, occurring near the end of the first Apology of Justin Martyn, the very earliest of the fathers who was not cotemporary with the Apostles. Romanists contend that this passage teaches the doctrine of transubstantia- tion ; Lutherans, that it teaches consubstantiation ; and most other men, that it teaches neither the one nor the other. All men of candour admit that the passage is obscure and ambiguous, and all men of sense should have long ae;o come to the conclusion, that it was not worth while to spend any time in investigating its meaning.* It holds true of this, as of many other passages in the writings of the fathers, which have given rise to much learned discussion in modern times, that it really has no definite meaning; and that if we could call up its author, and interrogate him on the subject, he would be utterly unable to tell us what he meant when he wrote it. This tendency to exaggeration and extrava¬ gance, to confusion and absurdity, upon the subject of the sacra¬ ments, increased continually, in proportion as sound doctrine upon matters of greater importance disappeared and vital religion de¬ cayed, until, in the middle ages, Christianity came to be looked upon by the great body of its professors, as a system which con¬ sisted in, and the whole benefits of which were connected with, * Semisch’s Justyn Martyr , vol. ii. pp. 339, 340. Biblical Cabinet , No. 44. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 233 a series of outward ceremonies and ritual observances. The nature, design, and effects of the sacraments occupied a large share of the attention of the schoolmen ; and, indeed, the exposi¬ tion and development of the Romish and Tractarian doctrine upon this subject, may be justly regarded as one of the principal exhi¬ bitions of the antiscriptural views and the perverted ingenuity of the scholastic doctors. An exaggerated and unscriptural view of the value and efficacy of the sacraments was too deeply engrained into the scholastic theology, and was too much in accordance with the general policy of the Church of Rome, and the general cha¬ racter and tendency of her system, to admit of the Council of Trent giving any sanction to the sounder views which had been introduced by the Protestants, especially by that section of them who have been called the Reformed, to distinguish them from the followers of Luther. The doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject is set forth in the first part of the decree of the 7th Session of the Council of Trent, which treats de Sacramentis in genere, and in statements made in treating of some of the other sacraments indi¬ vidually. The leading features of their doctrine on the general subject of the sacraments are these, that u through the sacra¬ ments of the church all true righteousness either begins, or, when begun, is increased, or, when lost, is repaired u that men do not obtain from God the grace of justification by faith alone without the sacraments, or, at least, without a desire or wish to receive them ; u that the sacraments contain the grace which they signify or represent, and confer it always upon all who receive them, unless they put a bar or obstacle in the way’ (pomint obicem ) ; that is (as they usually explain it), unless they have at the time of receiving the sacrament a deliberate intention of committing sin ; and that they confer or bestow grace thus universally ex opere operato , that is, by some power or virtue given to them and operating through them. The application of these principles, which constitute the general doctrine or theory of the sacraments in the Romish theology, to the sacrament of baptism, and to the fundamental blessings of forgiveness and regeneration which it signifies or represents, plainly implies, — what indeed the Council of Trent expressly teaches — viz., that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, which with Romanists comprehends both forgiveness and regeneration,— that all adults receive when bap- 234 ZWINGrLE, AND THE [Essay V. tized, unless they put a bar in the way, these great blessings, — that all infants, being unable to put a bar in the way of the effica¬ cious operation of the sacrament, receive in baptism the forgive¬ ness of original sin and the renovation of their moral natures,— and that no sin of unbaptized persons, not even the original sin of those who die in infancy, is forgiven without baptism. This is in substance the doctrine in regard to the sacraments, which is taught by the modern Tractarians of the Church of England, and which, indeed, in its main features, may he said to have been always held by High Churchmen. Some of them shrink, indeed, from speaking so plainly on some points as the Council of Trent has done, especially on the opus operation ; but there is no diffi¬ culty in showing that all High Churchmen must concur in sub¬ stance with the general sacramental theory of the Church of Home. The essential idea of the Popish and Tractarian doctrine upon this subject is, that God has established an invariable con¬ nection between the sacraments as outward ordinances, and the communication by Himself of spiritual blessings, of pardon and holiness ; with this further notion, which naturally results from it, that Ide has endowed these outward ordinances with some sort of intrinsic power or inherent capacity of conveying or conferring the spiritual blessings with which they are respec¬ tively connected. This is what is, and, indeed, must be, meant by the sacramental principle, about which High Churchmen in the present day prate so much ; and, notwithstanding their efforts to wrap it up in vague and indefinite phraseology, it is plainly in substance just the doctrine which was established by the Council of Trent. It is a necessary result of this principle, that the want of the outward ordinance — not the neglect or contempt of it, but the mere want of it — from whatever cause arising, deprives men of the spiritual blessings which it is said to convey or confer. Romanists have found it necessary or politic to make some little exceptions to this practical conclusion ; but this is the great general result to which their whole scheme of doctrine upon the subject leads, and which ordinarily they do not hesitate to adopt and to apply. In opposition to all these views, Protestants have been accus¬ tomed to maintain the great principle, that the only thing on which the possession by men individually of the fundamental spiritual blessings of justification and sanctification is, by God’s Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS- 235 arrangements, made necessarily and invariably dependent, is union to Jesus Christ, and that the only thing on which union to Christ may be said to be dependent, is faith in Him ; so that it holds true, absolutely and universally, that wherever there is faith in Christ, or union to Him by faith, there pardon and holiness— all necessary spiritual blessings — are communicated by God and received by men, even though they have never actually partaken in any sacra¬ ment, or in any outward ordinance whatever. Scripture, we think, plainly teaches this great truth, that as soon as, and in every in¬ stance in which, men are united to Christ by faith, they receive justification and regeneration ; while without or apart from per¬ sonal union to Christ by faith, these indispensable blessings are never conferred or received. Every man who is justified and re¬ generated is certainly admited into heaven, whether he have been baptised or not ; and there is no ground in Scripture for maintain¬ ing, either, that eveiy one who has been baptised has been forgiven and regenerated, or that those who have not been baptised have not received these great blessings. If this great general principle can be established from Scrip¬ ture, it must materially affect some of the views which Romanists and Tractarians hold in regard to the sacraments, and especially in regard to their necessity and importance. Romanists, indeed, are in the habit of charging Protestants with holding that the sacraments are unnecessary or superfluous. But this is a misre¬ presentation. In perfect consistency with this great doctrine, which represents the possession of spiritual blessings and the ultimate enjoyment of heaven, as dependent absolutely and universally upon union to Christ through faith and upon nothing else, we maintain, that the sacraments which Christ instituted are of im¬ perative obligation, and that it is a duty incumbent upon men to observe them when the means and opportunity of doing so are afforded them ; so that it is sinful to neglect or disregard them. Upon the subject of the necessity of the sacraments, Protestant divines have been accustomed to employ a distinction, which, like many other scholastic distinctions, brings out very clearly the meaning it was intended to express, viz., that the sacraments are necessary, ex necessitate prcecepti non ex necessitate medii; — neces¬ sary ex necessitate prcecepti , because the observance of them is commanded or enjoined, and must therefore be practised by all who have in providence an opportunity of doing so, so that the 236 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. voluntary neglect or disregard of them is sinful ; but not necessary ex necessitate medii, or in such a sense, that the mere fact of men not having actually observed them, either produces or proves the non-possession of spiritual blessings, — either excludes men from heaven, or affords evidence that they will not in point of fact be ad¬ mitted there. Regeneration or conversion, as implying a thorough change of moral nature, is necessary, both ex necessitate prcecepti and ex necessitate medii. It is necessary, not merely because it is commanded or enjoined, so that the neglect or omission of it is sinful, hut also because, from the nature of the case, the result cannot he attained without it ; inasmuch as it holds true, absolutely and universally, in point of fact and in the case of each individual of our race, that except we he born again we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. No such necessity can be established with respect to the sacraments, though Romanists and Tractarians assert this, and must do so in order to carry out their principles consistently. But while this great general principle about spiritual blessings and eternal happiness being dependent upon union to Christ, and upon nothing else, is inconsistent with the Popish and Tractarian notions of the necessity of the sacraments, and furnishes a strong presumption against the higher views of the importance and efficacy of these ordinances, it does not of itself give us any direct infor¬ mation as to what the sacraments are, as to their nature, objects, and effects. Protestants profess to have a certain theory or doc¬ trine in regard to the sacraments as wTell as Romanists and Trac¬ tarians. A definition of the . sacraments, — or throwing aside the technical scholastic meaning of the word definition, — a description of the leading features of the sacrament, or a statement of the main positions held concerning them, is properly the sacramental prin¬ ciple ; although that phrase has been commonly employed in the present day in a more limited and specific sense. At the time of the Reformation the name Sacramentarian was applied by Luther to Zwingle and his followers, to convey the idea that they explained away or reduced to nothing the value and efficacy of the sacraments; while Zwingle, throwing hack the nickname, protested that it might he applied with more propriety to those who made great mysteries of the sacraments, and ascribed to them a value and im¬ portance beyond what Scripture warrants. The justice of this statement of Zwingle has been confirmed by the aspect which the Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 237 discussion of this topic lias assumed in the present day. The Tractarians seem to think that none ought to he regarded as really believing in sacraments, except those who concur with the Church of Rome in holding, that there is an invariable connection between the outward sign and the spiritual blessing signified, and that the outward ordinance exerts a real efficacious influence in producing the internal result. This, accordingly, is what they mean by the sacramental principle, on which they are fond of enlarging, and of which they claim to themselves a sort of monopoly. And this is the sense in which the phrase is now commonly used. But the sense in which the expression ought to be employed, is just to de¬ signate the fundamental idea of the general doctrine of Scripture on the subject of the sacraments ; and in this sense, of course, Protestants have their sacramental principle as well as Romanists and Tractarians. We believe that Scripture furnishes sufficient materials for giving a general definition or description of the sacraments, or of a sacrament as such ; and 'we call this the sacramental principle, or the true doctrine of Scripture concerning the sacraments. The Reformers put forth their sacramental principle, or their general doctrine concerning the sacraments, in opposition to the views which prevailed at the time in the Church of Rome, and which were afterwards established by the Council of Trent. Definitions and descriptions of the sacraments were in consequence introduced into all the Confessions of the Reformed churches; and the investi¬ gation of the nature, the objects, and the effects of the sacraments has continued ever since to hold a place in theological discussions. Since the time when Calvin succeeded in bringing the churches of Geneva and Zurich to a cordial agreement upon this subject, in the adoption of the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549, there has been no very great difference of opinion concerning it among Protestant divines, although there have occasionally been individuals who showed an inclination, either towards the popish and superstitious, or towards the Socinian and Rationalistic, doctrine ; and although the Church of England, from her unfortunate baptismal service, has been repeatedly placed in a most difficult and deplorable position. But though there is no great difference of opinion among the Reformed churches, and among Protestant divines, concerning the general doctrine of the sacraments, there seems to have sprung up, in modern times, a great deal of ignorance and 238 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. confusion in men’s conceptions upon this subject. While the sacraments individually, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, have been a good deal discussed in some of their aspects, the general doctrine of sacraments, as equally applicable to both, or to any other ordinances for which the designation of a sacrament might be claimed, has been very much overlooked. Even the boasting of the Tractarians about the sacramental principle, has not led to much discussion about the nature and design of the sacraments in general. The two latest works, so far as we know, which have been published under the title of the Doctrine of the Sacraments, contain nothing whatever on the general questions to which we have adverted. In the year 1838 a work was published, entitled, u The Doctrine of the Sacraments,” extracted from the “ Remains of Alexander Knox,” who was the friend and correspondent of Bishop Jebb, and whose writings seem to have contributed, in no small degree, to the rise and growth of Tractarianism ; and this work discusses, with no little ability, many questions about baptism and about the Lord’s Supper, but it contains nothing about the sacraments in general, or about sacraments as such. This state¬ ment likewise applies to a recent work of Archbishop Whately, the latest we believe, he has published. In 1857, he put forth a work, entitled, u The Scripture doctrine concerning the Sacra¬ ments, and the Points connected therewith;” and it contains an able discussion on some points connected with baptism, and on some points connected with the Lord’s Supper, but nothing what¬ ever on the general nature, objects, and effects of the sacraments. The disregard of this topic has tended to produce a great deal of confusion and error in men’s conceptions upon the whole subject. We are in the habit of seeing baptism and the Lord’s Supper administered in the church, and are thus led insensibly and without much consideration, to form certain notions in regard to them, without investigating carefully their leading principles and grounds, — and especially without investigating the relation in which they stand to each other, and the principles that may apply to both of them. We believe that there is scarcely any subject set forth in the Confessions of the Reformed churches, that is less attended to and less understood than this of the sacraments ; and that many even of these who have subscribed these Confessions, rest satisfied with some defective and confused notions on the subject of baptism, and on the subject of the Lord’s Supper, Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS- 239 while they have scarcely even a fragment of an idea of a sacra¬ mental principle, or of any general doctrine or theory on the sub¬ ject of sacraments. We are persuaded that it would tend greatly to enable men to understand more fully, what we fear many subscribe without understanding, if they took some pains to form a distinct and definite conception of what is taught in the Confessions of Faith in regard to sacraments in general, and then applied these views to the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper separately. It is quite true that the Scriptures can scarcely be said to contain any statements which bear very directly and formally upon the topics usually set forth in Confessions of Faith, and discussed in systems of theology, under the head de Sacrcimentis in genere, or to give us anything like full and systematic information about the general subject of the sacraments as such. But the New Testa¬ ment plainly sets before us two outward ordinances, and two only, the observance of which is of permanent obligation in the Chris¬ tian church, and which manifestly resemble each other in many respects, both in their general character as emblematic or symbo¬ lical institutions, and in their general purpose and object as means of grace — that is, as connected in some way or other with the communication and the reception of spiritual blessings. As these two ordinances evidently occupy a peculiar place of their own, in the general plan of the Christian system and in the arrangements of the Christian church, it is natural and reasonable to inquire, whether there are any materials in Scripture for adopting any general conclusions as to their nature, design, and efficacy, that may be equally applicable to them both. And, accordingly, what is usually given as the definition or description of the sacraments, or of a sacrament as such, is just an embodiment of what it is thought can be collected or deduced from Scripture, as being equally predicable of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Of course nothing ought to be introduced into the definition or description of the sacraments, which cannot be proved to be equally and alike applicable to all the ordinances to which the designation of a sacra¬ ment is given ; and the less men find in Scripture that seems to them equally applicable to both ordinances, the more meagre is their sacramental principle, or their general doctrine in regard to the nature and design of the sacraments. The Reformed Confessions and Protestant divines, in general, 240 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. have agreed very much in the definition or description of the sacraments, though there is a considerable diversity in the clear¬ ness and distinctness with which their doctrine upon this subject is unfolded. It can scarcely, we think, he denied that the general tendency, even among the Reformers, was to exaggerate or over¬ state the importance and efficacy of the sacraments. Zwingle’s views were a reaction against those which generally prevailed in the Church of Rome ; hut the extent to which he went rather reacted upon the other Reformers, and made them again approxi¬ mate somewhat in phraseology to the Romish position. This appears more or less even in Calvin, though in his case there was an additional perverting element— the desire to keep on friendly terms with Luther and his followers, and with that view to approximate as far as he could to their notions of the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We have no fault to find with the substance of Calvin’s statements in regard to the sacra- ments in general, or with respect to baptism ; hut we cannot deny that he made an effort to bring out something like a real influence exerted by Christ’s human nature upon the souls of believers, in connection with the dispensation of the Lord’s Supper — an effort which, of course, was altogether unsuccessful, and resulted only in what was about as unintelligible as Luther’s consubstantiation. This is, perhaps, the greatest blot in the history of Calvin’s labours as a public instructor ; and it is a curious circumstance, that the influence which seems to have been chiefly efficacious in leading him astray in the matter, was a quality for which he usually gets no credit — viz., an earnest desire to preserve unity and harmony among the different sections of the Christian church. But, independently of any peculiarity of this sort, we have no doubt that the general tendency among Protestant divines, both at the period of the Reformation and in the seventeenth century, was to lean to the side of magnifying the value and efficacy of the sacraments, and that some of the statements even in the symbolical books of some churches, are not altogether free from indications of this kind. But while this is true, and should 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 to points of nearly so much importance, as persons imperfectly and superficially acquainted with the history of theological discussion have some- 4 Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 241 times supposed. Indeed, blunders have occurred in connection with this subject which are perfectly ludicrous. Dr Phillpotts, the present Bishop of Exeter, a man of very considerable skill and ability in controversy, and respectably acquainted with some departments of theological literature, asserted, in a charge which he published in 1848, that several of the Con¬ fessions of the Reformed churches — specifying “ the Helvetic, that of Augsburg, the Saxon, the Belgic, and the Catechism of Heidelberg ” — agreed with the Church of Rome and the Church of England in teaching the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Dr Goode, now Dean of Ripon, — who has done most admirable service to the cause of Christian Protestant truth, by his crushing and unanswerable exposures of Tractarianism, and who, in point of learning and ability, is one of the most creditable and successful champions the Evangelical party in the Church of England has ever had, — thoroughly exposed this “ astounding statement,” — “this most extraordinary blunder.” He showed that it arose from a very imperfect and superficial acquaintance with their theology as a whole ; and proved that the construction thus put upon some of their statements was, in the first place, not required by anything they had said ; and, in the second place, was precluded, not only by the views set forth in some of these documents on the subject of election, but by the views taught in all of them on the general character and objects of the sacraments, and the persons for whom they are intended, and in whom alone they produce their appro¬ priate effects. The exposure was so conclusive, that Dr Phillpotts felt himself constrained to withdraw the statement in the second edition of his charge ; but tried to cover his retreat by an unfounded allegation, that the documents to which he had referred were self¬ contradictory.* It was upon the same grounds which misled the Bishop of Exeter, that the same allegation of teaching baptismal regenera¬ tion has recently been adduced against “ the deliverance of the Westminster divines in the “Shorter Catechism,” on the subject of baptism.” It is very certain that the Westminster divines did not intend, in this deliverance, or in any other which they put forth, to teach baptismal regeneration. A contradiction is not to be imputed to them, if by any fair process of construction it can be * See Goode’s “ Vindication of the p. 9; and his “Effects of Infant Defence of the Thirty -nine Articles,” Baptism,” chap. iv. pp. 143 and 160. VOL. I. 16 242 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V, avoided ; and it is in tlie highest degree improbable that they should have contradicted themselves upon a point at once so plain and so important. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, what¬ ever else it may include, is always understood to imply, that all baptized infants are regenerated. Now there is nothing in the “ Shorter Catechism ” which gives any countenance to this notion, or, indeed, conveys any explicit deliverance as to the bearing of baptism upon infants. The notion that the “Shorter Catechism” teaches baptismal regeneration, must, we presume, be based upon the assumption, that the general description given of the import and object of baptism, is intended to apply to every case in which the outward ordinance of baptism is administered. But there is no ground for this assumption. The general description given of baptism must be considered in connection with the general de¬ scription given of a sacrament, and it is the disregard of this which is one main cause of the ignorance and confusion so often exhibited upon this whole subject. In accordance with views which we have already explained, the description of a sacrament is intended to embody the substance of what is taught or indicated in Scripture, as being true equally and alike of both sacraments. Of course, all that is said about a sacrament not only may, but must, he applied both to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as being in all its extent true of each of them. The definition or description given of a sacrament in the “ Shorter Catechism,” is that it “ is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” In order to bring out fully the teaching of the catechism on the subject of baptism, we must, in the first place, take in the general description given of a sacrament, and then the special description given of baptism, and we must interpret them in connection with each other as parts of one scheme of doctrine. Upon this obvious principle, we say, that the first and fundamental position taught in the “Shorter Catechism” concerning baptism is this, that it (as well as the Lord’s Supper) “ is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” It is of fundamental importance to remember, that the catechism does apply this whole description of a sacrament to baptism, and to realize what this involves. In addition to this general Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 243 description of baptism as a sacrament, common to it with the Lord’s Supper, the catechism proceeds to give a more specific description of baptism as distinguished from the other sacrament. It is this, — “ baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, our partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.” Now the only ground for alleging that this teaches baptismal regeneration, must be the notion, that it ap¬ plies, in point of fact, to all who have been baptized, and that all who have received the outward ordinance of baptism are war¬ ranted to adopt this language, and to apply it to themselves. But the true principle of interpretation is, that this description of baptism applies fully and in all its extent, only to those who are possessed of the necessary qualifications or preparations for baptism, and who are able to ascertain this. And the question as to who these are, must be determined by a careful consideration of all that is taught upon this subject. Much evidently depends upon the use and application of the pronoun our here, — that is, upon the question, who are the persons that are supposed to be speak¬ ing, or to be entitled to speak, that is, to employ the language in which the general nature and object of baptism are here set forth ? The our, of course, suggests a ice, who are supposed to be the parties speaking, and the question is, Who are the ice ? Are they all who have been baptized ? or only those who are capable of ascertaining that they have been legitimately baptized, and who , being satisfied on this point, are in consequence able to adopt the language of the catechism intelligently and truly ? Now this question is similar to that which is often suggested in the inter¬ pretation of the apostolical epistles, where the use of the words we, us, and our, raises the question, who are the we that are supposed to be speaking % that is, who are the we, in whose name, or as one of whom, the apostle is there speaking? And this question, wherever it arises, must be decided by a careful examina¬ tion of the whole context and scope of the passage. In the catechism, we have first a general description given of a sacrament, intended to embody the substance of what Scripture is held to teach or indicate, as equally and alike applicable to both sacraments. One leading element in this description is, that the sacraments are for the use and benefit of believers, and this principle must be 244 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. kept in view in all the more specific statements afterwards made about either sacrament. This consideration, as well as the whole scope of the statement, clearly implies, that the description given of baptism proceeds upon the assumption, that the persons who partake in it are possessed of the necessary qualifications, — that is, that they are believers, and do or may know that they are so. This principle of construction is a perfectly fair and natural one. It has always been a fundamental principle in the theology of Protestants, that the sacraments were instituted and intended for believers, and produce their appropriate beneficial effects, only through the faith which must have previously existed, and which is expressed and exercised in the act of partaking in them. This being a fundamental and recognised principle in the Protestant theology of the sacraments, it was quite natural that it should be assumed and taken into account in giving a general description of their objects and effects. And the application of this principle of interpretation to the wdi ole deliverances of the Westminster divines upon the subject of the sacraments, in the Confession of Faith and in the Larger Catechism as well as in the Shorter, introduces clearness and consistency into them all, whereas the disregard of it involves them in confusion, and inconsistency. On the grounds which have now been hinted at, and which, when once suggested, must commend themselves to every one who will deliberately and impartially examine the subject, we think it very clear and certain, that the we , suggested by the our in the general description of baptism, are only the believers who had been previously set forth as the proper and worthy recipients of the sacraments; and that consequently the statement that “ baptism signifies and seals our ingrafting into Christ,” etc., must mean, that it signifies and seals the ingrafting into Christ of those of US who have been ingrafted into Christ by faith. This construc¬ tion, of course, removes all appearance of the catechism teaching baptismal regeneration. The truth is, that the only real difficulty in the case is precisely the reverse of that which has been started. The difficulty is, not that the catechism appears to teach, that infants are all regenerated in baptism ; but that it appears to teach, that believers are the oidy proper recipients of baptism, as well as of the Lord’s Supper; while yet at the same time it also explicitly teaches, that the infants of Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 245 such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized. This will require some explanation, while at the same time the investigation of it will bring us hack again to the main subject which we wished to consider, viz., the true doctrine of the Re¬ formed churches, and especially of the Westminster standards, in regard to the nature, objects, and effects of the sacraments in general. The general view which Protestants have commonly taken of the sacraments is, that they are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, that is, of the truths which unfold the provisions and ar¬ rangements of the covenant, and of the spiritual blessings which the covenant provides and secures, — not only signifying or repre¬ senting Christ and the benefits of the new covenant, but sealing or confirming them, and in some sense applying them, to be¬ lievers. As the sacraments are the signs and seals of the cove¬ nant, so they belong properly to, and can benefit only, those who have an interest in the covenant, the fcederati ; and there is no adequate ground for counting upon their exerting their appro¬ priate influence in individual cases, apart from the faith which the participation in them ordinarily expresses, and which must exist before participation in them can be either warrantable or benefi¬ cial. These are the leading views which Protestant divines have usually put forth in regard to the sacraments in general, that is, their general nature, design, and efficacy. In looking more closely at the doctrines of Protestant churches upon this subject, it is necessary to remember, not only that, as we have already ex¬ plained, they usually assume, in their general statements, that the persons partaking in the sacraments are duly prepared, or possessed of the necessary preliminary qualifications, but also that, when statements are made which are intended to apply equally to bap¬ tism and the Lord’s Supper ; or, when the general object and design of baptism are set forth in the abstract, they have in their view, and take into their account, only adult baptism, the baptism of those who, after they have come to years of understanding, ask and obtain admission into the visible church by being baptized. This mode of contemplating the ordinance of baptism is so different from what we are accustomed to, that we are apt to he startled when it is presented to us, and find it somewhat difficult to enter into it. It tends greatly to introduce obscurity and con¬ fusion into our whole conceptions on the subject of baptism, that 246 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. we see it ordinarily administered to infants, and very seldom to adults. This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erro¬ neous conceptions of its design and effects, or rather to live with our minds very much in the condition of blanks, so far as con¬ cerns any distinct and definite views upon this subject. There is a great difficulty felt, — a difficulty which Scripture does not afford us adequate materials for removing, in laying down any distinct and definite doctrine as to the bearing and efficacy of baptism in the case of infants, to whom alone, ordinarily, we see it adminis¬ tered. A sense of this difficulty is very apt to tempt us to remain contentedly in great ignorance of the whole subject, without any serious attempt to understand distinctly what baptism is and means, and how it is connected with the general doctrine of the sacraments. And yet is quite plain to any one who is cap¬ able of reflecting upon the subject, that it is adult baptism alone which embodies and brings out the full idea of the ordi¬ nance, and should be regarded as the primary type of it, — that from which mainly and principally we should form our concep¬ tions of what baptism is and means, and was intended to accom¬ plish. It is in this aspect that baptism is ordinarily spoken about, and presented to our contemplation, in the New Testa¬ ment, and we see something similar in tracing the operations of our missionaries who are engaged in preaching the gospel in heathen lands. Adult baptism, then, exhibits the original and fundamental idea of the ordinance, as it is usually brought before us, and as it is directly and formally spoken about in the New Testament. And when baptism is contemplated in this light, there is no more difficulty in forming a distinct and definite conception regarding it than regarding the Lord’s Supper. Of adult baptism, we can say, just as we do of the Lord’s Supper, that it is in every instance, according to the general doctrine of Protestants, either the sign and seal of a faith and a regeneration previously existing, already effected by God’s grace,' — or else that the reception of it was a hypocritical profession of a state of mind and feeling which has no existence. We have no doubt that the lawfulness and the obliga¬ tion of infant baptism can be conclusively established from Scrip¬ ture ; but it is manifest that the general doctrine or theory just stated, with respect to the import and effect of the sacraments, and of baptism as a sacrament, cannot be applied fully in all its Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 247 extent to the baptism of infants. The reason of this is, because Scripture does not afford us materials, either, for laying down any definite position as to a certain and invariable connection between baptism and spiritual blessings, — that is, for maintaining the doc¬ trine of baptismal regeneration ; or, for stating such a distinct and definite alternative with respect to the efficacy of the ordinance in individuals, as has been stated above in the case of adult bap¬ tism and the Lord’s Supper. But notwithstanding these obvious considerations, we fear it is a very common thing for men, just because they ordinarily see infant, and very seldom see adult, baptism, to take the baptism of infants, with all the difficulties attaching to giving a precise and definite statement as to its design and effect in then' case, and to allow this to regulate their whole conceptions with respect to this ordinance in particular, and even with respect to the sacraments in general. This is a very common process ; and we could easily produce abundant evidence, both of its actual prevalence, and of its injurious bearing upon men s whole opinions on this subject. The right and reasonable course is plainly just the reverse of this, — viz., to regard adult baptism as affording the proper fundamental type of the ordinance, to derive our great leading conceptions about baptism from the case, not of infant, but of adult, baptism, viewed in connection with the general theory or doctrine applicable to both sacraments ; and then, since infant baptism is also fully warranted in Scripture, to examine what modifications the leading general views of the or¬ dinance may or must undergo, when applied to the special and peculiar case of the baptism of infants. These views were acted upon, though not formally and explicitly stated, by the Reformers in preparing their Confessions of h aith, and in their discussions of this subject. It is impossible to bring out, from their statements about the sacraments, a clear and con¬ sistent sense, except upon the hypothesis, that, in laying down their general positions as to the nature, objects, and effects of the sacraments, they proceeded upon the assumption, that those partak¬ ing in these ordinances were duly qualified and rightly prepared ; and more particularly, that the persons baptized, in whom the true and full operation of baptism was exhibited, were adults,— adult believers. The Council of Trent, in their decrees and canons on the subject of justification, which in the Romish system com¬ prehends regeneration, and of which they asserted baptism, or the 248 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. sacrament of faith, as they call it, to he the instrumental cause,* dealt with the subject on the assumption, that they were describing the process which takes place in the case of persons who, after they have attained to adult age, are led to embrace Christianity and to apply for baptism. And we find that the Reformers, in discussing these matters with their Romish oppo¬ nents, accommodated themselves to this mode of putting the case ; and having thus adult baptism chiefly in their view, were led sometimes to speak as if they regarded baptism and regeneration as substantially identical. They certainly did not mean to assert or concede the popish principle, of an invariable connection be¬ tween the outward ordinance and the spiritual blessing, for it is quite certain, and can be conclusively established, that they re¬ jected this. They adopted this mode of speaking, which at first sight is somewhat startling, 1st, because the Council of Trent discussed the subject of justification chiefly in its bearing upon the case of those who had not been baptised in infancy, and with whom, consequently, baptism, if it was not a mere hypocritical pretence, destitute of all worth or value, was, in the judgment of Protestants, a sign and seal of a faith and regeneration previously wrought and then existing ; and 2dly, because it was, when viewed in this aspect and application, that their great general doctrines, as to the design and efficacy of the sacraments in their bearing upon the justification of sinners, stood out for examination in the clearest and most definite form. This was the true cause of a mode of speaking sometimes adopted by the Reformers, which, to those imperfectly acquainted with their writings, and with the state of theological discussion at the time, might seem to counten¬ ance the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It was very important to bring out fully and distinctly the nature and character of the sacraments as signs and seals of the covenant of grace and its benefits, the import of the profession implied in partaking in them, and the qualifications required for receiving them rightly ; and then to connect the statement of their actual effects with right vieics upon all these points. This process was at once the most obvious and the most effectual way, of shutting out the erroneous and dangerous notions upon the sub¬ ject of the sacraments that prevailed in the Church of Rome. It * Session vi. c. 8. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF TIIE SACRAMENTS. 249 was very important witli this view, to give a compendious and summary representation of what was set forth in Scripture as the sacramental principle or theory, as being equally applicable to both sacraments ; and to keep steadily before men s minds the con¬ sideration, that this could be held to be fully realized and exhibited only in those for whom the sacraments were mainly intended, and who were duly prepared for receiving and improving them aright. Their minds were filled with these principles, and they were an¬ xious to set them forth, in opposition to the great sacramental system which had been excogitated by the schoolmen, and sanc¬ tioned by the Church of Rome. And it was because their minds were filled with these principles that, though strenuously opposing the tenets of the Anabaptists, they yet saw clearly and admitted the somewhat peculiar and supplemental position held by infant baptism. They held it to be of primary importance to bring out fully the sacramental principle as exhibited in its entireness in adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper ; and in aiming at accom¬ plishing this, they were not much concerned about putting forth definitions or descriptions of the sacraments or even of baptism, which could scarcely be regarded as comprehending infant bap¬ tism, or as obviously and directly applying to it. They never intended to teach baptismal regeneration, and they have said nothing that appears to teach it, or that could be supposed to teach it, by any except those who were utterly ignorant of the whole course of the discussion of these subjects as it was then conducted. They never intended to discountenance infant bap¬ tism ; on the contrary, they strenuously defended its lawfulness and obligation. But they certainly gave descriptions of the general nature, design, and effects of the sacraments, which, if literally interpreted and pressed, might be regarded as omitting it, or putting it aside. It is impossible to deny, that the general description which the u Shorter Catechism” gives of a sacrament teaches, by plain implication, that the sacraments, so far as regards adults, are intended only for believers ; while no Protestants, except some of the Lutherans, have ever held that infants aie cap¬ able of exercising faith. It also teaches, by plain implication, in the previous question, the 91st, that the wholesome influ¬ ence of the sacraments is experienced only by those who “ by faith receive them.” All this is applied equally to baptism and 250 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. the Lord’s Supper. Its general import, as implying a virtual restriction of these ordinances to believers, is too clear to be mis¬ understood or to admit of being explained away. And then, again, the apparent discrepancy between this great principle, and the position that u the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized,” is too obvious to escape the notice of any one who deliberately examines the catechism with a view to understand it. These considerations would lead us to expect to find, that the discrepancy is only apparent, and that there is no great difficulty in pointing out a mode of reconciliation. The mode of reconciliation we have already hinted at. It is in sub¬ stance this, that infant baptism is to be regarded as a peculiar, subordinate, supplemental, exceptional thing, which stands, indeed, firmly based on its own distinct and special grounds, but which cannot well be brought within the line of the general abstract definition or description of a sacrament, as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The Westminster divines, then, have given a description of a sacrament, which does apply fully to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but which does not directly and in terminis comprehend infant baptism. This, which is the plain fact of the case, could only have arisen from their finding it difficult, if not impossible, to give a definition of the sacraments in their great leading fun¬ damental aspects, which would at the same time apply to, and include, the special case of the baptism of infants. This, again, implies an admission that the definition given of a sacrament does not apply fully and in all its extent to the special case of infant baptism ; while it implies, also, that the compilers of the catechism thought it much more important, to bring out fully, as the definition of a sacrament, all that could be truly pre¬ dicated equally of adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, than to try and form a definition that might be wide enough and vague enough to include infant baptism, a topic of a peculiar and subordinate description. This is the only explanation and defence that can be given of the course of statement adopted in the catechism. It may possibly occur to some, that since it is certain that the compilers of the catechism held, that it was the children of believers only that were to be baptized, and that they were to be baptized on the ground of their parents’ faith, and the general principle of Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS- 251 covenant relationship based upon this, the word believe ) s, in the definition of a sacrament, might include infants, viewed as one with their believing parents, and virtually comprehended in them. But, besides that this leaves untouched the statement which im¬ plies, that spiritual benefit is derived from the sacraments only by u those who by faith receive them,” we think it quite plain and certain, from the whole scope of the statement given in answer to the question, What is a sacrament 1 that the believers to whom the sacraments represent, seal, and apply Christ and His benefits, are those only who themselves directly and personally partake in the sacraments, and not those also who, though not belie\cis themselves, may he admitted to one of the sacraments because of their relationship to believers. A similar doubt might he started about the meaning and appli¬ cation of the parallel passage in the u Larger Catechism. A sac 1 a- ment is there described as u an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, in His church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace , the benefits of His mediation, to strengthen and increase their faith,” etc. Now there can be no doubt that, according to the prevailing opinions and the current usus loquendi of the period, — and, as we believe, in accordance with Sci iptm e, the expression, a those that are within the covenant of giace, might include the children of believers, who were regarded as foederati , and as thus entitled to the u signa et sigilla foederis .” But it is quite certain that the expression is not used here in this extended sense, or as including any but believers. For this sentence goes on im¬ mediately, without any change in the construction, and without any indication of alteration or restriction in regard to the per¬ sons spoken of, to say, that the sacraments were instituted to strengthen and increase their faith,” — implying, of couise, that the persons here spoken of had faith before the sacraments came to bear upon them, or could confer upon them any benefit. There can, then, be no reasonable doubt that the u Shortei Catechism” in defining or describing a sacrament restricts itself to the case of adult believers ; and the only way of reconciling the definition with its teaching on the subject of infant baptism is by assuming that it is not to be applied absolutely and without all exception in other cases ; and that infant baptism, though * Q. 162. 252 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. fully warranted by Scripture, does not correspond in all respects with the full sacramental principle in its utmost extent and clearness, as exhibited in adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and must therefore be regarded as occupying a peculiar, and supplemental position. We know no other way of showing the consistency with each other of the different statements con¬ tained in the catechism. The principle we have explained re¬ futes the allegation of inconsistency or contradiction, and resolves the whole difficulty into a certain concession on the subject of in¬ fant baptism, — a concession not affecting the scriptural evidence for the maintainence of the practice of baptizing infants, but merely the fulness and completeness of the doctrinal explanation that should be given of its objects and effects. The explanation we have given upon this point is in full accord¬ ance with the views set forth in the “Westminster Confession of Faith,” and in the Confessions of the Reformed churches generally. They all of them assert the scriptural authority of infant baptism, while at the same time most of them, though with different de¬ grees of clearness, present statements about the sacraments or about baptism, which do not very fully and directly apply to the baptism of infants.* We have been the more disposed to give some time to the explanation of the peculiar position and standing of the topic of infant baptism, because it is not merely indispen¬ sable to the intelligent and consistent exposition of the “ Shorter Catechism,” but also because ignorance or disregard of it produces much error and confusion in men’s whole views with respect to the sacraments in general. Men who have not attended to and esti¬ mated aright this topic of the peculiar and subordinate place held by the subject of infant baptism are very apt to run into one or * Strange as it may seem, this holds true, to some extent, even of the ar¬ ticles of the Church of England, though, perhaps, somewhat less fully and explicitly than in the case of any other of the Reformed churches. In the general statements about the sacraments in the 25th article, and in the chief portion of the 27th, on baptism, there is nothing to suggest that infant baptism is comprehended in the description ; and, indeed, the general scope and spirit of the state¬ ments rather seem to ignore or pre¬ termit it, though there is not the same explicit and restricting reference to believers and faith which occurs in the “Shorter Catechism.” And then, again, the only express mention of infant baptism, which occurs in the end of the 27th article, and which simply asserts that it “is in anywise to be retained in the church as most agreeable to the institution of Christ,” brings it in very much in the same supplemental, exceptional sort of way, in which the Westminster standards deal with it. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 253 other of two extremes, — viz., 1st, that of lowering the true sacra¬ mental principle, as brought out in the general definition of a sacrament, and as exhibited fully in the case of adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to the level of what suits the special case of infant baptism ; or, 2d, that of raising the explanation propounded of the bearing and effect of infant baptism, up to a measure of clearness and fulness which really attaches only to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper. And, as error is generally inconsistent, and extremes have a strong tendency to meet, cases have occurred in which both these opposite extremes have been exhibited by the same persons, in connection with that one source of error and confusion to which we have referred. The truth, as well as the importance, of some of the points which have been referred to in the course of the preceding statements, will appear more clearly, as we proceed to explain more fully and formally the general doctrine of the sacraments, as set forth in the Westminster sym¬ bols, in accordance with the other Confessions of the Reformed churches. The doctrine of the sacraments, or the sacramental principle, in the proper import of that expression, is intended, as we have explained, to embody the sum and substance of what is taught or indicated in Scripture, as equally and alike applicable to both the ordinances to which the name of a sacrament is commonly given. Of course, nothing ought to be introduced into the definition or description of a sacrament, but what there is sufficient scriptural ground, more or less direct and explicit, and more or less clear and conclusive, for holding to be predicable equally and alike of baptism, — that is, adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Besides the scriptural statements that bear directly upon these two ordi¬ nances separately, there are views suggested by their general character and position, taken in connection with general scriptural principles, to which it may be proper, in the first instance, to advert. There is not a great deal in Scripture that can be said to bear very directly upon the question, What is a sacrament ? but there is a good deal that may be deduced from Scripture by good and neces¬ sary consequence. There are two different aspects in which the sacraments are to be regarded, 1st, Simply as institutions or ordinances whose appointment by Christ stands recorded in Scripture, and whose celebration in the church, according to His appointment, may be 254 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. contemplated or looked at by spectators, — and, 2d, as acts which men perform, transactions in which men individually take a part ; — that is, they may he regarded either as mere instituted symbols, or also, and in addition, as symbolic actions which men perform. Viewed, in the first of these aspects, as symbols, they merely signify or represent (these two words are generally used synony¬ mously in this matter) spiritual blessings, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant, and the scriptural truths which make known, unfold, and offer these blessings to men ; while, in regard to the second aspect of them, this much at least must be evident in general, that the participation in the sacraments by men indivi¬ dually, is on their part an expression or profession of a state of mind and feeling, with reference to the truths which the outward symbols represent, and the blessings which they signify. Viewed, in the first of these aspects, as mere symbols which have been in¬ stituted and described in Scripture, and which may be contem¬ plated or looked at, it is evident that the sacraments are merely, to use an expression which Calvin and other Reformers applied to them, appendages to the gospel, — that is, merely means of declar¬ ing and bringing before our minds in another way, by a different instrumentality, what is fully set forth in the statements of Scrip¬ ture. In baptism, viewed in this light, God is just telling us, by means of outward symbols instead of words, that men, in their natural condition, need to be washed from guilt and depravity, and that full provision has been made for effecting this, through the shedding of Christ’s blood and the effusion of His Spirit. In the Lord’s Supper, in like manner, lie is just telling us that Christ’s body was broken, and that His blood was shed, for men ; and that, in this way, full provision has been made, not only for restoring men to the enjoyment of God’s favour, and creating them again after Ilis image, but for affording them abundance of spiritual nourishment, and enabling them to grow up in all things unto Him who is the Head. The sacraments, as symbols, thus teach, by outward and visible representations, the leading truths which are revealed in Scripture concerning the way of salvation ; and teach them in a manner peculiarly fitted, according to the prin¬ ciples of our constitution, to bring them home impressively to our understandings and our hearts. And it is important to notice that, even in this simplest and Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS- 255 most elementary view of the sacraments, they may truly and rea¬ sonably be called seals as well as signs, — they may he said not only to signify or represent, but to seal. A seal is something external, usually appended to a deed or document, or impressed upon a sub¬ stance which forms the subject of negotiation or arrangement, and it is intended to strengthen or confirm conviction or faith, expecta¬ tion or confidence. A seal, in this sense, the only sense in which it can apply to the sacraments, is a thing of no real intrinsic value or importance apart from the engagement ratified. Its use and efficacy are purely conventional. Seals are based, indeed, upon a natural principle in our complex constitution, in virtue of which external objects or actions connected with, or added to, declarations, engage¬ ments, or promises, are regarded as tying or binding more strongly those from whom these deeds or documents proceed, and as thus tending to strengthen and confirm the faith and the hope of those to whom they are directed. It is this principle in our constitution which is the source and origin, the rationale and defence, not only of the sealing of deeds and documents, — that is, of the practice of appending a seal to the signature of the names attached to them, — but of the whole series of outward significant rites and ceremonies, which in all ages and countries have been associated with cove- nants and treaties, with bargains and barterings. These sealings, and other similar rites and ceremonies, which in such variety have prevailed in all ages and countries in connection with transactions of this sort, have been always regarded and felt as somehow bind¬ ing the parties more strongly to their respective statements and engagements, and as thus strengthening their reliance upon each other, in reference to everything that had been declared or pro¬ mised. And yet it is quite plain, that these sealings and other rites and ceremonies usually connected with compacts and bar¬ gains, can scarcely be said to possess any value apart from the engagement sealed, or to exert a real influence in effecting any important result. The only essential things in transactions of this sort, are the deeds or documents, embodying a statement of the things arranged or agreed upon with all their circumstances and conditions, and the signatures of the parties, binding themselves to the terms set forth in the deed. Applying these obvious principles to Christianity and salvation, it is plain that the essential things as bearing on the practical result, are arrangements and proposals, made and revealed by G od, 256 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. understood and accepted by men. It is indispensable that men understand the import of the offers and proposals made to them, be satisfied that they come from God, and then accept and act upon them. The covenant of grace is thus substantially a pro¬ posal made by God to men, which is accepted by them ; and the essential things are, the substance of the proposal set forth as in a deed or document, and the concurrence of the parties, as if attested by their signatures. The sacraments, according to the views which have generally prevailed among Protestants, are signs and seals of this covenant, — that is, as signs they embody in out¬ ward elements (for we are not speaking at present of the sacra¬ mental actions) the substance of what is set forth more fully and particularly in the written word ; and this additional, superadded, external embodiment of the provisions and arrangements, is re¬ garded as occupying the place, and serving the purpose of a seal appended to a signature to a deed ; not certainly as if it could very materially affect the result, so long as we had the deed and the signatures, but still operating, according to the well-known principles of our constitution, in giving some confirmation to our impressions, if not our convictions, of the reality and certainty, or reliability of the whole transaction. But we proceed to advert to the second and higher view that must obviously be taken of the sacraments. They were intended not so much to be read about or to be looked at, as to be parti¬ cipated in. Men are individually to be washed with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and they are individually to eat bread and to drink wine at the Lord’s table, in remembrance of Christ, This being the case, the questions naturally arise, What is the meaning and what the object of those acts which they perform ? Why did God require these things at their hands ? What is the effect which the doing of these things is intended to produce ? and, What are the principles which re¬ gulate and determine the production of the resulting effects? Now, as bearing upon the answer to these questions, there are some positions which are generally admitted, and are attended with no difficulty. The two leading aspects in which the sacra¬ ments, viewed as actions which men perform, are represented in Scripture are, — first, as duties which God requires of us, and, second, as means of grace or privileges which he appoints and bestows. And again, under the first of these heads, viz., com- Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 257 manded duties, tliere are two views tlmt may be taken of them, 1st, as acts of worship ; and 2d, as public professions of Chris¬ tianity. It is, of course, men’s duty to render to God the acts of worship, and to make the professions, which He requires of them. The sacraments seem plainly to possess these two characters. In participating in them, we are rendering an act of worship to God, and we are making a public profession by an outward: act, and all this He has required at our hands, or imposed upon us as a duty. If this be so, then it follows that any general principles which are indicated in Scripture, or involved in the nature of the case, as being rightly applicable to acts of worship and to public pro¬ fessions, must be applied to them. Whatever is necessary to make an act of worship reasonable and acceptable to God, and whatever is necessary to make a public profession intelligent and honest, must be found in men’s participation in the sacraments, in order to make it fitted to serve any of its intended purposes. And this most simple and obvious view of thp general nature and character of the sacramental actions ought not to be overlooked or forgotten, as it is well fitted, when remembered and applied, to guard us both against error in doctrine and delusion in practice. It is the second of these views of them, however, — that which represents them as outward public professions, — which bears more immediately upon their mode of operation and their actual effects, as privileges or means of grace. All admit that the sacraments embody or involve a public profession of a certain state of mind and feeling. Indeed, this is plainly implied in their character as symbolical or emblematical ordinances. We cannot conceive that it should have been required as a duty of those to whom the gospel is preached, that they should be baptized and should partake in the Lord’s Supper, unless this washing with water, and this eating bread and drinking wine, symbolized and expressed some state of mind, some conviction, or feeling, or purpose, bear¬ ing upon their relation to God, and the salvation of their souls. That participation in the sacraments is a discriminating mark or badge of what may be called, in some sense, a profession of Christianity, and that it involves an engagement to perform certain duties, is admitted by all, even those who take the lowest views of their nature and design. And all orthodox divines hold that this constitutes one end and object of the institution of these ordinances, though they regard it only as a subordinate one. In VOL. I. 17 258 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. the very important document formerly referred to, called u Con¬ sensus Tigurinus,” prepared by Calvin, and embodying the agree¬ ment among the Swiss churches on the whole subject of the sacraments, while it is admitted that there are various ends and objects of the sacraments, such as, that they may be marks and badges of a Christian profession and union or brotherhood — that they may be incitements to thanksgivings and exercises of faith and a pious life, and engagements binding to this — it is laid down, u that the one principal end of these ordinances is, that God, by them, may attest, represent, and seal His grace to us.”* This mode of statement is in accordance with the views generally en¬ tertained by the Reformed divines, and it is adopted in the West¬ minster Confession,! where, after describing it as the end or object of the sacraments a to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest in Him,” it adds, evidently in the way of suggesting some additional points of less fundamental importance, “ as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world, and solemnly to engage them to the sendee of God in Christ.” These subordinate ends of the sacraments, connected with their character and functions as badges of a public profession and solemn engagements to duty, do not in themselves require lengthened explanation, as they are simple and obvious, and have not given rise to much discussion, except in so far as the question has been raised, as to the precise import and amount of the profession which participation in the sacraments involves. This is a question of some difficulty and importance ; and it is intimately connected with the investigation of the great.. -primary end or object of the sacraments, and with their character and function as means of grace. It is generally admitted by Protes¬ tant divines, that the sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, that is, of the truths and promises setting forth the pro¬ visions and arrangements which may be said to constitute the covenant, and of the spiritual blessings which the covenant offers and secures ; and these terms, accordingly, are applied to them in almost all the Confessions of the Reformed churches. But even where there is a concurrence in the use of these epithets, there is still room for error and confusion on some important topics con¬ nected with this matter. The leading questions connected with * Niemeyer, p. 193. fC. 27, s. 1. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 259 tlie sacraments may be ranked under two heads — 1st, What are their objects or ends, comprehending the purposes for which they were instituted, and the effects which they actually produce? And 2d, Who are their proper subjects, the parties for whom they were intended, those who are qualified to partake in them lawfully and beneficially ? These two heads of investigation, which may be briefly described, as respecting, the first the objects, and the second the subjects, of the sacraments, are very closely connected with each other. The settlement of either of these questions would go far to determine the other. If we had once ascertained what is the leading primary object of the sacraments, there would be no great difficulty in deducing from this, viewed in connection with other doctrines plainly taught in Scripture, what kind of persons ought to partake in them ; and if we once knew who are the parties that ought to partake in them, we might from this in¬ fer a good deal, positively as well as negatively, in regard to the purpose they were intended to serve. On some grounds it would seem to be more natural and expedient to begin with examining the objects or ends of the sacraments. But as we have been led, in the arrangement we have adopted, to advert to the view of the sacraments as badges of a public profession, and as the considera¬ tion of this topic, which has not yet been completed, is connected rather with the examination of the subjects than the objects of the sacraments, we shall consider, in the first place, in contemplating them as means of grace, the question, who are the parties for whom they were intended? We are the less concerned about following what might seem to be the more strictly logical order, because our object is rather explanation than defence ; — it is rather to bring out what the doctrine of the Keformed Confessions, and especially of the Westminster symbols, on the general subject of the sacraments, is, than to establish its truth and to vindicate it from objections ; — as we have in view chiefly the case of those who have professed to believe these symbols, but who still exhibit a great deal of ignorance in regard to their meaning and import. We have mentioned, as the first and most general division that obtains on the subject of the sacraments, that they may be regarded either, first, as duties which God requires ; or, second, as means of grace. The difficulties which have arisen, and the discussions which have been carried on respecting them, have turned chiefly upon their character and functions as means of grace. It is uni- 2G0 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. versally admitted that the sacraments are means of grace; and the great general idea involved in this position is this, that they are institutions which God intended and appointed to be, in some sense, the instruments or channels of conveying to men spiritual bless¬ ings, and in the due and right use of which men are warranted to expect to receive the spiritual blessings they stand in need of. In this wide and general sense, even those who hold the lowest view of the sacraments, admit that they are means of grace ; while it is also true that the great differences in doctrine which have been maintained by different churches on the whole subject of the sacraments resolve very much into the different senses in which the position, that they are means of grace, may be explained. In the wide sense above stated, the position that the sacraments are means of grace, may be conclusively inferred from the fact, that God has appointed them, and required the observance of them at our hands. As the outward acts which constitute the observance of the sacraments are in themselves not moral, but merely positive or indifferent, we are warranted to believe that God appointed them solely for our benefit, and because He intended them to be in some way instruments or channels of conveying to us spiritual blessings. The Romish doctrine upon this subject is, that the sacraments contain the grace which they signify ; that they confer grace always and certainly, where men do not put an obstacle in the way ; that they do this ex opere operate, or by some sort of physi¬ cal or intrinsic power bestowed upon them, apart from the state of mind of the recipient ; that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification as including both remission of sin and regeneration ; and that the Lord’s Supper invariably conveys spiritual nourish¬ ment. There are some points, however, involved in the exposition of these doctrines, which have not been explicitly settled by the authority of the church, and in regard to which some latitude is left for a difference of opinion. Among Protestants, again, high churchmen, and men disposed to exalt the value and efficacy of the sacraments, have generally adopted, or, at least, approximated to, the Romish doctrine as explained by its more reasonable de¬ fenders, and have been disposed to allege that the controversies with the Church of Rome upon this subject, resolve very much into disputes about words or points of no great importance ; while sounder Protestants have, in general, met the Romish doctrines with decided opposition. At the same time, it must be admitted, Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 261 tliat it is not easy to fix upon any definite inodes of statement, which can be said to he distinctly Protestant as opposed to Ro¬ manism, about the true character and functions of the sacraments as means of grace, viewed apart from the doctrine held v\ ith regard to their subjects and objects. It is generally supposed that the strongest statement to which the Church of Rome is pledged on this point, is, that the sacraments “ contain the grace which they signify or represent,” implying, that the grace resides 01 is laid up in them, and that they give it out ; and yet Calvin, in his 11 Antidote to the Council of Trent,’ seventh session, admits that there is a sense in which it is true u sacramentis contineri gratiam quam figurant.” He asserts also that those who allege, that by the sacraments grace is conferred upon us when we do not put an obstacle in the way, overturn the whole power of the sacraments ; while he distinctly admits that the sacraments are instrumental causes of conferring grace upon us, though the power of God is not tied to them, and though they produce no effect whatever "aparfTrom tlie faith of the recipient. And, moreover, we find, upon a principle formerly explained, that in dealing (sixth session) with the position, that baptism is the instrumental cause of justifi¬ cation, he rather objects to the omission of the Gospel or the truth, and to the high place assigned to baptism, than meets the position of the Council with a direct negative. His statement is this — u It is a great absurdity to make baptism alone the instru¬ mental cause. If this be so, what becomes of the gospel ? Will it not even get into the lowest corner ? But, they say, baptism is the sacrament of faith. True ; but when all is said, I will still maintain that it is nothing but an appendage to the gospel ( evan - gelii appendicem). They act preposterously in giving it the fiist place ; and this is just as if one should say that the instrumental cause of a house is the handle of the workman’s trowel. He who, putting the gospel in the background, numbers baptism among the causes of salvation, shows thereby that he does not know what baptism is or means, or what is its function and use. It would be easy to show, that there are many other eminent divines who have differed from each other as to the phraseology that ought to be employed in explaining the position, that the saci aments are means of grace, some asserting and others denying, that they are * Calvin— Tractatus Theologici omnes, Amstel 1667, p. 242. 262 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay Y. causes of grace, — that they confer, or convey, or bestow spiritual blessings, — while yet there is no very material difference of opinion among them ; as is evident from their agreement in regard to the two important questions, as to the persons for whom the sacraments are intended, and the purposes they were instituted to serve. And on this ground we shall now, as has been intimated, consider — 1st, the subjects, and, 2d, the objects, of the sacraments; assuming only, in the meantime, that the position, universally ad¬ mitted, that the sacraments are means of grace, implies that, in some way or other, they are employed by God as instrumental or auxiliary in bestowing upon some men some spiritual blessings. 1. Let us first advert, then, to the subjects of the sacraments, or the persons for whom they were intended. We have already seen that, both in the Larger and the Shorter Catechism, the Westminster Assembly have distinctly laid down the position, that the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are intended for believers, for men who had already and previously been led to embrace Christ as their Saviour ; and that they were not in the least deterred from the explicit assertion of this great principle by its appearing to exclude or ignore the practice of infant baptism, which they believed to be fully sanctioned by Scripture. This great principle is not set forth in the Confession of Faith quite so explicitly as it is in the Catechisms, but it is taught there by very plain implication. The Confession* lays it down as the first and principal end or object of the sacraments, of both equally and alike, u to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest in Him,”- — this last clause implying, that those for whom the sacraments were intended, have already and previously ac¬ quired a personal interest in Christ, which could be only by their union to Him through faith. It furtherf in speaking still of the sacraments, and, of course, of baptism as well as the Lord’s Supper, asserts that a the word of institution contains a promise of benefit to worthy receivers and worthy receivers, in the full import of the expression, are, in the case of adult baptism, believers. In the next chapter, the twenty-eighth, the description given of baptism manifestly applies only to believing adults. It is there described as a u sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by J esus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party bap- * Ch. xxvii. sec. 1. f Sec. 3. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 263 tized into tlie visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. It is quite true that infants, as well as adults, though incapable of faith, must be ingrafted into Christ, and must receive regeneration and remis¬ sion ; and that without this, indeed, they cannot be saved. Lut the statement in the Confession plainly assumes, that each indivi¬ dual baptized not only should have the necessary preliminary qualifications, but should be himself exercised and satisfied upon this point ; and should thus be prepared to take part, intelligently and consciously, in the personal assumption of the practical obliga¬ tions which baptism implies. This is sufficient to show that the teaching of the Confession is quite in harmony with that of the Catechisms, though upon this particular point it is not altogether so explicit. It holds true, indeed, generally — we might say universally — of the Reformed churches, as distinguished from the Lutheran, and of almost all the Reformed theologians, that though firm believers in the divine authority of infant baptism, they never hesitate to lay down the general positions, that the sacraments are intended for believers ; that participation in them assumes the previous and present exist¬ ence of faith in all who rightly receive them ; and that they pro¬ duce their appropriate, beneficial effects only through the opera¬ tion and exercise of faith in those who partake in them. The Reformed divines, not holding the doctrine of baptismal regenera¬ tion, did not regard the baptism of infants as being of sufficient importance to modify the general doctrine they thought them¬ selves warranted to lay down with respect to the sacraments, as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper. And it is interesting and instructive to notice, that the adoption, by the Lutherans, of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration led them to be much more careful of laying down any general statements, either about the sacraments or about baptism, which virtually ignored the baptism of infants. They are much more careful than the Reformed divines, either expressly and by name to bring in infant baptism into their general definitions or descriptions, or, at least, to leave ample room for it, so that there may be no appearance of its being omitted or forgotten. It may be worth while to give a specimen of this. Cuddaeus, one of the best of the 264 ZWINGLE, AND THE [Essay V. Lutheran divines, a man whose works exhibit a very fine combi¬ nation of ability and good sense, learning and evangelical unction, in treating of the effect of baptism, which, he says, may also be regarded as the end or object of the ordinance, 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 be possessed before they are admitted to baptism.” * In contrast with this, many of the Reformed divines asserted, without any hesitation, that the great leading ob¬ ject and effect of the sacraments, and, of course, of baptism as well as of the Lord’s Supper, was just the confirmatio field , that is, the confirming and strengthening of the faith, which must, or, at least, should, have existed in the case of adults before either sacra¬ ment was received. This, however, bears rather upon the objects than the subjects of the sacraments. And in returning to the latter of these topics, we would lay before our readers, what we regard as a very com¬ plete and comprehensive summary of the doctrine of the Reformed churches upon this point, in the words of Martin Vitringa, in his “ Adnotationes” to the “Doctrina Christian se Religionis per Aphorismos summatim descripta” of Campegius Vitringa. “ From these quotations, it clearly appears, that the common doctrine of our divines concerning the proper subjects of the sacraments amounts to this : — 1st. That the sacraments have been instituted only for those who have already received the grace of God — the called, the regenerate, the believing, the converted, those who are in covenant with God ; and also that it is proper for those to come to them who have true faith and repentance. 2d. That they who receive the sacraments are already, before receiving them, partakers through faith of Christ and His benefits, and are therefore justified and sanctified before they take the sacraments. 3d. That faith is the medium, the mouth, and the hand, by which we rightly receive and perceive the sacraments. 4 th. That the faith of those who lawfully receive the sacraments is con¬ firmed and increased by them, and that they are more closely united to Christ. 5th. That those only who receive the sacraments in faith have, in the use of them, the promise of the remission of sins and of eternal life bestowed, sealed, and applied in a singular way, just as if God were addressing them in¬ dividually, and were promising and sealing to them remission of sins and eternal life ; and thus believers are rendered more certain about their com- * “ Theologia Dogmatica,” lib. v. c. i. s. 7. Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 265 munion with Christ and His benefits, so that they can certainly determine that Christ belongs to them with His gifts. 6th. That by the sacraments the promises of the covenant of grace are offered and sealed, under the condition of true faith and penitence. 7 th. That only true believers and true penitents, using the sacraments worthily, receive not only the signs, but also the things signified, which aie sealed to them, and also that they only receive them with benefit and advantage. 8th. That God wishes the sacraments to be administered to those who are possessed of true faith and unfeigned repentance, but that the ministers of the church ought to admit to the sacraments those who make a profession of faith and penitence, and do not openly contradict it by their life and conduct, and that they, before coming to the sacraments, ought to be admonished to try them¬ selves, whether they have true faith and repentance, lest being destitute of faith and repentance, they should receive the sacraments to their condemnation. 9th. That unbelieving and impenitent persons receive only the naked signs but not the things signified ; that nothing is sealed to them ; that, moi eover, they profane and contemn the sacraments ; and that from this profanation and contempt the sacraments not only do not benefit but hurt them, and bring to them condemnation and destruction ; and then, that the sacraments, when administered to unbelieving and impenitent persons, remain sacraments so far as God is concerned, but so far as concerns the unbelieving and impeni¬ tent, lose the nature and power of a sacrament. 10ut he has no right to demand that, because he has a dislike to the desig¬ nation Arminian, we must have recourse to circumlocution in in¬ dicating his theological position, when he is utterly unable to prove, that calling him an Arminian involves inaccuracy or in¬ justice, or implies any deviation from the mode of dealing with such topics which is sanctioned by the ordinary practice of theo¬ logians. Faber having written a book upon the subject of election, and having there brought out his views fully and elaborately, has made it manifest what were the grounds that led him to believe that he was not an Arminian ; and we have had no difficulty in pointing out the source of the fallacy in his case. TT hately has referred to this matter only incidentally ; and has not gone into any formal or elaborate exposition of the different tlieoiies which have been held regarding it. In this way, while he has afforded us abundant ground for believing that he is an Arminian, and for calling him by that name, he has not told us explicitly or in detail what are the grounds on which he considers himself war¬ ranted to repudiate the designation. Our views upon this point must therefore be inferential, and, to some extent, conjectural. We think there are some indications, in his statements upon the subject of election, showing that he was, to some extent, misled by the same fallacy about the relation between election and fore¬ knowledge, which we have exposed in the case of Faber. They both concur in rejecting the Arminian interpretation of Rom . viii. 29, 11 whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be con¬ formed to the image of His Son;” and of 1 let. i. 2, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God;” — denying, as Calvinists do, that these passages afford a warrant for basing election upon foresight.* And there are other indications, — though none, so far as we remember, of a very explicit kind, — that TVhatcly concurred with Faber in rejecting altogether the idea of basing election upon * Faber, pp. 232 and 344-5; Whately, p. 67, Ed. 7th. 454 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. foresight ; and. in imagining that, in rejecting this idea, he was ab¬ juring the fundamental, distinctive principle of Arminianism. We have said enough, we think, to show that any such notion can originate only in a very defective and superficial knowledge of the intrinsic merits of this great controversy. We have had occasion to refer to some points on which Dr Whately has expressed opinions different from those held by the generality of Arminians. These we have always regarded as emi¬ nently creditable to him, especially as we could not but view them as the concessions of an opponent. It is probably on these diffe¬ rences that he founds his warrant and right to deny that he is an Arminian. We think it proper to advert to these points of diffe¬ rence, not merely for the purpose of showing that they afford no ground for his abjuring the designation, but for the more im¬ portant object of bringing out the valuable concessions thus made to Calvinism, by one whom we must still take the liberty of call¬ ing an Arminian. The first point of this nature which we would notice we have already adverted to. It is one wdiich only partially comes under the present head, as the same concession has been made by many Arminians. It is this, that Dr Whately distinctly admits, that the word election, as used in Scripture, a relates, in most instances, to an arbitrary, irrespective, unconditional decree and shows that those who endeavour to answer the Calvinistic argument founded upon the Scripture passages where election and its cog¬ nates occur, by denying this, are incapable of maintaining the posi¬ tion they have assumed.* There are some Arminians who are so afraid of admitting anything that might he called “ arbitrary, irrespective, or unconditional” in God’s purposes or procedure in regard to men, that they labour, in spite of the strongest oppos¬ ing evidence, to exclude everything of this nature from every passage in Scripture where the words occur. But Dr Whately, and many of the more sagacious and candid Arminians, admit that this mode of dealing with the matter is unnecessary and unwar¬ rantable. They could not indeed believe in any arbitrary, irre¬ spective, unconditional decree of God bearing directly upon men’s salvation, and exerting a determining influence upon the result. And, as we have fully explained, the fundamental, distinctive * Pp. 78-80. Edition Seventh. Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 455 principle of all anti-Calvinists, — Arminians included, is just to deny that any such decree was or could be formed. But there is nothing in point of consistency to make it impossible for Arminians to admit an arbitrary, irrespective, and unconditional election, provided it he an election, — not to faith and salvation, to holiness and heaven, to grace and glory, — but only to what is external and temporary, to outward privileges or means of grace ; it being still dependent on men’s free will to improve or not their oppoitunities, and thus to attain or not to eternal life. Any such thing as an election to salvation could, upon anti-Calvinistic principles, he based only upon a foresight of what men individually would actually be and do ; and in fairness and reason this could not pio- perly be called an election. But an election to outward privileges or means of grace might he based upon the sovereign good pleasui e of God , as it exerts no efficacious determining influence upon men's eternal destiny. X)r "YVdiately denies the existence of any leal election of some men by God to eternal life, and admits only an election to the means of grace. This is a conclusive proof that he is an Arminian ; — and the proof is not in the least affected by his admission, that this election of some, whether nations 01 indivi¬ duals, to outward privileges, is u arbitrary, irrespective, and un¬ conditional,”— in other words, is founded on the sovereign good pleasure of God, and not on anything existing, or foreseen, in men themselves. Some of the other concessions which Dr Whately has made to Calvinists are points in which he has few or none of the Armi¬ nians to countenance him, and they are therefore all the more creditable to his sagacity and candour ; while at the same time we may say of them, in general, that they cannot be of any avail in proving that he may not be warrantably called an Arminian ; in¬ asmuch as they do not affect the state of the question, 01 the real meaning and import of the actual positions Jield on either side, and controverted between the two parties, but only the force and value of some of the arguments employed in conducting the con¬ test. The second,— and in some respects the most important,— of these concessions, is the admission that the arguments commonly adduced against Calvinism, derived from the moral attributes and government of God, are unsatisfactory and invalid \ and that the grand difficulty of this whole subject applies to every system, inas- 456 CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. much as it attaches to the facts, — admitted by all, — of the introduc¬ tion and permanent continuance of moral evil. His views upon these subjects are brought out not only in his “ Essay on Election,” hut also in what he has said in connection with the Discourse of his predecessor, Archbishop King on Predestination, which he has republished, with Notes and an Appendix, in the later editions of his u Bampton Lectures.” He has fully adopted, as had been previously done by his friend Bishop Copleston, in his u Inquiry into the Doctrines of Necessity and Predestination,” the leading principle expounded in King’s famous Discourse. The principle is in substance this (we are not called upon to go into any details upon the point), that we know too little about God and the divine attributes and perfections, to warrant us in drawing con¬ clusions from them as to the divine procedure — that the divine attributes, while infinitely superior in degree, are — though called by the same names, — not the same in kind as those which we ourselves possess, — that our knowledge of them is almost wholly, if not altogether, analogical ; — and that, therefore, we are not entitled to draw inferences or conclusions, about the divine procedure from the divine power and knowledge, or from the divine justice and holiness, as we would from the same qua¬ lities in men. There is as much truth in this general principle, as to lay a good ground for condemning mnch presumptuous and ill-fonnded speculation, which has been brought to bear upon the discussion of this subject. But the principle is surely carried too far, when it is laid down so absolutely that our know¬ ledge of God’s attributes is wholly analogical, and does not war¬ rant any inferences as to the mode of the divine procedure. The incomprehensibility of Jehovah, — the infinite distance between a finite and an infinite being, — should ever be fully recognised and acted on. But Scripture and right reason seem plainly enough to warrant the legitimacy and propriety of some inferences or con¬ clusions as to God’s procedure, derived from the contemplation of His attributes. King developed the leading principle of his Dis¬ course for anti-Calvinistic purposes; and Copleston brought it forward, — to use a favourite phrase in the present day, — in the same dogmatic interest. Their object was to wrest, by means of it, from the hands of Calvinists, the formidable arguments usually adduced against Arminianism, derived from God’s power, know- ledge, and wisdom, which are often spoken of as His natural Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 457 attributes.* Dr Wliately, with superior sagacity and candour, sees and admits that this principle, if true and sound, is equally available for wresting from the hands of Arminians the arguments they have been accustomed to adduce against Calvinism, derived from what are often called God’s moral attributes, His holiness, justice, and goodness. The great staple of the argument against Calvinism has always been, that the procedure which it ascribes to God is inconsistent with the holiness, justice, and goodness which all attribute to Him. If the argument derived from this source must be thrown aside as unwarrantable and invalid, and Wliately concedes this as necessarily involved in the fair applica¬ tion of King’s principle, — Arminians are stripped of by far the most plausible things they have to adduce. They may still, in¬ deed, consistently retain their leading position upon other grounds. They may still deny the fundamental principle of Calvinism, though deprived of what has been always felt to be the most for¬ midable argument against it ; and this is, indeed, just the position occupied by Dr Wliately. He still holds that there are good and sufficient grounds for rejecting the Calvinistic doctrine, though he declines to make any use of the common argument against it, de¬ rived from God’s moral attributes. The abandonment .of this argument as unsatisfactory, does not produce any change in the actual doctrines he maintains. The position he occupies may be, and in point of fact is, the very same as that of those who con¬ tinue to believe in the validity of the old favourite anti-Calvinistic argument ; and as the abandonment of this argument does not make him less anti-Calvinistic, so neither can it afford any evidence * The adoption and recommenda¬ tion of King’s Discourse by Bishop Copleston, gave rise to some discus¬ sion, the principal opponent being the Rev. E. W. Grinfield, in his uVin- dicise Analogies.” We have not seen the works published in this contro¬ versy, and our knowledge of them is derived mainly from an able review of them by the Rev. Richard Watson, published originally in the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, and republished in the seventh volume of the collected edition of his works. It would seem, from Watson’s statements, that Grin- field succeeded in convincing Cople¬ ston, that there were some views of this matter which he had not sufficiently attended to, and that his commenda¬ tion of King’s principle ought to have been much more cautious and qualified. The truth is, that Arminianism is much more dependent than Calvinism upon inferences derived from the considera¬ tion of the divine attributes. Watson himself, who was much superior to Copleston as a theologian, was quite well aware that Arminianism would lose much more than it would gain by the establishment of King’s principle, and he took part decidedly with Grin- field in opposing it. 458 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. that he is not an Arminian. We must, therefore, continue to re¬ gard Dr Whately’ s abandonment of King’s principle of the common argument from God’s moral attributes, as the concession of an opponent, due to the force of truth ; while we are not called upon to attach the same weight to his continued adherence to the ordi¬ nary Arminian ground of the invalidity of the argument in favour of Calvinism, derived from God’s natural attributes. Calvinists do not, in general, admit the soundness of King’s principle. They think they can establish the invalidity of the Arminian argument from the divine perfections upon other and more specific grounds ; and thus they profess to be able to show, that they are warranted in accepting the concession of Dr Whately, as to the utterly pre¬ carious and uncertain character of the argument against Cal¬ vinism, from its alleged inconsistency with God’s moral attributes ; without at the same time needing to renounce the argument in favour of Calvinism and against Arminianism, derived from the consideration of Ilis natural attributes. The substance of this important concession is also presented by Dr Whately, in a more definite and specific form. He virtually admits that the arguments which have been commonly adduced against Calvinism on account of its alleged inconsistency with God’s moral attributes, really apply to and tell against actual facts, — undoubted realities occurring under God’s moral government, — that they thus prove too much, and therefore prove nothing ; — in short, that the real difficulty is not anything peculiar to Calvinism, but just the introduction and the permanence of moral evil — an awful reality, which every system must equally deal with and in some way dispose of. It is admitted, that whatever God does in time He resolved from eternity to do ; and if so, no peculiar or additional difficulty attaches to His eternal decree or purpose, as distinguished from that attaching to its execution in time, or to what God actuallv does in determinincr men’s character and destiny. Whatever takes place in time God resolved from eter¬ nity to produce or to permit ; and the fact of its occurrence proves that there was nothing in His character to prevent Him from pro¬ ducing or permitting it ; and, of course, nothing to preclude His having resolved from eternity to produce or permit it. By follow¬ ing out these obvious considerations, Calvinists have proved that the great difficulty in this whole subject is just the permanent existence of moral evil under God’s administration ; and, as this is Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 459 admitted on both sides to be an actual reality, the difficulty sug¬ gested by the contemplation of God’s moral attributes is thus proved to be one which Calvinists and Arminians are equally bound, but, at the same time, equally unable, to solve. All this has been proved to demonstration by Calvinists, times without number ; and it manifestly removes out of the way by lar the most formidable and plausible objections by which their system has ever been assailed. Anti-Calvinists have never been able to devise a plausible answer to this line of argument, so subversive of their favourite and most effective allegations. But not one of them has ever, so far as we remember, conceded its truth and soundness so fully and frankly as Dr Whately has done. This concession is so important in itself, and so honourable to him, that we must present it in his own words : — “ Before I dismiss the consideration of this subject, I would suggest one caution relative to a class of objections frequently urged against the Calvinis- tic scheme — those drawn from the conclusions of what is called Natural reli¬ gion, respecting the moral attributes of the Deity ; which, it is contended, rendered the reprobation of a large portion of mankind an absolute impossibi¬ lity. That such objections do reduce the predestinarian to a great strait, is undeniable ; and not seldom are they urged with exulting scorn, with bitter invective, and almost with anathema. But we should be very cautious how we employ such weapons as may recoil upon ourselves. Arguments of this description have often been adduced, such as, I fear, will crush beneath the ruins of the hostile structure, the blind assailant who seeks to overthrow it. It is a frightful, but an undeniable truth, that multitudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up under such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no possible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truths, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in su¬ perstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted, neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain ; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suf¬ fered to grow up, He foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or re¬ vealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for. “ In truth, these are merely branches of the one great difficulty, the exist¬ ence of evil , which may almost be called the only difficulty in theology. It assumes indeed various shapes ; it is by many hardly recognised as a difficulty ; and not a few have professed and believed themselves to have solved it ; but it still meets them, — though in some new and disguised form, at every turn ; like a resistless stream, which, when one channel is dammed up, immediately forces its way through another. And as the difficulty is one not peculiar to any one hypothesis, but bears equally on all alike, whether of revealed or of natural religion, it is better in point of prudence as well as of fairness, 460 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. that the consequences of it should not be pressed as an objection against any.”* “ I cannot dismiss the subject without a few practical remarks relative to the difficulty in question (the origin of evil). “ First, let it be remembered, that it is not peculiar to anyone theological system ; let not therefore the Calvinist or the Arminian urge it as an objec¬ tion against their respective adversaries ; much less an objection clothed in offensive language, which will be found to recoil on their own religious tenets, as soon as it shall be perceived, that both parties are alike unable to explain the difficulty. Let them not, to destroy an opponent’s system, rashly kindle a fire which will soon extend to the no less combustible structure of their own. “ Secondly, let it not be supposed that this difficulty is any objection to revealed religion. Revelation leaves us, in fact, as to this question, just where it found us. Reason tells us that evil exists, and shows us, in some measure, how to avoid it. Revelation tells us more of the nature and extent of the evil, and gives us better instructions for escaping it ; but why any evil at all should exist, is a question it does not profess to clear up ; and it were to be wished that its incautious advocates would abstain from representing it as making this pretension ; which is in fact wantonly to provoke such objections as they have no power to answer.”! These views are, of course, familiar to intelligent Calvinists, as furnishing what they regard as a satisfactory answer to the most plausible objections of their opponents ; their soundness is now for the first time fully conceded by a very able Arminian ; and this concession, so honourable to him, may be expected to put an end to the coarse and offensive declamation in which Arminians have commonly indulged on this branch of the argument, and which has usually formed a very large share of their whole stock in trade as polemics. The only other concession made by Dr Whately to Calvinism which we mean to notice is one connected with its alleged practi¬ cal application. It has always been a favourite allegation of Ar¬ minians, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election tends to lead men to be careless about the improvement of the means of grace and the discharge of practical obligations, on the ground, — as they represent the matter, — that the result in each case is already pro¬ vided for and secured irrespective of these things. The answer to this allegation is in substance, that it is not only consistent with, * Essays, pp. 83, 84. f Bampton Lectures, 3d edition, Appendix, p. 555. Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM. 461 but that it constitutes an essential part of, the Calvinistic doctrine, that God has foreordained the means as well as the end, and has thus established a certain and invariable connection de facto between them. This doctrine of the foreordination of the means as well as of the end, not only leaves unimpaired, to second causes, the opera¬ tion of their own proper nature, constitution, and laws, hut pre¬ serves and secures them in the possession of all these. It thus, when viewed as a whole, establishes most firmly the actual, in\a- riable connection between the means and the end ; and in its legitimate application, is at least as well fitted as any other doc¬ trine can be, to keep alive, in the minds of men, a deep sense of the reality and certainty of this connection. All this Calvinists have conclusively proved, times without number ; but Arminians have never been willing to concede it, since it completely disposes of a favourite objection, which, upon a partial and superficial view of the matter, appears very formidable. But Dr Whately admits the validity of the Calvinistic answer to the Arminian objection, — that is, he admits that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when the whole doctrine is taken into account and fully and fairly applied , does not tend to exert an injurious influence upon the improve¬ ment of the means of grace and the discharge of practical obliga¬ tions ; while, at the same time, he tries to make a point against Calvinism, by labouring to show that by the same process by which Calvinists prove their doctrine to be harmless or innocent, it can be proved to be entirely useless, and to admit of no practi¬ cal application whatever. “ It has indeed been frequently objected to the Calvinistic doctrines, that they lead, if consistently acted upon, to a sinful, or to a careless, or to an inactive life ; and the inference deduced from this alleged tendency, has been, that they are not true. But this is a totally distinct line of argument, both in premises and conclusion, from that now adverted to ; and I mention it, not for the purpose either of maintaining or impugning it, but merely of pointing out the distinction. Whatever may be, in fact, the practical ill tendency of the Calvinistic scheme, it is undeniable that many pious and active Christians, who have adopted it, have denied any such tendency —have attributed the mischievous consequences drawn, not to their doctrines rightly understood, but to the perversion and abuse of them and have so explained them to their own satisfaction, as to be compatible and consistent with active virtue. Now if instead of objecting to, we admit, the explanations of this system, which the soundest and most approved of its advocates have given, Ave shall find that, when understood as they would have it, it can lead to no practical result 462 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. whatever. Some Christians, according to them, are eternally enrolled in the book of life, and infallibly ordained to salvation, while others are reprobate and absolutely excluded : but as the preacher (they add) has no means of knowing, in the first instance at least, which persons belong to which class ; and since those who are thus ordained, are to be saved through the means God has appointed ; the offers, and promises, and threatenings of the gospel are to be addressed to all alike, as if no such distinction existed. The preacher, in short, is to act in all respects, as if the system were not true. “ Each individual Christian again, according to them, though he is to believe that he either is, or is not, absolutely destined to eternal salvation, yet is also to believe that if his salvation is decreed, his holiness of life is also decreed ; — 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 flatter himself he is) one of the elect. And it may be admitted, that one who does practically adopt and conform to this explanation of the doctrine, will not be led into any evil by it ; since his conduct will not be in any respect influenced by it. When thus explained, it is reduced to a purely speculative dogma, barren of ail practical results.”* There is here no abandonment of his anti-Calvinistic position, — nothing that should lead either himself or others to believe that he is not an Arminian, — but there is a very explicit abandonment of a favourite and plausible Arminian objection against Calvinism ; and this important concession by such an opponent, is one of which Calvinists are well entitled to take advantage. We cannot enter upon any exposition of the practical application of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, for the purpose of answering Dr Whately's allegation,— that, by the very same process of explanation by which Calvinism escapes from the positive objection of having an injurious or dangerous tendency, it is proved to have no practical application whatever, but to be a mere useless barren speculation. We think we could prove that this notion is a confusion and a fallacy ; and that it can be without much difficulty traced to this cause, that he has not here made the same full and candid estimate, as on some other branches of the argument, of the whole of what Calvinists are accustomed to advance in explaining the practical application of their doctrine, but confines his observation to some of the features of the subject, and these not the most important and peculiar. We think we could prove that it is this alone which gives plausibility to his attempt to show, that the Calvinistic * Essays, pp. 85-87. Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM. 4G3 doctrine of election, when explained by its more intelligent advo¬ cates in such a way as to escape from the imputation of having an injurious tendency, is deprived of all practical effect 01 utility whatever, and that we should act in all respects as if the doctrine were not true. In these various ways, — and in one or two other points of less importance, — Dr Whately has made valuable concessions to Cal¬ vinism. In doing so he has been guilty of no inconsistency, and we insinuate no such charge against him ; for his deviations from the course pursued by other anti-Calvinists affect, not the mean¬ ing and import of any of the main positions actually held, but only the validity of some of the arguments commonly adduced in the course of the discussion. lie, no doubt, believes that he can still produce sufficient and satisfactory evidence against the Calvinistic doctrine of election, — though he has felt himself con¬ strained to abandon, as unfounded, the objections commonly adduced against it from its alleged inconsistency with the divine character and government, and from its supposed injurious piac- tical tendency. We regard these concessions as eminently cre¬ ditable both to his head and to his heart, to his ability and his courage, to his sagacity and his candour. We value them very highly as contributions, — though not so intended, — to the establish¬ ment of what we reckon important scriptural truth. They have undoubtedly the advantage of being the concessions of an oppo¬ nent ; for Dr Whately admits that he is opposed to Calvinism, though he seems anxious to impress the conviction that he is equally opposed to Arminianism. W e so highly admire the ability and candour Dr Whately lias shown in the discussion of these topics, and we are so grateful for the valuable concessions he has made to what we reckon truth, that we would most willingly abstain from saying any thing that was disagreeable to him, except in so far as a regard to the interests of truth might require this. But we cannot retract the assertion that he is an Arminian. Were the matter, indeed, now to begin again de novo, we might avoid the use of this expression, knowing, as we now do, that he dislikes it, and feeling that we could express otherwise, by a little circumlocution, all that we meant to convey by it. But having been led to use the expression, in all simplicity, without imagining that it could be objected to or complained of, — and feeling con¬ fident that we can defend the perfect' warrantableness of its 4G4 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. application to Dr Wliately, — it would be an injury to truth to retract it, or to refuse, when called upon, to defend it. In one aspect, indeed, it is a matter of no importance whether Dr Wliately, or any man, may or may not he warrantably called an Arminian; for the application of such terms, even when fully warranted by ordinary usage, settles nothing about the truth or soundness of doctrines. But when a question as to the application of the name comes up in such a form, and is attended with such circumstances, as virtually to involve the whole question of what, is Arminianism, and wherein does it differ from Calvinism ? or, what is the true statics qucestionis in the great controversy between Calvinists and Arminians on the subject of Election? then the importance of the matter is manifest. Dr Whately’s unexpected denial that he is an Arminian, plainly raised the questions, what is Arminianism, and in what respect does it differ from Calvinism ? and whether there be any distinct and definite position that can be taken upon the subject of election differing materially from both ? The works of F aber and Professor Browne seemed to us to indicate the existence of a great amount of misapprehension and confusion as prevalent upon these questions among the clergy of the Church of England ; and suggested to us the desirableness of taking advantage of Dr Whately’s groundless repudiation of the charge of being an Arminian, for giving some such explanation of the state of the question as we have attempted. Faber has brought out fully and distinctly the sources and the grounds of the misap¬ prehension under which he, and no doubt many others, have been led to abjure Arminianism while really believing it; and Dr Wliately is just as clearly and certainly an Arminian as Faber was ; but he has not brought out formally and in detail the grounds on which he considers himself entitled to deny that he is so. We have, in consequence, not ventured upon any explicit allegations as to the origin and the cause of the strange fallacy under which he labours in repudiating Arminianism as well as Calvinism; but we have examined all the leading points in which, — so far as we remembered, — he has deviated from the common course of sentiment and expression among Arminian writers; and we have shown, we think, that these deviations, — while highly honour¬ able to him, and very valuable concessions to us, — imply no dis¬ belief or denial of the fundamental distinctive principles of Arminianism, and, indeed, do not affect the true state of the Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 465 question between the contending parties, but only the soundness and validity of some of the arguments adduced on the opposite sides respectively. There is one other feature of Dr Whately’s mode of dealing with this subject to which we must refer, though we scarcely know what to make of it. It is brought out in the following O O passages : — “ It is on these principles, viz. — That the first point of inquiry at least ought to be, What doctrines are revealed in God’s word, and that we ought to expect that the doctrines so revealed should be, not matters of speculative curiosity, but of practical importance — such as “ belong to us that we may do them ; ” — it is in conformity, I say, with these principles, that I have waived the question as to the truth or falsity of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, inquiring only whether it is revealed." * “ I am far from thinkly harshly of predestinarians, or of deciding that their peculiar doctrines are altogether untrue ; though, to me, they do not appear, at least, to be either practical or revealed truths. I do not call on them to renounce their opinions as heretical, but merely to abstain from imposing on others as a necessary part of the Christian faith a doctrine which cannot be clearly deduced from Scripture, and which there is this additional reason for supposing not to be revealed in Scripture, that it cannot be shown to have any practical tendency.”! “ I wish it, then, to be distinctly understood (1) that I do not impute to any one opinions which he disclaims, nor am discussing any question as to what is inwardly believed by each, but only as to what is, whether directly or obliquely, taught ; and (2) that I purposely abstain, throughout, from entering on the question as to what is absolutely true , inquiring only what is or is not to be received and taught as a portion of revealed gospel truth. For no metaphysical dogma, however sound and capable of philosophical proof, ought to be taught as a portion of revealed truth , if it shall appear that the passages of Scripture that are supposed to declare it, relate in reality to a different matter. ‘ I would wish it to be remembered,’ says Archbishop Sumner, ‘ that I do not desire to argue against predestination as believed in the closet, but as taught in the pulpit.’ ” J And the same general idea is repeated, without the addition of anything else to explain it, in his last work, on the u Doctrine of the Sacraments.” || It is not easy to understand what Dr Whately meant by such statements as these. They surely indicate something very like confusion, vaccillation, and inconsistency. It would almost seem * Pp. 84-5. t Pp. 90, 91. VOL. I. t P. 96. || P. 13. 30 466 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. from them as if he had something like a latent sense that Cal¬ vinism, though not taught in Scripture, could yet be defended upon such grounds, — in the way of general reasoning of a philoso¬ phical or metaphysical kind, — as scarcely admitted of an answer ; so that he shrunk from any formal deliverance on the question of its actual truth or falsehood. We do not wonder much at some¬ thing like this state of mind being produced, especially in one who discerned so clearly, and who proclaimed so manfully, the weak¬ ness of some of the leading anti-Calvinistic arguments based upon topics of an abstract or metaphysical kind. We believe that the arguments in favour of Calvinism, derived from reason or general considerations, are just as triumphant, — viewed as a mere appeal to the understanding, — as the arguments from Scripture ; and we do not wonder that there should occasionally he men who, while re¬ jecting Calvinism, should have felt greater difficulty in disposing of the metaphysical than of the scriptural proof. This seems to be the case with Dr Whately. He appears to have something of the feeling, that on the field of general abstract discussion, he would not like to face a Calvinist ; and that this department of the argument he would rather leave in abeyance than fairly grapple with. But, as we have said, we do not know well what to make either of the meaning or the consistency of some of his statements upon this subject. We must in fairness judge of his theological position, chiefly from the views he has expressed as to the meaning and import of the teaching of Scripture ; and here, certainly, his position is not negative or ambiguous. He teaches explicitly and unequivocally, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election is not taught in Scripture ; and he teaches further, that the only election which Scripture sanctions, is an election to outward privileges or means of grace, and not to faith, holiness, and heaven. This should settle the whole question with all who believe in the autho¬ rity of Scripture ; and the position here maintained is not only anti-Calvinistic, but may, when accompanied with an admission of the divine foreknowledge of all events, he warrantably and fairly designated as Arminian. We are unwilling to quit this subject without some reference, however brief, to the objections by which the Calvinistic doctrine of election has been commonly assailed. The leading practical lessons, suggested by a survey of the controversy, for guiding men in the study of it, are such as these : — ls£, That we should labour Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 467 to form a clear, distinct, and accurate apprehension of the real nature of the leading point in dispute, — of the true import and bearing of the only alternatives that can well be maintained with regard to it. 2 d, That we should familiarise our minds with de¬ finite conceptions of the meaning and the evidence of the principal arguments by which the truth upon the subject may be established, and the error refuted. 3 d, That we should take some pains to understand the general principles at least applicable to the solu¬ tion, or rather the disposal (for they cannot be solved) of the diffi¬ culties by which the doctrine we have embraced as true may be assailed. And, 4 th, That we should then seek to make a wise and judicious application of the doctrine professed, according to its true nature, tendency, and bearing, and its relation to other truths ; without allowing ourselves to be dragged into endless and unpro¬ fitable speculations in regard to its deeper mysteries or more in¬ tricate perplexities, or to be harassed by perpetual doubt and difficulty. A thorough and successful study of the subject implies the following out of all these lessons, and this conducts us over a wide and arduous field. It is on the first only of these four points we have touched, — one on which a great deal of ignorance and confusion seem to prevail. Of the others, the most important is that which enjoins a careful study of the direct and positive evi¬ dence that bears upon the determination of the main question on which the controversy turns. The strength of Calvinism lies in the mass of direct, positive, and, — as we believe, — unanswerable proof that can be produced from Scripture and reason, confirmed by much that is suggested by experience and the history of the human race, to establish its fundamental principles of the fore¬ ordination of whatsoever comes to pass, and the real and effectual election of some men to eternal life. The strength of Arminianism lies — not in the direct and positive evidence that can be produced to disprove Calvinistic foreordination and election, or to establish anti-Calvinistic non-foreordination and non-election, — but mainly in the proof, that God is not the author of sin, and that man is responsible for his own character and destiny; and in the inference that since Calvinism is inconsistent with these great and admitted truths, it must be false. This view of the state of the case shows the importance of being familiar with the direct and positive evi¬ dence by which Calvinism can be established, that we may rest on this as an impregnable foundation. But it shows also the im- 468 CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. portance of being familiar with the way and manner of disposing of the plausible and formidable difficulties on which mainly the Arminians found their case. These difficulties, — that is, the alleged inconsistency of Calvinism with the truths, that God is not the author of sin, and that man is responsible for his conduct and fate, — lie upon the very surface of the subject, and must at once present themselves even to the most ordinary minds ; while, at the same time, they are so plausible, that they are well fitted to startle and to impress men, especially if they have not previously reflected much upon the subject. We do not intend to adduce the direct and positive evidence in support of the Calvinistic doc¬ trine ; but a few brief hints may help a little to show that the difficulties attaching to it, are, though not admitting of a full solution, yet by no means so formidable as at first sight they ap¬ pear to be ; and at any rate furnish no sufficient ground in right reason for rejecting the body of direct, positive, unanswerable proof by which the fundamental principles of Calvinism can be established. The following; are some of the most obvious yet most important considerations bearing upon this matter, that ought to be remembered and applied, and especially that ought to be viewed in combination with each other, as parts of one argument upon this topic. 1st, When the same objections were advanced against the same doctrines as taught by the Apostle Paul, he manifested no very great solicitude about giving them a direct or formal answer ; but contented himself with resolving the whole difficulty into God’s sovereignty and man’s ignorance, dependence, and incapacity. “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God I Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ? ” He knew that the doctrines were true, because he had received them by inspiration of the Holy Ghost ; and we know that they are true, because he and other inspired men have declared them unto us. This should satisfy us, and repress any great anxiety about disposing of objections based upon grounds, the investigation of which runs up into matters, the full compre¬ hension of which lies beyond the reach of our natural faculties, and of which we can know nothing except from the revelation which God has given us. 2d, It is utterly inconsistent with right views of our condition and capacities, and with the principles usually acted upon in regard Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 469 to other departments of Christian theology, — as, for instance, the doctrine of the Trinity, — to assume, — as these objections do, that we are entitled to make our actual perception of, or our capacity of perceiving, the consistency of two doctrines with each other, the test or standard of their truth. A\r e do not pretend to he able to solve all the difficulties connected with the alleged inconsistency between the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, and the truths that God is not the author of sin, and that man is responsible for his character and conduct, so as make their consistency with each other plain and palpable to our own minds or the minds of others ; but we cannot admit that this affords any sufficient lea- son why we should reject one or other of the doctrines, piovided each separately can be established upon competent and satisfactoiy evidence. 3d, The difficulties in question do not apply to the Calvinistic system alone , but bear as really, though not perhaps at first view as palpably, upon every system of religion which admits the moral government of God, the prevalence of moral evil among His intelligent creatures, and their future eternal punishment. In¬ deed, it is easy to show, that the leading difficulties connected with every scheme of doctrine virtually run up into one great difficulty, which attaches, and attaches equally, to them all, viz., the explanation of the existence and prevalence of moral evil ; or,— what is practically the same question, in another form, the exposi¬ tion of the way and manner in which God and men concui (foi none but atheists can deny that in some way or other they do concur) in forming men’s character and in determining men s fate. This subject involves difficulties which we cannot, in our pre¬ sent condition, fully solve ; and which we must just resolve into the good pleasure of God. They are difficulties from which no scheme of doctrine can escape, and which every scheme is equally bound, and at the same time equally incompetent, to explain. Men may shift the position of the one grand difficulty, and may imagine that they have succeeded at least in evading it, or putting it in abeyance or obscurity ; but with all their shifts and all their expe¬ dients, it continues as real and as formidable as ever. Unless men renounce 'altogether, theoretically or practically, the moral o-overnment of God, the prevalence of moral evil, and its eternal punishment, they must, in their explanations and speculations, come at length to the sovereignty of God, and prostrate their 470 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII. understandings and their hearts before it, saying with our Saviour, “Even so, Father, for so it hath seemed good in Thy sight;” or with the great apostle, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out ! For who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been His counsellor ? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to Him again ? F or of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to wdiom be glory for ever. Amen.”* * Rom. xi. 33-36. CALVINISM, AND THE DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY.* In his “ Discussions,” Sir William Hamilton makes a theological demonstration, of a somewhat imposing kind. It is contained in the following passage : — u Averments to a similar effect might be adduced from the writings, of Calvin , and certainly nothing can be conceived more contrary to the doctrine of that great divine than what has latterly been promulgated as Calvinism (and, in so far as I know, without reclamation), in our Calvimstic Church o Scotland. For it has been here promulgated, as the dogma of this churc (though in the face of its Confession as in the face of the Bible), by pious am distinguished theologians, that man has no will, agency, moral personality ot his own, God being the only real agent in every apparent act of His creatures ; in short (though quite the opposite was intended), that the theological scheme of the absolute decrees implies fatalism, pantheism, the negation of a moral governor, as of a moral world. For the premises, arbitrarily assumed, are atheistic, the conclusion, illogically drawn, is Christian. Against such a view of Calvin’s doctrine and of Scottish orthodoxy, I for one must humbly though solemnly protest, as (to speak mildly) not only false in philosophy, but here¬ tical, ignorant, suicidal in theology.” f This strange passage was intended as a deadly assault upon Dr Chalmers, and upon the views which he had promulgated upon * British and Foreign Evangelical Review. January 1858. “Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, Education and University Reform.” By Sir William Hamilton, Bart. Second Edition, 1853. f Discussions, p. 628. 472 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. the subject of philosophical necessity. The doctrine here so vehemently denounced cannot, from the nature of the case, be any other than that commonly called the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; and though many will regard what is here said as veiy unjust and unfair, if viewed as applied to that subject, there is manifestly no other to which these statements can have any ap¬ pearance of applying. When it is settled that the doctrine which Sir William here denounces is that of philosophical neces¬ sity, — and that, of course, the pious and distinguished theologians who are here held up to scorn are Dr Chalmers, and all who, pro¬ fessing like him to receive the Westminster Confession, have con¬ curred with him in maintaining the doctrine of necessity as taught by Jonathan Edwards, — men will be able to understand something more of the import and object of the passage. We do not of course intend to plunge into the mare magnum of the general subject of philosophical necessity as connected with “ absolute decrees,” “ fatalism,” u pantheism,” u negation of a moral governor,” etc., on which Sir William here declaims. The general subject brought before us by these statements is the most perplexing and mysterious that has ever occupied the mind of man. No one acquainted with the discussions which have taken place regarding it, can fail to have reached these two conclusions : — 1st, That everything of any worth or value that can be said upon the subject, has been said in substance a thousand times ; and, 2d, That after all that has been said, there are difficulties and mys¬ teries connected with it which never have been fully solved, and which manifestly never will be fully solved, — at least until men get either more enlarged mental faculties, or a fuller revelation from God. The practical result of the adoption of these conclusions, — ■ which must have forced themselves upon all who have intelligently surveyed this subject, — is to render men rather averse to unneces¬ sary discussions regarding it, — to make them less anxious about answering objections and clearing away difficulties, — and more will¬ ing to rest upon those fundamental principles which constitute the direct and proper evidence of what seems to be the truth upon the point. This state of mind and feeling, — the reasonable result of a deliberate survey of the discussions which have taken place upon the matter, — is sanctioned also by the example of the Apostle Paul, who, when the same objections were brought against his doc¬ trines as have in all ages been brought against Calvinism, resolved Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 473 the whole matter into the inscrutable sovereignty of God and the ignorance and helplessness of man, instead of directly and foi- mally grappling with the objection. Sir William Hamilton s own views upon the subject are of a hind fitted to discouiagt, if not to preclude, discussion ; especially discussion conducted in the way of bringing the opposite doctrines face to face, and tiying to make an estimate of the comparative force of the objections against them. His views are briefly indicated in the following passages : — “ The philosophy, therefore, which I profess, annihilates the theoretical problem,— How is the scheme of liberty or the scheme of necessity to be ren¬ dered comprehensible ? — by showing that both schemes are equally inconceiv able ; but it establishes liberty practically as a fact, by showing that it is either itself an immmediate datum , or is involved in an immediate datum , of consciousness.” “ How the will can possibly be free must remain to us, under the present limitation of our faculties, wholly incomprehensible. We are unable to con- eeive an absolute commencement ; we cannot, therefore, conceive a free voli¬ tion. A determination by motives cannot, to our understanding, escape fiom necessitation.” f “ How , therefore, I repeat moral liberty is possible in man or God, we are utterly unable speculatively to understand. But practically, th efact, that we are free, is given to us in the consciousness of an uncompromising law of duty, in the consciousness of our moral accountability.” t “ Liberty is thus shown to be inconceivable, but not more than its contra¬ dictory necessity ; yet though inconceivable, liberty is shown also not to be impossible. The credibility of consciousness, to our moral responsibility, as an incomprehensible fact, is thus established.” f “ This hypothesis alone accounts for the remarkable phenomenon which the question touching the liberty of the will— touching the necessity of human actions, has in all ages and in all relations exhibited. This phenomenon is the exact equilibrium in which the controversy has continued ; and it has been waged in metaphysics, in morals, in theology, from the origin of speculation to the present hour, with unabated zeal, but always with undecided suc¬ cess.” § It appears from these statements that Sir 4\ ill i am, by his own admission, has thrown no new light upon this subject ; and that he claims credit for scarcely anything more than bringing out clearly, by an application of the doctrine of the conditioned, that there are, and must ever be, insoluble difficulties attaching to it. * Reid’s Works, p. 599, note, t “ Discussions,” p. 624. J “ Discussions,” p. 630. § “ Discussions,” pp. 631, 632. 474 CALVINISM, AND TIIE [Essay IX. Our present purpose does not lead us to advert to tlie grounds on which Sir William based his conclusion, or to the accuracy of the language in which his views are expressed. It is enough, in the mean time, that we direct attention to the fact, that he proclaims the existence of insoluble difficulties as attaching to this subject ; and that he admits that he has made, and can make, no positive contribution to the explication of it. In substance, he leaves us on this whole subject of liberty and necessity very much in the posi¬ tion indicated in the remarkable and often quoted passage of Locke : u I cannot have a clearer perception of anything than that I am free, yet I cannot make freedom in man consistent with omnipotence and omniscience in God, though I am as fully per¬ suaded of both as of any truth I most firmly assent to ; and there¬ fore I have long since given off the consideration of that question, resolving all into the short conclusion, that if it be possible for God to make a free agent, then man is free, though I see not the way of it.” * We have no material objection to offer to the substance of the statements quoted above from Locke and Sir William Hamilton ; but it may be worth while to notice how it is that they concur in this view as there brought out, although the one was a Necessita- o y o rian and the other was a Libertarian. Locke, though a Pelagian in theology, was a Necessitarian in philosophy, — that is, he held that doctrine of philosophical necessity, or that view of the laws which regulate men’s mental processes and determine their volitions, against which Sir William declaims in the passage on which we are commenting. Sir William, on the contrary, makes here a sort of profession of Calvinism. He stands forth as the champion of Calvinistic orthodoxy, against the errors of its ignorant and injudi¬ cious friends ; and he gives something like evidence both of intel¬ ligence and integrity in dealing with this subject, by laying down the important position, that u the great articles of divine fore¬ knowledge and predestination are both embarrassed by the self¬ same difficulties.”! But, notwithstanding this, he was in philosophy a Libertarian ; for, though he sometimes talks as if he thought it impracticable to decide between the opposite opinions, he at other times expresses a decided preference for the Libertarian view ; and in the passage under consideration, he denounces, in no measured * Locke, vol. iii. p. 487, folio edition, 1751. | f “ Discussions,” p. C27. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 475 terms, the doctrine which is the contradictory correlative of it. The liberty or freedom for which Locke contended, was nothing more than actual moral responsibility for our actions ; which he did not admit to be precluded, either by the doctrine of Grod s omnis¬ cience and omnipotence, or by the doctrine of philosophical neces¬ sity, though he was unable to explain how it could be reconciled with these doctrines. Sir William, on the other hand, w as not tied up by any of his opinions to so limited a view of what liberty or freedom is, and would no doubt say that by the liberty which, he claimed for man, he meant not merely actual moral responsibility, —which all admit— but also that anti-necessitarian view of the laws that regulate man’s mental operations, which has been sup¬ posed by many to be necessary as a basis for responsibility. But though he would say this, if necessary, and could do so consistently, it clearly appears, from a careful examination of the statements w e have quoted from him, that he, like Locke, practically identifies liberty with actual moral responsibility ; and virtually admits, that the only thing which is really established by the testimony of con¬ sciousness, and ivhich is to be maintained at all hazards , is oui moral accountability, or the obligation “ of an uncompromising law of duty.” Most necessitarians, — including, of course, all the theolo¬ gians whom Sir William denounces, — assert man’s moral responsi¬ bility as fully and readily as their opponents ; and if it be merely the fact of moral accountability which man’s consciousness estab¬ lishes, — as Sir William virtually admits, — then the whole matter still resolves itself into the old and very perplexing question, as to wliat kinds or degrees of liberty are necessary to moral responsibility , and what kinds and degrees of necessity are inconsistent w ith it. Necessitarians, in general, have no hesitation in admitting the truth of Sir William’s statement,* that it is the testimony of our consciousness, “ that we are, though we know not how, the true and responsible authors of our actions, not merely the worthless links in an adamantine series of effects and causes. Necessita¬ rians admit this, and undertake to prove, that there is nothing in the doctrine of philosophical necessity which can be shown to pre¬ clude either the actual reality, or the conscious sense, of this, as a feature in man’s condition. Sir William virtually admits that it is only our actual moral responsibility to which the direct testi- P. 624. 476 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. mony of consciousness applies ; and lie has not entered anywhere, so far as we remember, into a deliberate and formal investigation of the nature and grounds of the liberty which is necessary to moral agency. By the denunciations, indeed, on which we are animadverting, and which, as we have explained, must be intended to apply to the doctrine of philosophical necessity as taught by Edwards and Chalmers, Sir William has identified himself with the Libertarian view ; and has thus, whether lie so intended it or not, virtually declared in favour of what has been commonly called the liberty of indifference, and the self-determining power of the will ; for whatever he might say about the inconceivable¬ ness both of liberty and necessity, he wrould not, we presume, have denied that the one was the contradictory of the other, and that, therefore, the one was a reality, and the other was not. But though Sir William has denounced the doctrine of philo¬ sophical necessity, and has, thereby, by plain implication, asserted a liberty of indifference and the self-determining power of the will, he has not entered into anything like argument against necessity, or in favour of liberty, beyond simply referring to the testimony of consciousness, in proof that we are responsible for our actions. This mode of dealing with it is mi worthy of a philo¬ sopher, and wdiolly undeserving of notice as a call to enter upon a discussion of the general subject. a It has been here promul¬ gated,” he assures us, u as the dogma of this church (‘our Calvin- istic Church of Scotland’), by pious and distinguished theologians, that man has no will , agency , moral personality of his own , God being the only real agent in every apparent act of His creatures.” Persons unacquainted with what has been going on in Scotland for the last generation, would be disposed to ask, with amazement, who are the pious and distinguished theologians who have put forth such offensive statements as Sir William ascribes to them ? Those who are cognisant of the state of matters amongst us, are well aware that no theologians have ever promulgated this “ dogma while they must know also that the only persons whom Sir William could have had in his eye, were Dr Chalmers and those who concurred with him in advocating the doctrine of philo¬ sophical necessity. These men certainly never intended to teach this ; and they have made no statements bearing the slightest re¬ semblance to those here put into their mouths. But Sir William, it seems, was of opinion that the doctrine of philosophical neces- Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 477 * sity implied all this, or led to it by logical sequence ; and upon this ground he thought himself warranted in proclaiming to the world, — without furnishing to us any means of knowing the true ground of his assertion, — that pious and distinguished theologians in the Church of Scotland have promulgated the doctrine, “ that man has no will, agency, moral personality of his own, God being the only real agent in every apparent act of His creatures.” After this we are not in the least surprised that he goes on to tell us, that these men taught that u the theological scheme of the ab¬ solute decrees implies fatalism, pantheism, the negation of a moral governor as of a moral world.” He admits, indeed, that u quite the opposite was intended ;” but still he thinks himself entitled to charge them with teaching fatalism and pantheism ; and intimates, further, in the immediately following sentence, that they can escape from atheism only by gross logical inconsistency. In adverting to this charge of fatalism, pantheism, atheism, etc., we do not need to take into account what Sir William has here introduced into his statement about “ the scheme of the absolute decrees.” Sir TVilliam plainly did not intend to biing these charges against the scheme of the absolute decrees, simply as such, by whomsoever held ; for, indeed, he professes to be writing here as a Calvinist, a champion of Calvinism, and, of course, an advo¬ cate of u the scheme of absolute decrees.” And then, again, in so far as Dr Chalmers and other theologians may have assumed, that the scheme of the absolute decrees necessarily implied or drew with it the doctrine of philosophical necessity, this is just the point where we venture to think that their views are untenable, as we shall afterwards more fully explain. Sir William evidently in¬ tended, by the phraseology he has employed, to tell us that those of whom he was speaking regarded the scheme of the absolute decrees as implying the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; and that, in his judgment, this doctrine of necessity, as held by them, implied fatalism, pantheism, atheism, etc. We cannot deny that Sir William had good grounds for ascribing to them the belief that the doctrines of the absolute decrees and of philosophical ne¬ cessity are necessarily connected with each other ; and we cannot defend the accuracy of this belief. But we do not need to take any of these topics into account in judging of Sir William’s state¬ ment now under consideration. That statement is in substance this, — that some pious and distinguished theologians of the Church 478 [Essay IX. CALVINISM, AND THE * of Scotland have recently been teaching that man lias no will, agency, moral personality of his own, — God being the only real agent in every apparent act of His creatures, — and that this is fatalism, pantheism, atheism ; while the only ground he could have adduced for these heavy charges, — if he had been called upon to establish them, — was, that Dr Chalmers and some others had taught the doctrine of philosophical necessity as a part of their Calvinism, and that, in his judgment this doctrine necessarily implied all the fearful things which he had laid to their charge. The practice of adducing such charges, upon such grounds, and in such circum¬ stances, is repudiated and denounced by every fair controversialist. It is always a very unworthy procedure to describe a doctrine to which we are opposed, merely by consequences which we think deducible from it, but which its supporters disclaim ; and then to attempt to run it down by attaching to it offensive nicknames. But there are some things which make it peculiarly unwarrantable to employ this process in regard to such a doctrine as that of philosophical necessity. Not only is it true that the doctrine has been maintained and defended by a large proportion of the ablest and best men that ever lived, — by many of the highest names in philosophy as well as in theology ; but, from the nature of the case also, viewed both in its intellectual and in its moral aspects, there are considerations which aggravate the unreasonableness of at¬ tempting to dispose of it in such a way. The subject is one of great difficulty and intricacy ; and this should have been felt to be a reason against attempting to scout it from the field of fair dis¬ cussion by a dashing misrepresentation and a far-fetched inference. The question virtually resolves, as we have seen, into the investi¬ gation of the nature and grounds of the liberty and necessity that are consistent with, or indispensable to, moral agency ; and nothing but utter incapacity or gross carelessness can prevent men from seeing that this is a subject of extreme difficulty, and one which no man, whatever be his standing or his pretensions, is entitled to treat in an offhand and reckless way. It is impossible for any man to reflect deliberately upon the ideas of liberty and necessity, — as applied, on the one hand, to the volitions of the divine mind and of other pure and holy beings, as for instance the glorified saints in heaven, — and as applied, on the other hand, to classes of men who have been subjected to most unfavourable moral influ¬ ences, and have now sunk into deep moral degradation, but are Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 479 still admitted to be responsible, — without seeing that there are profound mysteries connected with this matter which cannot be settled, as many seem to suppose, merely by laying it down that liberty is liberty, and that necessity is necessity, and that the one absolutely and universally excludes the other. Liberty and necessity, manifestly, may be both predicated of the divine will, and of the will also of some classes of responsible creatures. If this be so, then we must have distinctions in the senses in which these words are applied, — precise specifications of the different senses in which they may be affirmed or denied respectively, of differently constituted and of differently circum¬ stanced beings, all possessed of the capacity of moral agency. It is plain that liberty, in some sense, is not necessaiy to moral agency, and that necessity in some sense does not preclude it ; and if so, there must be some difficult and intricate points to be examined and disposed of before the question between liberty and necessity can be determined ; if it is to be decided by an application of the only standard to which Sir William refers, viz., their bearing re¬ spectively upon the point of responsibility. We do not profess to discuss this subject, — we merely wish to point out the unreason¬ ableness of the way in which Sir William deals with it ; and to explain why it is that there is nothing in what he has said about it, that calls for or requires any investigation of the general subject on the part of those whose views he has condemned. There has always been a strong tendency, especially among the Libertarians, to attempt settling this controversy by dwelling upon inferences and practical consequences, supposed to flow from the opposite doctrines, instead of carefully examining the proper evidence directly applicable to the question of their truth and falsehood.* The question involved in this controversy is properly one of fact, and belongs to the province of psychology. It is a rio-ht and a safe rule for beings of our limited mental powers, and * “The charge of fatalism and pantheism is sometimes met in the same style of argumentation, and the account is balanced by raising the cry of Pelagian and Arminian heresy. But it is quite as important, and, in most cases, far more easy, to deter¬ mine whether a proposed doctrine is true or false, than to settle the ques¬ tion whether it is most nearly allied to Fatalism or Arminianism, to Pan¬ theism or Pelagianism.” (An Inquiry respecting the Self-determining Power of the Will, or contingent Volition, by Jeremiah Day, President of Yale Col- lege, p. 171.) This work contains a valuable defence of Edwards’ views, published in 1838. 480 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. of our very inadequate capacity of tracing consequences, that we should make up our minds chiefly from an examination of the proper intrinsic evidence directly applicable to the subject under consideration, instead of attaching much weight to alleged infer¬ ences or consequences. The reasonableness of this general prin¬ ciple of procedure is peculiarly manifest when the consequence mainly founded upon is, that a particular doctrine overturns man’s moral responsibility, and when this allegation is controverted by men of unquestionable ability and good character. When a body of men of this description assert, and undertake to prove, that the allegation, that a doctrine held by them overturns man’s moral responsibility, and leads to fatalism and atheism, is unfounded ; when they proclaim their belief in the existence and moral govern¬ ment of God, and their consciousness and recognition u of an un¬ compromising law of duty,” and can appeal, in proof of the sin¬ cerity of this profession, to the general tenor of their own character and conduct ; when they can further appeal to classes and com¬ munities who have received this doctrine, and yet have equalled any other sections of men in obedience to the divine will and in the discharge of moral duty ; when such a state of things as this is presented, the allegation of an atheistic and immoral tendency becomes a practical absurdity, which should be left to those who are incapable of arguing the question upon its own proper merits, and which, even when brought forward by those who are capable of higher things, is scarcely worthy of notice. Calvinists, or Necessitarians, — against whose views this objection has been com¬ monly adduced, — have perhaps wasted too much time and strength in elaborating a formal and direct answer to it. They might, we are disposed to think, have done more to establish them, by giving greater attention to the investigation of the materials by which the proper truth or falsehood of the contending theories, — apart from their alleged tendencies and consequences, — might be deter¬ mined. Locke spoke like a true philosopher when, in the context of the passage formerly quoted, he said, “ If you will argue for or against liberty from consequences , I will not undertake to answer you.” Sir William, on the contrary, has descended to a mode of representation which should really have been left to those who are unable to reason, and are capable only of lavishing abuse.* * We have much pleasure in sup¬ porting the strong disapprobation here expressed of Sir William’s mode of procedure, by the authority of the Essay IX.] DOCTKINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 481 Another curious peculiarity in Sir William’s mode of dealing with this subject is, that his misrepresentation about moral re¬ sponsibility, fatalism, atheism, etc., is directed only against the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; while he gives us distinctly to understand, by the plainest implication, that no such objections can be substantiated against the doctrines of Calvinism. He is here professing to be a Calvinist, and to be defending genuine Calvinism against the misrepresentations of Dr Chalmers and others, who, while professing to believe in Calvinism, do not un¬ derstand it so well as he, — who indeed corrupt the Calvinistic system by teaching the doctrine of philosophical necessity as a part of it. Sir William’s heavy charges against these men are, of course, based not upon the Calvinism which he professes to hold in common with them, but upon the philosophical necessity which they taught as a part of their Calvinism, but in which he differs from them. In other words, he professes to believe, as eveiy Calvinist does, that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and he sees nothing in this doctrine that tends to overthrow moral responsibility and to bring in fatalism ; while these alarming consequences attach to the doctrine of philosophical necessity a doctrine which, as held by those whom he was denouncing, could be nothing else than an effectual provision made by God for bringing about the results which in His “ absolute decrees” He had prede¬ termined to bring to pass. Upon the ground of considerations derived from these various sources,— viz., the general character and standing of this subject of liberty and necessity viewed historically as a topic of controversial discussion,— the special views of Sir William Hamilton regarding it,— and the very peculiar character of that passage of his which is more immediately under our consideration, — we do not consider ourselves called upon, and we do not intend, to enter upon the more general aspects of the great subject which is here brought following weighty and most apposite statement of Sir James Macintosh : — “There is no topic which requires such strong grounds to justify its admis¬ sion into controversy, as that of moral consequences ; for, besides its incurable tendency to inflame the angry passions, and to excite obloquy against indivi¬ duals, which renders it a practical re¬ straint on free inquiry, the employ¬ ment of it in dispute seems to betray apprehensions derogatory from the dignity of morals, and not consonant either to the dictates of reason or to the lessons of experience. The rules of morality are too deeply rooted in human nature to be shaken by every veering breath of metaphysical theory.” — Edinburgh Review , vol. xxxvi. p. 255. VOL. I. 31 482 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. under our notice. We do not intend to deal with Sir William’s two principal positions, viz. : — 1. That the doctrine of philosophical necessity is “in the face of the Bible;” 2. That it overturns men’s moral responsibility, and leads to fatalism and atheism. Sir William has not given us any evidence or argument in support of these two positions. He has said nothing here upon the subject but what might just as well have been said by the most ignorant person that ever railed against Calvinism. We deny both these positions, though we do not mean to assert their contradictories. We do not believe that there is anything in the Bible that either proves or disproves the doctrine of philosophical necessity. We have never seen any satisfactory evidence that it tends to immo¬ rality and atheism. There, is, however, another statement made by Sir W illiam in the passage on which we are animadverting, which, — though relat¬ ing to a point of inferior intrinsic importance, — is perhaps more likely to be believed by ordinary readers, and thereby to do mischief, while at the same time it involves a great personal injustice, — viz., that this doctrine is contrary to the teaching of Calvin, — is a cor¬ ruption of pure Calvinism, — and more specifically, is “ in the face of the Confession of Faith” of “our Calvinistic Church of Scot¬ land.” This was probably intended by Sir William to be the real gravamen of the charge against Dr Chalmers, that he had taught a doctrine opposed to the symbolical books which he had sub¬ scribed. This is a serious charge, and a favourite one with Sir Wil¬ liam. He repeated it somewhat more calmly, though still not with¬ out plain indications of unpliilosophical vehemence, in a note to the sixth volume of the collected edition of Professor Duo-aid Stewart’s O works. This note, which is as follows, was published in 1855 : — “ The Scottish Church asserts, with equal emphasis, the doctrine of the absolute decrees of God and the doctrine of the moral liberty of man. The theory of Jonathan Edwards touching the bondage of the will is, on the Cal¬ vinistic standard of the Westminster Confession, not only heterodox but here¬ tical ; and yet we have seen the scheme of absolute necessity urged by imposing authority, and even apparently received with general acquiescence, as that exclusively conformable to the recognised tenets of our ecclesiastical establish¬ ment.”* It is the more needful to advert to this charge, because the leading idea on which it is based has been countenanced also by * P. 402. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 483 Professor Stewart, in a passage published for the first time by Sir William himself in 1854 in his edition of the “ Dissertation on the Progress of Philosophy,” forming the first volume of the col¬ lected works. Stewart’s statement upon the subject, which is written with the calmness of a philosopher, and conveys no per¬ sonal attack, is inserted by Sir William as a passage “restored” from the author’s manuscript in the note M.M.,* and is as follows : — “ In the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland (the articles of which are strictly Calvinistic), the freedom of the human will is asserted as strongly as the doctrine of the eternal decrees of God. ‘ God (it is said, chap, iii.) from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. 1 et so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the crea¬ tures , nor is the liberty or contingency of second clauses taken away, but rather established.’ And still more explicitly in chap, ix, ‘ God hath indued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to do good or evil.’ ” Stewart here plainly sanctions the general idea on which Sir William’s charge against Edwards and Chalmers is founded, and quotes those portions of the Confession which he regards as estab¬ lishing his position. Such a charge, brought forward in such cir¬ cumstances, and resting upon grounds which may appear not altogether destitute of plausibility to ill-informed persons, demands consideration ; and this brings us back to what we really intended to have been the main subject of this discussion. We believe the charge to be utterly groundless ; while at the same time we do not altogether approve of the aspects in which Edwards and Chalmers have represented this matter. Our views upon this point may be embodied in two plain propositions, and we do not mean to attempt more at present than briefly indicating the grounds on which we think they may be established. 1st, There is nothing in the Cal¬ vinistic system of theology, or in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which precludes men from holding the doctrine of philo¬ sophical necessity. 2d, There is nothing in the Calvinistic system of theology, or in the Westminster Confession, which requires men to hold the doctrine of philosophical necessity. By establish¬ ing the first of these positions, we vindicate Edwards, Chalmers, and other pious and distinguished theologians, from the charge which Sir William has adduced against them of corrupting Cal- * P. 575. 484 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. vinism, and contradicting tlie Westminster Confession. By establishing the second, we vindicate Calvinism from the servitude O _ ' which the views of Edwards and Chalmers seem to impose upon it, of being obliged to undertake the defence of a doctrine which, — whether true or false, — belongs, after all, to the department of philosophy rather than of theology, and ought to be left to be dis¬ posed of upon its own proper philosophical grounds. First, then, we say that there is nothing in the Calvinistic system of theology, or in the Westminster Confession, which pre¬ cludes men from holding the doctrine of philosophical necessity. We have hitherto spoken of this doctrine chiefly incidentally, assuming that its general nature and import are well known ; but it may be proper now to state more formally what is meant by it. The advocates of this doctrine maintain that there is an invariable and necessary connection between men’s motives and their voli¬ tions,' — between objects of desire and pursuit as seen and appre¬ hended by them and all their acts of volition or choice ; or that our volitions and choices are invariably determined by the last practical judgment of the understanding. Libertarians admit that men’s volitions or choices are, ordinarily and in general, de¬ termined by motives as seen and apprehended by the mind ; but deny that there is a law regulating our mental processes, by which this determination of volitions by motives is rendered invariable and necessary. On the contrary, they maintain, in opposition to this, and as the only alternative, that the will has a liberty of in¬ difference, whereby, irrespective or in disregard of any motives that may be presented to it, it may remain in equilibria ; that it may determine or put forth a volition or choice, either in accordance with or in opposition to the motives presented to it, and that it can do this in the exercise of an inherent self-determining power of its own. The invariable and necessary influence of motives in determining volitions, — and a liberty of indifference, combined with a self-determining power in the will itself, — are thus the opposite positions of the contending parties on this question. The dispute manifestly turns wholly upon a question as to what is the law which regulates those mental processes that result in, or consti¬ tute, volitions or choices ; and this is properly and primarily a question in philosophy, the materials for determining which must be sought in an appeal to consciousness, and in an application of the data which consciousness furnishes. This statement of the Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 485 real nature of tlie point in dispute, is surely fitted to surest at once the improbability of the necessitarian view telling so powei- fully upon great theological questions, and leading to such fearful consequences, as Sir William Hamilton alleges. We have to show that men who have embraced the Calvinistic system of theology, and subscribed the Westminster Confession, are not thereby preclnded from maintaining this view of the law which regulates our volitions, commonly and justly described as the doctrine of philosophical necessity. It may be proper, in the first place, to advert to the authority of Augustine and Calvin, unquestionably the two highest names in theology. Piofessoi Stewart, in the passage which immediately precedes that quoted above,- — and which is to be found in the former edition of the Dis¬ sertation, as prefixed to the “ Encyclopaedia Britannica,” * — says that “ Augustine has asserted the liberty of the will in terms as explicit as "those in which he has announced the theological dogmas with which it is most difficult to reconcile it, nay, he has gone so far as to acknowledge the essential importance of this belief as a motive to virtuous conduct and then he gives a quotation from Augustine in support of this statement. Sir W illiam has asserted that u nothing can be conceived more contrary to the doctrine of that great divine (Calvin), than what has latterly been promul¬ gated as Calvinism in our Calvinistic Church of Scotland, meaning, as is manifest, the doctrine of philosophical necessity. He has given no quotations or references in support of this posi¬ tion, though he would have had no difficulty in producing ex¬ tracts, which, to those who had never read Calvin, would have appeared to establish it. But the true views of Augustine and Calvin upon this subject, are not to be learnt from a few isolated passages. They can be correctly understood only upon a deli¬ berate and comprehensive survey of their whole position. If it be true, as Stewart alleges, that Augustine has expressly asserted the liberty of the wdl, it is at least as true that he has often explicitly denied it. He asserts it in some senses and denies it in others; and he has not always taken due care to explain fully the sense in which he was employing the phrase for the time, and to adhere to this sense throughout. And accordingly, in the great controversy between the Jansenists and the Jesuits as to * 7th Edition, p. 267. 486 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. wliat Augustine’s theological doctrines were, there is no point in regard to which the Jesuits have been able to make out nearly so plausible a case as in support of Stewart’s position, that Augustine asserted the liberty of the will. On this, how¬ ever, as on every other point, the Jansenists gained the victory, — though not quite so decisively as upon the other departments of the controversy. It has been proved that Augustine held, and held as great scriptural doctrines, that man before the fall had liberty or freedom of will, — in this sense, that he was able to will and to do good as well as to will and to do evil ; that he entirely lost this liberty of will by the fall ; that fallen man in his unre¬ newed state has not liberty of will, or has it only, — in this sense, that he is still fully responsible for what he does as being a free moral agent, acting voluntarily or spontaneously ; and that when men’s wills have been renewed by God’s grace, and they are re¬ stored again to liberty of will, — in this sense, that they are now again able to will and to do good as well as evil, — it is still true that God requires of them what they are not able to perform. It can be proved that Augustine held all these views in regard to the liberty of the will ; while it cannot be proved that he has given any deliverance whatever upon the only point involved in the controversy about philosophical necessity. All this, which can be proved in regard to Augustine, is equally true of Calvin, the main difference between the two cases being this, that Calvin has more fully and carefully than Augustine, explained the different senses in which the will might be said to be free and not free, — that he has adhered more closely in treating of this subject to precise and definite phraseology, carefully explained and consistently applied, — and that he has never spoken of free will without affording, to careful readers, abundant materials for understanding in what sense he employed it, and especially for satisfying themselves that he did not hold liberty in any sense inconsistent with necessity, as understood in the present controversy. In Calvin’s most important and masterly treatise, u De Ser- vitute et Liberatione Humani Arbitrii,” he has fully brought out his views upon this subject, and has furnished ample materials for establishing all we have said concerning him. A considerable portion of this treatise is occupied with an elaborate investigation as to what were Augustine’s views upon this point, — and a con¬ clusive proof, in opposition to his popish antagonist Pighius, that Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 487 Augustine, with occasional looseness and inaccuracy of expression, held the same views in substance which he and his fellow Re¬ formers had promulgated. We may briefly advert to one 01 two points, indicating plainly enough the leading features of the views of Augustine and Calvin upon this matter. There is one very striking and pithy saying of Augustine’s, in speaking of the fall, which Calvin repeatedly quotes with approbation, viz. : “ Homo libero arbitrio male usus et se perdidit et ipsum, man, by mak¬ ing a bad use of his free will, lost both himself and it, a state¬ ment which throws a flood of light upon the whole system of doctrine which these great men taught upon this subject. Another statement of Augustine’s, which Calvin repeatedly quotes with approbation, and which was applied by them, both to renewed and unrenewed men, is, “ J ubet I)cus qute non possumus ut noverimus quid ab ipso petere debeamus,’ — God requires of us what we cannot perform, in order that we may know what we ought to ask from Him. We give only one other brief extiact from the treatise above referred to. “I have always declared that I have no wish to fight about the name (of free will), if it were once settled that liberty ought to be referred not to the power or capacity of choosing equally good or evil, but to spon¬ taneous motion and consent. And what else mean the words of Augustine 1 He says, ‘ The will is free, but only to evil. Why ? because it is moved by delight and its proper appetite. He adds afterwards, ‘But this will which is free for evil because it is delighted with evil, is not free for good, because it has not been emancipated.’ To which Calvin subjoins, ‘all this is so accordant with my doctrine, that you might suppose it had been written foi the defence of it.’* Luther and his followers, who had at first made some very absolute and exaggerated statements in the way of denying free will altogether, came afterwards to attach much importance to a distinction between man’s freedom in things ex¬ ternal, civil, and moral, and his freedom in things properly spiritual, and they embodied this distinction in the Confession of Augsburg, f Calvin admitted the truth and reality of this dis¬ tinction, though he did not regard it as of much importance in a ii., C. ii. s. 8 and 9, and c. iii. s. 13 and 14. f Art. xviii. * Calvini Opera, tom. ix. p. 141 ; Amstel, 1667. He touches upon the same topic also in the Institutes, B. 488 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. theological point of view. But while admitting that man has a power or freedom in things outward and merely moral which he has not in things spiritual, he has given no indication that he thought that even, in regard to the former class of subjects, man has a liberty of indifference, or his will a self-determining power. In the 2d chapter of the 2d Book of the Institutes, he has given a very striking and eloquent description of what man can effect by the exercise of his powers as brought to bear upon outward and natural things, and upon arts, literature, and philosophy, as compared with the blindness and uselessness of the unaided understanding in religious matters. But neither here has he said anything which implies that he denied the doctrine of philosophical necessity, or ascribed to the will of man any liberty or capacity inconsistent with it. In short, neither Augustine nor Calvin entertained or dis¬ cussed the psychological question as to what the laws are which regidate men’s mental processes, and determine their volitions. The liberty and necessity of which they treated, and which in different sentences they affirmed and denied, referred to something very different from, and much more important than, this. From their denials of liberty and free-will, we would not be warranted in asserting that they held the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; and neither, on the other hand, is any one entitled to infer, from their assertions of liberty and free-will, that they denied that doc¬ trine. And this, indeed, is really the substance of what is true, and can be established, not only of Augustine and Calvin, who have been honoured more than any other uninspired men to bring out correctly the scheme of divine truth, — but of Calvinistic divines in general, and among the rest, of the authors of the Westminster Confession. Professor Stewart evidently knew very little about this matter in its theological aspects. But he writes modestly and cautiously. The only statement he makes about Augustine is literally true, though it is not the whole truth, and is certainly, in the sense in which alone it can be established, quite irrelevant to the object he had in view. That u nothing can be conceived more contrary to the doctrine of ” Calvin than the doctrine of philosophical neces¬ sity, as taught by Edwards and Chalmers, — and this is what Sir William Hamilton must have intended to assert, — is a position for which no evidence has been or can be produced ; and it is scarcely Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 489 possible that he could be ignorant that he had no materials what¬ ever for establishing it. We proceed now to the more important and pressing part of the case, that which professes to deal with the teaching of the Westminster Confession. Upon this point Stewart asserts, in almost the very same terms which he had employed in speaking of Augustine, that in the Confession the freedom of the human will is asserted as strongly as the doctrine of the eternal decrees of God;” and quotes two passages, the one from the 3d and the other from the 9th chapter in support of this position. lie evi¬ dently meant to assert that the Confession, though teaching strict Calvinism on the subject of foreordination, taught also the Libertarian view on the subject of the will, as opposed to the doc¬ trine of philosophical necessity. But both his geneial statement, and his proofs derived from the Confession, manifestly labour under all the difficulties and drawbacks connected with the ambi¬ guity of the phrase, “the freedom of the human will, which is the subject of his proposition. The “ freedom of the will” may be understood in a variety of senses, and on both sides of the con¬ troversy would be either affirmed or denied, according as it might be explained. It is plain enough from the context in what sense Stewart understood it, and meant it to be understood ; but still the vagueness and ambiguity of the expression in itself gives the appearance of greater weight to his proofs than they possess. Sir William has not defined what the doctrine is against which he de¬ claimed so vehemently in his “Discussions;’ but it is quite plain, that what he had in view was, and could be nothing else than, the doctrine of philosophical necessity, as held by Dr Chalmers ; and this he pronounced to be “ in the face of the Confession as in the face of the Bible.” In his more recent note in the 6th vol. of Stewart, he brings it out somewhat more definitely as “ the theory of Jonathan Edwards touching the bondage of the will;’ and this he pronounces to be “ on the Calvinistic standard of the Westminster Confession, not only heterodox but heretical. It looks like an unfair attempt to excite prejudice, that in the next clause in which he repeats his attack upon Dr Chalmers, he should speak of it as “ the scheme of absolute necessity, urged by imposing authority.” But not to dwell upon this, especially as it is noto¬ rious that Dr Chalmers’ views upon this subject were avowedly identical with those of Edwards,— we are fully warranted in laying 490 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. it down, that Sir William has asserted, that the doctrine of philo¬ sophical necessity, as taught by Edwards and Chalmers, is “ in the face of the Confession,” — u is on the Calvinistic standard of the Westminster Confession, not only heterodox but heretical.” This is a definite statement. It involves a serious charge. Is it true ? There is surely a considerable antecedent improbability that the views of Edwards and Chalmers should be opposed in an im¬ portant point to the Confession, and that Sir William Hamilton should have been the first and only person to discover and pro¬ claim this. Dr Chalmers had repeatedly professed his public ad¬ herence to the Confession as the confession of his faith. He, of course, believed that he believed it, and that his teaching was in full accordance with its statements. The ministers of the church to which he belonged, — who had all themselves subscribed the Con¬ fession, — found nothing in his teaching opposed to it. The question was once put formally and explicitly by Dr Erskine to Edwards, whether he could subscribe the Westminster Confession, and he in reply declared his readiness to do so.* But still it is not im¬ possible that these men may have been wholly wrong in this matter, and that Sir William may have been right. In publicly adducing so serious a charge, he ought in fairness to have distinctly specified the grounds on which it rested. He has not done so. But the passages quoted by Stewart are manifestly those on which the charge must rest ; although something might also be made of a passage in the 5th chapter upon Providence, and of the statements which assert or imply, that our first parents were left to the free¬ dom of their own will, and enjoyed before the fall a liberty of will which we do not possess. The first passage is taken from the 3d chapter ; it is as fol- * We subjoin the passage, though well known, because it is curious and interesting : — “ You are pleased, dear sir, very kindly to ask me, whether I could sign the Westminster Confession of Faith, and submit to the presbyte- rian form of church government ; and to offer to use your influence to pro¬ cure a call for me to some congrega¬ tion in Scotland. I should be very ungrateful if I were not thankful for such kindness and friendship. As to my subscribing to the substance of, the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty ; and as to the presbyterian government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government in this land, and the presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the word of God, and the reason and nature of things; though I can¬ not say that I think that the presby¬ terian government of the Church of Scotland is so perfect, that it cannot, in some respects, be mended.” (P. 163, Memoir of Edwards, prefixed to the London Edition of his works in two large volumes, 1840.) Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 491 lows God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatso¬ ever comes to pass, yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatuies, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away but rather established.” Every one must see, and no Calvinist has ever disputed, that if it be indeed true that God has unchangeably foreordained what¬ soever comes to pass, this certainly implies that liberty, in some sense, as predicated even of men’s violitions and actions, is ex¬ cluded ; and that necessity, in some sense, is established. This being tacitly conceded as undeniable, the latter part of the above section of the Confession is directed to the general object, of dis¬ claiming or shutting out certain extreme views as to the inferences which some might deduce from this great doctrine of universal foreordination. All that is here expressly asserted is, that the three things here specified do not follow from foreordination. But we admit that the passage may be held in fairness to imply, that the things here specified not only do not follow from pre¬ destination, but are in themselves bad, or false, or impossible. The latter part then of the passage may be paraphrased thus : u It may be thought that this doctrine of foreordination makes God the author of sin, but however plausible this allegation may be, we do not admit its truth ; we deny that God is the author of sin, and we deny that it is a just inference from foreordination that He is so. It may further be alleged plausibly, that by this universal and unchangeable foreordination violence is offered to the will of the creatures, and that the liberty or contingency of second causes is taken away ; but we deny that violence is or should be offered to the will of the creatures, or that the liberty or contingency of second causes is taken away by foreordination or by any thing else ; and, on the contrary, we hold that the liberty or contingency of second causes is rather established by it.” Now there is here no mention of, or reference to, the doc¬ trine of philosophical necessity. The only doctrine mentioned here is that of foreordination ; and in addition to stating it and asserting its truth, the substance of what is said about it is, that while it may suggest plausible, it furnishes no solid, grounds for the inference, either that God is the author of sin, or that violence is offered to the will of the creatures. The only way therefore 492 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. in which this section of the Confession can bear upon the proof, that the doctrine of philosophical necessity is heretical, is this, — this proves that it is wrong that violence he offered to the will of the creatures, the doctrine of philosophical necessity offers violence, etc., and therefore it is here condemned. But the Confession furnishes no materials that bear, or even seem to bear, upon the proof of the minor proposition about the nature, tendencies, and result of the doctrine of philosophical necessity. This proposition is not more self-evident, — nay, it is not even more plausible, — than the one that by foreordination violence is offered to the will of the creatures. It is not to he assumed as true. It must be proved by distinct and independent materials, for nothing of this sort is to be found in the Confession. Edwards and Chalmers have no hesitation in applying to their doctrine of necessity what the Con¬ fession applies to foreordination, — viz., that thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures. And there is certainly nothing in the Confession that can be pleaded either to the effect of precluding them from taking this ground, or of throwing any difficulty in the way of their maintaining it. Indeed, the only correct sense of what is meant by “ offering violence to the will of the creatures” is not, com¬ pelling them to will in a certain way, — for that is impossible and inconsistent with the nature of will as will, — but compelling them to do what their will abhors. We will present the viewT generally taken upon this point by Calvinists in the words of John Knox, in his masterly treatise on predestination, which having been re¬ published in the fifth volume of Mr Laing’s admirable edition of his collected works, will soon, we hope, become better known amongst us than it has hitherto been. u I affirm that God worketh all in all things according to the purpose of the same His good will, and yet that He usetli no violence, neither in compelling His creatures, neither constraining their wills by any external force, neither yet taking their wills from them, but in all wisdom and justice, using them as He knoweth most expedient for the mani¬ festation of His glory ; without any violence, I say, done to their wills, for violence is done to the will of a creature when it willetli one thing and yet by force , by tyranny , or by a greater power , it is compelled to do the things which it woidd not'.'* * Pp. 148, 144. Essay IX.] DOCTKINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 493 This is the proper meaning of the words, this is the recognised sense of the statement, among Calvinistic writers ; and, therefore, the portion of the Confession founded on by Stewart, not only contains nothing in the least adverse to the doctrine of philoso¬ phical necessity, but nothing that has even the appearance of being so. For even the opponents of this doctrine will scarcely allege, that it implies that violence is offered to the will of the creatures, in the sense in which that has now been explained. In order to warrant such an allegation, it would be requisite that there should be a denial of the liberty of spontaneity, or the power of doing freely and spontaneously what we will or choose to do. And not only have all the supporters of philosophical necessity uniformly ascribed to men a liberty of spontaneity ; but the op¬ ponents of that doctrine have admitted that this liberty of spon¬ taneity is perfectly consistent with it, while they hold it to be insufficient as the basis of moral responsibility. Mr Stewart seems to indicate, by his italics, that he regarded the clause on which we have been commenting, about “ violence offered to the will of the creatures,” as embodying the strength of his case. But if he had been familiar with the way in which these topics have been discussed among theologians, he would probably have been of opinion that the third point referred to, viz., a the liberty or contingency of second causes,” furnished an argument quite as plausible, especially when viewed in connection with the fuller statement upon the same subject, contained in the 5th chapter on Providence, sec. 2. u Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass, immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same provi¬ dence, He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, necessarily, freely, or contingently. ’ The third chapter states the substance of what Scripture teaches concerning God’s decrees, — that is, His purposes or determinations formed from eternity as to all that was to come to pass in time. This fifth chapter gives the substance of Scripture teaching as to God’s providence, — that is, as to all that He does in time for carrying into effect the purposes which He had formed from eternity. God having foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, provision is made for securing all the results so ordained and determined. And all who hold the Calvinistic doctrine on the subject of fore¬ ordination must, in consistency also, receive the common Calvin- 494 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. istic doctrine on the subject of providence, or the government which God is ever exercisins; over all His creatures and all their actions. Against the doctrine of foreorclination, men are very prone to adduce the objections, — that it makes God the author of sin, — that it offers violence to the will *of the creatures, — and that it takes away the liberty or contingency of second causes. These objections, seem to apply with equal plausibility, to the doctrine of providence as to that of predestination ; and Calvinists deal with these objections, in both cases, in the same way, by admitting that these consequences would be fatal to Cal- vinistic doctrines if it could be conclusively proved that they were necessary consequences ; and by asserting and undertaking to prove that these consequences do not necessarily follow from their doctrines, or at least that this cannot be established. We have nothing to do at present with the allegation that the Calvinistic doctrines of predestination and providence make God the author of sin. We have already explained the meaning and bearing of the allegation about violence being offered to the will of the crea¬ tures ; and proved that it is utterly inadequate for the purpose for which Stewart adduced it, — that it has no bearing whatever upon the question whether Edwards’ doctrine of philosophical necessity is or is not opposed to the Confession. In regard to the third point, we have nothing to do directly with the contingency, but only with the liberty, of second causes. What is said about this, and how does it bear, if at all, upon the question under considera¬ tion ? God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and He has made provision, — for securing that every thing which He had before ordained should be actually brought about. This might appear, and has indeed been alleged, to involve or require the establishment of an absolute, universal, and indiscriminate necessity or fatalism, as comprehending and controlling, equally and alike, all agents and events. But Calvinists deny that this follows from their doctrines. These doctrines no doubt imply that, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God the first cause, all things do come to pass immutably and infallibly, and thus they certainly establish necessity and exclude liberty in some sense ; yet they do not take away the liberty of second causes, and they leave it open to God to cause all things to come about according to the nature of these second causes, necessarily, freely, or contingently. In other words, Cal- Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 495 vinists maintain that God, in executing His decrees in providence, brings about different classes of events in a way that is in full accordance with their own distinct, proper natures, — bringing to pass necessary things necessarily, free things freely, and contingent things contingently. This, of course, implies that there are under God’s government free agents, who are dealt with in all respects as free agents, according to their proper nature, and the actual qualities and capacities they possess. As free agents they act freely ; and although, if the doctrine of the foreordination of all things be true, there is a necessity in some sense attaching to all their actions, this does not preclude their having also a liberty attaching to them, in accordance with their general character and standing, as being free, in contradiction from necessary, agents. Among these free agents — in whom the liberty of second causes is maintained and preserved, — notwithstanding the control which God exercises over all then’ actions in order to execute His decrees, are of course men, rational and responsible beings. God has made them rational and responsible, and He has endowed them with at least such freedom or liberty as is necessary to responsibility. He ever deals with them in accordance with the qualities and capacities which He has bestowed upon them. He does not deal with them as He does with the material creation or with the irra tional animals. Although ever infallibly executing His decrees, He leaves them in the full possession of the rationality, responsi¬ bility, and liberty which He has bestowed upon them. No one acquainted with the ground taken in discussions upon this subject by the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, can have any doubt that this is the meaning of the statement under consideration, and that this was all that these words were intended to express ; and if so, then it is manifest that they just throw us back upon the question, to be decided upon its own pro¬ per grounds, as to the nature, species, and foundations of the liberty which men actually possess, — while they afford us no mate¬ rials whatever, direct or indirect, for determining the question, whether or not this liberty is to be held as precluding the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Edwards and Chalmers of course held that men are free agents, — that they are in some sense possessed of a free will, which neither the predestination nor the provi¬ dence of God annihilates or supersedes; and if so, they could have no difficulty in subscribing these portions of the Confession. 496 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. But perhaps tbe portion of the Confession which has most the appearance of something like hostility to the doctrine of philo¬ sophical necessity, is that which Stewart quotes from the begin¬ ning of the 9tli chapter, which treats of u free will.” The state¬ ment is this, “ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.” This is plainly intended as a general description of the human will, or rather of some leading features of it, applicable to the will at all times, and amid all the changes which in some respects it has undergone. There is, it is here asserted, a certain natural liberty with which God has endued the will of man, and which it ever retains, and must retain, as essential to its proper nature. But it must be observed, that this is not a full definition or description of the will as a power or faculty of man, such as might be expected in a philosophical treatise giving an account of the human mind. The Confession professes to give a summary of what is taught in Scripture, and no one has ever imagined that Scripture contains materials for enabling us to give a full description of the will as a faculty of man, and to determine, directly and at once, between the two opposite theories of liberty and necessity. The Scripture affords materials for determining questions about the will only in some of its theo¬ logical bearings. And accordingly it must be noticed that the Confession does not here speak generally of its being determined, but only of its being determined to good or evil. These words, u to good or evil,” are a constituent part of the only affirmation here put forth. It is not a statement about the grounds and causes of the ordinary determinations of the will, or of volitions in general, but about determinations to good or evil , — that is, about volitions which involve a choosing between good and evil, or a preference of the one of these to the other. The general object of .the whole chapter was to unfold the different aspects which man has presented in his fourfold state, as to freedom or liberty of will in choosing between good and evil. To, the freedom or bondage of man’s will, with reference to choosing between good and evil, as possessed and exhibited in four different conditions, the four fol¬ lowing sections of the chapter are devoted ; and the first section was evidently intended to be introductory to the exposition of this general topic in its different stages. So that, viewed in its con¬ nection with what it introduces, it may be fairly regarded as Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 497 amounting, in substance, to a statement to this effect, — that though man at different stages of his history — unfallen, fallen, renewed, glorified — has had his will determined to good and also determined to evil, this result is not to be ascribed in either case to force, or to any absolute necessity of nature, as that "would be inconsistent with the natural liberty with which God has endowed the will. This was the aspect in which, principally, — we might almost say exclusively, — both the Reformers of the sixteenth, and the great Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth, century contemplated the subject of free will ; and it is in this sense alone, we are convinced, that the compilers of the Westminster Confession intended to ex¬ pound it. But though we are satisfied of the sufficiency of the grounds on which this limitation of the import of the statement can be de¬ fended, — a limitation which of itself deprives it of all legitimate bearing upon the question of philosophical necessity, — we do not concede that our argument is dependent upon the establishment of this. Even if the statement be held to apply to the determina¬ tions of the will in general, instead of being limited to determina¬ tions which make a choice either of good or evil, — according to the moral character of the prevailing tendency of man’s nature for the time; — still the language here employed is quite sufficient to remove from the minds of necessitarians all hesitation about accepting it. No necessitarian has any hesitation about repudiating force, or an absolute necessity of nature, as regulating the determinations of the will ; and though libertarians may allege that the doctrine of philosophical necessity implies that the will is determined by force or by an absolute necessity of nature, yet they cannot establish this ; while necessitarians openly and explicitly deny it, and cannot be convicted of any error or inconsistency in doing so. Nothing stands out more palpably on the face of the whole discus¬ sions which have taken place upon this subject, than these two facts, 1st, That Calvinistic necessitarians have always admitted ’ that determination by force, — or as they usually called it, by con¬ straint, or coaction, or compulsion, — is inconsistent with free agency and moral responsibility ; and, 2d, That they have always contended, that there is nothing about the necessitarian view that gives any countenance to the idea that the will is determined by force. They have always contended that liberty or freedom — as opposed to all force or coaction — is indispensable, and must VOL. I. 32 ever 498 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. be maintained on all sides. Indeed, the controversy between libertarians and necessitarians lias often been made to turn upon this precise question, whether a liberty of spontaneity, as opposed to all force or coaction, all constraint brought to bear from with¬ out, — a liberty this which all necessitarians hold and which liber¬ tarians generally admit that they can hold consistently, — be or be not sufficient for moral responsibility. Calvin says* u If liberty is opposed to coaction (or force) I confess and constantly assert that the will is free, and I reckon him a heretic who thinks other¬ wise. If it is called free in this sense, — because it is not forced or violently drawn by an external movement, but is led on sua sponte, I have no objection to this. But because men in general, when they hear this epithet applied to the will of man understand it in a very different sense, for this reason I dislike it.” Edwards him¬ self says, speaking of the Stoics, whose Fate had been objected to him as identical with his necessity : a Whatever their doctrine was, if any of them held such a fate as is repugnant to any liberty consisting in our doing as we please” (the liberty of spontaneity as opposed to all force or coaction from any external cause), u I utterly deny such a fate. If they held any such fate as is not consistent with the common and universal notions that mankind have of liberty, activity, moral agency, virtue and vice, I disclaim any such thing, and think I have demonstrated that the scheme I maintain is no such scheme.” f Turretine lays down six different senses in which liberty and necessity may be affirmed or denied respectively of man, or his will ; and — what is a curious, and with reference to our present argument, an important, coincidence, — he selects from the six the two species of necessity specified and repudiated in the Confession, — viz., that arising from force, and that arising from necessity of nature, or physical necessity, — and admits that these are contrary to the nature of the will and to moral responsibility, and are therefore to be rejected ; while, at the same time, he strenuously advocates other kinds of necessity, and among the rest, that based upon the last judgment of the practical intellect, which is just the same thing as the doctrine of philoso¬ phical necessity as taught by Edwards and Chalmers. This fact is really conclusive upon the question we are now considering, — a question which just amounts in substance to this, — * De Libero Arbitrio, p. 215. | f Part iv., sec. vi. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 499 Does a denial of the determination of the will by force or by an absolute necessity of nature , — understood in accordance with the views and language of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century , — ■ involve or imply a denial of the doctrine of philosophical necessity ? That the repudiation of determination by force does not imply this, has already been proved, and is, indeed, perfectly manifest. There is more doubt as to what is meant by necessity of nature, and as to what this might suggest about the point in dispute. A “ necessity of nature,” and still more an u absolute necessity of nature,” — the phrase used in the Confession, — seems to describe somethin £ much more intrinsic and fundamental, bearing more upon the essential qualities or constituent elements of will as will, — as a power or faculty essentially distinguishing those who have it from those who have it not, — than anything involved in the controversy about philosophical necessity, which merely respects one of the laws that regulate the determination of the volitions. And accordingly, on investigating the usus loquendi upon this point of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, — which must be the standard for the interpretation of the Westminster Confession, — we find that by necessity of nature, as applied to this matter of the will, they meant a necessity arising from, or con¬ nected with, those essential qualities of the will, in virtue of which it becomes one of the main tilings that distinguish men from mere material objects, and from the irrational animals. It is the nature of the will of man, that it implies the possession and exercise of a rational, deliberate, unconstrained, spontaneous choice. Without this, will would be no will ; and without will, in this sense, man would not be a responsible being, and would sink to the level of mere matter, or of the beasts that perish. Calvin distinctly ad¬ mitted that u a liberty or freedom from necessity, in the sense of coaction or compulsion, did so inhere in man by nature that it could not in any way be taken away from him.” This point of the natural liberty with which God has endowed the will of man, is thus explained by Turretine, with his usual masterly ability : — “ Cum ergo ratio formalis libertatis non posita sit in indifferentia, non potest alibi quseri, quam in lubentia rationali; per quam homo facit quod lubet przevio rationis judicio : Ut hie necessario duo conjungenda veniant ad earn constituendam. 1. to wpoouptrix.ov, ut quod fit, non fiat caeco impetu, et bruto quodam instinctu sed lx Trpoxtplasus, et prsevio rationis lumine, et intellectus practici judicio. 2. to Ixovaiov, ut quodfitsponteetlibenterfiatetsinecoactione. 500 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. “ Hanc autem esse rationem formalem liberi arbitrii, ex eo non obscure colligitur, quod omni , soli, et semper conveniat. Ita ut nullum sit agens li¬ berum, vel creatum, vel increatum, in quo duo isti characteres non deprehen- dantur : nec ad tempus tantiun, sed semper, ut posita lubentia ista rationali ponatur libertas, et sublata tollatur. Unde sequitur adjunctum esse insepara¬ ble agentis rationalis, quod illud in quovis statu comitatur, ut non possit esse rationale, quin eo ipso sit liberum, nec spoliari queat libertate, quin privetur etiam ratione. Quod evincit etiam liberum arbitrium absolute spectatum et in genere Entis nunquam ab homine tolli posse in quocunque versetur statu.” * And then, with regard to the different lands of liberty and necessity that are, or are not, consistent with these views of the nature of the will, he selects, — as we have mentioned, — just the two specified in the Confession, as excluded absolutely and universally by right views of the essential qualities of the will, — viz., force and necessity of nature, or physical necessity. Force, or coaction, or compulsion, by an external power or pressure, needs no explana¬ tion ; and the other — the necessity of nature, or physical necessity, in conjunction with force, just as it is put in the Confession — Turretine explains in this way : — “ Ut duo sunt prsecipui characteres Liberi Arbitrii, in quibus ejus ratio formalis consistit, 1. '/> Tpoaipans, ut quod fit, praevio rationis judicio fiat, 2. to iKoiitJioy, ut quod fit, sponte et sine coactione fiat : prior ad intellectum, posterior ad voluntatem pertinet : Duse etiam necessitatis species cum ea pug- nant. Prima est necessitas physica et brutci , Altera necessitas coactionis ; ilia 'rpoa.lp9.oiv tollit, ista verb kaovoiov. Nam quae fiunt ex necessitate physica ab agentibus naturalibus, ad unurn natura et sine ratione determinatis, non pos- sunt censeri fieri libere, id est praevio rationis lumine ; et quae fiunt per vim et coacte, non possunt dici sponte fieri. Et de his mdla inter Nos et Adversaries est controversia. Hoc tantum obiter monendum Bellarminum f et alios ex Pon- tificiis Nostros calumniari, dum illis imponunt, quod sentiant libertatem a co¬ actione sufficere ad constitutionem liberi arbitrii ; Quia praetor illam requirunt etiam immunitatem a necessitate physica ; Et si quando dicunt hominem a coactione, non a necessitate liberum esse ; necessitatis voce non intelligunt earn quae dicitur physica , de qua nulla erat controversia, et quae satis per se exclu- ditur, turn conditione subjecti, quod est rationale, turn ex actibus judicandi et volendi, qui cum ea sunt dovoTXToi ; sed necessitatem dependentiae, servitutis, et rationalem. “ Sed si duse istae necessitatis species, a nobis commemoratae, cum libero arbitrio pugnant ; non eadem est ratio aliarum, quae cum eo subsistere possunt, et quibus non tarn destruitur, quam conservatur et perficitur, quod sigillatim quoad quatuor necessitatis species ante notatas ostendi potest.” £ * Loc. x. Qu. iii. s. 10 and 11. f Lib. 3 De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. c. 4. £ Qu. ii., s. 5 and 6. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 501 And one of these four species of necessity, which are not incon¬ sistent with the natural liberty of the will, or with moral agency , is that which forms the subject of our present discussion; in explaining which Turretine says that the nature of the will is such, “ ut non possit non sequi ultimum intellectus practici judicium. lie says farther, in explanation of the same views : “ Unde Tertio sequitur, Cum Providentia non concurrat cum voluntate humana, vel per coactionem , cogendo voluntatem invitam, vel determinando physice , ut rem brutamet csecam absque ullo judicio, sed rationaliter, flectendo voluntatem modo ipsi convenient!, ut seipsam determine^ ut causa proxima actionum suarum proprio rationis judicio, et spontanea voluntatis electione, earn libertati nostrse nullam vim inferre, sed illam potius amice fovere. Quia duse istse tantum sunt necessitatis species, quae libertatem perimunt, et cum ea sunt «o-wr«ro/, necessitas naturalis, et coactionis ; Cseterae, qum oriuntur, vel a decreto Dei, et causae primae motione, vel ab objecto et judicio ultimo in¬ tellectus practici , tantum abest ut libertatem evertant, uteam magis tueantur, quia flectunt voluntatem, non cogunt, etfaciunt ex nolente volentem. Quis- quis enim facit sponte quod vult ex rationis judicio et pleno voluntatis con¬ sensu, id non potest non libere facere, etiamsi necessario faciat, undecunque fluat ilia necessitas, sive ab ipsa rei existentia, quia quicquid est, quando est, necessario est, sive ab objecto mentem et voluntatem efficaciter movente [which is just philosophical necessity] sive a causa prima decernente et concunente [that is, divine predestination and providence].”* We have had the less hesitation about laying before our readers these quotations from Turretine, because, in plain terms, they settle conclusively the question which we ha\e undertaken to discuss ; in other words, they establish, beyond dispute, the posi¬ tion, that the repudiation in the Confession, of the determination of the will by an absolute necessity of nature does not,— any more than the repudiation of determination by force, preclude the maintenance of the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Liberta¬ rians may still assert that they regard the doctrine of philosophi¬ cal necessity, as implying a determination of the will by force or by a necessity of nature ; but they have no right to thrust their inferences or constructions upon their opponents, or to make these inferences the standard of what their opponents are to answer for. The allegation, that the doctrine of philosophical necessity is, in the face of the Confession, — especially when it is adduced as a per¬ sonal charge, — must be proved by him who makes it. It can be * Loc. vi. Qu. vi, s. 7. 502 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. proved only by producing from the Confession statements which, according to the ordinary recognised meaning of the words, or the known intention of the authors of the document, import a denial or rejection of the doctrine in question. The quotations we have produced from Turretine prove , that, tried by the views and the language of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, — the proper standard applicable to this matter, — the 1st section of the 9th chapter of the Confession, contains nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of philosophical necessity. The statement there made was meant to be introductory to a description of the changes which man has experienced, or is to experience, in regard to free will in his fourfold state ; and it was just intended to embody in substance a declaration to the effect, that whatever changes had occurred, or might occur, in the history of man in this respect, the essential features of his will or power of volition had continued unchanged ; that nothing had ever taken place either of an ex¬ ternal or internal kind, which interfered with his deliberate and spontaneous choice, or with his moral responsibility ; that though, as is afterwards explained, man’s will in one condition or period of his history had been determined to good, and in another condi¬ tion or period to evil, this determination to good or evil did not arise from force, or from an absolute necessity of nature ; for that, if the determination to good or evil had originated in either of these causes, this would have been inconsistent with the nature of will as will, or with its essential feature as the characteristic of a rational and responsible being, — viz., a deliberate and spontane¬ ous power of choice. The determination of man’s will to good or evil by the application of external force, or by any necessity arising from the natural structure and inherent capacity of the power of volition, are expressly shut out. There is no appearance of the exclusion going beyond this ; and if so, the doctrine of phi¬ losophical necessity is untouched. We could produce, if it were necessary, evidence from other authors that this was the sense in which the expressions under consideration were generally employed by the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century. We shall give only two brief ex¬ tracts from Dr Owen, one of the very few names in theology entitled to stand side by side with Turretine, — extracts in which, it will be observed, that he uses the words u outward coaction” and u inward natural necessity,” in the same sense in which the Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 503 almost identical expressions are used in the Confession ; and plainly intimates, that it is quite sufficient, in order to moral re¬ sponsibility, to exclude these two species of necessity, and to retain the deliberation and spontaneity which are inconsistent with them. They are taken from his u Display of Arminianism ; being a dis¬ covery of the old Pelagian idol Freewill, with the new goddess Contingency.” “ Yet here observe, that we do not absolutely oppose free will, as if it were nomen inane , a mere figment, when there is no such thing in the woild, but only in that sense the Pelagians and Arminians do assert it. About words we will not contend. We grant man, in the substance of all his actions, as much power, liberty, and freedom as a mere created nature is capable of. Y e grant him to be free in his choice, from all outward coaction or inward natuial ne¬ cessity, to work according to election and deliberation, spontaneously embrac¬ ing what seemeth good to him. Now, call this power free will or what you please, so you make it not supreme, independent, and boundless, we are not at all troubled.” And again, “ We grant as large a freedom and dominion to our wills, over their own acts, as a creature subject to the supreme rule of God’s providence, is capable of. Endued we are with such a liberty of will as is free from all outward compulsion and inward necessity, having an elective faculty of applying itself unto that which seems good unto it, in which it is a free choice, notwithstanding it is subservient to the decree of God.”* The greatest and best known names among the Calvmistic divines of the seventeenth century thus furnish us with satisfac¬ tory evidence, that the leading principle laid down in the. West¬ minster Confession concerning the natural liberty of the will, does not exclude, and was not intended to exclude, the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; and of course affords no evidence whatever that Jonathan Edwards’ theory touching the bondage of the will is heretical. The only thing else in the Confession that can be supposed to have any bearing upon the position taken up by Mr Stewart and Sir William Hamilton, is the statement, that our first parents were left to the liberty of their own will, and that in the exercise of this liberty they sinned and fell. In the section immediately following that on which we have been commenting, and intended to describe how this matter stood in regard to the first period of man’s history,— the first depart- ment'of his fourfold estate,— it is put in this way, “ Man in his * C. xii. vol. x. pp. 116, 119. 504 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. state of innocency had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well pleasing to God , but yet mutably so that lie might fall from it.” This is a very important feature of the theology of the .Reformers and of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century, and it has been too much overlooked, as we shall afterwards explain, by Edwards and Chalmers ; but it has no bearing whatever upon the subject of philosophical necessity. The comprehensive doctrine, that man before the fall had freedom or liberty of will in the exercise of which he sinned, — that by his fall into a state of sin he lost this freedom, — and that men now in their natural state have it not, but are through regeneration to regain it, — was during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries reckoned a leading feature of Calvinism. But for nearly a century past it has, chiefly through the influence of the writings of Edwards, been too much thrown into the background ; although a chapter in the Westminster Confession has been devoted to the exposition of it. This doctrine, of course, implies that there is a freedom or liberty of will which man may have notwithstanding God’s decrees foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass, — notwithstanding His providence exercised in regulating and controlling all events, — and notwithstanding any general laws which may have been impressed upon men’s constitution for regulating their mental processes, and especially, for determining their volitions. Calvinists have always held that all these things, — viz., the foreordination and providence of God, the general structure and framework of man’s mental constitution, and the general laws that determine his volitions, — were unaffected by the fall ; that they stood in the same relation to the first sin of Adam as to any sins subsequently committed by him or his posterity ; and that they stood in the same relation to what was good in our first parents as to what is good in regenerate men upon earth. All these things being the same both before and after the fall, it follows, that the liberty of will which they ascribed to man unfallen, and which they denied to man after he fell, — as well as the necessity, or bondage, or servitude which they ascribed to the will of men as they now come into the world, — must be wholly different in their nature and source from liberty and necessity, in any of the senses in which they are usually made subjects of discussion among philosophers. And there is no difficulty in ascertaining what this difference is. It stands out palpably on the face of their system of theology. The liberty of Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 505 will which they ascribed to man unfallen, was the effect of the tendency of his moral nature to what was good in virtue of his original righteousness, so that he could perfectly do God s will ; while at the same time he possessed that capacity mutably so that he might fall. The necessity, or servitude, or bondage, which they ascribed to the will of fallen man, consisted in the loss of the liberty above described, and in the actual prevailing tendency of his moral nature to evil because of the depravity which had o\ei- spread it, so that he could no longer will good but could only will evil. The liberty which they thus ascribed to man in his original condition, they regarded as entirely lost by the fall, and as having now no existence in men in their natural condition, 01 until re¬ stored, in some measure, by divine agency in regeneration. Liberty and necessity, in this sense and application, are entirely different in their whole nature and grounds, from liberty and necessity in the sense in which the position of Stewart and Hamil¬ ton has respect to them. The old Calvinistic divines, including the authors of the Westminster Confession, — all held, that the foreordination and providence of God precluded libeity and established necessity in some sense ; but in a sense quite different from that in which they are regarded as dependent upon righteous¬ ness or depravity of nature. Many Calvinists have regarded the foreordination and providence of God as establishing, or at least countenancing the doctrine of philosophical necessity, and as, of course, shutting out liberty of indifference, or the self-determining power of the will. But no intelligent Calvinist ever existed, who thought that there was anything in the doctrines of Calvinism, individually or collectively, which threw any difficulty or obstacle in the way of men embracing and maintaining the doctiine of philosophical necessity. For tins reason we have not thought it necessary to dwell upon any alleged inconsistency between the general principles of Cal¬ vinism and the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Mr Stewart does not allege any such inconsistency. Sir William himself rather insinuates than asserts it. The passages adduced fiom the Confession by Mr Stewart to prove his position, that the fieedom of the human will (meaning thereby the libertarian as opposed to the necessitarian view of this matter), is asserted there, are not those which contain anything distinctively Calvinistic; but are state¬ ments which merely bear directly upon freedom 01 liberty in some 506 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. sense or other. Of Sir William’s bolder and more explicit asser¬ tions, that the doctrine of philosophical necessity “ is in the face of the Confession as in the face of the Bible,” and that “the theory of Jonathan Edwards touching the bondage of the will is, on the Calvinistic standard of the Westminster Confession, not only heterodox but heretical,” he has not attempted to produce any evidence. We regret this. For we are very confident that no learning and ingenuity could have invested with plausibility a position so untenable. It is quite plain that the only passages in the Confession which have any appearance of affording counten¬ ance to his assertions, are just those which are referred to by Mr Stewart. We have adduced and considered all the passages in the Confession which could by possibility give any appearance of countenance to Sir William’s charge of heresy against Edwards ; and we have shown that when these passages are interpreted ac¬ cording to the proper meaning of the words, and according to the recognised opinions and the established usus loquendi of the Cal¬ vinistic divines of the seventeenth century, every trace of the evidence which certain expressions in them might seem to furnish in support of the charge, disappears ; and that the accusation stands out in its true character as utterly groundless. Sir William, by alleging that Edwards’ doctrine, when tried by the standard of the Confession, was not only heterodox but heretical, became bound to do a great deal more than merely produce a proof, that there is a statement in the Confession which, when carefully examined and strictly interpreted, is inconsistent with it. This, if he could have produced it, would have been enough to entitle him to pronounce the doctrine heterodox or erroneous. But the way in which he “ signalizes” the distinction between heterodox and heretical, shows that he was quite con¬ scious that he ought to do more than this. According to the received meaning of the word heretical as distinguished from heterodox, he was not entitled to apply this epithet to Edwards’ doctrine, unless he was prepared to show, that it ran counter to a statement occupying a place of prominence and of importance, and to establish this by evidence of commanding clearness and cogency. Heresy, as distinguished from mere heterodoxy, implies a palpable and decided difference in degree both with respect to the magnitude and prominence of the error, and the cogency of the evidence by wdiich its erroneous character can be established. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 507 Even if the doctrine of philosophical necessity could be proved to be erroneous, it could not, if tried by a Calvinistic standard, be regarded as an error of such serious magnitude as to warrant the designation of a heresy. No Calvinist believing in the diiine foreordination of all events can possibly think the doctiine of philosophical necessity a great and serious error, or regard it as heretical. He may possibly believe the doctrine to be erroneous — to be destitute of sufficient proof. But if he be really an intelli¬ gent Calvinist, he must see that all the leading objections against it tell equally against the Calvinistic doctrines which he holds, and that it harmonises well with his whole system of theology. What is true of a Calvinist is true, mutatis mutandis , of a Calvinistic creed. There may be nothing in the Confession to furnish direct evidence in support of the doctrine of philosophical necessity— we do not believe that there is; there may even be statements in the Confession that are inconsistent with it and ex¬ clude it — we have proved that none such have been 01 can be produced ; but the allegation of heresy as implying, in all fairness, palpable and clearly proved opposition to the Confession in a point of vital importance, is perfectly preposterous. There is nothing, then, in the Westminster Confession that need occasion difficulty to any necessitarian, acquainted with the way in which these subjects were discussed by the CaBinistic divines of the seventeenth century. If convinced of the truth of the doctrine of philosophical necessity, — whether upon the ground of the evidence directly and properly applicable to it as a ps} cho- logical question, or on the ground of its appearing to be logically deducible from the theological doctrines of God’s foreordination and providence, — there is nothing in this conviction that need prevent him from assenting to the Westminster Confession, for assuredly there is nothing in that document which either is or was intended to be inconsistent with it. Mr Stewart s statement that the freedom of the human will is asserted in the Confession is true in one sense, though not in that in which he meant it. Sii William’s assertion that Edwards’ doctrine about the will is, when tried by the standard of the Confession, heretical, is not only destitute of all solid foundation, but is disproved by every fair and reasonable consideration bearing upon the settlement of the point in dispute. We must now advert briefly to the second position we laid down, 508 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. — viz., that there is nothing in the Calvinistic system of theology or in the Westminster Confession which requires men to hold the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; or in other words, that a man may conscientiously assent to the Westminster Confession although he should reject that doctrine. Edwards and Chalmers seem to have regarded the doctrine of necessity as an indispensable part of their Calvinism. They have not, indeed, formally laid down this position and attempted to prove it. They have rather assumed it as if it were self-evident ; and usually write as if it were a matter of course, that men holding the Calvinistic doctrines of predesti¬ nation and providence must also hold their doctrine of necessity. Dr Chalmers, speaking of the philosophical doctrine of necessity and the theological doctrine of predestination, says, “ It is one and the same doctrine in different aspects and with different relations ; in the one view with relation to nature, and in the other view with relation to God.” And again, u Let the doctrine of philosophical necessity, or, theologically speaking , the doctrine of predestination, be as firmly established as it may,” etc. * We are not prepared to concur in this identification of the philosophical doctrine of necessity with the theological doctrine of predestination. We regard it as unwarrantable and injurious. We are not satisfied that the doctrine of necessity can be deduced, in the way of logical consequence, from the doctrine of predestina¬ tion. The doctrine of necessity, held in combination with the doc¬ trine of the providence of God as the creator, the upholder, and governor of the world, affords a proof of the doctrine of predes¬ tination ; for if such a system as necessity implies has been estab¬ lished by God, and is constantly superintended and controlled by Him, this must have been done for securing the accomplishment of His purposes ; and He must be actually executing His decrees, or carrying into effect His determinations, in those volitions which are the certain or necessary results of the constitution of nature, in its relation to the laws of man’s thinking, feeling, and acting. But while the doctrine of necessity, if established, clearly and directly confirms the doctrine of predestination, it is not so clear that the doctrine of predestination affords ground for inferring or deducing the doctrine of necessity. Predestination implies that the end or result is certain, and that adequate provision has * Institutes of Theology, vol. ii. pp. 357, 366, 367. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 500 been made for bringing it about. But it does not indicate anything as to what must be the nature of this provision in re¬ gard to°the different classes of events which are taking place under God’s government, including the volitions of rational and responsible beings. Were we in the condition of being able to prove, that God could not have foreseen and foreordained the voli¬ tions of rational and responsible beings, and made effectual pro¬ vision for accomplishing His purposes in this most important department of His government, without having established the system of necessity, — without having settled in accordance with that doctrine the internal laws which regulate men’s volitions, this would prove that predestination established necessity, so that every predestinarian was bound in consistency to be a necessitarian. But we have not materials to warrant us in maintaining, that God could not have certainly accomplished all His purposes in and by the volitions of responsible beings, unless He had established the scheme of necessity. And if so, there is a hiatus in every process by which we attempt to establish a logical transition from predes¬ tination to necessity, which cannot be filled up. Predestination and necessity manifestly harmonise with and fit in to each other. Sir William’s insinuation that necessity is a corruption of pure Cal¬ vinism is preposterous. Every intelligent Calvinist must be disposed to regard the doctrine of necessity with favour, as having a large amount of antecedent probability attaching to it. He must see, that there is no serious objection to the doctrine of necessity that does not equally apply to predestination ; and that the doctrine of necessity, if established, gives some confirmation to the doctrine of predestination, and throws some light upon the means by which God executes His decrees or accomplishes His purposes, so far as the volitions of responsible beings are concerned. All this is true and very evident. A predestinarian can scarcely avoid, perhaps, having a leaning to the doctrine of necessity ; but unless he can find some argument or process of reasoning which warrants him in asserting that God could not have made effectual provision for accomplishing His purposes in this department except by means of the state of matters which necessity implies, he cannot pass di¬ rectly, in the way of inference , from the one doctrine to the other. From the nature of the case, the truth of the doctrine of necessity is properly and primarily a question in philosophy. It respects directly only the laws which regulate men’s mental pro- 510 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. cesses and determine tlieir volitions. In order to settle it, we must look within ourselves, and survey our own mental operations. The materials that legitimately hear upon the decision of it, must be all derived from consciousness; though, of course, they may branch out into argumentations based upon the data which consciousness furnishes, and may thus pertain to the department of metaphysics as well as psychology. The Bible does not tell us any thing about the causes or principles that ordinarily regulate or determine men’s general exercise of their natural power of volition. It affords us no materials for ascertaining whether the laws that determine our volitions presuppose the libertarian or the necessitarian theory. It leaves all such questions to be determined by an investigation of the evidence naturally and appropriately applicable to them, — that is, by an examination of man himself, of his mental constitu¬ tion and ordinary mental processes. And not only does the Bible not determine any such psychological and metaphysical questions directly, but it does not teach any doctrines which, indirectly or by consequence, require or necessitate us to take a particular side, in any of those questions which have been controverted among philosophers upon philosophical grounds. If philosophers should profess to deduce — from a survey of men’s mental constitution, — conclusions which contradict any doctrine revealed in Scripture, this should be attended to and answered ; and no great difficulty has ever been experienced in dealing with allegations of this sort. If they should profess to find, on a survey of men’s mental consti¬ tution, grounds for adopting certain views concerning the liberty or bondage of the will, which would preclude or shut out the scriptural doctrines, that God has foreseen and foreordained what¬ soever comes to pass, — or that He is ever exercising a most wise, holy, and powerful providence over all His creatures, and all their actions, — or that fallen man, — man as he is, — hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salva¬ tion, — it would be needful and not difficult to expose the un¬ soundness of these views, or the falsehood of the inferences de¬ duced from them. But unless men profess to have established something inconsistent with these theological doctrines, we do not know that there is any particular theory concerning the will or the laws that regulate its operations, deduced upon philo¬ sophical grounds from an examination of men’s mental constitution and processes, which can be proved to be inconsistent with any Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 511 statement in the word of God, or with any of the doctrines taught there, and which must therefore, on scriptural and theological grounds, be rejected. Calvinists, in general, when they have been led to attend to this particular subject, have adopted necessitarian views, as har¬ monising most fully and obviously with their theological convic¬ tions. But this has not been universally the case. Some Cal¬ vinists have rejected the doctrine of philosophical necessity, and much larger numbers have declined to give any decisive or explicit deliverance concerning it. Some Calvinists have held that the theological doctrines of predestination and providence lead, by necessary logical sequence, to the doctrine of philosophical neces¬ sity. But it cannot he proved that either the ’certainty or im¬ mutability of the event, or the agency of God in providence in regulating and controlling men’s volitions, necessarily requires or implies this necessity ; or would be certainly precluded, by a liberty of indifference, or the self-determining power of the will. No doubt, the doctrine of necessity affords some assistance in forming a conception as to how it is that God accomplishes His purposes and controls our volitions without interfering with the essential qualities of the will or with our moral responsibility; while the self-determining power of the will seems to involve this matter in serious difficulties. But it is, we think, unwarranted and presumptuous to assert, that even a self-determining power in the will would place it beyond the sphere of the divine control, — would prevent Him in whom we live, move, and have our being, who is everywhere and at all times present in the exercise of all His perfections, who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins of the children of men, from superintending and directing all its movements according to the counsel of His own will. And unless this unwarranted and presumptuous position be taken up, it seems impossible to prove, that there is any thing in the Calvinistic system which makes it indispensable for its supporters, in point of logical consistency, to adopt the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Until this position be established, it is still open to Calvinists as to others, to examine the question as between liberty and necessity upon its own proper psychological and metaphysical grounds ; and to adopt the one side or the other, according as they may think that the evidence for the one or the other, derived from an investi¬ gation into man’s mental constitution, preponderates. 512 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. We have not ourselves, in the course of this discussion, indi¬ cated any opinion upon the precise point involved in the contro¬ versy between the libertarians and the necessitarians ; and we really cannot say that we have formed a very decided opinion in favour of either side. Upon the whole, we regard the evidence in favour of the doctrine of philosophical necessity as preponderat¬ ing. In order to dispose of this doctrine satisfactorily, it seems necessary that the argument of Edwards in favour of it, and against the self-determining power of the will, should he answered. We have never seen this done, and we scarcely think that it can he done. We have read lately the ablest and most elaborate answer that has been given to Edwards, viz., u Tappan’s Treatise on the Will.” But we' have not been convinced by it that Edwards has failed in establishing his leading position ; on the contrary, Tappan’s failure has rather confirmed us in the conviction that Edwards cannot be answered. But the only point with which we have to do at present is this, that we do not hold ourselves tied up to take either the one side or the other, by anything contained in the sacred Scriptures, in the Calvinistic system of theology, or in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Sir James Mackintosh, in an article upon Stewart’s “ Prelimi¬ nary Dissertation,” * asserted the identity of the subjects of neces¬ sity and predestination, — agreeing in the main with the views indicated by Edwards and Chalmers, but going so far as to say explicitly, that u it is not possible to make any argumentative defence of Calvinism which is not founded on the principles of necessity.” He became convinced, however, of the unsoundness of this view of the closeness of the connection between the theo¬ logical and the philosophical doctrine, and retracted it in a note subjoined to his own Preliminary Dissertation. He says there f that “ more careful reflection had corrected a confusion common to him with most writers upon these subjects.” But he now goes into the other extreme ; and besides, introduces some additional confusion, which it may be proper to correct. He now brings in, in connection with this matter, the distinction between Sublapsa- rian and Supralapsarian views ; and asserts that “ Sublapsarian predestination is evidently irreconcilable with the doctrine of ne¬ cessity,” but that u the Supralapsarian scheme may be built upon * Edinburgh Review , vol. xxxvi. f Note 0, p. 423. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 513 necessitarian principles.” Although Mackintosh had not, in all probability, turned over so many theological books as Hamilton, he was well acquainted with theological subjects. But the state¬ ment which we have quoted from him is certainly inaccurate. The reason he assigns why Sublapsarian predestination is irrecon¬ cilable with necessity is, that the Sublapsarians admit that men had free-will before the fall, which he thinks Supralapsarians cannot do. The inaccuracy of this notion must be evident from the explanation given in the former part of this article, as to the real nature, import, and grounds of the freedom of will which man had before the fall, and which he lost by sin. The free will which has been represented as possessed by man before the fall and as lost by sin , has no connection whatever with the discussion about philosophical necessity, and may be, and has been held equally by Sublapsarian and Supralapsarian Calvinists. It is much to be regretted that Stewart, Mackintosh, and Hamilton, should have all concurred in putting forth erroneous representations upon this subject. The errors of such men it is an imperative duty to point out and to correct. But it is still more imperative to point out the oversights or errors of men who are much higher authorities upon theological matters, such as Edwards and Chalmers. We have already explained the grounds on which we hold the assumption by these great men of the iden¬ tity, or the necessary connection, of the theological doctrine of predestination and of the philosophical doctrine of necessity, to be unwarranted. We have indicated, though very briefly and im¬ perfectly, the considerations by which we think it can be shown, that the Calvinistic doctrines of predestination and providence, as taught in Scripture, do not either include, or necessarily lead to, the doctrine of necessity; and may be fully expounded and applied by men who refuse to admit, or who even positively reject, that doctrine. The doctrine of necessity, when once established, leads by strict logical sequence to predestination, unless men take refuge in atheism. But it does not seem to follow e converso, that the doctrine of predestination leads necessarily to the doctrine of necessity ; as men may hold, that God could certainly execute His decrees and infallibly accomplish His purposes in and by the voli¬ tions of men, even though He had not impressed upon their mental constitution the law of necessity, as that by which its processes are regulated and its volitions determined. VOL I. 33 514 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. We would now advert, very briefly, to the injurious tendency and consequences of this assumed identity or necessary connection of the two doctrines, — the theological and philosophical. It tends to throw into the background the true scriptural, theological doc¬ trine of necessity, — the doctrine of the servitude or bondage of the will of fallen man, — man as he is, — to sin because of the depra¬ vity which has overspread his moral nature. Not that Edwards or Chalmers have denied or rejected this doctrine. This would certainly have been heresy ; for the doctrine is very prominently and explicitly asserted in the Westminster Confession. It is, in¬ deed, plainly involved in what they were accustomed to teach con¬ cerning the entire corruption and depravity of human nature ; and they would have had no hesitation in admitting this, and in pro¬ fessing their belief in the doctrine as a portion of God’s revealed truth. Still, it is palpable that the doctrine of the bondage of the will of man to sin, because of depravity, has no prominence what¬ ever in their writings when they treat of the doctrine of philoso¬ phical necessity. This we regard as an evil ; and we have no doubt that it is to be ascribed to the fact of their minds beino1 O engrossed, when they contemplated man’s natural condition, by the idea of a necessity of a different kind, but of far inferior im¬ portance in itself, and resting upon lower and more uncertain grounds. The practice of distinguishing, in the exposition of this sub¬ ject, between the freedom of man’s will in his unfallen and in his fallen condition, and indeed of viewing it distinctively with re¬ ference to the different stages or periods of his fourfold state, — as unfallen, fallen, regenerate, or glorified, — has prevailed in the church in almost all ages. These views were fully brought out and applied by Augustine. They had a place in the speculations of the schoolmen, as may be seen in Peter Lombard’s Four Books of Sentences,* and in the commentaries upon it. They were em¬ braced and promulgated by the whole body of the Reformers, both Lutheran and Calvinistic. They have a prominent place in the writings of the great systematic divines of the seventeenth century. They have a prominent place in the Westminster Con¬ fession, — the 9th chapter, entitled “ Of free will,” being entirely devoted to the statement of them. And what is in some respects * Lib. ii., Dist. 25. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 515 peculiarly interesting, the doctrine of the loss of man’s free will by the fall, and of the servitude of the will of fallen man to sin because of depravity, was held by Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel, and their followers, — the best men and the best theologians the Church of Rome has ever produced; — and in them was condemned by papal bulls, — a fact which confirms our conviction, that this is one of the great cardinal doctrines of Scripture, which may be said to have the support of the concurrent testimony of the uni¬ versal Church of Christ, — of the great body of those whom Christ has enlightened and sanctified. This servitude or bondage of the will of man to sin because of depravity, was the only necessity which the great body of the most competent judges in all ages have regarded as being taught in Scripture as a portion of God’s revealed truth, or as being necessary for the full exposition of the other cognate doctrines of Christian theology. This necessity now attaching to the human will they regarded as a property of man, viewed not simply as a creature, but as a fallen creature, — not as springing from his mere relation to God as the foreordainer of all things and the actual ruler and governor of the world, nor from the mere operation of laws which God has impressed upon the general structure and framework of man’s mental constitution, — but from a cause distinct from all these, that is, from the depra¬ vity, or prevailing aversion from God and tendency to evil, super¬ induced upon man’s character by the fall. If this be indeed the scriptural view of the bondage of man’s will, it ought surely to be openly proclaimed, and pressed prominently upon our attention, in¬ stead of being overlooked or thrown into the background, in favour of another kind of necessity, as it certainly is in the writings of Edwards and Chalmers on that subject. They would, no doubt, have admitted the doctrine and defended it, if it had been pressed upon their attention ; but, in point of fact, they have scarcely ever adverted to it. It seems to have been in their minds absorbed or thrown into the background, and kept out of view, by the more general subject of liberty and necessity in the form in which it has been commonly discussed by philosophers, and in which it is held to apply to man at all times, and irrespectively of his history and position as fallen and sinful. In Edwards’ great work on the u Freedom of the Will,” there is no reference to this distinction between the liberty of the will in man unfallen and in man fallen, or to the bondage of the will of fallen man to sin because of de- 516 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. pravity. It contains only an elaborate proof of the doctrine of philosophical necessity, as opposed to a self-determining power of the will and a liberty of indifference, with an answer to the objec¬ tions commonly adduced against it. This we cannot bnt regard as a serious defect ; while, at the same time, it is important to ob¬ serve, that his proof of the compatibility of the philosophical doctrine of necessity with responsibility and moral agency, is at least equally applicable to the defence of the scriptural and theo¬ logical doctrine of man’s inability because of depravity to will anything spiritually good ; and especially the great principle which he has so conclusively established, viz., u that the essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of heart, and acts of the will, lies not in their cause but in their nature.” The influence of the writings of Edwards has tended greatly to throw this important scriptural doctrine of the bondage of the will of man to sin because of depravity into the background; and Dr Chalmers having in this respect walked very much in his footsteps, has thrown the influence of his wonderful powers and great name into the same scale. Edwards and Chalmers have not gone in face of the Con¬ fession, or afforded any plausible ground for stamping upon them the brand of heresy. But they have certainly in their engross¬ ment with this philosophical doctrine of necessity, about which the Confession of Faith says nothing, left out of view an important theological doctrine, to which the Confession gives prominence ; and which certainly ought to have a distinct and definite place assigned to it in the exposition of the scheme of Christian theology. Not only, however, has the theological doctrine of the servitude of the will of man to sin, or the inability of man in his natural condition to will anything spiritually good because of depravity, been thrown into the background by the undue exaltation of a merely philosophical topic ; but the impression has been produced, that the maintenance of some of the leading and peculiar doctrines of Christianity is most intimately connected with, or rather de¬ pendent upon, the establishment of certain philosophical theories ; and this impression is neither true nor safe. Edwards and Chalmers seem always to assume that the theo¬ logical doctrine of predestination, and the philosophical doctrine of necessity, are identical, or at least are so connected, that they must stand or fall together ; and the impression thus produced is fitted Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 517 to lead men to regard tlie proof or evidence of the one doctrine as bound up with, or dependent upon, the proof or evidence of the other. And we cannot but deprecate this result, as fitted to elevate the doctrine of necessity to a place and influence to which, how¬ ever fully it may be established as true by its own appropriate evidence, it has not, and cannot have, a rightful claim ; and as fitted also to lay upon the scriptural doctrine of predestination a burden or servitude to which it cannot be legitimately subjected. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination has a sufficiently strong foundation in direct evidence, both from reason and Scripture, to maintain itself in opposition to all inferential objections to it, and there are really no others, — and to bear up along with it every position, theological or philosophical, that can be really 'proved to be involved in or deducible from it. But still, as it is a doctrine which usually calls forth strong prejudices, and is assailed by plausible objections, it is right that we should beware of attempt¬ ing to burden it with any weight which it is not bound to carry ; or representing it as obliged to stand or fall with a doctrine so much inferior to it, at once in intrinsic importance, and in the kind and degree of evidence on which it rests. It has never been alleged that there is anything in the West¬ minster Confession, apart from its statement of the great doctrines of Calvinism, which seems to require men to hold the doctrine of philosophical necessity ; so that this point does not require any separate treatment. Before quitting this subject, we would like to give some little explanation of the remaining portion of the 9th chapter of the Westminster Confession on free mil. The chapter, as a whole, is a very remarkable and impressive, — we might almost call it eloquent, — statement of the scriptural truths bearing upon this subject, through all the leading stages in the eventful history of man, or of the human race. We have already considered the first section, setting forth the general doctrine of the natural liberty of the will, which it must always retain, and which it could not lose without ceasing to be will, viewed as an essential quality of a rational and responsible being ; and excluding the determination of it to good or evil by force or by any absolute necessity of nature. Although the will has a natural liberty which prevents it from being determined to good or evil by such causes or influences as would manifestly exclude deliberate choice and spontaneous 518 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX, agency, yet it has, in point of fact, at different periods or in different conditions, being determined both to good and to evil. To each of the four great eras in this matter, or the different aspects in man’s fourfold state, one of the four remaining sections in this chapter is devoted. To the first of these, or section 2d, — describing man’s freedom of will in his state of innocency, — we have already adverted, and we need not now dwell upon it. The 3d section, — describing the condition of men as to free will in their natural fallen state, — is in some respects the most important, as bringing out a leading and most influential feature in the cha¬ racter of all men as they come into the world ; and it is most intimately connected with the subject we have been discussing, in as much as it describes the only necessity which the Scripture re¬ presents as attaching to man by nature, and the only necessity therefore which can be held as needful to be taken into account, in expounding the general scheme of Christian doctrine. It is this : — u Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” The fundamental proposition here is, that man hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation ; and the remainder of the statement is intended, partly to indicate the leading ground on which this doctrine rests, viz., that a natural man is altogether averse from spiritual good and dead in sin, — and partly to bring out the great practical conclusion which results from it, viz., that he is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. The fundamental doctrine is, that man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to anything spiritually good ; and, of course, is in entire bondage or servitude to sin, that is, to his own natural sinful dispositions or tendencies. The question is, — Is this really the view which the word of God gives us of man’s natural condition and capacities in regard to spiritual objects and results ? and this question is to be decided by a careful investigation and application of all the scriptural state¬ ments and principles bearing upon the subject. Does the Scrip¬ ture teach us that man, in his natural condition, and antecedently to his becoming the subject of the gracious operations of God’s Spirit, cannot really will anything spiritually good ? and, more Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 519 especially, that lie is unable to will to turn from sin unto Gocl, or to prepare liimself for so turning 1 It seems plain enough that this doctrine is involved in, or clearly and certainly deducible from, that of the complete and entire corruption or depravity of human nature. The doctrine of original sin or of native depravity,— in the sense in which it is held by orthodox divines, implies that man, in his natural condition, has no tendency or inclination towards what is spiritually good, — that all his tendencies or inclina¬ tions are towards what is evil, — and that he does and can do nothing which is really pleasing and acceptable to God. . If he is wholly averse from all good and wholly inclined to all evil, it would seem that he cannot will any thing good ; because the will or power of volition must be determined and characterised by the general ten¬ dency or disposition of the moral nature of the being who possesses and exercises it. God can and must always will what is good, because His moral nature is essentially and unchangeably holy. Man in his unfallen state could always will what is good, or as the Confession says, had freedom and power to will and to do what was acceptable to God, because he was possessed of a pure and holy moral nature, endowed with original righteousness. And upon the same ground, because man now has a wholly depraved or corrupted nature, without any original righteousness, he has no ability of will to any thing spiritually good. This doctrine of the utter bondage of the will of men to sin because of depravity, or of the inability of men in their natuial fallen condition to will or to do any thing spiritually good, is not entirely dependent for its scriptural evidence upon its being in¬ volved in, or necessarily deducible , from the doctrine of the entire and total, and not merely partial or comparative, corruption of man’s moral nature by the fall. For there are scriptural. state¬ ments about men’s natural state which bear directly and imme¬ diately upon the more limited topic of their inability to will what is spiritually good. Still the connection between the two doctrines is such as to remind us of the vast importance of being thoroughly decided in our convictions as to what Scripture teaches concern¬ ing the natural state of man as a fallen and sinful creature, and thoroughly familiar with the scriptural materials by which our convictions may be established and defended. It was a seivice of inestimable value which Edwards rendered to sound Christian theology, when, in his work upon “ Original Sin,” he so conclu- 520 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. sively and unanswerably established from Scripture, reason and experience, the great doctrine — “ that all mankind are under the influence of a prevailing effectual tendency in their nature to that sin and wickedness which implies their utter and eternal ruin.” The conclusive demonstration of this u great Christian doctrine,” or the unanswerable establishment of this great fact as an actual feature in the condition of all men, as they come into this world, entitles Edwards’ work upon u Original Sin,” notwithstanding some measure of obscurity and confusion on the subject of imputation, to be regarded as one of the most valuable, permanent, possessions of the Christian church. The next stage in the history of the human race with respect to free will, viewed as being virtually the history of a man, — of one man, — at (Afferent periods (and this is the light in which the mat¬ ter is really represented to us in Scripture), is thus described in the Confession. * u When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bond¬ age under sin, and by His grace enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. Yet so as that by reason of his re¬ maining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.” Here, again, there is freedom of will ascribed to man in his regenerate state, — that is, an ability to will good as well as to will evil. In the regeneration of his nature the reigning power of depravity is subdued, and all the effects which it produced are more or less fully taken away. One of the principal of these effects was the utter bondage or servitude of the will to sin, because of the ungodly and depraved tendency of the whole moral nature to what was displeasing and offensive to God. This ungodly and depraved tendency is now in conver¬ sion, to a large extent, removed, and an opposite tendency is im¬ planted. Thus the will is set free or emancipated from the bond¬ age under which it was held. It is no longer subjected to a necessity, — arising from the general character and tendency of man’s moral nature, — to will only what is evil, but is now able also freely to will what is good ; and it does freely will what is good, — though from the remaining corruption and depravity of man’s nature, — it still wills also what is evil. It is not emancipated from the influence of God’s decrees foreordaining whatever comes to * Sec. iv. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 521 pass. It is not placed beyond the control of His providence, whereby in the execution of His decrees He e\ er rules and governs all His creatures and all their actions. It is not set fice from the operation of those general laws which God has impressed upon man’s mental constitution, for directing the exercise of his faculties and regulating his mental processes. But it is set free from the dominion of depravity ; and thereby it is exempted fiom the necessity of willing only what is evil, and made equally able freely to will what is good. It has recovered, to a large extent, the only liberty it ever lost ; and it is determined and characterised now , — as it had been in all the previous stages of man s history, both before and after his fall, — by his general moral character and tendencies ; — free to good, when man had the image of God and original righteousness, but yet mutable so that it could will evil, in bondage, when man was the slave of sin, so that it could aa ill only e\Til and not good, — emancipated, when man was regenerated, so that it could freely will good as well as evil, though still bear¬ ing many traces of the former bondage and of its injurious effects ; — and finally, to adopt again the language of the Confession, in closing the admirable chapter on this subject, u to be made pei- fectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory. The extract from Sir William Hamilton, on which chiefly we have been commenting, occurs in connection with a discussion embodying some important and valuable truth, — truth which ad¬ mits of an obvious application to the exposition and defence of Christian, and especially of Calvinistic, doctrines. He declares his satisfaction in being able to show, that his doctrine of u the conditioned” harmonises with the general spirit of divine rcAre- lation, by inculcating humility in our speculations in the investi¬ gation of truth because of the imperfection and limitation of our faculties, — by showing the unwarrantableness and absurdity of making our capacity of distinctly conceiving and fully compre¬ hending doctrines, the measure or standard of their absolute truth, or of their consistency with each other ; and the perfect reason¬ ableness of belieAnng upon sufficient grounds, things which in some respects are beyond our grasp, and cannot be fully taken in or comprehended by the exercise of our faculties when brought directly to bear upon them. Now all this is very important truth in connection with the exposition and defence of the great doctrines of revelation, and especially of the profound and mysterious doc- 522 CALVINISM, AND THE [Essay IX. trines of Calvinism. Sir William has not here put forth any thing which is not in substance to be found in the writings of theologians, and which, indeed, has not been brought forward more or less fully, and established more or less conclusively, by every intelligent defender of Calvinism. But it is not very com¬ mon to find matter of this sort in the writings of philosophers ; and Sir William, by giving it his sanction, has done a real service to the cause of truth and orthodoxy. He could not, however, let this topic pass without indulging himself in some characteristic statements to which it may be proper briefly to advert. In his usual spirit he labours to convey the impression, that these views about the limitation of our faculties, and the bearing of this upon the discussion of mysterious doctrines, have not in general been understood and applied aright by theologians. He seems half inclined to insinuate, that these principles were little known till he promulgated them. But this was rather too absurd ; and ac¬ cordingly he feels constrained to make the following concession : — “ It must, however, be admitted, that confessions of the total inability of man to conceive the union of what he should believe united, are to be found, and they are found not perhaps less fre¬ quently, and certainly in more explicit terms, among Catholic than among Protestant theologians.”* It is certainly quite true, as is here asserted, that such statements “ are to he found,” — and indeed they constitute a perfectly familiar commonplace, — among ortho¬ dox theologians. The alleged greater explicitness of Catholics than Protestants in stating these principles, is a mere gratis dictum , which has no foundation in the realities of the case. This state¬ ment seems to have been hazarded for the mere purpose of usher¬ ing in a quotation from Cardinal Cajetan, which, — though about the best thing ever written upon the subject, — Sir William felt confident was wholly unknown to theologians now-a-days. He described the quotation as “the conclusion of what, though wholly overlooked , appears to me as the ablest and truest criticism of the many fruitless, if not futile, attempts at conciliating the ways of God to the understanding of man, in the great articles of divine foreknowledge and predestination (which are both embarrassed by the self-same difficulties) and human free will.” Sir William describes the passage as “ wholly overlooked,” notwithstanding its * Discussions, p. 627. Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 523 superlative merits. Now it so happens that we remembei two in¬ stances,— and there are in all probability more —in which this very quotation from Cajetan had been produced and commended by eminent writers, — one of them being no other than Bayle, who so often furnishes passages to u persons of ordinary information. Gisbertus Voetius, one of the best known names in the theology of the seventeenth century, — a man who was, at least, as tho¬ roughly versant in the literature of theology as Sir V illiam was in that of philosophy, and who knew as much of the literature of philosophy as Sir William did of that of theology, has quoted with approbation a part of this passage from Cajetan, in a Dis- sertatio Epistolica de Termino Vitae, * originally published in 1634, and republished at Utrecht in 1669 in the Appendix to the 5tli volume of his u Selectee Disputationes. The passage in Ba^le is to he found in the second part of his “ Eesponse aux Questions d’un Provincial,” f where the extract from Cajetan is given as quoted with approbation by an eminent Dominician theologian, Alvarez, in a u Treatise de Auxiliis Divinaj Gratioe. Sii W illiam, then, was mistaken in representing this passage in Cajetan as u wholly overlooked.” W e do not suppose, indeed, that it w as suggested to him by Voet or Bayle, for we rather suspect, espe¬ cially as the passage after all contains nothing very extraordinary, — that it was produced and paraded in the honest belief that no one knew anything about it hut himself. It may he worth while to mention, that the discussion in con¬ nection with which this passage is introduced by Bayle, is \ eiy similar to that in which Sir William brings it in. Bayle was doing on that occasion just what Sir William did in the immedi¬ ately following part of his Appendix, — viz., collecting what he calls u Testimonies to the limitation of our knowledge from the limita¬ tion of our faculties.” Bayle had often spoken very much to the same effect as Sir William has done, about the reasonableness and obligation of believing when we cannot know and fully compre¬ hend. But this, coming from Bayle, was suspected of being in¬ tended to undermine the foundations of a rational faith ; and to amount, in substance, very much to the same thing as Ilume s well-known sneer about our holy religion being founded not on reason but on faith. Bayle defended himself against these * P. 107. | f Chap. 161, CEuvres , vol. iii. p. 837. 524 CALVINISM, AND PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. [Essay IX. charges in the 2d and 3d of the u Eclaircissemens,” subjoined to his Dictionary ; and more formally and elaborately, in the second part of his “ Reponse aux Questions d’un Provincial.” He was contending then against M. Jacquelot, who was a minister of the French Protestant Church, and after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, settled as minister of the French Church in Berlin. Jacquelot wrote a series of three works against Bayle ; and, though he was a man of real ability, he certainly gave his skilful adversary some advantage over him, by taking ground which, in the present day, we would describe as too rationalistic. Several other eminent men took part in the controversy, especially La Placette, who, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, became minister of the French Protestant Church at Copenhagen. Dif¬ ferent grounds were taken by the different combatants in oppos¬ ing Bayle ; and then some interesting discussions arose among themselves, as to the best ground to be taken in dealing with the great sceptic. The controversy thus, viewed as a whole, became extremely curious and interesting. W e cannot dwell upon it ; and can only remark, that Bayle had no difficulty in producing from many eminent men, both theologians and philosophers, quotations which certainly seemed very much the same in substance with his own statements, however different they might be in spirit and object ; and that these quotations are in some instances identical with, and in general very similar to, those which Sir William has collected as “ Testimonies to the limitation of our knowledge from the limitation of our faculties.” CALVINISM, AND ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION.* One of the leading forms which, in the present day, aversion to divine truth exhibits, is a dislike to precise and definite statements upon the great subjects brought before us in the sacred Scrip¬ tures. This dislike to precision and definiteness in doctrinal state¬ ments, sometimes assumes the form of reverence for the Bible, — as if it arose from an absolute deference to the authority of the divine word, and an unwillingness to mix up the reasonings and deduc¬ tions of men with the direct declarations of God. We believe that it arises, — much more frequently and to a much greater ex tent, — from a dislike to the controlling influence of Scripture, — from a desire to escape, as far as possible without denying its authority, from the trammels of its regulating power as an infal¬ lible rule of faith and duty. It is abundantly evident, from the statements of Scripture as well as from the experience of every age and country, that men, in their natural condition, unrenewed by divine grace, have a strong aversion to right views of the divine character and of the way of salvation, or to the great system of doc¬ trines revealed to us in the Bible ; and are anxious to escape from any apparent obligation to believe them. The most obvious and * British and Foreign Evangelical Review. October, 1861. “ Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of the Apostle Paul.” Essay III. On Election. By Rich¬ ard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. Seventh edition. London. 1854. 526 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. effectual way of accomplishing this, is to deny the divine origin and authority of the sacred Scriptures, — their title and their fitness to be a rule of faith or standard of doctrine. And when men, from whatever cause, do not see their way to do this plainly and openly, they often attempt it, or something like it, in an indi¬ rect and insidious way, by distorting and perverting the statements of Scripture — by evading their fair meaning and application, — or by devising pretences for declining to turn them to full account as a revelation of God’s will to men, or to derive from them the whole amount of information about divine and eternal things which they seem fitted and intended to convey. It has been the generally received doctrine of orthodox divines, and it is in entire accordance with reason and common sense, that we are bound to receive as true, on God’s authority, not only what is u expressly set down in Scripture,” but also what, u by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture ; ” * and heretics, in every age and of every class, have, even when they made a profession of receiving what is expressly set down in Scripture, shown the greatest aversion to what are sometimes called Scripture consequences, — that is, inferences or deductions from scriptural statements, beyond what is expressly contained in the mere words of Scripture, as they stand in the page of the sacred record. Some interesting discussion on the subject of the warrantableness, the validity, and the binding obligation of Scrip¬ ture consequences took place, in the early part of last century, among the English Presbyterians, when some of them had been led to embrace Arian views. With the dishonesty which the history of the church proves to have been so generally a marked characteristic of heretics and men of progress, those of them who had really, in their convictions, abandoned the generally received doctrine of the Trinity, professed, at first, to object only to the unscriptural terms in which the doctrine was usually embodied ; declaimed about freedom of thought and ecclesiastical tyranny; and denounced all Scripture consequences as unwarrantable and pre¬ carious, — while they were, of course, quite willing to subscribe to the ipsissima verba of Scripture. But the progress of the discus¬ sion soon showed that these were hypocritical pretences ; and that the men who employed them had deliberately adopted opinions in * Westminster Confession, c. i. s. 6. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 527 regard to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which have been generally repudiated by the church of Christ, and which could no more be brought out fully and distinctly as opposed to what they reckoned error, in the mere words of Scripture , than the sounder views which they rejected. Upon the occasion to which we have referred, the repudiation of Scripture consequences, and the opposition to precise and defi¬ nite views on doctrinal subjects, were directed chiefly against the doctrine of the Trinity. In the present day, these views and ten¬ dencies are directed chiefly against the doctrine of a real vicarious atonement for the sins of men, and against the peculiai doctrines of the Calvinistic system of theology. Not that the true scriptu¬ ral doctrine of the Trinity is more relished by men of rationalistic and sceptical tendencies, than it was in former times. It is not so. But men of this stamp seem generally, now-a-days, to be disposed to favour the attempt to evade or explain away this great doctrine, by adopting a kind of Platonic Sabellianism ; and employing this as a sort of warrant for using not only the ipsissima verba of Scripture, but even a great deal of the language which has been commonly approved of by orthodox divines, as embody ing the substance of what Scripture teaches upon this subject. The doc¬ trine of the atonement stands in this somewhat peculiar predica¬ ment among the great fundamental articles of revealed truth, that it was never subjected to a thorough, searching, controversial discussion till the time of Socinus. The consequence of this is, that, — though there is satisfactoi’y evidence that it was held in sub¬ stance by the universal church ever since the apostolic age,— there is a considerable amount of vagueness and indefiniteness, and a considerable deficiency of precise and accurate statement upon it, in the symbols of the ancient church and in the writings of the Fathers; and that even in the Confessions of the Reformed churches, — there being no controversy on this topic with the Church of Rome,— it is not brought out so fully and precisely as most of the other fundamental doctrines of the Christian system. These facts have tended somewhat to encourage the practice, so common in the present day, of explaining away the true doctrine of the atonement, by concealing it in vague and indefinite language, under the pretence of repudiating Scripture consequences and ad¬ hering to the ipsissima verba of revelation. The leading presump¬ tion, so far as mere human authority is concerned, in opposition 528 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. to these latitudinarian tendencies, is this, — that they virtually re¬ solve into a defence of Socinianism ; and that Socinus and his followers have been always regarded, both by the Church of Koine and by the great body of the Protestant churches, as deniers and opposers of the great fundamental principles of the scheme of revealed truth, and as unworthy of the designation of Christians. The doctrines of Calvinism are, as might be expected, dealt with in this rationalistic and sceptical age, very much in the same way as the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement. It is, in¬ deed, only in the Calvinistic system of theology, that the doctrines of the proper divinity and vicarious atonement of Christ, and of the agency of the Holy Spirit, are fully developed in their practical application. Arminians admit the doctrines of the divinity and atonement of Christ, and the agency of the Spirit, into their system of theology. But they do not fully apply them in some of their most important practical bearings and consequences. And, more especially, the general principles of their system preclude them from admitting, the certain and infallible efficacy of these great provisions in securing the results which they were intended to accomplish. If the eternal and only-begotten Son of God assumed human nature into personal union with the divine ; if He suffered and died as the surety and substitute of sinners, that He might satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God ; and if, as one leading result of His mediation, He has brought into operation the agency of the third Person of the Godhead in order to com¬ plete the work of saving sinners ; it seems a certain and unavoidable inference, that such stupendous arrangements as these must embody a provision for certainly effecting the whole result con¬ templated, whether that result was the salvation of all, or only of a portion, of the fallen race of man. Now, the Arminian sys¬ tem of theology not only does not exhibit any provision adequate to secure this result, but plainly precludes it ; inasmuch as it is quite possible, for anything which that system contains, that the whole human race might perish, — that no sinner might be saved. Arminianism thus tends to depreciate and disparage both the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit, in their beai’ing upon the great object they were intended to accomplish, the salvation of sinful men. It is only the Calvinistic views of the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, that are free from the great fundamental Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 529 objection to which we have referred, of making no adequate pro¬ vision for securing the result intended. The Calvinistic doctrines, in regard to the work of Christ and the agency of the Spirit, are thus in beautiful harmony with the other departments of that system of theology, — with those doc¬ trines which are commonly regarded as the special peculiarities of Calvinism. It is, we are persuaded, in some measure, because of the vague and indefinite position in which the other departments of the Arminian system require its adherents to leave the subjects of the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit, — viewed in their relation to the practical result contemplated, — that they have been able to retain a profession of the divinity and atonement of Christ and of the agency of the Spirit, notwithstanding the rationalism on which the Arminian system of theology is really based. The tendency of Arminianism is to throw the work of the Son and of the Spirit, in the salvation of sinners, into the background, and to lead to vagueness and indefiniteness in the statement of the truth concerning them ; while, in regard to those great doctrines which Calvinists and Arminians hold in common, in opposition to the Socinians, — as well as in regard to the peculiar doctrines of their own system, — Calvinists hold clear, precise, and definite opinions. This, in right reason, ought to be held to be a presumption of their truth ; although with many, especially in the present day, it is held to furnish a plausible argument against them. Calvinism unfolds most fully and explicitly the whole system of doctrine revealed in the sacred Scriptures. It brings out most prominently and explicitly the sovereign agency of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the salvation of sinners ; while it most thoroughly humbles and abases men, as the worthless and helpless recipients of the divine mercy and bounty. Calvinism thus conies into full and direct collision with all the strongest tendencies and prepossessions of ungodly and unrenewed men ; and has, of course, been assailed with every species of objection. It cannot, indeed, with any great plausibility, be alleged, that it is founded only on Scripture consequences, — that is, inferences or deductions from scriptural statements. For Calvinists undertake to produce from Scripture, statements which directly and explicitly assert all their leading peculiar doctrines ; and if the Calvinistic interpretation of these statements be just and well founded, it is plain that their fundamental principles are VOL. I. 34 530 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. directly and explicitly sanctioned by the word of God. The case is very different with their opponents. Arminians, of course, undertake to show that the statements founded on by Calvinists are erroneously interpreted by them ; and that, when rightly understood, they furnish no adequate support to Calvinism. But they scarcely allege that there are any scriptural statements which directly and explicitly either assert Arminianism, or contradict Calvinistic doctrines. The defence of Arminianism, and the opposition to Calvinism, are based chiefly upon inferences or deductions from Scripture statements ; and statements, too, it is important to remark, which do not bear directly and immediately iipon the precise points controverted. The scriptural argument for Arminianism and against Calvinism, consists chiefly in a proof, that God is holy, and just, and good ; that He is not the author of sin, and is not a respecter of persons ; that men are responsible for all their actions, and are justly chargeable with guilt and liable to punishment, when they refuse to obey God’s law and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ ; and then, in the inference or deduction, that the undeniable truth of these views of God and man excludes Calvinism, and establishes Arminianism. This is really the substance of the scriptural argument for Arminianism and against Calvinism ; while it is scarcely alleged by Arminians, that there are any scriptural statements which directly and immediately disprove or exclude the doctrines of Calvinism. On the other hand, it is contended by Calvinists, that their views are not only directly and explicitly asserted in many scriptural state¬ ments, but are also sanctioned by inferences or deductions from scriptural views of the attributes and moral government of God, and of the natural condition and capacities of man. But though on these grounds, and by these processes, an im¬ pregnable argument can be built up in favour of Calvinism, yet it has many formidable difficulties to contend with. The views which it unfolds of the attributes and moral government of God, of the natural condition and capacities of man, and of the way of salvation as regulated and determined by these views of what God is and of what man is, are utterly opposed to all the natural no¬ tions and tendencies of ignorant and irreligious men ; and the very clearness, definiteness, and precision with which all these views are brought out and applied, are felt by many, especially in the present day, as strengthening and aggravating all the oh- Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 531 jections against them. The leading objections against Galvinism, — though based principally upon inferences or deduction from admitted truths, — are so obvious as to occur at once to every one^ whenever the subject is presented to him ; and they are possessed of very considerable plausibility. They are just in substance those which the Apostle Paul plainly gives us to understand would certainly, and as a matter of course, be directed against the doctrine which he taught. The apostle had laid down and established the great principle, “ It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” — “ He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth.” He then assumes that, as a matter of course, this principle would be objected to, — that men's natural notions would rise up in re¬ bellion against it. u Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?”* — which is just, in plain terms, alleging that the apostle’s doctrine made God the author of sin, and destroyed man’s responsibility. And the apostle, in dealing in the following verses with this objection, makes no attempt to explain away the doctrine which he had laid down, or to back out of it ; he does not withdraw or qualify the outspoken Calvinism which he had so plainly enunciated, and substitute for it the smooth and plausible Arminianism, which would at once have completely removed all appearance of ground for the objec¬ tion. On the contrary, he, without qualification or hesitation, adheres to the doctrine he had stated ; and disposes of the objec¬ tion just as Calvinists, — following his example, — have always done, by resolving the whole matter into the unsearchable perfections and the sovereign supremacy of God, and the natural ignorance, helplessness, and worthlessness of man. The whole substance of what has been, or can be, plausibly alleged against Calvinism, is contained in the objection, which the apostle expected to be adduced against the doctrine he taught ; and the whole substance of what is necessary for defending Cal¬ vinism, is contained in, or suggested by, the way in which he dis¬ posed of the objection. But the subject has given rise, in every age, to a great deal of ingenious and elaborate speculation ; and this speculation has been frequently of a very unwarranted, pre¬ sumptuous, and even offensive description, — the presumption and * Rom. ix. 19. 532 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. offensiveness being principally, though we admit not exclusively, exhibited on the side of the Arminians. We do not intend to enter upon a general discussion of tbe great leading objections which have been adduced against the Calvinistic system of theo¬ logy, and of the way and manner in which these objections should be dealt with and disposed of. We have already indicated briefly, the leading considerations which should be brought to bear upon this subject, and which, when expounded and applied, are quite sufficient to dispose of all the plausible, — and, at first sight, appa¬ rently formidable, — objections that are commonly adduced against Calvinism ; and thus to show, that the whole of the strong, posi¬ tive evidence in support of it, — founded both on direct and express statements of Scripture, bearing immediately upon the points con¬ troverted, and also on clear and satisfactory inferences or deduc¬ tions from the great general principles unfolded there, concerning God and man, the work of the Son and the Spirit, and the way of salvation, — stands untouched and unimpaired, and ought to command the assent and consent of our understandings and our hearts. We mean to confine ourselves, in a great measure, to a consideration of some misapprehensions which have been put forth in the present day, in regard to the practical application of Calvinism ; and to an attempt to show that these misapprehensions arise from partial, defective, and erroneous conceptions on this whole subject. There is only one topic connected with the more speculative aspects of the question, on which we wish to make some observa¬ tions, viz., the connection between election and reprobation, — as it is often called, — and the use which the Arminians commonly attempt to make in controversial discussion of the latter of these doctrines. We had occasion, formerly, to censure the course of procedure usually adopted by the Arminians in this matter. But we think it deserving of somewhat further discussion, — as this will afford us an opportunity of exposing a very unfair, but very plausible, controversial artifice, which we fear has done much in¬ jury to what we believe to be the cause of God and truth. It is the common practice of theologians, — though there are some diversities in this respect, — to employ the word predestina¬ tion as comprehending the whole of God’s decrees or purposes, His resolutions or determinations, with respect to the ultimate destiny, the eternal condition, of mankind; and to regard elec- Essay X.] PEACTICAL APPLICATION. 533 tion and reprobation as two divisions of tlie subject, falling under tlie general head of predestination, and exhausting it. Election comprehends the decrees or purposes of God in regard to those of the human race who are ultimately saved ; while reprobation is commonly used as a general designation of His decrees or purposes in regard to those men who finally perish. It is admitted hy Arminians as well as Calvinists, that God decreed 01 resolved from eternity to do whatever He does or effects in time ; and con¬ versely, that whatever He does in time He from eternity decreed or resolved to do. This is not, on the part of the Arminians, any thing tantamount to an admission of the great fundamental prin¬ ciple of Calvinism,— viz., that “ God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchange¬ ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass * for they hold that many things come to pass, — such as the actions of free and moially responsible beings, — of which God is not the author 01 cause. These things, Arminians allege, God does not do or effect ; and con¬ sequently He did not from eternity resolve to do or effect them. But whatever God really does or effects in time, whatev er comes to pass by His agency, so that He is to be regarded as the author or efficient cause of it, they admit that He must be regarded as having from eternity decreed or resolved to do or effect. It is important to remember that intelligent Arminians concede this general principle ; for it is very common among the low er class of Arminian writers, to talk as if there was some special and peculiar difficulty in the eternity of the divine decrees or pui poses, beyond and in addition to what is involved in the execution of them in time. But this is a mere fallacy, intended to make an impression upon the minds of unreflecting men. It cannot be disputed, that whatever God does or effects in time, He fiom eternity decreed or resolved to do or effect ; and there is plainly no greater or additional difficulty, no deeper or more inexplicable mystery, attaching to the eternal purpose to do a thing— to effect a result, — than to the actual doing or effecting of it in time. If God does or effects any thing in time,— such as the production of faith and repentance in the heart of a moral and responsible being, there can be no greater difficulty, so far as concerns either the character of God or the capacities of men, in His having resolved, from * Confession, chap. iii. s. 1. 534 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. eternity, to effect this result. Whatever God really does in time, He not only may , but He must , from eternity have resolved or determined to do. Arminians do not deny this general principle; but they are commonly disposed to throw it into the background, or at least to abstain from giving it prominence ; partly, in order to leave room for appealing to men’s feelings, — as if there was something specially harsh and repulsive in the eternity of the decree as dis¬ tinguished from the execution of it in time,— and partly, to keep out of sight the compound or duplicate evidence which Calvinists can produce from Scripture in support of their leading doctrines, by the legitimate application of this principle of the certain and necessary identity of the purpose and the execution of it. What¬ ever indications are given us in Scripture, — as to what God decreed or purposed, in regard either to those who are saved or those who perish, — go equally to establish what it is that He does in time in regard to these two classes respectively; and whatever information is given us as to what He does in time with reference to the salva¬ tion of men individually, equally indicates what we must regard Him as having from eternity determined to do. And thus the scriptural evidence bearing upon both of these topics, goes equally, and with combined force, to establish one great general conclu¬ sion, which is just the fundamental principle of the Calvinistic system of theology. But this by the way, — for we are not at pre¬ sent attempting a general discussion of predestination. We have adverted to this topic, chiefly for the purpose of reminding our readers, that the words election and reprobation may be used, correctly enough, as general designations, either of what God purposed from eternity to do, or, of what He does in time, in re¬ lation to the saved and the lost respectively ; and that, so far as our present object is concerned, it is not necessary to have respect to this distinction between the eternal purpose and the execution of it. Election, then, may be regarded as descriptive generally of what God purposed from eternity and does in time, in regard to the salvation of those who are saved ; and reprobation as descrip¬ tive of what He purposed and does in regard to the fate of those who ultimately perish. And as those who are saved and those who perish comprehend all the individuals of the human race, it is evident, from the nature of the case, that election and reproba- Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 535 tion must stand in a very close and intimate mutual relation ; so that, if we have full and accurate conceptions of the one, we must thereby necessarily also know something of the other. Election, —taken in this wide and general sense, — is evidently a subject of much greater practical importance than reprobation ; and, accord¬ ingly, there is much fuller and more direct information given us about it in Scripture. There is a great deal told us there about God’s purposes and procedure with respect to those who are saved ; and there is very little, comparatively, told us about God s purposes and procedure with respect to those who perish. We have, indeed, full information supplied to us, as to what it is that men must do to be saved,— as to what is required of them that they may escape God’s wrath and curse due to them for then- sins ; and we are assured, that those to whom this, information is communicated, and who fail to improve it for their own salva¬ tion, are themselves responsible for the fearful result.. This in¬ formation is of the last importance, and it is fully furnished to us in Scripture. But beyond this, there is little told us m regard to those who perish ; very little, especially, in regard to any purposes or actings of God bearing upon their ultimate destiny as indi¬ viduals. We have much information given us in Scripture about God’s purposes and actings in regard to those who are saved. We are told plainly of His eternal choice or selection of them for salvation, out of the human race all equally sunk in guilt and de¬ pravity ; of His absolute, unconditional determination to save these persons so chosen or selected, in accordance with the. pro¬ visions of a great scheme, which secures the glory of the divine character, the honour of the divine law, and the interests of per¬ sonal holiness ; and of the execution of this decree,— the accom¬ plishment of this purpose,— by giving to these persons, or effect¬ ing in them, faith and regeneration, with all their appropriate results,— by watching over them with special care after these great changes have been effected,— by upholding and preserving them in the exercise of faith and in the practice of holiness,— and by preparing them fully for the inheritance of the saints, in light. By the application of these principles, we are able to give a full account of the great leading features and events in. the history of every soul that is saved, from the eternal sovereign purpose of God to save that soul till its final admission to glory. Calvinists contend that all these principles are set forth very 536 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. directly and explicitly in the statements of Scripture ; and, in this state of things, common sense and common fairness plainly dictate, that the first thing to be done is to investigate and ascertain, whether or not Scripture sanctions them ; and if the result of the inquiry be a conviction that it does, to receive them as true and certain, along with all that is involved in, or results from them. Arminians, of course, deny that Scripture sanctions these princi¬ ples, and endeavour to show the insufficiency of the grounds on which scriptural support is claimed for them. But they often prefer to conduct the discussion in a different wTay. They are usually anxious to give priority and prominence to the subject of reprobation ; and having refuted, as they think, the Calvinistic doctrine upon this subject, they then draw the inference or de¬ duction, that since election and reprobation are correlatives, and necessarily imply each other, the disproof of reprobation involves a disproof of election. Their reasons for adopting this line of policy in conducting the discussion, are abundantly obvious, and somewhat tempting, but very far from being satisfactory or credit¬ able. The Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation admits more easily of being distorted and perverted by misrepresentation than the doctrine of election ; and of this facility many Arminians have not scrupled to avail themselves. The awful and mysterious subject of reprobation can likewise be easily presented in lights, which make it appear harsh and repulsive to men’s natural feelings ; and this is one main reason why Arminians are so fond of dwelling upon it, and labouring to give it great prominence in the discus¬ sion of this whole matter. The injustice and unfairness of this mode of dealing with the question, is established by the considera¬ tion already adverted to, — viz., that there is much fuller and more explicit information given us in Scripture on the subject of elec¬ tion than of reprobation. If this be so, then it is plainly the dictate of common sense and common fairness, that we should investigate the evidence of the doctrine of election before we pro¬ ceed to consider that of reprobation ; and that we should not allow the conclusions we may have reached, upon satisfactory evidence, with respect to the subject that is more clearly revealed, to be disturbed by difficulties with respect to a subject which God has left shrouded in somewhat greater mystery. Calvinists not only admit, but contend, that both as to their import and meaning, and as to their proof or evidence, the doc- Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 537 trines of election and reprobation are closely connected with each other ; and that inferences or deductions with respect to the one may be legitimately and conclusively derived from the other. In the nature of the case, God’s purposes and procedure, in regard to those who are saved, must affect or regulate His purposes and pro¬ cedure in regard to those who perish ; and the knowledge of the one must throw some light upon the other. Calvinists have always maintained, that the whole of what they believe and teach upon the subject of reprobation, may be deduced by undeniable logical inference from the doctrine which they hold to be clearly taught in Scripture on the subject of election ; and that it is also confiimed by the more vague and imperfect information given us in Scriptuie, bearing directly upon the subject of the fate of those who perish. No intelligent Calvinist has ever disputed the position, that elec¬ tion necessarily implies and leads to a corresponding reprobation. No Calvinists, indeed, have ever disputed this ; except some of the weaker brethren among the evangelical churchmen in England, who have professed to believe in Calvinistic election as plainly set forth in their 17th Article, but who have declined to admit the doctrine of reprobation in any sense. We can sympathise with the feeling which leads men to shrink from giving prominence to this awful and mysterious subject, — and even with the feeling which led to the omission of any formal deliverance regarding it, both in the articles of the Church of England and in the original Scotch Confession of 1560, though both prepared by Calvinists. But there is no reason why men, in their investigation of divine truth, should not ascertain and state, and, when necessary, maintain and defend, the whole of what is contained in, or may be deduced from, Scripture on this as on other subjects. Arminians, for controversial purposes, have frequently given great and undue prominence to this subject of reprobation ; and some Calvinists, provoked by this unfair and discreditable pro¬ cedure, have been occasionally tempted to follow their opponents into a minuteness and rashness of speculation that was painful and unbecoming. But Calvinists in general, — while not shrinking fi om the discussion of this subject, — have never shown any desire to enlarge upon it, beyond what was rendered necessary by the im¬ portunity of their opponents 5 and have usually conducted the dis¬ cussion under the influence of a sense of the imperatrv e obligation to keep strictly within the limits of what is revealed, and to carry 538 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. on the whole investigation under a deep feeling of reverence and holy awe. Very different have been the spirit and conduct of many Arminians in dealing with this mysterious subject. They often shrink from meeting fairly and manfully the great mass of direct and positive evidence which can be produced from Scripture in support of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. They prefer to assail it indirectly by an attack upon the doctrine of reprobation ; and they adopt this course because, as we have said, there is much less information given us in Scripture about reprobation than elec¬ tion ; and because it is easier to distort and misrepresent the Cal¬ vinistic doctrine upon the one subject than the other, and to excite a prejudice against it. No man of ordinary candour will deny, that a great deal of evidence, — which is at least very plausible, — has been produced from statements contained in Scripture, in support of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. And if this he so, Cal¬ vinists are entitled to insist, that men, who profess to he seeking the truth, and not merely contending for victory, shall, in the first place, deal with this direct and positive evidence, and dispose of it, by either admitting or disproving its validity ; and shall not, in the first instance , have recourse to any indirect, inferential, and cir¬ cuitous process for deciding the point at issue. But this mode of procedure, though plainly demanded by sound logic and an honest love of truth, is one which Arminians rather dislike and avoid ; and hence the anxiety they have often shown to give priority and prominence to the subject of reprobation, and to attempt to settle the whole question about predestination by inferences deduced from it. When the Remonstrants or Arminians were cited before the synod of Dort, they insisted that, under the first article which treated of predestination in general, the discussion should begin with an investigation of the doctrine of reprobation ; and when the synod, upon the obvious grounds of sound logic, common sense, and ordinary fairness, to which we have referred, — and which are fully set forth in the Judgments of the different Colleges of the Foreign Divines, embodied in the Acts of the synod,* — refused to concede this demand, the Arminians loudly complained of this as an act of great hardship and injustice. The excuse they gave for making this demand was this : that the difficulties which they had * Pp. 139-151. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 539 been led to entertain in regard to the truth of the system of doc¬ trine generally received in the Reformed churches, vscic chiefly connected with the subject of reprobation ; and that if this point could be cleared up to their satisfaction, there might be some hope of the two parties coming to an agreement. But this, besides being a mere pretence, was, upon the grounds which we have already adduced, plainly untenable upon any right basis of argument. It is conclusively answered by the fair application of the considera¬ tions,— that there is much fuller and clearer information given us in Scripture about election than about reprobation ; that Calvinists really hold nothing on the subject of reprobation but what is vii- tually contained in, and necessarily deducible from, what is plainly taught in Scripture on the subject of election ; and that the scrip¬ tural evidence for the doctrine of reprobation is, mainly and prin¬ cipally, though not exclusively, to be found in the scriptural pi oof of the doctrine of election, — that is, in the fair and legitimate application of the views revealed to us as to what God has pur¬ posed and does with respect to those who are saved, to the investi¬ gation of the question as to what He has purposed and does, or rather has not purposed and does not do, with respect to those who perish. This unreasonable, unfair, and discreditable mode of procedure, adopted by Episcopius and his associates at the synod of Doi t, has been often since exhibited by Arminian controversialists, at least practically and in substance ; though perhaps it has not been so explicitly stated and so openly defended, as upon that occasion. We may refer to two or three instances of this. The first work that appeared in England, containing a formal and elaborate attack upon the Calvinistic system of theology, was published anonymously in 1633.* Its author was Samuel Iloaid, * The work entitled, Apello Evan- gelium ; or , An Appeal to the Gospel , by John Plaifere (who must not be confounded with Thomas Rlayfere, Davenant’s predecessor as Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and a Calvinist), seems to have been written before Hoard’s book, in 1628 or 1629, though it was not published till 1652, many years after the author’s death. Plaifere’s Appeal is also a formal and elaborate attack upon Cal¬ vinism, and is, upon the whole, an abler and a fairer book than Hoard’s. It contains the earliest attempt with which we are acquainted, to distort the meaning of the 17th Article of the Church of England to an Arminian sense, a topic with which Hoard did. not venture to meddle. Plaifere’s Appeal was republished in a collec¬ tion of “ Tracts concerning Predesti¬ nation and Providence.” Cambridge 1719. 540 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. rector of Moreton, and its title was, “ God’s Love to Mankind manifested by disproving His Absolute Decree for their Damna¬ tion.” And, in accordance with this title, the work just consists of an attack upon the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation, grossly dis¬ torted and misrepresented ; without an attempt to answer the great mass of direct and positive proof, which Calvinists have produced from Scripture, in support of their doctrine of election. This work of Hoard’s had the honour of being formally answered by three great theologians, — Davenant, Twisse, and Amyraut, — the diver¬ sity of whose views upon some points, while they agreed in the main, gave, perhaps, to the discussion as a whole, additional in¬ terest and value. Davenant’s answer to Hoard was published in 1641, and is entitled, “ Animadversions written by the Eight Eev. Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Salisbury, upon a Treatise entitled, ‘ God’s Love to Mankind.’” Amyraut’ s answer to Hoard was also published in 1641, and is entitled, “Doctrinse J. Calvini de Absoluto Eeprobationis Decreto Defensio.” Hoard’s work had been translated into Latin, and published at Amsterdam, under the auspices of Grotius. Amyraut, who had incurred the suspicion of orthodox divines, by advocating,— in his treatise on predestination, published in 1634, — the doctrine of universal redemption, seized this opportunity of showing that he zealously maintained the fun¬ damental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology, by pre¬ paring and publishing a reply to this work, in defence of the doctrine of Calvin. Twisse’ s reply to Hoard, though written before any of the other answers, and, indeed, principally before the publication of Hoard’s work, which had been sent to him in manuscript, was not published till some years after its author’s death. It is entitled, “The Eiches of God’s Love unto the Ves¬ sels of Mercy consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Eeprobation of the Vessels of Wrath.” It was published in 1653, and was licensed and recommended by Dr Owen, at that time Vice- Chancellor of Oxford. The first sentence of Owen’s prefatory recommendation of Twisse’ s work, is admirably pertinent to our purpose, and, indeed, brings out the only point with which we have at present to do in connection with this matter. It is this : — “ Of all those weighty parcels of gospel truth which the Arminians have chosen to oppose, there is not any about which they so much delight to try and exercise the strength of fleshly reasonings, as that of God’s eternal decree of reprobation ; partly, because the Scripture doth not so abound in the de- Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 541 livery of this doctrine, as of some others lying in a more immediate subser¬ viency to the obedience and consolation of the saints (though it be sufficiently revealed in them to the quieting of their spirits who have learned to captivate their understandings to the obedience of faith), and partly, because they ap¬ prehend the truth thereof to be more exposed to the riotous oppositions of men’s tumultuating, carnal affections, whose help and assistance they by all means court and solicit in their contests against it.” These three replies to Hoard rank among the most important and valuable works in this department of controversial theology . But at present we have to do with them only in this respect, that they all fully expose the erroneous and distorted account which Hoard gives of what it is that Calvinists really hold upon the sub¬ ject of reprobation ; and bring out the absurdity and unfairness of giving so much prominence to this topic in discussing the general question of predestination, — instead of beginning with the much more important subject of election, about which we have much fuller information given us in Scripture ; and then, when the doc¬ trine of Scripture upon the subject of election has been investigated and ascertained, proceeding to apply this, in connection with the fewer and obscurer intimations given us directly concerning repro¬ bation, in determining what we ought to believe regarding it. We may give two or three extracts on these points from Davenant, whom, — notwithstanding his somewhat unsound views as to the ex¬ tent of the atonement, — we consider one of the greatest divines the Church of England has ever produced. He thus points out the un¬ fairness of the title, and of the general scope and object, of Hoard’s work, while admitting, — as, of course, every intelligent theologian must do, — that the election of some men necessarily implies a cor¬ responding reprobation of the rest ; and indicating, at the same time, the true use and application that should be made of the fact, that the 17th Article of the Church of England, though explicitly as¬ serting the Calvinistic doctrine of election, makes no direct men¬ tion of reprobation. “ . . . Obliquely to oppose the eternal, free, and absolute decree of predestination or election, under colour of disapproving an absolute decree for any man’s damnation, befitteth not any divine who acknowledgeth the truth of that doctrine which the Scriptures have delivered, St Augustine cleared, and the Church of England established in the 17th Article. But, if the author of this treatise had no other aim than the overthrowing of such an eternal decree of predestination and preterition, as is fondly supposed will save men whether they repent or not repent, believe or not believe, persevere or not persevere ; 542 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. and such an absolute decree of reprobation as will damn men, though they should repent and believe, or will hinder any man from repenting or believing, or will cause and work any man’s impenitency or infidelity ; we both wish, and shall endeavour together with him, to root such erroneous fancies out of all Christian minds.”* “ The title of the book justly rejecteth an absolute decree for the damna¬ tion of any particular person : for such a decree was never enacted in God’s eternal counsel, nor ever published in His revealed word. But for absolute reprobation, — if by this word be understood only that preterition, non-elec¬ tion, or negative decree of predestination, which is contradictorily opposed to the decree of election, — the one is as absolute as the other, and neither de- pendeth upon the foreseen difference of men’s actions, but upon the absolute will of God. For if God from eternity absolutely elected some unto the in¬ fallible attainment of grace and glory, we cannot but grant that those who are not comprised within this absolute decree are as absolutely passed by, as the other are chosen. The decree of damnation therefore must not be con¬ founded with the decree of negative predestination, which (according to the phrase of the school rather than of the Scripture) is usually termed reproba¬ tion. By which term of reprobation some understand only the denial of election or predestination. And because the negation is to be measured by the affirmation, unless we be agreed what is meant when we say, Peter was predestinated before the foundations of the world were laid , we can never rightly judge what is meant when, on the contrary, we avouch, Judas was reprobated before the foundations of the world were laid. Some others, under the name of reprobation, involve not only the negative decree of preparing such effec¬ tual grace as would bring them most certainly unto glory, but an affirmative decree also for the punishing of men eternally in hell-fire. “ So far forth as this author seemeth to oppose the absolute decree of pre¬ destination, and the absolute decree of negative reprobation or non-election, reducing them to the contrary foreseen conditions of good or bad acts in men, he crosseth the received doctrine of the Church of England. But if he intend only to prove that the adjudication of men unto eternal life or eternal death, and the temporal introduction of men into the kingdom of heaven, or casting of men into the torments of hell, are always accompanied with the divine prescience or intuition of contrary acts or qualities in those which are to be saved or condemned ; we hold it and acknowledge it a most certain truth. Yet we must here add, that predestination and preterition are eternal acts immanent in God the Creator, whereas salvation and damnation are temporal effects terminated unto the creature : and therefore the latter may be sus¬ pended upon many conditions, though the former be in God never so absolute. “ The treatise ensuing would have had much more perspicuity if the author had briefly and plainly set down what he understandeth by this word predes¬ tination or election, and whether he conceive it to be an absolute or a condi- * P. 2. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 543 tional decree. If conditional, lie should have showed us with whom God conditioned, upon what terms, and where the conditions stand upon record. If he grant absolute predestination, his plea for conditionate preterition will be to little purpose, with those who understand that the absolute election of such a certain number doth in eodem signo rationis as absolutely imply a cer¬ tain number of men not elected. “ The wisdom of our Church of England in the 17th Article layeth down the doctrine of predestination, and doth not so much as in one word meddle with the point of reprobation ; leaving men to conceive that the one is the bare negation or denial of that special favour and benefit which is freely in¬ tended and mercifully bestowed in the other. W ould to God the children of this church had imitated the wisdom of their mother, and had not taken a quite contrary course, baulking the doctrine of predestination, and breaking in abruptly upon the doctrine of reprobation. u I know not whether I should think him more defective, who in disputing about reprobation runneth out into impertinent vagaries, or him that under- taketh the handling of this question without premising and opening the true nature of predestination. “ And no man need fear but (with all that are judicious, religious, and loving their own salvation) that manner of handling this controversy will be best accepted, which so reducetli man’s sin and damnation to himself, as withal it forgetteth not to reduce his justification, sanctification, glorification, not to any foreseen goodness springing out of man’s free-will, but to the free mercy of God, according to His eternal purpose effectually working in men those gifts and acts of grace which are the means to bring them unto glory.” * “ If striving to lie close be a probable argument of a bad cause , those who are afraid to deal with the more lightsome part of this controversy which con¬ cerned! election and predestination, and thrust themselves, without borrowing any light from this, into the other (which taken by itself is much more dark and obscure), are the men who strive to wrap themselves and others in an obscure and dark cloud. Our Church of England was more willing and de¬ sirous to set down expressly the doctrine of absolute predestination, I mean of predestination causing faith and perseverance, than it was of absolute ne¬ gative reprobation, I mean of such reprobation as implieth in God a will of permitting some men’s final impiety and impenitency, and of justly ordaining them unto punishment for the same : and yet the latter doth plainly follow upon the truth of the former. It was wisdom, and not Jewish or Turkish fear, which made our Church so clear in the article for absolute predestina¬ tion, and yet so reserved in the other ; easily perceiving that predestination of some men cannot be affirmed, but non-predestination or preterition or ne¬ gative reprobation (call it as you please) of some others must needs therewith be understood. “ Though truth be best uncovered , yet all truths are not of the same nature, nor alike profitable to be debated upon : yet for the truth of absolute repro- * Pp. 4-7. 544 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. bation, so far forth as it is connected and conjoined with absolute predestina¬ tion, when the main intent of the Remonstrants is by opposing of the former to overthrow the latter, it importeth those who have subscribed to the 17th Article not to suffer it to be obliquely undermined.”* “ The opinion here aimed at, is the doctrine of absolute reprobation, con¬ cerning which all disputes are frivolous, if it be not first agreed upon what is understood by these two words, absolute reprobation. “ For the understanding whereof, observe first, what our church conceiveth under the term of predestination. If a decree of God first beholding and fore¬ seeing certain particular persons as believing and constantly persevering unto the end in faith and godliness, and thereupon electing them unto eternal happiness, then we will grant that the Remonstrants (whom this author fol- loweth) embrace the doctrine of the Church of England. But if, in our 17th Article, God in His eternal predestination, beholdeth all men as lying in mcissa corrupta , and decreeth out of this generality of mankind, being all in a like damnable condition, to elect some by His secret counsel, to deliver them from the curse and damnation by a special calling according to His eternal purpose, and by working in them faith and perseverance ; then it is plain that the Remonstrants and this author have left the doctrine of the Church of England in the point of predestination, and therefore may well be suspected also in the point of reprobation, which must have its true measure taken from that other. “ Secondly, take notice, what the word absolute importeth when it is ap¬ plied unto the eternal and immanent acts or decrees of the divine predestina¬ tion. Not (as the Remonstrants continually mistake it) a peremptory decree of saving persons elected, whether they believe or not believe, nor yet a decree of forcing or necessitating predestinate persons unto the acts of believing, re¬ penting, persevering, or walking in the way which leadeth unto everlasting life ; but a gracious and absolute decree of bestowing as well faith, repentance, and perseverance, as eternal life, upon all those to whom, in His everlasting purpose, He vouchsafed the special benefit of predestination. And that God can and doth according to His eternal purpose infallibly work faith and per¬ severance in the elect, without any coaction or necessitation of man’s will, is agreed upon by all Catholic divines, and was never opposed but by Pelagius. And this absolute intending of eternal life to persons elected, and absolute in¬ tending of giving unto such the special grace of a perseverant faith, is that absolute predestination which our mother the church hath commended unto us, and which we must defend against the error of the semi -Pelagians and Remonstrants, who strive to bring in a predestination or election wherein God seeth faith and perseverance in certain men going before predestination, and doth not prepare it for them in eternity by His special act of predestination, nor bestow it upon them in due time, as a consequent effect of His eternal predestination. * Pp. 54-56. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 545 “ Thirdly, it is to be observed, that our church, in not speaking one word of reprobation in the article, would have us to be more sparing in discussing this point than that other of election ; quite contrary to the humour of the Remonstrants, who hang back when they are called to dispute upon predesti¬ nation, but will by no authority be beat off from rushing at the first dash upon the point of reprobation. “ But further, from hence we may well collect, that our church, which by predestination understandeth a special benefit out of God’s mercy and absolute freedom, absolutely prepared from all eternity, and in time bestowed infallibly upon the elect, would have us conceive no further of the silenced decree of reprobation, than the not preparing of such effectual grace, the not decreeing of such persons unto the infallible attainment of glory, the decreeing to per¬ mit them through their own default deservedly and infallibly to procure their own misery. All this is no more than God Himself hath avouched of Himself, ‘ miserebor cui voluero, et clemens ero in quern milii placuerit.’ And that which the apostle attributeth unto God.* “ Fourthly, this non-prsedestinatio, non-electio, prseteritio or negativa re- probatio (for by all these names divines speak of it) doth as absolutely leave some out of the number of the predestinate, as predestination doth include others within the same'number. And the number of both, formally and mate¬ rially, is so certain, that the diminution or augmentation of either is, by the general consent of orthodox divines, condemned for an erroneous opinion : though the semi-Pelagians spurned against this truth. If under the name of absolute predestination any conceive a violent decree of God thrusting men into a state of grace and glory, and under the name of absolute reprobation, a violent decree of God thrusting men into sin and misery, let who will confute them : for their opinion is erroneous concerning the one, and blasphemous con¬ cerning the other. But under colour of opposing such imaginary decrees, to bring in a conditionate predestination, to exclude this negative reprobation, to settle them both upon provision of human acts, is opposite to the doctrine of St Augustine, approved anciently by the Catholic Church, and till this new¬ fangled age, generally and commonly allowed and embraced both by the Romanists and by the Protestants.” f Arminians, in more modern times, have not been slow to fol¬ low the example set them by their predecessors, in the mode of dealing with this subject. Whitby, in his Discourse on the Five Points, — which, though not a work of any great ability, was for a century, and until superseded by Tomline’s “ Refutation of Cal¬ vinism,” the great oracle and text-book of the anti-evangelical Arminians of the Church of England, — devotes the two first chapters to the subject of reprobation. But, perhaps, the folly and unfairness of the Arminian mode of dealing with this sub- * Exod. xxxil. 19. Rom. ix. 15, 16, 17, 18. f Pp. 126, 130. 546 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay N. ject, may be regarded as having reached its acme in John Wes¬ ley’s treatise, entitled, “ Predestination calmly Considered,” which was published about the middle of last century, and is contained in the tenth volume of the collected edition of his works. Wesley, in this treatise, begins with proving, — what no intelligent Calvinist disputes, — that the election of some men to everlasting life, neces¬ sarily implies what may be called a reprobation of the rest, or, as he expresses it, that “ unconditional election cannot appear without the cloven foot of reprobation.” * And having established this, he straightway commences an elaborate and violent attack upon re¬ probation, which he describes as “that millstone which hangs about the neck of your whole hypothesis,” f without attempting to grapple with the direct positive scriptural evidence, by which the doctrine of unconditional election has been established. Dr Gill, in an excellent reply to this treatise, entitled “ The Doctrine of Predestination Stated,” truly describes it in this way : — “ Though he calls his pamphlet 1 Predestination calmly considered,’ yet it only considers one part of it, reprobation ; and that not in a way of argument but harangue, not taking notice of our argument from Scripture or reason, only making some cavilling exceptions to it.”$ Wesley, indeed, is so engrossed and excited by reproba¬ tion, that he calls out, in a sort of frenzy, “Find out any election which does not imply reprobation, and I will gladly agree to it. But reprobation I can never agree to, while I believe the Scripture to be of God.” § This mode of contemplating and dealing with the subject, is manifestly inconsistent with sound reason and an honest love of truth. The first duty incumbent upon Wesley, and upon all men, in this matter, was just to “ find out” what Scripture taught upon the subject of election, — to receive its teaching upon that point with implicit submission, — and to follow out the doctrine, thus ascertained, to all its legitimate consequences. He tells us, indeed, that he could not find the Calvinistic doctrine of election in Scripture ; but he has not explained to us how he managed to dispose of the direct positive evidence usually adduced from Scripture in support of it. And we venture to think, that if he had examined Scripture with due impartiality, without allow¬ ing himself to be scared by the bugbear of what he calls “the cloven foot of reprobation,” he would have found, as Calvinists * P. 209. t P. 255. t P. 22. § P. 211. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 547 heave clone, this election to he taught there, — viz., that God from eternity, out of the good pleasure of His own will, elected some men, absolutely and unconditionally, to everlasting life ; and that, in the execution of this purpose, He invariably and infallibly be¬ stows upon these men that faith, regeneration, and perseverance, which He alone can bestow, and without which they cannot be saved. We admit that this election necessarily implies a corres¬ ponding reprobation ; but we really believe nothing more upon the subject of reprobation than what the election plainly taught m Scripture necessarily implies, — viz., this, that God passes by the rest of men, the non-elect, and leaves them in their natural state of guilt and depravity, withholding from them, or de facto not conferring upon them, that special grace, which, as He of course well knows, is necessary to the production of faith and re¬ generation ; and doing this, as well as ultimately punishing them for their sin, in accordance with a decree or purpose which He had formed from eternity. We find in Scripture an election which necessarily implies this reprobation ; and, therefore, we be¬ lieve both upon the testimony of God. We do not consider our¬ selves at liberty to agree to “ any election,” as Wesley says, but what we find taught in Scripture ; and we regard ourselves as bound to agree to this election, because taught there, even though it neces¬ sarily involves all that we believe on the subject of reprobation. But we have said enough, we think, to show the unreasonable¬ ness and unfairness of the course frequently pursued by the Arminians, in labouring to excite a prejudice against the doctrine of election, by giving priority and prominence to the discussion of reprobation ; and to enforce the obligation of the duty plainly im¬ posed by logic, common sense, and candour, to deal in the first place, deliberately and impartially, with the mass of direct and positive scriptural evidence which Calvinists adduce in support of their doctrine of election, — without being prepossessed or pre¬ judiced by any inferences or deductions that may be drawn from it, whether warrantably or the reverse, or by any collateral and extraneous considerations. Without pretending to discuss this subject, we would like, before leaving it, to make a few explana¬ tory remarks, in the way of guarding against misapprehensions and misrepresentations of the doctrine generally held by Calvinists regarding it. The sum and substance of what Calvinists believe upon the 548 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. subject is this, — that God decreed or purposed from eternity to do what He actually does in time, in regard to those who perish as well as in regard to those who are saved ; and that this is in sub¬ stance, withholding from them, or abstaining from communicating to them, those gracious and insuperable influences of His Spirit, by which alone faith and regeneration can be produced, leaving them in their natural state of sin and misery, and then at last in¬ flicting upon them the punishment which by their sin they have deserved. In stating and discussing the question about reproba¬ tion, Calvinistic divines are careful, as may be seen in the extracts quoted above from Davenant, to distinguish between two different acts, decreed or resolved on by God from eternity and executed by Him in time ; — the one negative and the other positive, — the one sovereign and the other judicial,- — and both frequently com¬ prehended under the general name of reprobation. The first of these, the negative or sovereign, — which is commonly called non¬ election, preterition, or passing by, — is simply resolving, to leave (and in consequence leaving) some men, those not chosen to ever¬ lasting life, in their natural state of sin and misery, — to withhold from them, or to abstain from conferring upon them, those super¬ natural gracious influences which are necessary to enable any man to repent and believe ; so that the result is, that they continue in their sin, with the guilt of all their transgressions upon their head. The second act, — the positive or judicial, — is more properly that which is called in the Westminster Confession of Faith, “ fore¬ ordaining to everlasting death,” and “ ordaining” those who have been passed by “to dishonour and wrath for their sin.” God ordains no men to wrath or punishment except on account of their sin ; and makes no decree, forms no purpose, to subject any to punishment, but what has reference to, and is founded on, their sin, as a thing certain and contemplated. But the first or negative act of non-election, — preterition, or passing by, — may be said to be absolute, since it is not founded on sin, and perseverance in it, as foreseen. Sin foreseen cannot be the proper ground or cause why some men are elected and others are passed by, for all men are sinners, and were foreseen as such. It cannot be alleged, that those who were not elected, and who are passed by in the com¬ munication of special supernatural grace, have always been greater sinners than those who have been chosen and brought to eternal life. And with respect to the idea which might naturally Essat X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 549 suggest itself, — viz., that final impenitence, or unbelief foreseen might he the ground or cause, not only of the positive or judicial act of foreorclination to punishment and misery, hut also of the negative act of preterition, — this Calvinists hold to he inconsistent with the scriptural statements which so plainly ascribe the pro¬ duction of faith and regeneration, and of perseverance in faith and holiness, wherever they are produced, solely to the good plea¬ sure of God and the efficacious operation of His Spirit, viewed in connection with the undoubted truth that He could, if He had chosen, have as easily produced the same results in others ; and inconsistent likewise with the intimations plainly given us in Scripture, that there is something in God’s purposes and proce¬ dure, even in regard to those who perish, which can be resolved only into His own good pleasure, into the most wise and holy counsel of His will. The leading objections against the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation are founded upon misapprehensions and misrepresen¬ tations of its real import and bearings. The objections usually adduced against it are chiefly these ; that it implies, 1st, That God created many men in order that He might at last consign them to everlasting misery ; and 2d, That His decree of reproba¬ tion, or His eternal purpose concerning those who perish, is the proper cause or source of the sin and unbelief, on account of which they are ultimately condemned to destruction. Now Cal¬ vinists do not teach these doctrines, but repudiate and abjure them. They maintain that these doctrines cannot be shown to be fairly involved in any thing which they do teach upon this subject. The answer to both these objections, is mainly based upon the views we hold with respect to the original state and condition of man at his creation, and the sin and misery into which he afterwards fell. God made man upright, after His own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, — fitted and designed to glorify and enjoy his Maker ; and this brings out the only true and proper end for which man was created. Calvinists have always not only admitted but contended, that there are important differences be¬ tween the relation in which the divine foresight of the unbelief and impenitence of those who perish stands to the decree of reprobation, and that in which the foresight of the faith and perseverance of those who are saved stands to the decree of elec¬ tion ; and between the way and manner in which these two decrees 550 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. operate in the production of the means by which they are executed, — means which may be said to consist substantially in the charac¬ ter and actions of their respective objects. We cannot dwell upon these differences. It is sufficient to say, that while Calvinists maintain, that the decree of election is the cause or source of faith, holiness, and perseverance, in all in whom they are produced ; they hold that the preterition of some men, — that is, the first or negative act in the decree of reprobation, based upon God’s good pleasure, the counsel of Ilis will, — puts nothing in men, causes or effects no change in them, but simply leaves them as it found them, in the state of guilt and depravity to which they had fallen ; while they admit, that the second or positive part of the decree of reprobation, — the foreordination to wrath and misery, as dis¬ tinguished from preterition, — is founded upon the foresight of men’s continuance in sin. God, in the purpose and act of pre¬ terition, took from them nothing which they had, withheld from them nothing to which they had a claim, exerted upon them no influence to constrain them to continue in sin, or to prevent them from repenting and believing ; and in further appointing them to dishonour and wrath for their sin , He was not resolving to inflict upon them any thing but what He foresaw that they would then have fully merited.* The considerations which have now been hinted at, are amply sufficient, when expounded and applied, as they have been by * We do not remember to have read in any Calvinistic author, a more precise, comprehensive, and yet com¬ pendious statement of the differences between election and reprobation, than is to be found in the u Medulla Theo- logica ” of William Ames, or, as he is commonly called in Latin, Amesius. Ames was one of the acutest controver¬ sialists and ablest divines of the seven¬ teenth century. He was an English puritan, was driven into exile because of his nonconformity, and became professor of divinity at Franeker. He has, in his various works, made most valuable contributions to the Popish, Puritan, and Arminian con¬ troversies. He thus states the views generally held by Calvinists as to the differences between election and re¬ probation, embodying the chief points on which the answers to the Arminian objections to reprobation are based : “ Hinc prima imparitas rationis inter electionem et reprobationem ; in elec- tione enim finis rationem habet non tantum Dei gratia gloriosa, sed etiam hominum ipsorum salus ; in reproba- tione vero damnatio in sese non habet rationem finis aut boni (the only end, properly so called, being, as the con¬ text explains, the manifestation of the divine justice). In eo nihilominus secunda imparitas est rationis inter electionem et reprobationem, quod electionis amor bonum creaturse com- municat immediate, sed reprobationis odium bonum tantum negat, non in- fert aut infligit malum, nisi merito creaturse intercedente. In isto actu Essay X.] PKACTICAL APPLICATION. 551 Calvinistic divines, to answer the objections of the Arminians, — that is, the special objections which they usually adduce against the doctrine of reprobation, as distinguished from the more general objections commonly directed against the Calvinistic system ot theology as a whole ; and to expose the injustice and unfairness of the misrepresentations which they often give of our sentiments, that they may give greater plausibility to their objections. We have stated, that we do not mean to enter into the con¬ sideration of any of the great leading objections against Calvinism, based upon its alleged inconsistency with the moral attributes of God and the responsibility of man; or of the more abstract theoretical speculations which have been brought to bear upon the investigation of this subject. We propose to consider only some of the misapprehensions that have been put forth, and some of the diffi¬ culties that have been started, in regard to its practical application. There is one general form of misrepresentation which Armi- nians often employ in dealing with the doctrines of Calvinism. It is exhibited in the practice of taking a part of our doctrine, disjoined from the rest, representing it as the whole of what we teach upon the point ; and then showing that, thus viewed, it is liable to serious objections and leads to injurious consequences. It is by a process of this sort that they give plausibility to their very common and favourite allegation, that the Calvinistic doc¬ trine of predestination discourages or renders unnecessary the use of means, — the employment of efforts, for the attainment of ends, tertia est imparitas rationis inter electionem et reprobationem quod electio est causa non tantum salutis, sed et omnium eorurn quse causae rationem liabent ad salutem, repro- batio vero neque damnationis, neque peccati quod meretur damnationem, est proprie causa, sed antecedens tan¬ tum. Hinc etiam sequitur quarta disparitas, quod ipsa media non habent semper inter se rationem causae et effectus, permissio enim peccati non est causa derelictionis, obdurationis, punitionis, sed ipsum peccatum.” (Medulla Theologica, lib. i., c. xxv., De Predestinatione, pp. 109-110.) Mastricht, one of tlie best of the great systematic divines of the seventeenth century, has very closely followed, or rather has copied, in his discussion of this subject, these statements of Ames (Theoretico-practica Theologia, lib. iii., c. iv., s. 6, p. 304). Those who wish to follow out the investigation of this subject, will find abundant materials in the following works, in addition to those which have already been mentioned: — Turretine, Theologia Elenctica, loc. iv., qu. xiv., sect. 1-17 ; Pictet, La Theologie Chretienne, liv., viii., c. vi. ; De Moor, Comment, in March, Comp. c. vii., sect. 29, tom. ii., p. 96 ; Gill’s Cause of God and Truth, part iii., c. i., ii. ; Jonathan Edwards’ Kemarks on im¬ portant Theological Controversies, c. iii., sect. 35. 552 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. which we may be under an obligation to aim at, or influenced by a desire to effect, — that it tends to discourage or preclude the steady pursuit of holiness, the conscientious discharge of duty, and the diligent improvement of the means of grace. Now this common allegation is possessed of plausibility, only if it be as¬ sumed as the doctrine of Calvinists, that God has foreordained the end without having also foreordained the means ; and when their true and real doctrine upon the subject is brought out in all its extent and completeness, the plausibility of the objection en¬ tirely disappears. The doctrine of the Westminster Confession upon this point is this, — that by God’s decree ordaining from eternity whatsoever cometli to pass, the liberty or contingency of second causes is not taken away but rather established,* — and that u although in rela¬ tion to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently ;”f — that is, necessary things, — things necessary from the nature or con¬ stitution which He has conferred on them, or the laws which He has prescribed to them, — He ordereth to fall out, or take place, necessarily, or in accordance with their constitution and laws ; and in like manner, He ordereth free things, as men’s actions, to fall out or take place freely, and contingent things contingently, according to their respective natures and proper regulating prin¬ ciples. The Confession also teaches, with more special reference to men’s eternal destinies, — “ that as God hath appointed the elect * nnto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. J And these means, of course, comprehend their faith, conversion, sanctifica¬ tion, and perseverance, means indispensably necessary in every instance to the attainment of the end. Now this doctrine of the foreordination of the means as well as the end, — a foreordination which not only leaves unimpaired to second causes the operation of their own proper nature, constitution, and laws, but preserves and secures them in the possession and exercise of all these, — is not only quite consistent with the Calvinistic scheme of doctrine, but forms a necessary and indispensable part of it. No doctrine * C. iii. s. 1. f C. v. s. 2. f C. iii. s. 6. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 553 does or can establish so firmly as this the actual invariable connec¬ tion between the means and the end ; and no doctrine is fitted to pre¬ serve in the minds of men so deep a sense of the reality and certainty of this connection. No Calvinist who understands the doctrine he professes to believe, and who takes it in and applies it in all its extent, can be in any danger of neglecting the use of means, which he knows to he fitted, in their own nature 01 by Cod s appointment, as means, for the attainment of an end which he desires to have accomplished ; because he must see, that to act in this way is practically to deny a part of the truth which he pro¬ fesses to hold, — that is, to deny that God has foreordained the means as well as the end, and has thus established a ceitain and invariable connection between them. Calvinists are in danger of being tempted to act upon this principle, only when they cherish defective and erroneous views of the doctrines which they pi of ess to believe ; and, in like manner, it is only from the same defective and erroneous views of the true nature and the full impoit and bearing of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, that Armi- nians are led to charge it with a tendency, to lead men to . neglect or disregard the use of appropriate or prescribed means, in oidei to the attainment of ends. All this is quite clear and certain, and it is perfectly conclu¬ sive as an answer to the objection we are considering. But how do the Arminians deal with this answer to their objection l They commonly just shut their eyes to the answer, or disregard or e\ ade it, and continue to repeat the objection, as if had not been, and could not be, answered. A very remarkable and honourable exception to this common policy of Arminians in dealing with this matter, has occurred in the present day in the case of Arch¬ bishop Whately. He has admitted that the word election, . as used in Scripture, relates, in most instances, “to an arbitrary, irrespec¬ tive, unconditional decree;” and he has also admitted that the arguments commonly directed against Calvinism, from its alleged inconsistency with the moral attributes of God, ought to be set aside as invalid ; inasmuch as, in reality and substance, they are directed against facts or results, which undoubtedly occur under God’s moral government, and must, therefore, be equally dealt with and disposed of by all parties. He has made a concession equally important to us, and equally honourable to him, upon the point which we are at present considering. He has distinctly ad- 554 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. mitted, that the common allegation of the Arminians, — that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination overturns the necessity of means and efforts, and thereby tends to lead to a sinful, or to a careless and inactive, life, — is unfounded ; and is, indeed, disproved by the application which all intelligent Calvinists make of this essential part of their general doctrine — viz., that God has fore¬ ordained the means as well as the end, and has thereby established and secured a certain and invariable connection between them. He has, indeed, coupled this admission with the allegation, — that by the very same process of argument and exposition by which, as he concedes, Calvinism can be vindicated from the charge of having an immoral or injurious tendency, by discouraging the conscientious discharge of duty and the diligent improvement of means, — it can be shown, that it admits of no practical application whatever, but is a mere barren, useless speculation. This allega¬ tion we propose now to consider, — and we hope to be able to show that it is founded upon misconception and fallacy. But before doing so, it may be proper to give a specimen or two of the way in which the topic we have been considering, is dealt with by Arminians who have less sagacity and candour than Dr Whately. We shall take our specimens from men who have sounder and more evangelical views of some of the fundamental principles of Christian theology than he has, and from whom, therefore, better things might have been expected ; — John Wesley, the founder of the Methodists, and Bichard Watson, perhaps the ablest and most accomplished theologian that important and useful body has yet produced. Wesley, certainly, was not a great theologian, and, in that character, is not entitled to much deference. His treatise on u Original Sin,” in reply to Dr John Taylor, is, perhaps, his best theological work, — and it is a respectable specimen of doctrinal ex¬ position and discussion. Most of his other theological productions are characterised by inadequate information, and by hasty, super¬ ficial thinking ; and these qualities were most conspicuously mani¬ fested when he was dealing with the doctrines of Calvinism. His leading objections to Calvinism he was accustomed to put, com¬ pendiously and popularly, in this form — u The sum of all this is this : One in twenty, suppose of mankind, are elected ; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will ; the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.” Essay X.] PEACTICAL APPLICATION. 555 The first part of this statement about the comparative number of the elect and the reprobate, the saved and the lost, though not very closely related to the subject at present under considei ation, may be adverted to in passing, as suggesting a topic which Armi- nians often adduce in order to excite a prejudice against Calvinism, though it is really altogether irrelevant. A dogmatic assertion as to the comparative numbers of those of the human race who are saved, and of those who perish in the ultimate lesult of things, certainly forms no part of Calvinism. There is nothing to pie- vent Calvinists, as such, from believing that, as the result of Christ’s mediation, a great majority of the descendants of Adam shall be saved ; nothing that should require them to deny sah a- tion to any to whom Arminians could consistently concede it. The actual result of salvation in the case of a portion of the human race, and of destruction in the case of the rest, is the same in both systems, though they differ in the exposition of the piin- ciples according to which the result is regulated and bi ought about. In surveying the past history of the world, or in looking around on those who now occupy the earth, with the view of forming a sort of estimate of the fate that has overtaken, 01 that yet awaits, the generations of their fellow-men, Calvinists intio- duce no other principle, and apply no other standard, than just the will of Glod plainly revealed in His word as to what those things are which accompany salvation ; and consequently, if in doing so, they should form a different estimate as to the compara¬ tive result from what Arminians would admit, this could not aiise from anything peculiar to them as holding Calvinistic doctrines, but only from their having formed and applied a higher standard of the personal character, that is, of the holiness and morality, which are necessary to prepare men for admission to heaven, than the Arminians are willing to countenance. And yet it is ’vei^ common to represent Calvinistic doctrines as leading, or tending to lead, those who hold them, to consign to everlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom the Arminians would admit to the enjoyment of heaven. Neither is there anything in Calvinism necessarily lequiiing or implying a more unfavourable view than Arminiamsm exhibits, of the ultimate destiny of those of the human race who die in infancy, without having given any palpable manifestation of moial character. Calvinists believe that no one of the descendants of 556 [Essay X. CALVINISM, AND ITS Adam is saved, unless he lias been chosen of God in Christ before the foundation of the world, redeemed with Christ’s precious blood, and regenerated by the almighty agency of the Holy Spirit. And while all Calvinists hold that many infants, baptized and un¬ baptized, are saved in this way, there is nothing in their Calvinism to prevent them from believing, that all who die in infancy may have been elected, and may be saved through Christ. They are not, indeed, so bold and dogmatic as their opponents, in pro¬ nouncing what is or what is not consistent with the divine charac¬ ter in this matter. They are more fully alive to the fair influence of the consideration, that this subject is, from its very nature, an inscrutable mystery, and that very little light is thrown upon it by any information given us in Scripture. Upon these grounds, Cal¬ vinists have thought it right to abstain from dogmatic deliver¬ ances upon this subject ; but many of them have been of opinion that there are indications in Scripture, though not very clear or explicit, which favour the idea, that all dying in infancy are elected and saved, and there is nothing in their Calvinism to pre¬ vent them from believing this.* But this topic is only incidental to the statement of Wesley, which we proposed to consider. The main point of it is, that he asserts that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination necessarily implies “ that the elect shall be saved, do what they will, and the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.” Toplady published an excellent exposure of this offensive misrepresentation, based, of course, upon the principle which we have been explaining, that the means have been ordained, as well as the end. Wesley at¬ tempted to defend himself, in a small tract, called u The Conse- * Wesley is very fond of harping upon this string, but he occasionally introduces some variations, by altering his numbers. This was pointed out by Toplady in his answer to “ The Consequence Proved.” “ Observe, reader, how suddenly Mr Wesley’s po¬ lemical weather-glass rises and falls. In his printed letter to the late truly reverend and amiable Mr Hervey, he charged that incomparable man and the Calvinistic party in general, with holding the reprobation of ‘ nine out of ten.’ In March 1770, we were charged with holding as above, that ‘ nineteen in twenty are reprobated.’ In February 1771, we were charged with holding the reprobation of ‘forty- nine out of fifty.’ And about five months after, the glass is sunk 30 de¬ grees lower, and in ‘ The Consequence Proved ’ stands again at ‘ nineteen out of twenty.’ Next spring I suppose it will rise to ninety -nine out of a hun¬ dred.” — (Toplady’s “ More Work for Mr Wesley.” Works, edition 1825, vol. v. p. 364. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 557 quence Proved,” contained in his collected works.*' In this tract, he undertakes to show, that the sentence we quoted fiom him in introducing this topic, u is a fair state of the case, this consequence does naturally and necessarily follow from the doctrine of absolute predestination.” His defence of himself jnst consists of a pi oof, which of course was very easy, that the Calvinistic doctrine im¬ plies, that the end in both cases was foreordained, and, therefore, infallibly certain, — of an assertion , that from this principle u the whole consequence follows clear as the noonday sun, f and of an attempt to excite odium against the doctrine of reprobation, by alleging that it necessarily produced or implied a putting forth of God’s agency in the actual production of depravity and unbe¬ lief in those who perish. He does not venture to look even at the principle, that the means are foreordained as well as the end, or attempt to show the inconclusiveness of this principle as an answer to his allegation. He simply repeats his allegation with increased audacity, and asserts that the u consequence follows clear as the noonday sun.” It is true that, in regard to the elect, the end is in each case foreordained, and of course their salvation is infallibly secured. But it is also true, that this is only a part of our doc¬ trine, — that we hold also that the means are foreordained and secured as well as the end, — and that these means, as God has plainly declared, and as all men, Calvinists as well as otlieis, admit and believe, are faith in Christ, repentance unto life, holi¬ ness, and perseverance. God has just as fully and certainly pro¬ vided for securing these means, as for securing the ultimate end of salvation, in regard to every one of the elect ; and has made provision for all this in a way fully accordant with the natuie of the subject, viz., man as he is, with all his capacities and incapa¬ cities as they are. To suppose that any elect person should, in fact, continue till the end of his life in a state of ungodliness and unbelief, is to suppose an impossibility. Our opponents have no right to make this supposition, because our doctrine, when fully apprehended and faii’ly applied, not only does not admit of it, but positively and infallibly precludes it,— that is, demonstrates ancl establishes its impossibility. It is true, that all who are elected to eternal life shall certainly be saved. But it is also true, and it is equally a part of our doctrine , that all who are elected to eternal * Third Edition, vol. x. p. 370. f P. 372. 558 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. life shall certainly repent and believe, and shall certainly enter on, and persevere, in a course of new obedience. We can thus hold, and in entire consistency with all our peculiar principles, that no man shall be saved unless he repent and believe, and unless he persevere to the end in faith and holiness. And in this way it is manifest that, — notwithstanding the truth of the doctrine, that all the elect shall infallibly be saved, and in perfect consistency with it, — all the obligations incumbent upon men to believe and to persevere in faith and holiness, — of whatever kind these obliga¬ tions may be, and from whatever source they may arise, — and the consequent obligations to use all the means which, according to God’s revealed arrangements, may contribute to the production of these intermediate results, continue, to say the least, wholly unimpaired. The same principles apply, mUtatis mutandis , to the case of the reprobate, though here, as we have explained, the subject is involved in deeper and more inscrutable mystery, and the infor¬ mation given us in Scripture is much less full and explicit ; con¬ siderations which have generally led Calvinists to treat of it with brevity, caution, and reverence, while they have too often tempted Arminians to enlarge upon it presumptuously and offensively. We have already explained that Calvinists repudiate the repre¬ sentation which Wesley here gives of their doctrine of reproba¬ tion, as implying, that God’s agency is the proper cause or source of the depravity and unbelief, on account of which the reprobate are finally consigned to misery.* They deny that they hold this, and that anything they do hold can be proved necessarily to in¬ volve this consequence. Calvinists believe that men, in their natural state of guilt and depravity, are not able, by their own strength, to repent and believe ; and that God bestows only on the elect, and not on the reprobate, that special supernatural grace which is necessary, in every instance, to the production of faith, holiness, and perseverance. They admit that they cannot * Ames has put, with admirable brevity and terseness, the substance of the views of Calvinists upon this subject, with a rejection of the lead¬ ing Arminian misrepresentations, in this way : — De reprobatione nos non sumus admodum solliciti nisi quatenus consequitur ex electione. Positiva au- tem reprobatio ad exitium sine con- sideratione ullius inobedientise non sequitur ex electionis doctrina. Neque de numero reproborum aliud inde se¬ quitur, quam omnes illos qui tandem incurrunt damnationem seternam, fu- isse ab seterno reprobatos. (Amesii Anti Synodalia Scripta, p. 87.) Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 559 give a full and adequate explanation of the consistency of these doctrines, with men’s undoubted and admitted responsibility for their character and destiny. The doctrines of men’s inability in their natural condition to repent and believe, and of the non- bestowal upon all men of the supernatural grace which is neces¬ sary to enable them to do so, are just statements of matters of fact as to what man is, and as to what God does, and can he fully proved to be true and real both from Scripture and observation ; and it is not a sufficient reason for rejecting these doctrines or facts, which can he satisfactorily established by their appropriate evidence, that we cannot fully explain how they are to be recon¬ ciled with the doctrine or fact of man’s responsibility. All that is logically incumbent upon us in these circumstances is just to prove, that the alleged inconsistency cannot be clearly and conclusively established ; and this Calvinists undertake to do. And this being assumed, all that is further necessary in order to answer the Ar- minian objection, — as directed even against this most profound and mysterious department of the subject,— is to show, as can he easily done upon the principles already explained, that while men are responsible for not repenting and believing, there is nothing in our Calvinistic principles which precludes us from maintaining, that every man who repents and believes shall certainly be saved. So far then from Wesley’s assertion, that the Calvinistic doc¬ trine of predestination necessarily implies, that u the elect shall be saved, do what they will, and the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can,” giving u a fair state of the case,” it is evident that we can maintain, in full consistency with all orn* peculiar principles, that no man shall be saved unless he repent, and be¬ lieve, and persevere to the end in faith and holiness ; and that every man who does so shall certainly he admitted to the enjoy¬ ment of eternal life. The other instance we have to adduce, of an evasion of the fair application of the doctrine, that the means are foreordained as well as the end, is connected, not with predestination, as hearing upon the eternal destinies of man, hut with the wider subject of the foreordination of all events, — of “ whatsoever cometh to pass — and it is taken from Richard Watson, the great theologian of the Wesleyan Methodists. It occurs in a review, contained in the seventh volume of the collected edition of his works, of a volume of sermons by Dr Chalmers, published originally under the title 5G0 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. “ Sermons preached in St John’s Church, Glasgow.” This volume of sermons contains a masterly discourse upon Acts xxvii. 31, u Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved;” and Mr Watson’s review is chiefly occupied with an attempt to answer it. Dr Chalmers’ discourse is virtually an exposition and defence of the Calvinistic doctrine, that God hath unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. It is based upon the assumption, that the ultimate result in this matter, viz., the preservation of the whole ship’s company, had been absolutely predicted and promised by God to the apostle, and, of course, was infallibly and infrustrably certain ; and it is mainly occupied with an exposition of the grounds which bring out the consistency of the absolute certainty of the result with the conditionality, contingency, or uncertainty which may seem to be implied in the apostle’s statement, that*this result could not be effected, unless another event, dependent apparently upon the free agency of responsible beings, viz., the continuance of the crew in the ship, had previously taken place. The apparent in¬ consistency of the absoluteness and unconditionality of the final result, — decreed, predicted, promised, — with the seeming contin¬ gency or uncertainty of the intermediate step, — the continuance of the crew in the ship, — is explained, of course, by the applica¬ tion of the principle, that God had foreordained the means as well as the end; had foreordained, and made provision for certainly effecting or bringing about, the continuance of the crew in the ship, as well as the ultimate preservation of all who were on board. There was then no strict and proper conditionality, — no real and ultimate contingency or uncertainty, — attaching to this interme¬ diate event. It was, equally with the ultimate result, comprehended in God’s plan or purpose ; and equally certain provision, adapted to the nature of the case and the position and relations of all the parties concerned, had been made for securing that it should come to pass. The hypothetical or conditional statement of the apostle does not necessarily imply more than this, that an indissoluble connection had been established, and did really subsist, between the two events, the one as a means and the other as an end. If this connection really subsisted in God’s purpose and plan, then the apostle’s hypothetical statement was true ; while it did not imply or assume real or actual uncertainty as attaching to either event, and was indeed fitted and intended, in accordance with the Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 561 natural and appropriate operation of second causes, to contribute to bring about the result which God had resolved should come to pass. The whole history then of this matter, — and all the different statements put on record regarding it, — are fully explained by the doctrine, that the means are foreordained as well as the end ; while in their turn they confirm and illustrate that doctrine, and con¬ firm and illustrate also the principle formerly explained, which may be regarded as an expansion and application of that doc¬ trine, — viz., that 11 although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.” The apostle’s hypothetical or conditional statement here, is to be explained and defended in the very same way as such statements as these, — u Except ye repent, ye shall perish “ Whosoever be- lieveth shall be saved.” These statements are virtually hypothe¬ tical or conditional in their form, — they assert an invariable connection between the means and the end, — and the existence of this connection is sufficient to show that they are true and war¬ rantable. The statements, being thus true and warrantable in themselves, are fitted to lead men who desire the end, to adopt the means without which it cannot be attained ; while they are not in the least inconsistent with the doctrine, — resting upon its own proper scriptural grounds, — that God alone can produce faith and repentance, and that He certainly and infallibly bestows them on all whom He hath chosen to salvation. This is the substance of the common Calvinistic argument ; and it is brought out by Dr Chalmers in this sermon in a very powerful and impressive way. How is it met by Mr Watson ? He first of all tries to throw doubt upon the import and bearing of God’s declaration to the apostle, of His purpose or resolution to save the lives of all who were in the ship. He says,* “ The declaration was not that of a purpose, in the sense of a decree, at all, but of a promise.” But this is really nothing better than a quibble. God had said to the apostle, “ There shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship.” This was both a purpose and a promise ; it was the one just as much as the other, VOL. I. * Vol. vii. p. 246. 36 562 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. and it might also he regarded as a prediction ; for a prediction is jnst a revelation of a purpose which God has formed in regard to a thing yet future. The words plainly import a declaration of an absolute and unconditional purpose of God, — an explicit prediction and promise of a definite event as certainly future, as infallibly and inevitably to take place. And this is so clear and certain, that it must be taken as a fixed principle in the interpretation of the whole narrative. Nothing must be admitted which contradicts this ; and everything must, if possible, be so explained as to accord with it. Mr Watson ventures to say, that the history shows, that the apostle did not understand 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 the mariners in the boat.” This is a melancholy specimen of what able and upright men are some¬ times tempted to do by the exigencies of controversy. That the apostle believed, upon God’s authority, that it was His absolute, irrevocable, and infrustrable purpose, that there was to be no loss of life, is made as clear and certain as words can make anything. He had also been told, upon the same infallible authority, that it was a part of God’s plan that the crew were to continue in the ship ; not as if this were a condition on which the ultimate result was really and properly suspended, but as an intermediate step, through means of which that result was to be brought about. He knew that this mean had been foreordained as well as that end ; and that thus a necessary connection had been established cle facto between them. This is all that is necessarily implied in his hypo¬ thetical statement, u Except these abide in the ship, 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 also fore¬ ordained in God’s purpose, for bringing about this intermediate event as a mean, and thereby effecting the end. Mr Watson holds that the continuance of the crew in the ship was a condition on which the result of the preservation of the lives of all was, strictly and properly speaking, suspended ; and infers from this, that there was no absolute purpose to save them. That there was an absolute purpose to save them, is, — to say the least, — much more clear and certain, than that there was any condition, strictly and properly so called, upon which the accomplishment of the result was suspended. And, independently of this, his argument is a mere quibble on the meaning of the word condition. He just Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 563 asserts, over and over again, that an absolute purpose is an uncon¬ ditional purpose ; assumes that a condition is something on which the result purposed or contemplated, is really suspended ; and then infers, that, wherever there is a condition attached, there can be no absolute purpose. This is his whole argument ; and it is really nothing better than a quibble, combined with a resolute determi¬ nation, to refuse to look at the explanations and arguments which Calvinists have brought forward in expounding and defending their views upon this subject. Calvinists admit that the terms “ absolute” and “ conditional,” as applied to the divine decrees, are contradictory, or exclusive the one of the other ; and that absolute and unconditional, in this application of them, are synonymous. But they deny, that there are any divine decrees or purposes, or any predictions or promises, which can, in strict propriety of speech, be called conditional ; while they admit that there are senses in which the word “ condi¬ tion” may be loosely and improperly applied to them. There are few words, indeed, which admit of, and have been employed in, a greater variety of senses and applications, than the word “ con¬ dition.” So much is this the case, that Dr Owen, in treating of the subject of the alleged conditions of justification, lays it down, as a sort of canon or axiom, “ We cannot obtain a determinate sense of this word condition , but from a particular declaration of what is intended by it wherever it is used .”* Accordingly, the exposition of the ambiguity of this word “condition,” with an exact specification of the different senses in which it may be and has been employed, — in relation to the divine purposes, predictions, and promises, — forms one of the best known and most important commonplaces in this controversy, and has been fully and largely handled by all the leading Calvinistic divines. But all this Mr Watson resolutely ignores. He just assumes that a condition is a condition, as if it had only one meaning or signification ; and as the apostle’s statement plainly implies, that, in some sense or other, the continuance of the crew in the ship might be called a condi tion of the result of saving the lives of all ; and as Calvinists admit this, he infers, that, as an absolute and a conditional purpose are contradictories, God could not have formed and declared an abso¬ lute purpose in the matter ; and that, of course, notwithstanding * “ On Justification,” c. iii. p. 156. Original Edition. 564 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. anything which He had either foreordained or foreseen, the crew might have succeeded in their purpose of leaving the ship, and thus have frustrated the purpose, and prevented the result, which the apostle, speaking in God’s name, had absolutely and uncondi¬ tionally predicted. Calvinists do not deny that there is a loose and improper sense, in which the continuance of the crew in the ship might be called a condition of the saving of the lives of all on board ; inasmuch as it was God’s purpose or plan, that the one event should precede, and be a mean of bringing about, the other, — an indissoluble connection beiim thus established and secured be- O tween them. But they deny that the one was a condition of the other, in the strict and proper sense of that word. To represent it as a condition, strictly and properly so called, implies not merely that the ultimate result was suspended upon it, — for this, in a sense, might be said to be true, in virtue of the connection de facto established between them as means and end, — but also, that God could not make, or at least had not made, any certain and effectual provision for bringing it about ; so that the first event, and, of course, the second also, was left in a position of absolute contingency or uncertainty, dependent for its coming into existence upon causes or influences over which God could not, or at least, did not, exert any effectual control. It is only wdien the word a condition” is taken in this, its strict and proper sense, that an absolute and a conditional purpose are contradictories ; and, in this sense, Calvinists deny that a conditional purpose was ever formed in the divine mind, or was ever embodied in a divine prediction or promise. There are no 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 absoluteness and un¬ conditionality, foreordained the means, — that is, the intermediate steps or stages by which they are to be brought about. And the conditional or hypothetical form in which predictions and pro¬ mises are often put in Scripture, simply implies the existence of a de facto connection, or inter-dependence of events, as means and end ; and is intended to operate upon men’s minds in the way of bringing about the accomplishment of ends, by leading to the use and improvement of the natural, ordinary, and appropriate means. Mr Watson refers to the great principle, by which we answer Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 565 the Arm in inn objection about tlie practical application of the Cal- vinistic doctrine of predestination, — viz., that God has foreordained the means as well as the end ; but he does so merely for the pur¬ pose of throwing it aside as irrelevant and fallacious. He does not venture to look it fairly in the face, or to realise its true im¬ port and bearing. He does not even attempt to point out either its fallacy or its irrelevancy. He disposes of it just by repeating his favourite axiom, — which is really the sum and substance of all that he has been able to produce upon this important department of the argument — u It follows, if the predestination be absolute, that there are no conditions at all,” * — a position which we can admit to be true as it stands, but the ambiguity and futility of which, in its bearing upon this branch of the controversy, we think we have sufficiently established. The discussions in which we have been engaged, may serve to illustrate the unfairness often practised by Arminians in basing their objections upon defective and erroneous notions of the real doctrines of Calvinism ; and may be useful, also, in reminding Calvinists of the importance, with a view at once to the defence of truth against opponents, and the personal application of it in their own case, of seeking to form full and comprehensive views of the whole system of Christian doctrine, and of its different parts in all their bearings and relations. The misrepresentations and evasions which we have pointed out in Wesley and Watson, are fair specimens of what is to be found in the generality of Arminian writers, in treating of this subject ; and it is surely not wonderful that the penetration and sagacity of Archbishop Whately, — though himself an Arminian, — should have enabled him to perceive, and that his candour and courage should have led him to proclaim, the folly and futility of all this. He has, as we have explained, distinctly and fully ad¬ mitted, that the doctrine that God has foreordained the means as well as the end, and has thereby established a certain and indis¬ soluble connection between them, as expounded and applied by Calvinistic divines, furnishes a conclusive answer to the common allegation, that Calvinism is injurious, in its moral bearing and tendency, by leading men to neglect the discharge of duties and the use and improvement of means. The Calvinistic argument, *P 249. 566 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. indeed, upon tliis point, is so clear and conclusive, that the won¬ der is not, that Whately should have admitted it to he satisfactory, hut that Wesley, Watson, and Arminians in general, should have denied it. The admission, however, is not the less honourable to Whately’ s sagacity and candour ; because, so far as we remember, he was the first Arminian wdio fully and openly made this im¬ portant concession. If we could have believed that Whately’ s ex¬ ample, on this point, would have been followed by Arminians,* — and that they would have admitted, as he has done, that the common allegation about the injurious moral bearing of Calvinism is answered or neutralised by a fair application of the whole of what Calvinists teach upon this subject, we would scarcely have taken the trouble to expose the statements of Wesley and Watson. But the whole history of theological controversy prevents us from cherishing this expectation ; and constrains us to fear, that the generality of Arminian writers will continue to reiterate the old objection, and to disregard, or evade the conclusive answer which has been so often given to it. Whately, as we have stated, while admitting that Calvinism can be successfully vindicated from the charge of having an in¬ jurious moral tendency, maintains that, by the same process by which this allegation is refuted, it can be proved that our doctrine has no practical bearing or effect whatever, but is a perfectly use¬ less, barren speculation. Ilis views upon this point are brought out in this way : u It may be admitted that one who does practi¬ cally adopt and conform to this explanation of the doctrine, will not be led into any evil by it ; since his conduct will not be, in any respect, influenced by it. When thus explained, it is reduced to a purely speculative dogma, barren of all practical results.” “ It is not contended 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 our conduct whatever ; and, consequently (revelation not being designed to impart mere speculative knowledge), that they are not to be taught as revealed truths.” u The doctrine is, if rightly viewed, of a purely speculative character, not 1 belong¬ ing to us’ practically, and which ought not, at least, in any way to influence our conduct.” “ Taking the system, then, as ex¬ pounded by its soundest advocates, it is impossible to show any one point in which a person is called upon, either to act or to feel, Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 567 in any respect, differently in consequence of liis adopting it. « The preacher, in short, is to act, in all respects, as if the system were not true.”* The general principle here laid down, of judg¬ ing, whether a doctrine he revealed or not, by an application of the test, whether it be merely speculative, or have a practical bearing upon conduct, is a very unsound and dangerous one. Even though we were to concede the truth of his abstract posi¬ tion, that “ revelation is not designed to impart mere speculative knowledge,” — a position which is obscure and ambiguous, and the truth of which, consequently, is, at least, very doubtful, we would still dispute the soundness and validity of the application he makes of it as a test. If we have a revelation from God, surely the right and reasonable course is, that we should do our utmost to ascertain correctly the whole of what it teaches upon every subject which it brings before us ; assured that, whatever it reveals, it is incumbent upon us to believe and proclaim, and, in some way or other, useful or beneficial for us to know. And, if there be fair ground for believing that, in some sense 01 other, u revelation is not designed to impart to us mere speculate e know - ledge,” then we should draw from this the inference, that the doc¬ trine which we have ascertained to be revealed, is not meiely speculative, but has, — more or less directly, and more or less obvi¬ ously, — some practical bearing or tendency. The soundness of this general inference is not in the least invalidated, by the difficulty we may feel, in particular instances, in pointing out any very direct or obvious practical application of which a doctrine admits. Revelation was undoubtedly intended to convey to us what may be called speculative or theoretical knowledge ; and though it may be admitted, that the general and ultimate beaiing and ten¬ dency of the whole system of revealed doctrine is to tell practi¬ cally upon character and conduct, it does not follow that eveiy particular doctrine must have a direct, and still less an obvious, practical application. Some doctrines may have been revealed to us chiefly, or even solely, for the purpose of completing the general system of doctrine which God intended to teach us, and of aiding us in forming more clear and enlarged conceptions of other doctrines of more fundamental importance ; without having, by themselves, any direct and immediate practical bear- * Essays, Second Series. Essay III., on Election, s. v. pp. 85-91, 7tli Ed. 568 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. ing. Such doctrines might, with some plausibility, be ranked under the head of what Whately calls “ mere speculative know¬ ledge;” and yet, there is plainly no ground for regarding this as a proof, or even a presumption, that they have not been revealed, — if there be adequate ground, on a careful examination of the statements of Scripture, for believing that they are taught or in¬ dicated there. To set up our notions or impressions upon the question, — whether a particular doctrine, alleged to be revealed in Scripture, is purely speculative or has a practical influence upon conduct, — as furnishing anything like a test of the suffi¬ ciency of its scriptural evidence, is nothing better than presump¬ tuous rationalism ; and is fitted to undermine the supreme autho¬ rity, and the right application, of Scripture as the infallible standard of truth. Dr Whately, to do him justice, has exhibited a good deal of obscurity and confusion in treating of this point. He says,* — “ 1 have waived the question as to the truth or falsity of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, inquiring only whether it be revealed;” and then he goes on to assert, that “one of the reasons for deciding that question in the negative,” is, that “ the doctrine is, if rightly viewed, of a purely speculative character ; ” and, again,')' “ I purposely abstain, throughout, from entering on the question as to what is absolutely true, inquiring only what is, or is not, to be received and taught as a portion of revealed gospel truth.” Now we may surely assume that, whatever is really taught in Scripture, is to be received as “revealed gospel truth;” and, if so, then this forced and arbitrary distinction between the abso¬ lute truth of the Calvinistic doctrine, and its claim as a revealed truth, entirely disappears. The whole question resolves into this, What saith the Scripture ? and this question must be determined upon its own proper grounds. If the Scripture sanctions the Cal¬ vinistic doctrine of election, then this establishes both its absolute truth, and its position and claims as a revealed truth. If the Scripture does not sanction it, then it is not to be received, either as true or as revealed ; for Calvinists, while maintaining that the fundamental principles of their system derive support and con¬ firmation from the doctrines of natural theology, have never imagined that their doctrine of election, with all that it necessarily implies, could be conclusively proved to be true, except from the * P. 85. t P. 96. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 569 testimony of Revelation. It would almost seem (for tliis is really the only supposition which can give anything like clearness or consistency to his statement), that he had a soit of vague notion, a kind of lurking suspicion, — that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, though not revealed in Scripture, might or could be established by evidence derived from some other source— might be true though not revealed. But this is a position which pro¬ bably he will not venture openly to assume ; and, therefore, we must continue to adhere to the conviction, that his statements upon this subject are characterised by obscurity and confusion. We have thought it proper to animadvert upon the fallacious and dangerous notions which seem to be involved in Dr II liately s general views, upon the subject of applying the practical influence of doctrines as a test, not of whether they are true, but of whether they are revealed. But we have no hesitation in denying his more specific position, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when so expounded as to stand clear of any injurious tendency, has. no practical bearing or effect, but is a mere useless, barren speculation. All that has been, or can be, proved upon this point is simply this, — that the practical application of the Calvinistic doctrine does not extend over so wide a sphere, and does not bear so directly upon certain topics, as has sometimes been alleged both by its supporters and its opponents. The alleged practical tendencies and effects of Calvinism have always entered very largely into the discussion of this whole con¬ troversy. Objections to the truth of Calvinism, on the ground of its practical moral tendency, very obviously suggest themselves to men’s minds, and carry with them a considerable measure of plausibility ; and men professing to believe Calvinistic doctrines have occasionally spoken and acted in such a way as to. afford some countenance to these objections of opponents. Considering the obviousness and the plausibility of these objections,. and the prominent place they have usually occupied m the writings of Arminians, it is of great importance that we have it now conceded by so able an opponent as Whately, that they are utteily base¬ less. In discussing this subject of the practical tendency of their system, Calvinists have acted chiefly upon the defensive.. They have usually contented themselves, in a great measure, with repelling these objections, and proving that they are destitute of all solid foundation ; and having accomplished this, they have then fallen 570 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. back again upon the direct and positive scriptural proof of their doctrine, as establishing at once its truth, its importance, and its practical usefulness. The two principal rules by which we ought to be guided in discussing this branch of the subject, — both with a view to the defence of our doctrine against opponents, and also to the discharge of the duty of making ourselves a right and pro¬ fitable application of it, — are these ; — 1st, That the whole of the doctrine, and all that it necessarily involves, be fairly and fully taken into account, and a due application made of every part of it ; and especially that it never be forgotten, that God’s decrees and purposes, in reference to the eternal destinies of men, com¬ prehend or include the means as well as the end, and thus provide for and secure an invariable connection in fact between the means and the end, — a connection which is not, and cannot be, in any instance dissolved ; and 2d, That we fully and freely admit and apply, at the same time, all other doctrines and principles which are established by satisfactory scriptural evidence, even though we may not be able fully to explain how they can be shown to be consistent with the peculiar doctrines of our system. A careful attention to these two rules will enable us easily and conclusively to repel the objections of our opponents ; and at the same time will effectually preserve us from falling into any serious error, in our owrn personal practical application of the doctrines wre profess to believe. This is quite sufficient for all merely controversial purposes. But it is due to DrWhately, — who has shown so much candour and fair¬ ness in admitting the insufficiency of several arguments generally employed by the Arminians, — to advert somevdiat more particularly to his allegation, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, though admitted to be, when rightly and fully explained, harmless and unobjectionable, is shown by the same process to be a mere barren useless speculation, having no practical influence whatever ; — or, as he puts it, that u it is impossible to show any one point, in which a person is called upon either to act or to feel in any re¬ spect differently, in consequence of his adopting it.” Calvinists do not profess to found much upon the practical application which may be made of their doctrine of election, as affording a positive argument in support of it. They are usually satisfied with proving from Scripture that it is true, — that it is revealed there as an object of faith, — and that, with respect to its practical Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 571 application, it can be shown to be liable to no serious or solid ob¬ jection. They admit, that it is not fitted or intended to exert so comprehensive and so direct an influence upon character and con¬ duct, as the great fundamental doctrines revealed in Scripture, concerning the guilt and depravity of men in their natural state, the person and work of the Redeemer, and the agency of the Holy Spirit ; and therefore should not hold so prominent a place as these in the ordinary course of public instruction. l>ut they deny that it is a barren, useless speculation. They maintain that it has an appropriate practical influence, in its own proper place and sphere ; and that this influence, in its own department, and when¬ ever it comes legitimately into operation, is most wholesome and beneficial. There are, as all intelligent Calvinists admit, impor¬ tant departments of the duties imposed upon us by Sciiptuie, important steps which men must take in order to the sal \ ation of their souls,— on which the Calvinistic doctrine of election has no direct practical bearing. It is upon a perversion or exaggera¬ tion of this fact, admitted by us, that the whole plausibility of Whately’s allegation rests ; and it will be a sufficient answer to the substance of his statements upon this subject, and may at the same time serve other useful purposes, if, while indicating how far and in what sense his allegation is true, we briefly point out some legitimate practical applications of this doctrine, which aie peculiar to it, and which cannot be derived from any other souice. In doing so, we shall restrict our attention, as Whately does, to the subject of predestination in its bearing upon the eternal destinies of men, without including the more comprehensive sub¬ ject of the foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass ; and shall of course now assume that the Calvinistic doctrine is tiue, and is held intelligently by those who profess to believe it. We hope to be able to show that Whately’s error upon this point is traceable principally to this, that he has not here made the same full and candid estimate, — as in some other branches of the argument, of the whole of what Calvinists usually adduce in explaining the prac¬ tical application of their doctrine ; and confines his observation to some of the features of the subject, and these not the most impor¬ tant and peculiar. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination casts impoitant light upon the character and moral government of God, a know¬ ledge of which may be said to be the foundation of all religion. 572 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. God makes Himself known to us by all tliat He does, and by all that He permits to take place ; and if it be true, that He has from eternity formed certain decrees and purposes with regard to the everlasting destinies of men, and is executing these decrees or pur¬ poses in time, and if He has made known to us that He has done and is doing so, — this must, from the nature of the case, afford important materials for knowing Him, and for understanding the principles that regulate His dealings with His creatures. What¬ ever He does or has purposed to do, must be in entire accordance with all the attributes and perfections of His nature, and is thus fitted to afford us materials for forming right apprehensions of their true bearing and results. We must form no conceptions of the supposed holiness, justice, or goodness of God, or of the way and manner in which these attributes would lead Him to act, in¬ consistent with what He has done or purposed to do. On the contrary, we must employ all that we know concerning His pro¬ cedure, to regulate our views of His attributes and character. It is very common for men, especially those who reject the doctrines of Calvinism, to frame to themselves certain conceptions of the divine attributes, and then to deduce from them certain notions as to what God must do or cannot do. But this mode of reason¬ ing is unphilosophical and dangerous, — unsuited to our powers and capacities, — which manifestly require of us, that we should adopt an opposite course of procedure, and form our conceptions of the divine attributes from what we know of the divine purposes and actions ; and at least admit nothing into our conceptions of God’s character, inconsistent with what we know that He has done or has purposed. The doctrine of predestination is to be re¬ garded as serving a purpose, in this respect, analogous to that of the fall of the angels, — an event which has occurred under God’s moral government, and is fitted to throw important light upon His character. The fact revealed to us, that some angels fell from their first estate, and that all who fell were left to perish ir¬ remediably, without any provision having been made for restoring them, or any opportunity of repentance having been allowed to them, refutes some of the conceptions which men are apt to form in regard to the divine character ; and it should be remembered and applied, in the way of leading us to form juster conceptions upon this subject than generally obtain among us. The fact that from the race of man, — all of them equally fallen and involved in Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 573 guilt and depravity, — God of His good pleasure has predestinated some men to everlasting life, and passed by the rest and left them to perish in their sins, suggests nothing concerning the divine character inconsistent with what is indicated by the history of the fallen angels ; hut, while, in so far as concerns those men who perish, it confirms all the views of God which the history of the fallen angels suggests, and which we are usually most unwilling to receive, it supplies, in the purpose to save some men with an everlasting salvation, a new and most impressive manifestation of the divine character and moral government, which could not, so far as we can see, have been furnished in any other way. It is important then that we should realise what the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, as a general truth revealed in Scripture , repre¬ sents God as having purposed from eternity, both in regard to those who are saved and those who perish ; and that we should apply this, as a great reality, in forming our conceptions of God s character and moral government, that thus we may know Him as fully as He has made Himself known to us ; and may he enabled to glorify Him, by cherishing and expressing emotions, corres¬ ponding in every respect to all the perfections which He possesses, and to all the principles which actually regulate His dealings with His creatures. Hr Whately might probably call this u mere speculative knowledge.” But this would be an abuse of language ; for it is certain that all the knowledge which God has been pleased to communicate to us concerning Himself, concerning the perfections of His nature and the principles of His moral government, is both fitted and intended to exert a practical influence upon the feelings and conduct of men. But, while it is thus plain that the Calvinistic doctrine of pre¬ destination, — contemplated simply as a truth about God revealed in Scripture,— is fitted to exert a general practical influence upon men’s views and feelings; we have further to inquire, whether there be any direct personal application which men can legitimately make of it, in its bearing upon themselves singly and individually. And upon this question, the substance of what we believe to be true is this, — 1st, That men cannot legitimately make any direct personal application of this doctrine to themselves individually unless and until they have good reason to believe that they them¬ selves individually have been elected to eternal life, that is, of 574 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. course (for there is no other way of ascertaining this), good reason to believe that they have been enabled to receive and submit to Christ as their Saviour, and have been born again of His word and Spirit ; and, 2d, that when men have come to believe, upon good grounds, that they have been elected, the personal practical appli¬ cation of the doctrine is most obvious and most wholesome. Men cannot make any direct personal application of the doc¬ trine of predestination to themselves individually, so long as they continue in their natural state of guilt and estrangement from God, and while they have not yet embraced the offers and invitations of the gospel and entered the service of Christ ; and therefore, with reference to all the duties and obligations attaching to this condi¬ tion of things, the doctrine is not to be taken into account, or to exert any direct practical influence. We admit, nay, we contend, that this doctrine has no immediate practical bearing upon the process of setting before sinners, and urging upon them, the com¬ mands and invitations addressed to them in connection with the scheme of salvation, or on the right regulation of their conduct in dealing with these commands and invitations. This arises manifestly from the very nature of the case. Preachers of the gospel are not only warranted, hut bound, to address the offers and invitations of God’s word to men indiscriminately, without distinc¬ tion and exception ; and having God’s sanction and command for this, they should do it without hesitation and without restriction. God does this, in order that He may thereby execute the purpose which He formed from eternity concerning the everlasting destinies of men ; and that He may do so in accordance with the principles of man’s moral constitution, and with all his capacities and respon¬ sibilities ; and ministers are hound to do this in God’s name, just because He requires it at their hands. Those who have not yet submitted to, or complied with, the commands and invitations of the gospel, cannot, in their present state, — though they may know, and profess to believe, the general doctrine of predestination as a part of God’s revealed truth, — know anything whatever hearing in any way upon the question, whether they themselves individually have been elected or not ; and, therefore, they have no right to take any opinion or impression upon this point into account, in dealing with the commands and invitations which are addressed to them. As they can know nothing about it, they should, in the meantime, leave it out of view, and give it no practical weight or effect what Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 575 ever. The general doctrine of predestination, — tlie truth that God has chosen some men to everlasting life, and has resolved to pass by the rest and to leave them to perish in their sms,— is taught, m Scripture; and, therefore, all who have access to the Bible ought to believe it. But men are to apply and to act upon only what they do know ; and as, at the time when they are in the condition of considering how they should deal with the commands and mi 1- tations of the gospel, addressed to them and pressed upon them, they cannot know whether they themselves have been elected or not, they are not at liberty to take either an affirmative or a nega¬ tive opinion upon this point into account, and to act upon it as a reality, — as a thing known. The general truth, that God las elected some and passed by others,— which is the whole of tie doctrine of predestination as taught in Scripture,— does not furnish any materials whatever for practically influencing tlieir conduct m their present circumstances, or with reference to the point which they have at present under consideration, and with which they are bound to deal ; and therefore their duty, m right reason, is just to abstain from applying it to the particular matter on hand, and to proceed at once to obey the command and to accept of the invita¬ tion addressed to them. Any other course of procedure, m the circumstance, is manifestly irrational, as resting upon . no actua ground of knowledge ; and, as the doctrine of predestination taught in Scripture does not rationally produce, or tend to produce, a hesitation or a refusal to accept of the offers and invitations of t lie gospel, so it is in no way legitimately responsible for this result, m any instance in which it may have been exhibited. All this is abundantly evident ; and though denied by most Arminians, who would fain represent the doctrine of predestination as throwing rational and legitimate obstacles in the way of men receiving and submitting to the gospel, it is admitted by Dr Whately, who makes it an objection to our doctrine, that “the preacher” (and, of course, also the hearer) “is to act m all respects as if the system were not true.” This is not a correct representation of the state of the case. The preacher is bound to state the whole truth of God, as it is revealed in His word ; and to urge upon every man to apply every truth according to its true nature and real import, viewed in connection with his actual cir¬ cumstances. The doctrine of predestination, as we have seen, casts much light upon the character and moral government of God ; 576 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. and it must always be a matter of great practical importance, that men have full and correct views and impressions upon these points. Whenever they have learned this doctrine, they are bound to apply it, according to its true nature and all that it fairly involves. But at the time when they have not yet embraced the offers and invitations of the gospel, and are only considering how they should deal with them, they have not yet any materials what¬ ever for applying it, in the way of bearing upon the question, whether they have been elected or not ; and, therefore, so far as that point is concerned, they are to act, — not as Dr Whately says, as if the system or general doctrine of predestination were not true, — but merely (for this is evidently the true state of the case), as if it did not then, at that time, afford any materials for de¬ termining one particular question concerning themselves in¬ dividually; and thus did not afford any materials for deciding upon the one point of how they should deal with the com¬ mands and invitations addressed to them. Thus far, and to this extent, it is true that neither preacher nor hearer can make a direct, personal, individual application of the doctrine ; but this is very far from warranting Whately’s assertion, that the doctrine does not admit of any personal practical application whatever. F or, men may come at length to know upon sound and rational grounds that they have been elected to everlasting life ; and it is then, and then only, that the practical personal application of the doctrine to men individually is brought out. Arminians are ac¬ customed to represent the matter, as if the belief of the general scriptural doctrine, that God has elected some men to life and passed by the rest, must necessarily include in it the means of knowing directly and immediately, what men individually have been elected, and what have been passed by ; and they often in¬ sinuate, moreover, that all who profess to believe in the doctrine of election, imagine, upon the mere ground of the truth of this doctrine, and without any intermediate process, that they them¬ selves have been elected. God might have revealed to us this general doctrine, and required us to apply it in the way of regu¬ lating our general conceptions of His character and moral govern¬ ment ; and yet might have afforded us no materials for deciding cex-tainly at any time, whether we individually had been elected or not. And in connection with this point, it is most important to remember, that He has not provided any materials from which Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 577 any man upon eartli can ever, without a special revelation, he warranted in drawing the conclusion, that he himself, or that any¬ one of his fellow -men, has not been elected ; and that conse¬ quently uo man is ever warranted to act upon this conviction as certainly true of himself. Arminians are fond of representing the doctrine of predestination as fitted to throw men into despair, by making them believe that they are foreordained to everlasting death.° But while the doctrine implies that this is true of some men, in the sense which has been explained, it does not contain in itself, or when viewed in connection with any materials which are within our reach, any ground to warrant any man to come to this conclusion with respect to himself. And, therefore, despair is not in any case the proper legitimate result of the application of this doctrine ; but must arise, wherever it exists, from the per¬ version or abuse of it, or of some other principle connected with it. Men may, indeed, have abundant ground for the conclusion, that their present condition is one of guilt and depravity ; and that, con¬ sequently, if they were to die now, they would inevitably be con¬ signed to misery. But there is evidently nothing in this that affords any legitimate ground for the conclusion, that God has from eternity passed them by and resolved to withhold from them His grace. This was once the condition of all men ; and many have been rescued from it who had gone to a fearful excess of de¬ pravity. If men, indeed, did or coidd know, that they had been o-uilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, or of the sin unto death, they might then legitimately draw the inference, that their eternal doom was fixed, and could not be changed. But while we know the general truth, that such sins may be committed, there are no materials provided in Scripture, by the application of which any man is warranted in coming to the certain and positive conclusion that he has committed them. And, in like manner, while we know that God has resolved to leave some men to perish in their sin, we have no materials provided by which any man is war¬ ranted, while he is upon earth, in coming to the conclusion, that he belongs to this number ; and consequently there is no legitimate ground in the doctrine of predestination, or in any other doctrine taught in Scripture, why any man should despair, should re¬ nounce all hope of salvation, — should act as if his condemnation were unchangeably determined, and on this account should lefusc to comply with the offers and invitations of the gospel. 578 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. But although no man while upon earth can have any good ground for despairing of salvation, — as if he had full warrant for the conclusion that he has not been elected, — men may have good ground for believing that they have been from eternity elected to everlasting life ; and of course are called upon to apply this con¬ viction, according to its true nature and bearings. This important point is thus admirably stated in the Westminster Confession: — “The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in His word, and yielding obedience there¬ unto, may from the certainty of their effectual vocation be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God ; and of humility, dili¬ gence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the gospel.”* No man has any ground to conclude that he has been elected, merely because Scripture teaches the general doctrine, that God has chosen some men to everlasting life. Other ma¬ terials must be furnished and applied, before any man is war¬ ranted to cherish this conviction. Some change must be effected in him, which is a necessary or invariable accompaniment or con¬ sequence of eternal election, and which may thus test and estab¬ lish its reality in reference to him. It is a part of our doctrine, that every man who has been elected to life from eternity, is in time effectually called, or has faith and regeneration produced in him by the operation of God’s Spirit. No man has or can have any sufficient ground for believing that he has been elected, un¬ less and until he has been enabled to believe in Christ Jesus, and has been born again of the word of God through the belief of the truth ; and wherever these changes have been effected, this must have been done in the execution of God’s eternal purpose ; and thus, taken in connection with the Scripture doctrines of election and perseverance, they afford satisfactory grounds for the con¬ clusion, that every one in whom they have been wrought, has been from eternity elected to life, and shall certainly be saved. It is only from the certainty of their effectual vocation that men can be assured of their eternal election. But all who have been effec¬ tually called, and who are assured of this by a right application of the scriptural materials bearing upon the point, are bound, in * Chap. iii. s. 8. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 579 the application of the doctrine of election, to believe that they have been elected, and to apply this conclusion according to its true nature and hearings. The materials by which men may attain to certainty as to their effectual vocation are to be found, partly in Scripture, and pat tl\ in themselves ; and by a right use of these materials, men may, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, attain to a firm and well¬ -rounded conviction upon this point 5 and thus airrve at decided conclusions, both with respect to God’s eternal purposes in regard to them, and with respect to their own everlasting destiny. If the v have fallen into error m the application of these matenals, if they have been persuaded of the certainty of their effectual voca¬ tion without good grounds, — that is, if they believe that they have been effectually called when they have not, — then, of course, all their ulterior conclusions, about the certainty of their election and of their perseverance, fall to the ground ; they, too, must be equally erroneous, and, therefore, can exert only an injurious in¬ fluence. But the doctrine of election is not responsible for this error, or for any of the injurious consequences that may have re¬ sulted from it. The error was solely their own, arising either from ignorance of what Scripture teaches upon the subject of effectual calling, or from ignorance of themselves, — or from both. Such cases afford no specimen of the right and legitimate applica¬ tion, or the natural and appropriate tendency, of the doctrine of election, or of any doctrine that is connected with it. The full and legitimate application of this doctrine, is exhibited only in the case of° those who have been effectually called, — who are persuaded of this upon solid and satisfactory grounds, — and who, from this fact, viewed in connection with the general doctrine of election taught in Scripture, have drawn the inference or conclusion, that they have been elected to everlasting life, and that they shall certainly persevere in faith and holiness unto the end, and be eternally sa\ cd. And what is the natural and appropriate result of this state of mjnq _ of these views and convictions about our present condition and future prospects, and the whole procedure of God in connec¬ tion with them ! The legitimate result of this state of mind, — and consequently the right application of the doctrine, as soon as it comes to admit of a direct practical bearing on the case of men in¬ dividually,— is not to encourage them in carelessness or indifference about the regulation of their conduct, about the discharge of their 580 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. duty, as if the result were secured do what they might, — that is, as if God had not established an invariable connection between the means and the end, or had not left all the moral obligations under which men lie at least unimpaired. Dr Whately admits that our doctrine is not liable to any charge of injurious tendency on this ground. But it is surely manifest that it is fitted to exert, directly and positively, an important practical influence. When men, who have been effectually called, infer from their effectual vocation, established by its appropriate evidence, that they have been elected and shall certainly be saved ; and when they realize and apply aright all the views which are thus presented of their condition, obligations, and prospects, — of all that God has done and will yet do with regard to them ; the result must be, that the doctrine of election, or the special aspect in -which that doctrine presents and impresses all the considerations, retrospective and prospective, which ought to influence and affect the mind, wall afford, as the Confession says, “ matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God inasmuch as it brings out, in a light, clearer, more palpable, and more impressive than could be derived from any other source, how entirely God is the author of our salvation and of all that leads to it, — of all that we have and all that we hope for, — how gloriously His perfections have been manifested in all that He has done for us, — and how supremely we should feel ourselves constrained to show forth His praises, and to yield ourselves unto Him. It must afford, also, “ matter of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all who sincerely obey the gospel,” most effectually bringing down every high thought and every imagination that exalteth itself, — filling with peace and joy in believing amid every difficulty and danger, — and keeping alive at all times a sense of the most profound and powerful obligation to aim supremely and unceasingly at the great object, to which God’s electing purpose was directed, — on account of which, in the execution of that purpose, Christ gave Himself for us, and sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, — viz., that we should be holy and without blame, before Him in love, that we should be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, and be enabled to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord, that we should be made meet for the everlasting enjoyment of His glorious presence. When, then, men are assured of their eternal election, — as an inference or deduction from the certainty of their effectual voca- Essay Xj PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 581 tion,— this suggests and inculcates views of God and of themselves, —of what Ho has purposed and done for them and of the re a ion in which they stand to Him, -of their past history, presen condi¬ tion, and future prospects,— which cannot be derived, at least the same measure and degree, or of so definite and effective a character, from any other form or aspect in which these subject can be presented ; views fitted to cherish in the heart all t feelings, desires, and motives that constitute or produce tine piety and genuine godliness, and thus to assimilate men’s character and conduct on earth to the life of heaven.* Wlmtelv In a note subjoined to his “ Essay on Election, t D Wliately makes an ingenious attempt to get some countenance to dus notion that the Calvinistic doctrine of election has no practical effect or bearing, from the 17th Article of the Church of England , win , at the same time, he tries to undermine the testimony m i favour of Calvinism, which has been derived from that Article; and y tend to throw further light upon the subject we have been - sidering, if we briefly examine his statements upon this point begins with quoting, from one of his previous works, some ob serrations upon the principles which have often regulated 1 composition, and should therefore regulate the interpietation,^ f public ecclesiastical documents or symbolical books, especially upon the idea, that these documents have been often the results of a compromise, among men who differed so, newha from each other in their opinions ; and illustrates the bearing^ of this consideration upon the right mode of explaining app'jn J them. His general views upon this subject are very . * udicious, and may be most usefully applied in M“er^ many important ecclesiastical documents ; but we think lm utterly fails in the attempt he makes to apply them o ic , . bis own church. We quote the whole of his statement upon this point, and we request our readers to give it their special attention “ Our 17tk Article is a striking exemplification of what lias been sa , for it contains modifications and limitations in one part of what m la d in another, such as go near to neutralise the one by tlie ^ ccr_ “ It begins by stating the doctrine of predestination, Calvinistic tainly may be, and wc know often has been, understood in the Calvinistic * For a masterly and exhaustive discussion of this subject, see Dr Owen s great work on the Holy Spirit, B. v., U Eternal Election, a cause of c. il* • 1 . 77' and motive unto holiness, t P. 97. 582 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. sense ; and then it proceeds to point out the danger of dwelling on that doc¬ trine, if so understood, before curious and carnal persons ; of whom one may presume there will usually be some in any congregation or mixed company ; so that such a doctrine is seldom if ever to be publicly set forth. Next, it cautions us against taking the divine promises otherwise than as they are generally (generaliter) set forth in Scripture ; that is, as made to classes of men, — those of such and such a description , and not to individuals. We are not, in short, to pronounce this or that man one of the elect (in the Calvinistic sense), except so far as we may judge from the kind of character he manifests. And lastly, we are warned, in our own conduct, not to vindicate any act as conformable to God’s will, on the ground that whatever takes place must have been decreed by Him, but are to consider conformity to His will as consisting in obedience to His injunctions. “ If, then, some may say, this doctrine is (1) not to be publicly set forth, nor (2) applied in our judgment of any individual , nor (3) applied in our own conduct , why need it have been at all mentioned ? “ As for the comfort enjoyed from the ‘ godly consideration’ of it by those who ‘ feel within themselves the working of God’s Holy Spirit,’ etc., it would be most unreasonable to suppose that this cannot be equally enjoyed by those who do not hold predestinarian views, but who not the less fully trust in and love their Redeemer, and ‘ keep His saying.’ “ But the article is manifestly the result of a compromise between conflict¬ ing views ; one party insisting on the insertion of certain statements, which the other consented to admit, only on condition of the insertion of certain limitations and cautions, to guard against the dangers that might attend the reception of the doctrine in a sense of which the former passage is capable.” The views set forth in this passage may be considered in two different aspects : — 1st, in their bearing generally upon the Cal¬ vinism of the Articles ; and, 2d, in their bearing upon Whately's special allegation, that the Calvinistic doctrine does not admit of any practical application. On the first of these topics, Whately seems to intend to insinuate, that the 17th Article, as it stands, was the result of a compromise between men holding different and opposite views on the subjects controverted between Calvinists and Arminians; some statements being put in to please or satisfy the one party, and some to please or satisfy the other. It is on the ground of some notion of this sort, that many have contended, that the theology of the Church of England is neither Calvinism nor Arminianism ; while others have embodied the same general idea, in a somewhat different form, by maintaining that it is both the one and the other. But there is nothing whatever to support the idea of any such compromise, cither in the actual statements of the article itself, Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 583 or in the historical facts as to the theological sentiments of its authors and the circumstances in which it was composed It must now be regarded as a conclusively established historical fact, —a fact about which there is scarcely room for an honest differ¬ ence of opinion,— that the framers of the English articles were Calvinists1 and of course intended to teach Calvinism ; or at leas could not have intended to teach anything at all inconsistent with it And there is certainly nothing in the article itself to contra¬ dict or discountenance this conclusion, to which the whole history of the matter so plainly points. There is not one st^ment con¬ tained in the article, to which any reasonable am d mb ell: ^nt G^- vinist ever has objected, or ever could have thought of obj =• How honest and intelligent men who are not Calvinists, can s y or pacify their consciences in subscribing it, is a mystery wl wehever have been able to solve. But with this we arc not a present concerned. It is certain, that there is nothing in the 17th Article, -not a thought or idea, -but what is ; found in . - 1 Confessions undeniably Calvinistic, anc in ic wri himself, and of all the ablest and most eminent Caraustic - vines. The framers of the English articles were no doubt moderate Calvinists, who were not disposed to give countenance to more extreme and minute expositions of the subject in which-- Calvinists have indulged ; and who were anxious to guard again t the practical abuses into which some unintelligent and injudicious persons have fallen in the application of the doctrine, and to wine i we admit the doctrine is obviously liable in the hands of such per¬ sons But there is really not a shadow of ground for Whately assertion, that “ the article is manifestly the result °* LTfiiTs mise between conflicting views and the conclusne p is, that there is nothing in it which would not natura fl, - anc! at once suggest itself as a matter of course to any intelligent C - vinTst who wished to give a temperate and careful statement of his opinions. His statements about “ modifications and muta¬ tions” “limitations and cautions,” which one party insisted ujio in order to neutralise something else ; and about this party con¬ senting to admit the leading and general position, which it ^ad¬ mitted has a very Calvinistic aspect “ only on the conch ion of the insertion” of these limitations and cautions to modify t, are pure fiction,— utterly unsupported by anything either m tlie ln.,- lo^ of the article, or in the article itself. No man could have 584 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. made such statements, who was intelligently acquainted with the writings of Calvinistic divines, which make it manifest, that such cautions and limitations constitute a natural and familiar common¬ place in the exposition of their system of theology. Not only are the limitations and cautions in the article perfectly consistent with Calvinism, but some of them are of such a nature as could only have been suggested and required by a previous statement of Cal¬ vinistic doctrine ; and thus afford a positive proof, that its leading general statement is, and was intended to be, a declaration of the fundamental principle of Calvinism. It is but fair, however, to remark, that Dr Whately has not here stated, precisely and explicitly, what were the u conflicting views” which he considers to have been compromised in the article by modifying and neutralizing limitations ; and, that thus it may be open to him to allege, in his own defence, that he did not mean to deny the Calvinism of the article, or to assert that there is any thing in it opposed to the views generally held by Calvinistic divines ; and that the “ conflicting views,” which he says were compromised, referred only to minor points, in which Calvinists might differ among themselves. If this should be pleaded in his defence, then we have to say, that he ought to have made his meaning and object more clear and definite than he has done; and that the natural and obvious bearing of his statements, viewed in connection with the common mode of discussing this topic among a large class of Episcopalian divines, decidedly favours the idea, that, by u conflicting views,” he just meant the opposite opinions of Calvinists and Arminians. If his statement about u conflicting views” referred to points of inferior importance, in which Calvinists might differ from each other, it is at once trifling and irrelevant ; and if it referred to the differences between Cal¬ vinists and Arminians, it is conclusively disproved, at once by all that is known concerning the history and the authors of the article, and by the fact that there is nothing in it but what is maintained explicitly and unhesitatingly by the great body of Calvinistic theo¬ logians. But we have to do at present, chiefly, with the attempt made by Whately to get, from the 17th Article, support for his allega¬ tion, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election does not admit of any practical application. The article consists of three divisions. The first, and most important, is a general statement of the doc- Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. j85 trine, which Whately says, “may be, and je kno^ oft^has been understood in the Calvimstic sense ; regard as a clear and accurate description . o f*e P Iw wliicli sinners are saved, m tnli accoraance wim . tfvet L- of their systems of theology. The second division set! forth the practical application of this Calvimstic doctrine under two heads, -the first declaring the “ sweet mud ^pleasant use that may be made of it by “ godly persons as weU because it doth ereatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal ... t on to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently indie their love towards God and the second, warning agams an 11 to which it maybe perverted by “curious and ca^l persons lacking (in the Latin deshtuU) the spirit of Christ who if they “have continually before their eyes the sentence of Gods predestination,” may be led thereby into despair and profligaj The third and last division consists of two positions, "Inch d , indeed quite so clearly and certainly suggest or imply the Cal 1st doctrine, as dote use and abuse under the second d^ sion, but which are at least perfectly consistent wdh A They ’ indeed, be called “ limitations and cautions ; since, in exact accordance with the principles we have .already explained hey limit the sphere of the practical application of the caution against applymg it to matters on w nc _ or legitimate bearing. These two limitations or first, “we must receive God’s promises m sue 1 "is ‘ y renerallv set forth to us in Scripture ; and, second, doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have express y fled n reel to us in the word of God. . , It will be observed that Whately, in the finotation we have given from him, postpones the consideration of the first head under the second division, about the use or application that , !nd should be, made of this doctrine by godly persons, -proceed^ aronceTthe abuse of the doctrine condemned in the second head the second division, and to the two limitations or can Lons s t forth in the third, -and, having endeavored to extor from ^se three topics some support for liis main allegation, he too return to the explicit declaration of the article about the light use practical application of the doctrine, and tries to dispose of d. The whole process is very curious, as a specimen of careful and elabo rate sophistry, though it is certainly not very successful. 586 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. Tlie way in which he turns to account the statement in the article, about the abuse that may be made of the doctrine by carnal and ungodly persons, is this : Upon the assumption that there will usually he some such persons in any congregation, lie bases the inference that “ such a doctrine is seldom, if ever, to be publicly set forth and, from the application which he afterwards makes of this inference, in his summing up of the argument, it is plain that he wishes it to be received as suggested by, or involved in, the statement in the article itself ; as if it were intended to he taught there, at least, by implication. Now, it is surely manifest that there is nothing in the article which affords any appearance of ground for this inference. The liability of a doctrine to be abused by a certain class of persons, is certainly not a sufficient reason why it should he “seldom, if ever, publicly set forth hut only a reason why, when it is set forth, the right use and appli¬ cation of it should be carefully pointed out, and the abuse or per¬ version of it carefully guarded against. To ascribe to the com¬ pilers of this article, a notion of so peculiar a kind as that a doc¬ trine, which they had set forth as a great scriptural truth, should seldom, if ever, he publicly taught, when they had not said this, or anything like it, and to do this upon a ground so palpably in¬ adequate, is a kind of procedure which is wholly unwarrantable. He then proceeds to the two limitations or cautions, set forth in the third and last division of the article ; and to the account which, in the first instance, he gives of their import and bearing, we have nothing to object. It is true, as he alleges, that the first of them implies that “ we are not to pronounce this or that man one of the elect (in the Calvinistic sense), except so far as we may judge from the kind of character he manifests;” and that the second implies, that we are, “ in our own conduct, not to vindicate any act as conformable to God’s will, on the ground that whatever takes place must have been decreed by Him, but to consider conformity to His will as consisting in obedience to His injunctions.” These positions are true in themselves ; they are plainly implied in the concluding division of the article ; and they certainly limit, materially, the sphere of the practical application of the doctrine ; but we think it manifest, from the explanations which have already been submitted, that they are altogether irre¬ levant to Whately’s leading allegation, — that the doctrine admits of no practical application whatever. practical application. 587 Essay X.] He then goes on to give the summing up of the prece«hng ar¬ gument in this way : “If, then, some may say (he evAnfly wishes it to be believed that men may say all th*tadj ' iustlv) “tliis doctrine is (1) not to be publicly set forth nor (2) applied in our judgment of any individual, nor (3) l apphed : ■» ow n conduct, why need it have been at all mentio . conclusion here, indefinitely and modestly indicated .mj .he shape of a question, is evidently intended as equivalent to an assertion of his favourite position, that the Calvinistie doctrine of e ect.oip even if admitted to he true, is a mere barren speculation, destitute of all practical influence. The question in which his conclusion is embodied, is virtually addressed to the compilers of the art c es and it plainly involves a serious charge against them, for teao this doctrine, when, in Whately’s estimation, there was no need to mention it. Their answer to this charge would undoubted y have been, that there was need to mentl°“ 'V ‘’se^t had an was a portion of God’s revealed truth ; and 2d, because it had . important practical use or application in the case o go< yl’®1 , had fully set forth in the first head of the second division 5 Side. But let us advert to the three points m which he has summed up his argument, and which he rep-esen * “ ‘ sanctioned by the statements of the article, on which lie had commenting. The first is that “ this doctrine is not to -be pub¬ licly set forth.” This he had previously put in the modified for in, that “it is seldom, if ever, to be publicly set forth ; bn now, when he is summing up his argument, and endeavouring o or upon this consideration a presumption (for he could scarcely le a h as a proof), in support of his conclusion, he drops the qua hfi- cation and makes the assertion absolute,—" the doctrine is no o he publicly set forth.” We have already shown that tono ground for this assertion in any thing contained m The statement that the doctrine is liable to be a^USe , / A class of persons, affords no ground whatever for the inference which Whately deduces from it, even in its quail e 01 n*’ furnishes good ground, indeed, for the declaration of the West¬ minster Confession, that the “doctrine of tins high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, but for nothing more ; and with this, we have no doubt, the com- nilers of the Thirty-nine Articles would have been pel-fee y sa is- as embodyingbll that they meant to teach upon tins point. 588 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay N. The second and third points, viz., that this doctrine is not to be applied, or does not admit of any practical application, either in our judgment of any individual, or in the regulation of our own conduct, are intended as a compendious statement of the two limitations or cautions in the concluding section of the article. These two points he had previously explained more fully and de¬ finitely, and, as we have admitted, correctly. But we do not admit, that there is the same fairness and correctness in the more indefinite and compendious statement of them, which he now gives in his summing up. Our objection to his argument, founded upon these two points was, that they merely limited the sphere of the practical application of the doctrine of election, but did not prove his allegation, that it had no practical application whatever. He seems to have had a sort of indistinct apprehension of this radical defect in his argument ; and in his summing up he tries to con¬ ceal it, by putting these two points in the most indefinite and com¬ prehensive form, so as to give them the appearance of covering the whole ground, and thus leaving no room whatever for the practical application of the doctrine. To say absolutely, and without any qualification or explanation, that the doctrine is not to be applied in our judgment of any individual or in our own conduct, is to assert rather more than we can admit to be true in itself, or sanctioned by the statements of the article ; and rather more than is implied in the more full and formal exposition of these statements, which he himself had previously given. On these grounds, we cannot but regard Whately’s summing up of his argument upon this subject, as exhibiting more of the sophist than of the logician. After having done what he could to find some materials in the article to give positive countenance to his allegation, he conies at last to consider what is there set forth about the use and applica¬ tion of the doctrine. This, — both from its position in the article, and its more direct and immediate bearing upon the point in dis¬ pute, — ought, in fairness, to have been considered first. But Whately evidently thought it expedient, to accumulate something like evidence in support of his position, before he ventured to face the statement which so explicitly and conclusively disproves it. The way in which he attempts to dispose of this statement is this, — u as for the comfort enjoyed from the 1 godly consideration’ of it by those who Heel within themselves the workings of God’s Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 589 Holy Spirit,’ etc., it would be most unreasonable to suppose that this cannot he equally enjoyed by those who do not hold predes- tinarian views, but who not the less fully trust m and love their Redeemer, and keep His saying.” Now, upon this we have to remark, 1st, that the article does most expressly ascribe a specific use a definite practical application,— to the godly consideration o this doctrine by truly religious persons; and, 2d, that there is no¬ thing unreasonable in ascribing to it this use and application. The article expressly asserts, that “the godly consideration ol predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and the ascription of this result to the “ consideration” of this doctrine, is of itself a flat and explicit contradiction to Wliately’s position, which no sophistry or shuffling, and no accumulation of probabilities or presumptions, can evade or dispose of. The article fmtliei spe fies the process by which the consideration of this doctrine pro¬ duces this result of “unspeakable comfort to godly persons ; — viz., « as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm then faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love to God.” To allege that t e article, in ascribing to this doctrine the production of unspeakable comfort, by confirming men’s faith of their eternal salvation, and increasing their love to God, did not intend to state anything peculiar to this doctrine, but merely described wliat might be derived equally or as fully from the consideration of other doc¬ trines, is plainly to charge the article with containing downright nonsense or unmeaning verbiage. And here we may remark by tbe way, that the manifest and exact accordance between the view fflven in the 17tli Article of the Church of England, concerning the right use and application of the doctrine of “ predestination and our election in Christ,” with the representation given of the same subject in the Westminster Confession, which we lave already explained and illustrated, furnishes a proof of the identity of the system of doctrine taught m these two symbo s. As to the alleged unreasonableness of ascribing any such use or application specifically to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, we have, we think, sufficiently refuted this in our general obser¬ vations upon this subject. And, indeed, it is sure y self-evident, that this doctrine, when intelligently and rationally applied by persons who have good grounds for believing that they have been 590 CALVINISM, AND ITS ' [Essay X. elected to eternal life, must produce practical results upon tlieir views and feelings, — results operating beneficially upon their character and conduct, — which cannot be derived equally, if at all, from any other source. We admit, indeed, that the practical results derived from the application of this doctrine are confined within a narrow sphere ; and do not hear directly upon the enjoy¬ ment of the great essential blessings of the gospel, or upon the production of the fundamental elements of Christian character. They do not hear directly upon justification and regeneration, — the essential blessings on which universally, and in every instance, the salvation of sinners depends. They are connected more immedi¬ ately with what may be called the secondary, or subordinate bless¬ ings of the gospel, — “ assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” But these form no unimportant part of the gospel provision. They materially affect not only the u comfort of godly persons,” but their growth in grace ; and they operate powerfully in aiding their increase in holiness, and in securing their perseverance therein unto the end. Every sinner who has been justified and regenerated shall assuredly be saved. And we have no doubt, that many men have been made meet for heaven, and admitted to the enjoyment of it, who never, so long as they continued upon earth, understood or believed the Calvinistic doctrine of election. The specific practical personal application of the doctrine, by men individually in their own case, requires, indeed, as its necessary antecedents and conditions, not only that they have, in fact, been enabled to repent and believe in Christ, — that they have entered upon the way which leadetli to heaven, by embracing Christ as lie is freely offered to them in the gospel, — but also, that they are assured, upon good and sufficient grounds, that this is their present condition. And we willingly concede, that not a few have been, by God’s grace, brought into this condition, and at last admitted into the kingdom of glory, who never attained to a distinct u certainty of their effectual vocation,” and, therefore, could not be rationally 11 assured of their eternal election and who, of course, could make no direct personal application of the doctrine of election to their own case, or derive from it the special spiritual benefit which it is fitted to impart. But we are persuaded, that all these persons lived somewhat beneath their privileges, — failed, to some extent, in walking worthily of their high and holy calling, — and came short, more or less, in fully adorning their Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 591 Christian profession, by their ignorance or unbelief of the infor¬ mation which God has given us in His word, concerning His sove¬ reign purpose of mercy in Christ Jesus, in regard to all who are saved; an absolute and unchangeable purpose formed from eter¬ nity, and executed in time, by bestowing upon them all those things which accompany salvation, and prepare for the enjoyment of heaven. We shall conclude with a few additional remarks suggested by the last section of the 17tli of the Thirty-nine Articles. It is expressed in these words “ Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to ns in holy Scripture ; and, in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.” We have alreadv said enough to show, that these two statements, while they certainly limit or restrict the legitimate sphere of the personal practical application of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, and caution against the abuses which have been made of it— contain nothing whatever, in the least, inconsistent with Calvinism; nothing but what is to be found in the writings of all Calvinistic divines. It is, indeed, a curious circumstance,— and it has been often referred to, in opposition to the attempts which have been made to deduce, from this portion of the article, an argument against the Calvinism of its leading position,— that the second and most important part of this statement, which virtually includes 01 comprehends the first, is expressed in the very words of Calvin ;* while the first part of it is to be found, in its whole substance and spirit, in many parts of his writings. We concede to the Arnn- nians, that the word generally , here, is not to be taken in the sense of usually or ordinarily , hut is intended to indicate the cha¬ racter of the promises as set forth in Scripture in a general, indefinite, unlimited, unrestricted way. There is nothing in this, however, which renders any service to their cause. The word promises is to be taken here, as it was used by the Reformers m general, in a wider sense than that in which it is commonly em¬ ployed in more modern times. The Reformers generally used this word as comprehending all the offers and invitations of the gospel addressed to men in general,— to sinners as such — freely offering to them all the blessings of salvation, and inviting them * Inst. lib. i. c. 17, s. 5. 592 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. to come to God through Christ, that they may receive and enjoy these blessings. In modern times, the word promises is commonly taken in a more restricted sense, as descriptive of those scriptural statements which are addressed specially to believers, — to those who have already been united to Christ by faith, — and which assume that this is their present position. But the word, as used in the article, plainly comprehends, and, indeed, has special refer¬ ence to, what we now commonly call the offers and invitations of the gospel, or those scriptural statements which tell the human race of the provision which God has made for saving them ; and on this ground call upon them to turn from sin unto God, to be¬ lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and to lay hold of the hope set before them. Now, the substance of what is taught in the article is this, that these offers and invitations are set forth to us in Scrip¬ ture in a general or universal form, — no restriction being made, no exception being put forth, no previous qualification being re¬ quired as a condition of accepting them, — and that we must deal with, or apply them, in this their general or unrestricted character, without bringing in, at this stage , either the general doctrine of predestination, or its possible, but wholly unknown, bearing upon individuals, in order to modify or limit the general scriptural representations, or the manner in which they ought to he dealt with. Here , neither the general doctrine of predestination, nor its imagined bearing upon individuals, has any proper place ; or can exert any legitimate practical influence. The offers and in¬ vitations must be set forth as they stand, in all their unrestricted generality, and should be dealt with unhesitatingly, according to their natural and obvious meaning and import. This is all that is involved in the first part of the statement we are considering ; and, to all this, Calvinists have no hesitation in assenting. They set forth the general offers and invitations of the gospel addressed to mankind at large, in order to lead them from darkness to light ; they do all this as freely and fully, as cordially and earnestly, as any other class of theologians ; and they think they can show, that it cannot be proved that there is anything in all this incon¬ sistent with the peculiar doctrines they hold. We have said that the second part of this statement about the “ will of God ” virtually includes the first part about the “ promises.” And the reason is this, that the promises, — that is, the offers and invitations of the gospel, — virtually comprehend or Essay X.] PKACTICAL APPLICATION. 593 involve commands or injunctions, and of course impose duties and obligations. The offers and invitations of the gospel are intended to lead men to repent and believe, by setting before them motives and encouragements to persuade them to do so. But they, at the same time, include or imply a command, that those to whom they are addressed, should receive them and deal with them, according to their true nature and import. God has made this their impera¬ tive duty, by explicit injunctions contained in His word. “ To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ com- municateth to us the benefits of redemption.” It is true, indeed, that the right mode of representing and applying the offers and invitations of the gospel is of such transcendent importance, from its direct and immediate bearing on the only process by which sinners individually are saved, that it was proper to state it distinctly by itself, and to give it the fullest prominence. But it is not the less true, that the substance of what ought to be said upon this topic is virtually comprehended in the wider statement, which the compilers of the articles expressed in the words of Calvin, viz.,— “ that, in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared to us m the word of God.” The general import of this position is,— that our whole conduct is to be regulated, in all matters bearing upon our relation to God and our eternal welfare, by the laws, injunctions, or com¬ mands, which are imposed upon us in Scripture ; and not by any thing which we may or can know as to God’s purposes or inten¬ tion? with respect either to ourselves or others, or with respect to any events or results that may be anticipated. This is manifestly a sound principle ; and no intelligent Calvinist has ever refused or hesitated to assent to it, and to act upon it. There have, indeed, been great disputes between the Calvinists and the Arimmans m regard to the will of God,— voluntas Dei and the right exposition of° this subject may be said to enter vitally and fundamentally into the controversy between them. But the disputes do not turn upon the point with which we have at present to do. Calvinists agree with Arminians in holding, that the exclusive rule of our duty,— of what we are bound to do,— is that will of God which is plainly set forth in His word in the form of injunctions or commands. The language employed in the article,— “ that will of God, 594 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. naturally suggests the idea, that there is another will of God be¬ sides what is here described, or another sense in which the expression may he employed ; and it is about this other will that a great deal of controversy has been carried on. We cannot enter on the consideration of this topic, though it is very important in itself, and though there are indications that it is very ill under¬ stood by some in the present day who call themselves Calvinists. We have room only for a few words, not upon the subject itself, but merely upon some of the terms commonly used in the discus¬ sion of it. “ That will of God which we have expressly declared to us in His word,” and which is universally admitted to be the exclusive rule of our duty, is called by Calvinistic divines by a variety of designations. They call it voluntas prcecepti, voluntas revelata , voluntas signi , voluntas evapeana ?. These are just four different designations for one and the same thing ; presenting it in somewhat different aspects, but all of them equally intended to indicate that will of God which is set forth in His word by injunctions and commands, and constitutes the sole rule of our duty. But Calvinists have always contended that there is another 'will of God, indicated by events or results as they take place. They hold that all events are foreordained by God, and that, of course, all events, when they take place, indicate what God had resolved to bring about, or, at least, to permit ; and may thus be regarded as being, in some sense , manifestations of His will. This will of God, by which He regulates events or results, is quite distinct from that will by which He imposes duties and obligations ; and yet it must be admitted to be a reality, — to have an existence and an efficacy, — unless He is to be shut out, not only from foreseeing and foreordaining, but from determining and regulating, the whole course of events which constitute the history of the world. This will of God, also, Calvinists usually designate by four different names, corresponding, but contrasted, with the four applied to the divine will in the former sense. They call it voluntas decreti, voluntas arcana , voluntas heneplaciti , voluntas evSo/aas. These, too, are just four different designations of one and the same thing, — viz., that will of God by which He determines events or results. And about the divine will, in this sense, there has been a good deal of discussion, an acquaintance with which is indispens¬ ably necessary to an intelligent knowledge of this great controversy. Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 595 Arminians usually deny that events or results, simply as such, are to he regarded as furnishing a manifestation of the divine will ; and appeal, in support of this view, to the conditional form in which predictions and promises about future events are frequently put in Scripture,— the conditions attached proving, as they allege, that God had formed no absolute purpose to bring about a certain result, and thus showing that the actual result, when it does occur, is not necessarily to he regarded as being, in any sense, an indica¬ tion of the divine will. The fundamental principle of Calvinism is, that God hath unchangeably foreordained whatsoever cometh to pass ; and, if this principle he true, then there can be no stiict and proper conditionality attaching to any events or results, as if their actual occurrence were really suspended upon causes or influences which God had not resolved to regulate and control. Calvinists, accordingly, deny that there is any true and proper conditionality in the divine predictions and promises ; the condi¬ tional or hypothetical form in which they are often set forth in Scripture, being intended merely to indicate a fixed connection established in God’s purpose between means and end, and being designed, by indicating this connection, to exert a moral influence upon the minds of men, and thereby to contribute to bring about the result contemplated. Arminians object vehemently to the distinction which Calvinists make between the preceptive and revealed or declared will of God, and what they commonly call His decretive and secret will — the will of His good pleasure— as if this were to ascribe to God two opposite and contradictory wills. But there is really no opposition or contradiction between them. \ His preceptive will, which is revealed or declared, stands out, as all admit, on the face of Scripture, in the injunctions or commands which constitute the only rule of our duty. But His decretive will, — voluntas decreti, or beneplaciti, — must also be admitted as a reality, unless He is to be^excluded from the determination and control. of events. And, when Calvinists call this wall of decree or of good pleasure— by which He determines actual events or results — His secret will, as distinguished from His revealed or declared will, by which He determines duties and imposes obliga¬ tions— they just mean, that it is in every instance (except where God has issued a prediction or a promise) utterly unknown to us, until the event takes place, and, by its occurrence, reveals or declares to us what God had resolved to do, or, at least, to permit. 596 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. And there is surely nothing in all this hut the statement of an undeniable matter of fact. Unless it be denied that the divine will has a determining influence in bringing about events or re¬ sults, we must introduce some distinctions into the exposition of this matter; and there is no difficulty in showing that the Calvinistic distinction between the preceptive or revealed, and the decretive or secret, will of God, is much more accordant with Scripture, and liable to much less serious objections, than the distinction which Arminians set up in opposition to it, between an antecedent or conditional, and a consequent or absolute, will, — made absolute, of course, only by the fulfilment of the conditions. It has been stated of late, that the older Calvinistic writers maintained the conditional character of the prophetic announce¬ ments, in opposition to those who asserted their absolute and un¬ changeable fixedness ; and that, by the distinction which they were accustomed to make between the secret and the revealed will of God, they meant a distinction between His real intention or decree, which is fixed and immutable, and His declared purpose, which may vary from time to time with the changeful conditions of man. We have never met with these views among the older Calvinistic writers ; and we venture to assert, that such statements as these indicate very great ignorance and misconception, as to the grounds usually taken by Calvinistic divines in expounding and defending the fundamental principles of their system of theology. But we cannot discuss this subject, though it is naturally suggested by the statement on which we have been commenting. We think we have said enough to show that the concluding portion of the 17th Article not only contains nothing which has any appearance of inconsistency with Calvinism ; but even furnishes a presumption that it was indeed the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, and no other, which the leading portion of the Article was intended to set forth. We have had repeated occasion, in dealing with such questions as these, to advert to the important and useful influence of contro¬ versial discussions, as exhibited in the history of the church, in throwing light upon the true meaning of Scripture, and the real import and evidence of the doctrines which are taught there. We have endeavoured to enforce the obligation, incumbent upon all men, to improve past controversies, for the purpose of aiding them in forming the most accurate, precise, and definite conceptions Essat X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 597 upon every subject which the Bible brings under our notice ; and we have referred to the great Calvinistic systematic divines of the seventeenth century, as the best specimens of the improvement that may and should be made of the fruits and results of polemical discussion, in bringing out a correct and exact exposition of all the doctrines taught in Scripture, in their mutual bearings and rela¬ tions. But everything is liable to abuse and perversion. There are everywhere dangers, both on the right hand and the left, to which men are exposed, from the weakness and imperfection of their faculties, and the corrupting influences from without and from within, that often tell upon the formation of their opinions and impressions of things, -tending to produce defect or eimess and frequently, even when there may not be much of positive error, lelding to onesidedness of conception, in the direction either of narrowness or exaggeration. Though a man may be well ver- saut in some departments of theological literature, we can scaice y regard him as entitled to the character of a theologian, unless 1 be° familiar with the works of the great systematic divines of tl.e seventeenth century, both Calvinistic and Annmian. But an addiction to the study of systematic theology, and to the permsal of systems, has, -unless it be carefully regulated, -its obvious and serious dangers, which ought to be diligently and arduously guarded against. No one class of men are to be implicitly fol¬ lowed, as if they were in all respects models for our imitation, reference to all the objects which we are called upon ton- No uninspired men, or body of men, have ever in the form, and expression of their opinions, risen altogether, and m every re¬ spect, above the influences of their position and circumstances. Controversial discussions have a strong and invariable tendency to lead those who have been engaged m them, to form an exag¬ gerated impression of the magnitude of the topics, about w 'they have exercised their faculties, and spent their time and strength, and for which they may have contended unto victay. And it is usually not until another generation lias arisen, that are enabled to gather up fully the fruits of the contest; and o apply its results to the formation of a sound and judicious esti¬ mate, not only of the truth, but of the importance of the ques¬ tions involved in it, and of the best and most effective way of defending the truth and exposing the error. No intelligent an judicious Calvinist will probably dispute, that the great contio- 598 CALVINISM, AND ITS [Essay X. versy, which Arminius raised in the beginning of the seventeenth century, produced the effect of bringing the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism into a position of something like undue prominence, — a greater prominence than they have in the Bible, or than they ought to have, ordinarily and permanently, in the thoughts of men, and in the usual course of pulpit instruction. We have no doubt that the fair result of that great controversy was, to estab¬ lish conclusively the scriptural truth of all the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism. But it does not follow from this, that the Calvinists, who so decidedly triumphed over their opponents on the field of argument, entirely escaped the ordinary influence of controversy ; and succeeded in retaining as sound an estimate of the comparative importance, as of the actual truth, of the doctrines for which they had been led to contend. There can be no reasonable doubt, that the peculiarities of Calvinism were raised for a time to a position of undue prominence, and that there are plain indications of this in some of the features of the theological literature of the seven¬ teenth century. We cannot dwell upon this point ; hut we may refer, as an illustration of what we mean, to the marked differ¬ ence, as to the prominence given to the peculiar doctrines of Cal¬ vinism, between the Institutions of Calvin himself and the theo¬ logical systems of the great Calvinistic divines to whom we have referred. We have the highest sense of the value, for many im¬ portant purposes, of these theological systems. But we cannot doubt, that Calvin’s Institutions is fitted to leave upon the mind a juster and sounder impression, of the place which the doctrines of Calvinism hold in the Bible, and ought to hold permanently in the usual course of pulpit instruction, or in the ordinary preaching of the gospel. We have made these observations, not certainly because we have an impression that there is a tendency among us generally, or in any influential quarters, to give undue prominence to the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism ; but because it has been alleged of late, that professed Calvinists do not now give so much promi¬ nence to their peculiar doctrines as was commonly assigned to them in former times, and that this affords evidence that Calvinism has been greatly modified, if not practically abandoned. Our object is just to indicate, how the fact founded on, in so far as it is a reality, may be accounted for, in perfect consistency with what we believe to be true, — viz., that professed Calvinists are Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 599 still thoroughly persuaded of the scriptural truth of the peculiari¬ ties of Calvinism, and are resolved to maintain and apply them, according to their true nature and importance, m their due pro¬ portions, and in them right relations to the whole scheme of divine tlUWe wish to remind our readers, in conclusion, that we have not professed or attempted to discuss the general subject of predes¬ tination, or to deal with its most important and fundamental de¬ partments. A full investigation of the whole subject would naturally divide itself into four branches, viz. : 1st, The settlement of the true status qucestionis, , the real points in dispute between the contending parties; 2d, The examination of the scriptural evidence, direct and indirect, explicit and inferential, m favour o Calvinism, and in opposition to Arminiamsm ; 3d, The objections commonly adduced by Arminians against oui lea anc a 1T* doctrines ; and 4th, The practical application of Calvinism. With the second of these branches of the subject,— which is the most im¬ portant and fundamental,— we have not attempted to deal at a , and to the third we have referred only m a very brief and inci¬ dental way, without professing to discuss it. Our observations have been almost wholly restricted to the first and fourth of these divisions, including a consideration of the objections commonly adduced against Calvinism, which are based upon misconceptions and misrepresentations, of the true meaning and import, and ot the practical application, of its doctrines. THE EEFOBMEES, AND THE LESSONS FEOI THEIE HISTOBY.* Haying spoken at length of the character of the Reformers, we mean to make a few general observations that may be fitted to suggest some useful practical lessons from the subject. It might afford materials for some interesting reflections to notice the variety of gifts wdiich God conferred upon the different Re¬ formers individually, — bestowing upon one what another wanted, or did not possess in the same degree ; and thus providing, not¬ withstanding the infirmities of human nature, for their cordial co-operation, to a large extent, among themselves, in their dif¬ ferent spheres, and also for enabling them to advance most fully, by their united labours and efforts, the success of the common cause. This would afford an interesting illustration of the abound¬ ing goodness and manifold wisdom of God ; but we must confine ourselves to some of those circumstances which were common to the Reformers in general, viewed as a class or body of men ; and we remark, 1st, That the Reformers in general were men eminently distinguished at once for the strength of their natural talents, and the extent of their acquired learning. That this was indeed the case, is too evident to admit of dispute, and has never been questioned even by their bitterest enemies. They were men possessed of such distinguished talents as would have raised them to eminence and influence in any department of study or occupa¬ tion to which they might have turned their attention ; and their * From Dr Cunningham’s MS. Lectures on Church History. Essat XI.] THE REFORMERS AND THEIR HISTORY. G01 m-itincrs and their labours abundantly establish this position. s1 f +i - flnfi affords no ground This was, of course, no merit of theirs, a importance whatever why either they or others should boast ^ and value lie only in this -that it is a matter of fact that Go ^ selected, and qualified in other respects, for the work of re g His truth and refonning His church, men whom He had gifted with very superior natural abilities. This was the Lord s doing, -this wi the course which He pursued on that memorabie occa¬ sion, and which He has ordinarily pursued m i mott ^ impor . epochs, connected with the maintenance of His truth and \ i tt:s raiise We are to look upon it as just what the LorTin Idhi wisdom was pleased to do, -as a thing effected !nd of course intended, by Him in His actual adm— mn f the affairs of the church and the world. We are ie this light, as an undoubted reality, intended by H™, 1 ke all *hat He does/to make Himself known, and to unfold and 'mp^s the St S^tlT S— S fitted to teach. It should lead men, of course, to ^ be used^ midof te^ employed by Him, in fact, in the “1™" of_ His cause. This, however, is not a lesson which it is veiy neces sary to inculcate; for although occasionally fanatical excepttons do appear, the general and ordinary tendency of men i o e - estimate mere intellectual power, irrespec ive of the ^ pm poses to which it is applied, -the objects to which ,t is directed &X, >*» right to remember that God, by selecting as ““‘S “ restoration of His truth and the reformation of His chur*, men whom He had gifted with very superior mtellec ual p°w«s, a thereby borne testimony to their value and importaic^-ha^mi cated the responsibility connected wit i t e Posse* while' He the purpose to which they ought to be chic y a| 1 > ha8 also by the same fact, made it not only warrantable, but in cumbent upon all, to aim at the cultivation and improvement of the intellectual powers ^^.^^.^^kg^^o^^ancLas^meaiis "ffi“wstosmm™efally for doing something for the ad- V”lfth“;formers were also, in ?neral , - > ^ex¬ tensive acquired learning, admits of a more direct and obvious 602 THE REFORMERS, AND THE [Essay XI. practical application ; as it reminds us of our obligation to improve to the uttermost our opportunities of acquiring useful knowledge, and encouraging us in the prosecution of this object by holding out the expectation, that the more knowledge we may be able to acquire, we may become the more useful in promoting His cause. God having, in His wisdom, selected for the work of Reforma¬ tion, men whom He had endowed, generally speaking, with very superior natural powers, — and whom He had united, o/resolved in His own good time to unite, to Jesus Christ, by a true and living faith, — inspired them with a desire to acquire all the knowledge that might be useful in the prosecution of the work to which they were destined ; and so arranged, in His providence, the outward circumstances in which He placed them, that they had the means and opportunities of gratifying this desire. Thus He brought about the actual result ; that they became, in point of fact, extensively learned in all matters connected with the work in which they were to be engaged ; while we find, also, that He was graciously pleased to employ the learning which they had acquired, or rather which He had bestowed upon them, as instrumental, in its place, in contributing, in some measure, to the promotion of His cause. The success of that cause is to be ascribed wholly to His own agency, — the operation of His Spirit upon the minds and hearts of men ; but the full recognition of the agency of the Spirit as the only real author of the whole success, does not preclude the pro¬ priety of attending to and marking the instrumentality employed, as exhibited in the men who were the instruments of bringing about the results, and in the various gifts as well as graces be¬ stowed upon them and manifested in their work ; and it is a fact, and one that ought certainly to be noticed and improved, that God, in selecting and preparing the instruments whom He was to employ in introducing and extending the Reformation, took care that they should be men who, speaking of them generally, had become possessed of a share of knowledge and learning, connected with all theological subjects, greatly superior to that of the great body of those by whom they were surrounded. The circle of science, in every department, was greatly more limited then than it is now ; and the amount of attainable knowledge, by means of reading, greatly less. But the important consideration, — that which involves a principle and teaches a lesson, — is, that the Reformers were led to desire, and were furnished in providence Essay XI.] lessons from their history. 603 with the means of acquiring, a very large amount of the then attainable knowledge which was fitted to increase their influence and to promote their success, in establishing truth and in oigai - ing the church. Some of them held a very distinguished place among the scholars of the age in some departments of literature that were not exclusively professional Calvin derived most im¬ portant advantages, with reference to the special work to which he was afterwards called, and the talents and habits which it ieqn , from his having been led in providence, m early life, to go through a course of study in law and jurisprudence in two of the 1110s eminent French Universities. Melancthon and Beza were acknow¬ ledged as ranking among the most eminent Greek scholars of the period ; and brought at once that refinement of taste and elega of style which an acquaintance with classical literature tencs produce, and at the same time great philological learning, o cm upon the interpretation of Scripture and the defence o truth. Almost all of them were well read in the works of the principal writers of Greece and Rome, -in the writings of i Fathers, and the history of the church, -and in the scholastic phi¬ losophers and theologians of the middle ages; and this comj c hended nearly all the knowledge that was then generally acces¬ sible. All this knowledge they were enabled to acquue, employed it in the work to which they were called , am ^ y found that the possession and application of it contributed to promote the success of their labours. The lesson which this fact is fitted to teach, is, that we should estimate highly the value of learning, as a means of promoting the interests of truth and righteousness; and that we should feel it to be incumbent to ac¬ quire as much of knowledge and learning as opportunities ml allow,— especially of that knowledge and learning which bears n directly and immediately upon the various departments of la x> in which we may be called upon to engage for the advancement C“ftr^gthe history of the lives of the leading Reformers, we find that there is scarcely one of them who had no opp trinities afforded them in providence, at some period or other o devoting a considerable portion of time to diligent and careful study. We find they faithfully improved these opportunities, hat they were in consequence able ever thereafter to bring out of their treasure things new and old, and were thus fitted for wider 604 THE REFORMERS, AND THE [Essay XI. and more extensive usefulness. In one aspect, indeed, the truest and highest test of the usefulness of men who have honestly de¬ voted themselves to the immediate service of God, may be said to be the number of souls whom they have directly been the instru¬ ments of converting. God has not unfrequently bestowed, in large measure, this highest usefulness upon men who were but slenderly furnished either with intellectual superiority or acquired knowledge ; and any man, however great his talents and acquire¬ ments who has received many souls for his hire, may well be satisfied with his usefulness and the reward of it. But indepen¬ dently of the consideration, that in all probability God has never employed any man as an instrument of extensive good in His church whom He has not made the direct instrument of convert¬ ing some from the error of their ways and thereby saving their souls, — it must be observed that there is a test of usefulness, which may be regarded as in some respects even higher than this, — when men are enabled to contribute to the wide diffusion of great scriptural principles or truths, — the maintenance and success of a great scriptural cause, — or the infusion of spiritual health and vigour into a dead or languid church. And in these high and diffusive departments of Christian usefulness, the Lord has usually been pleased to employ the services of men who had received from Him, not only the gift of renewed hearts, but also of superior in¬ tellectual powers, and of extensive and varied knowledge. So at least it certainly was at the era of the Reformation ; and the fact that God then took care that those whom He meant chiefly to em¬ ploy in this important work, did in fact acquire extensive learning, which they employed in His service, should teach the obligation incumbent upon all, of improving to the uttermost the opportunities afforded in providence of acquiring all useful knowledge, and the sinfulness of neidectino; them. But, in the second place, the history of the Reformers is fitted to teach a lesson, by exhibiting a striking example of unwearied activity and industry. They were not mere students and authors, they were diligent and laborious workers. As students, they ac¬ quired a large stock of learning ; as waiters they have transmitted to us a great mass of valuable authorship ; while, at the same time, most of them had a great amount of ordinary practical work and business to attend to, and to discharge, in the different situations in which they were placed. Most of them were voluminous Essay XI.] LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY. 605 authors, and have left behind them productions, the mere tran¬ scription of which we, with our low standard of industry and labour, are apt to think might be work for a lifetime. The wor ’s of the different Reformers exhibit, of course, m different degrees, evidence of care and elaboration in point of thought and diction, but they have almost all bequeathed productions which must have occupied a great deal of time, and required a great deal of thought and pains. And they were none of them retired students, with leisure to devote their time unbroken to reading, reflection, anc composition. They were all busily engaged in the discharge of important public duties, as professors and teachers, as pastors of congregations, and organizers of churches ; and m the ordinary administration of ecclesiastical affairs. They had a great public cause in hand, in the defence and maintenance of which tiey were called upon to take a part ; and this not only required of them the publication of works through the press, but must have entailed upon them a large amount of private correspondence anc of personal dealing with men. They did not, m general (Beza was an exception), attain to a great age, but they lived while they lived ; and amid much to distract and harass them, they perform¬ ed an amount of labour, physical and intellectual, the contempla¬ tion of which is usefully fitted to humble us under a sense of our imbecility, inactivity, and laziness, and to stir up. to more strenuous and persevering exertion. Zwmgle was cut oft at the age of forty-seven; and yet, besides doing a great deal of work, not only as pastor and professor of theology m Zurich, but as the leading Reformer (of the German portion) of Switzerland, he has left us four folio volumes of well-digested, well-com¬ posed matter, upon all the great theological topic* that then oc¬ cupied the public mind. And what a life was Calvin s . Thoug 1 he lived only fifty-four years, and struggled during a large portion of it with a very infirm state of bodily health, and with much severe disease, half his life was well-nigh spent be¬ fore the Lord brought him to Geneva, and called him to engage in the public service of His church. But how much was he en¬ abled during the remainder of his life, to do and to effect . Tho g engaged incessantly in the laborious duties of a pastor and pro¬ fessor of theology, he was called upon to give his counsel and ad¬ vice, by personal applications and by written correspondence, upon almost every important question, speculative or practical, that 606 THE REFORMERS, AND THE [Essay XI. affected the interests of the Reformed cause throughout Europe ; and yet he has left many folio volumes (in one edition nine, and in another twelve) full of profound and admirably-digested think¬ ing upon the most important and difficult of all subjects, — exhi¬ biting much patient consideration and great practical wisdom, clothed in pure and classical Latin; forming also (for some of them were written in French, and several, as the 11 Institutions,” both in Latin and French), in the estimation of eminent French critics, who had no liking to his theology or his ecclesiastical labours, an era in the improvement of the language of the country which had the honour to give him birth. We are too apt to think, in these degenerate times, that a reasonable and not very exalted measure of diligence and activity in some one parti¬ cular department, whether of study or of practical labour, is all that can be fairly expected ; but the example of the Reformers should show that it is possible, through God’s grace, to do much more, — should teach a lesson of the value of time, and of the ob¬ ligation to husband and improve it, — and constrain all to labour, with imwearied zeal and diligence, expecting no rest here, but looking, as they did, to the rest that remaineth for the people of God. The third and last lesson suggested by the history and con¬ duct of the Reformers is, the necessity and importance of giving much time and attention to the study of the word of God. The Reformers were all led by God, at an early period in their history, to give careful attention to the study of the sacred Scriptures; and they were guided by His Spirit to form correct views of the great lead¬ ing principles which are there unfolded. They were led to continue ever after to study them with care and diligence; and they perse¬ vered in applying them to comfort their hearts amid all their trials, and difficulties, and to guide them in the regulation of their conduct. It is very evident, from sru’veying the history and the writings of the Reformers, that their strength and success, — both as defenders of divine truth and maintainers of God’s cause, — and also as men en¬ gaged, amid many difficulties in the practical business of the church, and the world, and in the administration of important affairs, — arose very much from their familiar and intimate acquaintance with the word of God — the whole word of God. They were familiar with the meaning and application of its statements, and they were deeply imbued with its spirit. The word of God dwelt in them Essay XI.] LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY. 607 richly, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, and thus became “ a light unto their feet, and a lamp unto their path.” It is an in¬ teresting fact, and is one proof and manifestation of their deep and careful study of the word of God, that many of the leading Reformers have left, amid their other Voluminous productions and abundant labours, commentaries upon the whole, or a large portion of, the sacred Scriptures. We have eight or nine com¬ mentaries upon the whole, or large portions of, the Old and New Testaments, — the productions of as many of the most eminent and laborious of the Reformers ; and this fact of itself, proves the large amount of thought and attention which they were accus¬ tomed to devote to the study of them, and the great familiarity which they had acquired with them. To write a commentary upon the Scriptures, which should really possess any value or utility, implies that they have been made the subject of much deep study and much careful meditation, as well as fervent prayer for divine direction. The commentaries of the Reformers, upon the sacied Scriptures, are, of course, possessed of different degrees of value and excellence,— according to the different gifts and qualifications of the men, and the time and pains which they were able to be¬ stow upon them ; and here, as in every thing else connected with the exposition and application of the whole truth of God,. Calvin towers far above them all ; yet, as a whole, they fully vindicate what we have said of their talents, learning, and general character ; and fully prove that they were eminently qualified for discern- .ing and opening up the mind of God in His word, and that they devoted a large portion of time and attention to investigating the meaning of the sacred Scriptures,— to forming clear and definite conceptions of the import of their statements, and to bringing them out for the instruction and improvement of others. ° There is reason to fear, that, since the period of the Reformation, the careful study of the word of God itself has not usually received the share of time and attention which its importance demands. There has always been, and there still is, too much time and attention, comparatively, given to the. per¬ usal and study of other boofPeonnected with theological subjects, and too little to the study oTthe inspired volume. We know, in general, but little of the word of God as it. ought to be known,— and we are very much disposed to remain in contented ignoiancc of what God has written for our instruction. We are dependent 608 THE REFORMERS AND THEIR HISTORY. [Essay XI. for all true knowledge of tlie word of God upon the agency of the divine Spirit, — but that Spirit we are but little concerned to implore. We are dependent, also, for the attainment of this knowledge, upon our own personal study of the sacred Scriptures, — upon bringing all the powers of our minds to bear upon the in¬ vestigation of their meaning, — and giving to this study no incon¬ siderable portion of our time and attention. But we almost all continue to be chiefly occupied with other pursuits, and with the perusal of other books, while but a fraction of our time is given to the study of the Bible ; and this, too, often without much sense of the solemnity and responsibility of the occupation, and with¬ out even our ordinary powers of attention and application being brought into full and vigorous exercise. Now all this is, in the first place, a sin , — because it is the neglect and violation of a plain and undoubted duty ; and then it has a powerful tendency to diminish the vigour and check the progress of the divine life in the soul, and to enfeeble and paralyze all efforts, in commending with efficacy and success, divine truth to others. The Lord was pleased to lead the Reformers to a careful study of His word, and to guide them to correct views of its leading principles. He quali¬ fied them largely for opening up and expounding its statements to others, — He led them to give much time and attention to this occupation, and made their labours, in this department, orally and by writing, the great means of their usefulness and success ; and we may be assured, that it will be, to a large extent, through our capacity to open up and understand the whole mind of God, as revealed in His word, — a capacity to be acquired only by fer¬ vent prayer and by diligent and continued study of the inspired volume itself, — that we shall best grow in grace and in the power of Christian usefulness. i J INDEX. Arnauld, — Views of, on faith, 137. Assurance, Doctrine op — Views of Reformers on, 111. Personal experience of Reformers as to, 113. Views of Romanists as to, 114. Extreme opinions of Reformers as to, 115-117. Grounds of conviction as to a man’s personal, 118, 119. Exaggerated statements of Luther and Calvin on personal, 119-121. Misstatement by Sir William Hamil¬ ton as to doctrine of the Church of England on, 128-134. Mistakes by Sir William Hamilton as to history of the doctrine of, 135, et seq. The doctrine of, not the fundament¬ al principle of the Reformation, 142. Deliverance of the Council of Trent on, 143, 144. Views of Bellarmine on, 144, 145. Practical duty of Christians as to, 147, 148. Atonement — Views of Calvin on extent of, 395, et seq. Views of Beza on extent of, 395. Evidence that Calvin did not hold the doctrine of universal, 398, et seq. Baptism — Doctrine of the “ Shorter Catechism” on, 242, et seq. Adult Baptism the fundamental tvpe of, 245, 246. Reformed confessions contemplate the case of adult, in their definition of sacraments, 247, 248. Halley on the subjects of, 269. Relation between baptism and spiri¬ tual blessings, 271. Scriptural positions as to infant, 290. VOL. I. Baptismal Regeneration — Unfounded allegation by Phillpots that the Reformed Confessions teach, 241. Unfounded allegation that the West¬ minster Standards teach, 241. Bellarmine — Views of, on Assurance, 144, 145. Beza — Essay on, 345. Character and position of, 345, 346. Accusations against the character of, by Romanists, 346-348. Works of, controversial and occa¬ sional, 348, 349. Differences between theological views of Calvin and of, 349, 350, 358, 364, 371, 395, 402. Views of, on the Erastian and Pre- latic controversies, 350, 351. Services of, in exegetical theology, 352, et seq. Unfounded charges by Dr Campbell against, as a Scripture interpreter, 353-358. Views of, on the imputation of Adam’s sin, 376. Views of, on extent of the atonement, 395. Bossuet — Character of, as a controversalist, 86. Argument of his History of the Varia¬ tions, and reply to it by Basnage, 87. Unfairness of, when the interests of the Church were concerned, 88, 89. Calvin — Injustice done to him by Dr Tulloch, 11. Testimonies to his character, pub¬ lished by the Calvin Translation Society, 12. His discussion with Pighius on the bondage of the will, 25. Doctrine of, on the organization of the Church, 27, 28. 39 610 INDEX. Calvin — Exaggerated statements of, and Luther, on personal assurance, 1 19— 121. Lawrence’s opinion of, and his doc¬ trines, 179. Influence of, on the English Refor¬ mers, 181. Essay on, 292. Character and services of, as a Refor¬ mer, 294. Institutes of, 295, 296. Eminence of, in Exegetical and Sys¬ tematic Theology, 297, 298. Testimonies to eminence of character of, 299, 300. Attacks upon the diameter of, 301, 302. Imperfection of character of, 303- 305. Conduct of, when banished from Geneva, as to ministers left behind, 306, et seq. Evidence of strong affection and for¬ bearance on the part of, from his letters, 313, 314. Share of, in the death of Servetus, 314, et seq. Considerations to be kept in view in judging of his conduct in the mat¬ ter, 318-321. Charges and misrepresentations of Mr Wallace against, 321, et seq. Unfavourable and unfair view by Dr Tulloch of the conduct of, 327, et seq. Refutation of charges by Dr Tulloch against, 329, et seq. Unfounded allegation of pi-esump- tuous speculation in divine things brought against, 333, et seq. Substance of the Reformation aimed at by, 335. The grand heresy of the mediaeval and Romish religions that was op¬ posed by, 337, et seq. Views of, as to the unlawfulness of human appointments in the worship and government of the church, 342-344. Views of, on Snblapsarians and Sup- ralapsarians, 364-366. Views of, on the imputation of Adam’s sin, 371, et seq ., 379. Views of, on the extent of the Atone¬ ment, 395, et seq. Evidence that the doctrine of Univer¬ sal Atonement was not held by, 398, et seq. Views of, on Justification, 402, et seq. Opinion of, on Free Will, 486-488. Calvinism — The fundamental principle of, 201, 434, et seq. Teaching of, on the purposes of God in regard to those who perish, 210. Doctrines of, held by Zwingle, 222- 224. The principles of, alone give the true place to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the salvation 6f sinners, 339-341. Essay on, 413. Concessions by Dr Whately to, 414, 454, 463. Denial by Dr Whately that he holds the doctrine of, 415. Views of Faber on, 419, et seq. Status queestionis between, and Armi- nianism, 420. Baro on, 426. Arminius on, 426. Plaifere on, 427. Mozley on, 429, 430. Westminster Confession on, 431. Questions discussed by divines under the head of, 432. Synod of Dort on, 435. Conclusions as to what is, and what Arminianism, 449. Rules as to the application of the de¬ signations of, and Arminianism, 450-452. Difficulties of, and replies to them, 466-470. Predestination in the system of, not to be identified with Philosophical Necessity, 508, et seq. Essay on the practical application of, 525. The doctrines of, alone give the pro¬ per place to the work of Christ, and the agency of the Spirit, 528, 529. The doctrines of, opposed to the ten¬ dencies and feelings of unrenewed man, 529. Evidence for, founded upon Scripture statements, and not consequences, 529, 530. The objections to, the same as those referred to by Paul, 530, 531. Connection between Election and Reprobation in the System of, 532, et seq. Unfair use made by Arminians of the connection between Election and Reprobation in the System of, 532, et seq. Unfair procedure by Arminians in the synod of Dort in arguing against, 538, 539. INDEX. 611 Calvinism — Unfair attack upon, by Hoard, 539, 540. Reply to Hoard’s attack upon, by Davenant, 541, et seq. Unfairness of John Wesley in his attack on, 546, 554, 559. Substance of what its intelligent ad¬ herents believe on the subject of, 547, 548. Leading objections brought against the doctrines of, 549. General misrepresentation by Ar- minians of the doctrines of, 551. The means and the end equally fore¬ ordained according to the system of, 552, et seq. Misrepresentation of the argument on, by Richard Watson, 559-565. Chalmers on the foreordination of means and ends in the system of, 559-561. Whately on the foreordination of means and ends in the system of, 565. Unfounded allegation by Whately that the doctrines of, have no prac¬ tical influence, 566, et seq. Rules to be observed in the discussion of the practical application of, 570. Substance of what is to be believed as to the personal application of the doctrines of, 573, 574, et seq. Westminster Confession on the prac¬ tical application of the doctrines of, 578, et seq. Unfounded allegation by Whately that the 17th Article of the Church of England denies any practical application of the doctrine of Elec¬ tion in the system of, 581, et seq. Remarks on the 17 th Article of the Church of England in connection with, 591, et seq. Distinctions as to the “ Will of God in the system of, 595. Conditional character of prophecy not asserted, but denied, by intel¬ ligent defenders of, 596. Practical effects of the discussions on the doctrines of, 597, 598. Four branches into which a full dis¬ cussion of the doctrines of, would divide itself, 599. Campbell, Dr — Views of Reformation by, 3. Charges by, against Beza as a Scrip¬ ture interpreter, 353-358. Chalmers — Views of, on Faith, 122. Views of, on Imputation, 384. Chalmers — Attack on, by Sir William Hamilton, as to Philosophical Necessity, 471, 472,476,477. Views of, on Philosophical Necessity, 472, 476, 477, 478, 481, 483, 488, 490, 492, 495, 508, 513, 516. . Views of, as to the foreordination of means and ends in the system of Calvinism, 559-561. Church — Doctrine of Calvin on Organisation of, 27, 28. . Different opinions as to what Scripture teaches on the Organization of, 29. Dr Tulloch’s views as to the teaching of Scripture on the Organisation of the Church, 29, 30. Two views generally held by Refor- mers on the Organisation of, offen¬ sive to Latitudinarians, 31. The Calvinistic Reformers held that nothing was lawful in, without Scripture warrant, 32. Scripture evidence for this truth, 33.. Human inventions in, injurious, 34. Importance of this principle, 35. Practical effect of this principle in shutting out superstitious rites and ceremonies, 36, 37. Jus divinum of a particular form of government in, 37. Fundamental principles revealed, but not details of government of, 38. A priori reasonings unsatisfactoiy foi a jus divinum of government in, 40. Scripture principle and apostolic practice furnish evidence for a par¬ ticular form of government in, 41. Reasons against a jus divinum by DrTulloch, 42. Claim to a jus divinum not unreason¬ able or intolerant, 43, 44. In some sense the representative of Christ upon earth, 54. Perversion of this doctrine by papists, 54. Tendency of this doctrine to lead to persecution on the part of Romanists, 55. Views of Calvin as to the unlawful¬ ness of human appointments in the worship and government of, 342, 344. Church of England — . Mis-statement by Sir William Hamil¬ ton as to Doctrine of, on Assurance, lAO? JO1*. Doctrinal Sense of the Articles or, 164, 167. Calvinism of the early divines of, 168, 192. 612 INDEX. Church of England — Waterland on the Calvinism of, 171, 172. Hill on the Calvinism of, 173. Kippling on the Calvinism of 174. Lawrence on the Calvinism of, 175. Tomline on the Calvinism of, 175, 422. Goode on the Calvinism of, 176, 177. Wilberforce on the Calvinism of, 177, 178. Calvinism of the 17th Article of, 193, 195. Perversion by Tomline of the 17th Article of, 195. Misinterpretation by Lawrence of the 17th Article of, 196, 197. Comparison between the 17th Article of, and Melancthon’s common¬ places, 198. Eallacy of the reasons for denying the Calvinism of the Articles of, 203- 206. Defective and indefinite views of the Evangelical Clergy of, 208, 209. Magee on the Calvinism of, 422. Bode on the Calvinism of, 424. Burnet on the Calvinism of, 428. Browne on the Calvinism of, 429. Church of Eome — Pelagian Views in, before the Defor¬ mation, 183-185. Alleged Calvinism in, before the Reformation, 187, 188. Doctrine of, on the Sacraments, 233, 234. Views of, on the Imputation of Adam’s sin, 377, 378. Confessions— Views of Reformed, on Saving Eaith, 124, 125. Dort, Synod of — Deliverance of, on Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians, 367-369. Views of, on Calvinism, 435. Edwards, Jonathan — Views of, on Original Sin, 372. Views of, on Imputation, 384. Views of, in the Westminster Confes¬ sion, 490. Opinions of, on Philosophical Neces¬ sity, 483, 484, 488, 489, 492, 494, 495, 504, 506. Election— Views of Arminians on, 437, 441. Two questions of importance in re¬ gard to, 440. P aber’s four different doctrines on, 44 1 . Views of Locke on, 442. Views of Sumner on, 442. Election — Three positions held by Calvinists as to, 442, et seq. Whately’s views on, 447-448. Difference between Whately and Sum¬ ner on, 448. Amesius on the difference between, and Reprobation, 550. Unfounded allegation by Whately, that the 17th Article of the Church of England denies any practical application of the doctrine of, in the system of Calvinism, 581, et seq. Faith — View's of Romanists on saving, 122. Views of Reformers on saving, 122, 123. Mis-statements by Sir William Ha¬ milton as to views of the Reformers on, 126, 127. Views of Le Blanc on, 136-140. Views of Arnauld on, 137. Views of Jurieu on, 139. Views of Chalmers on, 122. Hamilton, Sir William — His attack on the character of the Reformers, 60. His attacks upon Luther, 74-76. His charge against Luther, as claim¬ ing personal infallibility, 77. Reply to the charge, 77, 78. Character of, as a controversialist, 79. His extracts from the writings of Luther, borrowed from Bossuet, 80, 81. Incorrectness of his extracts from Luther, 81-83. Assaults by, on Archdeacon Hare, 85, 86. His unfairness in dealing wdth Luther’s consent to the marriage of the Land¬ grave of Hesse, 92. His charge against Luther, of preach¬ ing immorality, 99. His statements as to views of Re¬ formers on Assurance, 111, 112. Mis-statements by, as to view's of the Reformers on faith, 126, 127. Mis-statement by, of the Doctrine of the Church of England on Assur¬ ance, 128, 134. Mistakes by, as to history of the Doc¬ trine of Assurance, 135, et seq. Misrepresentation by, of the Doctrine of the Reformation as to Justifica¬ tion, 146. His views on Philosophical Necessity, 471-473. INDEX. 613 Hamilton, Sir William — Attack by, on Dr Chalmers as to Philosophical Necessity, 471, 472, 476-477. The Doctrine of Philosophical Neces¬ sity untruly alleged by, to be op¬ posed to Calvinism, 482. Hare, Archdeacon — Vindication of Luther by, 61. Qualifications of, as a defender of Luther, 62, 63. His character of Moehler’s “ Sym¬ bolism,” 70, 71. Assaults upon, by Sir Wm. Hamilton, 85, 86. His views of Luther’s consent to the marriage of the Landgrave ot Hesse, 93-95. Remarks upon Hare’s vindication of Luther in this matter, 96-98. His remarks on Hamilton’s charge against Luther of preaching im¬ morality, 99. Imputation — Views of Calvin on, 371, et seq. Differences of opinion among those who have denied, 375. Views of Beza on, 376. Views of Placseus on, 379, et seq. Views of Westminster Confession on, 382, 383. Views of Jonathan Edwards on, 384. Views of Chalmers on, 384. Views of Rogers on, 385, et seq. Views of Scripture on, 390, et seq. Argument by Dr Hodge on, 394. J ustification — Dr Tulloch’s statement of Luther’s view of, 23. Westminster Confession on, 24, 405. Dr Tulloch holds that Scripture teaches no definite doctrine on, 25. Exposition of the doctrine of, by Luther, 102-104. Misrepresentation by Sir William Hamilton of the doctrine of the Reformation as to, 146. Views of Melancthon on, 163. Views of Calvin on, 402, et seq. Luther — Dr Tullocli’s statement of his doc¬ trine of Justification, 23. His discussion with Erasmus on the bondage of the will, 25. Dr Tulloch's sketch of, 50. Criticism upon Dr Tulloch’s sketch of, 51, 52. Luther — Essay on, 54. Vindication of, by Archdeacon Hare, 61. Character of, 63. Services rendered by, to Church, 64. Defects of the character of, 65. Defence of, as not being a Father of the Church, but the founder of a school, 66. Assaults upon, by Mr Ward, 67. Attack upon, by Mr Hallam, 67, 68. Worst and most offensive passage in the writings of, 71, 72. Explanation and defence of this pas¬ sage, 72, 73. Attacks upon, by Sir Wm. Hamilton, 74-76. Charged by Sir Wm. Hamilton with claiming Personal Infallibility, 77 ; Reply to the charge, 77, 78. Extracts from writings of, by Sir Wm. Hamilton, borrowed from Bossuet, 80, 81 ; incorrectness of these extracts, 81-83. Rash and exaggerated expressions in the writings of, 83, 84. Consent of, to the marriage of the Landgrave of Hesse to a second wife while his first was alive, 89, 90. His conduct in the matter not ap¬ proved by Protestants, 91. Unfairness of Sir Wm. Hamilton in dealing with it, 92. Hare’s view of his conduct, 93-95. Remarks upon Hare’s view, 96-98. Charge by Sir William against, for preaching Immorality, 99. Remarks by Hare on this charge, 99. Claims of, as a man, upon our es¬ teem, 100. Claims of, on our gratitude for his services to the Church, 101, 102. Exposition by, of the doctrine of Justification, 102-104. Views of, on the Romish rites and ceremonies, 104, 105. Exaggerated statements by, on the law of God, 105, 106. Error of, in regard to the Lord’s Sup¬ per, 106, 107. Changes in the opinions of, 107, 108. The Calvinistic principles of, 108- 110. Exaggerated statements of Calvin and, on personal assurance, 119- 121. Services of, in bringing out the true doctrine of Justification, 337. 614 INDEX. Melanctiion — Essay on, 149. New Edition of the Works of, 149. Character of, 152-154. Tendency of, to compromise Scrip¬ tural Truth, 155-158. The principal Theological Works of, 160, 161. His early high Predestinarian Views abandoned by, 161, 162. Doctrine of Justification not surren¬ dered by, 163. Parker Society — Works of, 150, 151. Philosophical Necessity — Essay on, 471. Sir William Hamilton on the Doctrine of, 471-473. The Doctrine of, untruly alleged by Hamilton to be opposed to Calvin¬ ism, 482. The Doctrine of, not opposed to the Westminster Confession, 484, etseq. Opinions of Jonathan Edwards on, 483, 484, 488, 489, 492, 494, 495, 504, 506. The Doctrine of, not to be identified with the Doctrine of Predestination, 508, et seq. Sir James Mackintosh on, 512. Views of Dr Chalmers on, 472, 476, 477, 478, 481, 483, 488, 490, 492, 495, 508, 513, 516. Reformation, Leaders of, 1. Two Views of, one Negative and the other Positive, 1. Negatively, a Revolt against Rome, and Authority in Religious Mat¬ ters, 2. Positively, an Assertion of the Autho¬ rity of Scripture and Religious Truth, 2. In its Negative Aspect commended by Rationalists and Latitudinar- ians, 2. Views of, by Dr Robertson, 2. Views of, by Dr Campbell, 3. View of, by Wegscheider, 3. Character of Dr Tulloch’s Work on the Leaders of, 8. Theology of, depreciated by Dr Tul- loch, 9. Account by Dr Tulloch of the Theo¬ logy of, 12-14. Theology of, substantially identical with Calvinism, 14. Attack by Mr Isaac Taylor on the Theology of, 18. New Theology expected by Dr Tul- Reformation, Leaders of — loch and Mr Taylor to replace Theology of, 19. The Doctrine of Assurance not the fundamental principle of, 142. Misrepresentation by Sir William Hamilton of the Doctrine of, as to Justification, 146. Reformers — Did not formally discuss the right of private judgment, 4. Their great object to find out the truth of God in His word, 4. Believed themselves to be contending for the cause of God, 5. View of, by Hallam, 5. Instruments in the hand of God for exposing corruptions of the Church of Rome, 6. Unanimity among, on Articles of Christian Faith, 7. Deference due to, 7. Their practice in regard to Scripture inferences disapproved of, by Dr Tulloch, 20. Theological system of, disapproved of, by Dr Tulloch, 21. Two views generally held by, on the organisation of the Church offen¬ sive to Latitudinarians, 31. The Calvinistic, held that nothing was lawful in the Church without Scripture warrant, 32. Scripture evidence for this truth, 33. Views of, derived not from Augustine, but from Scripture, 52. Slanders against, propagated by Ro¬ mish writers, 56. Allegation of Romanists that God would not use such men as the, for His work, 57. Reply of Protestants to this allegation, 57. Method in which allegations against, ought to be dealt with, 58. Misrepresentation of, by others than Romanists, 59, 60. Attack on the character of, by Sir William Hamilton, 60. Doctrine of Assurance as held by, 111. Statement by Sir William Hamilton as to views of, on assurance, 111, 112. Personal experience of, as to assur¬ ance, 113. Extreme opinions of, as to assurance, 115-117. Views of, on saving faith, 122, 123. Confessions of, on saving faith, 124, 125. INDEX. 615 Reformers— Mis-statements of Sir William Hamil¬ ton, as to views of, on faith, 126, 127. The great body of the, Calvinists, 189. Bullinger’s influence on the English, 190. Timidity of the English, 190, 191. Essay on the lessons from the history of, 600. Great natural talents of the, 600. Extensive learning of, 601. Talent and learning of, employed by God in the advancement of His work, 603, 604. Activity and industry of, 604-606. Attention to the study of the word- of God by the, 606. Acquaintance with Scripture a great means of the usefulness and success of, 608. Romanists — Views of, as to assurance and reli¬ gious certainty, 114. Views of, on saving faith, 122. Sacraments — Opinions of Zwingle on the subject of, 225-230. Corruption of the scriptural doctrine of, in the early church, 232. Doctrine of the Church of Rome on, 233, 234. Protestant doctrine of, 234-237. Tendency among Protestant divines to overstate the importance of, 240. Unfounded allegation by Phillpots, that the Reformed Confessions teach baptismal regeneration, 241. Unfounded allegation, that the West¬ minster Standards teach baptismal regeneration, 241. Doctrine of the “ Shorter Catechism ” on, 242. Reformed Confessions contemplate the case of adult baptism in their definition of, 247, 248. Westminster Standards represent the, as intended for believers, 250-252. Two aspects of, 253, 254. Sacraments are signs and seals, 254, 255. Meaning of participation in, 256-258, 270. Romish doctrine, that the grace signi¬ fied by, is contained in, 260. Parties for whom the Sacraments are intended, 262. Vitringa on the efficacy of, 264. Sacraments — Believers the proper subjects of, 266, 267. Objects of, 272. Westminster Standards on the objects of, 274-276. Definition of, in “ Shorter Catechism,” 276, et seq. Rutherford’s views on, 279. Gillespie’s views on, 280. Boston’s views on, 282. Dr John Erskine’s views on, 283. Scriptural positions as to, 285, 287. Scripture Consequences, 526, 527. SuBLAPSARIANS — Controversy between, and supralap- sarians, 358, et seq. Principles in debate between, and Supralapsarians, 360. Difference between, and Supralapsa¬ rians unimportant, 362. Views of Dr Twisse on, and Supra¬ lapsarians, 363, 364. Calvin’s sentiments on, and Supra¬ lapsarians, 364-366. Deliverance of Synod of Dort on, and Supralapsarians, 367-369. Views of Westminster Confession on, and, Supralapsarians, 369, 370. Theology — Clear and definite views on, unpopu¬ lar in the present day, 46. Character of men of progress in, 48. Vital questions to be determined in, 49. Authorities in, 406, et seq. Benefits of controversy in, 410. Trent, Council of — Deliverance of, on Assurance, 143, 144. Gave no formal decision on Predes¬ tination, 188, 189. Tulloch, Dr — Character of his work, 8. Theology of Reformation depreciated by, 9. Injustice done by him to Calvin, 11. Account by, of the theology of the Reformation, 12-14. His views of Calvinism, 15, 16. His beliefs on the theology of the Reformation, 17. Practice of the Reformers as to Scrip¬ ture inferences disapproved of by, 20. Disapproves of the theological sys¬ tems of the Reformers, 21. His statement of Luther’s doctrine of justification, 23. Holds that Scripture teacheS no defi¬ nite doctrine on justification, 25. , 616 INDEX. Tulloch, Dr — Considers discussion on bondage of the will a logomachy, 26. Holds that Scripture teaches no defi¬ nite principles on the organisation of the church, 29, 30. His reasons against a jus divinum, 42, His sketch of Luther, 50 ; criticism upon his sketch of Luther, 51, 52. Westminster Confession— View of, on Justification, 24, 405. Views of, on Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians, 369, 370. Views of, on Imputation, 382, 383. Views of, on Calvinism, 431. The Doctrine of philosophical ne¬ cessity not opposed to, 484, et seq. Teaching of, on free will, 489 et seq., 496 et seq. Jonathan Edwards on, 490. Explanation of 9th chap, of, on free will, 517, et seq. Views of, on the practical applica¬ tion of the doctrines of Calvinism, 578, et seq. Whately, Dr — Concessions by, to Calvinism, 414, 454, 463. Denial by, that he holds the doc¬ trine of Calvinism, 415. Must be regarded as an Arminian, 417. His views on election, 447, 448. Difference between, and Sumner on Election, 448. Views of, on the foreordination of means and ends in the system of Calvinism, 565. Unfounded allegation hy, that the doctrines of Calvinism have no practical influence, 566, et seq. Unfounded allegation by, that the 17 th Article of the Church of Eng- Westminster Confession — land denies any practical applica¬ tion of the doctrine of election in the system of Calvinism, 581, et seq. Will — Bondage of, discussed by Luther and Erasmus, 25. Bondage of, discussed by Calvin and Pighius, 25. Discussion on bondage of, considered by Dr Tulloch a logomachy, 26. Locke on the Freedom of, 474. Unfairness of arguing from Conse¬ quences, in the Controversy on the, 478-480. Opinion of Augustine on Free, 485, 486. Opinion of Calvin on Free, 486-488. Teaching of Westminster Confession on Free, 489, et seq., 496, et seq. Dugald Stewart on the Doctrine of Free, 483. Turretine on Free, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502. Owen on the Freedom of, 502, 503. Distinction between Liberty of, in man fallen and unfallen, 514, et seq. Explanation of 9th Chap, of West¬ minster Confession on, 517, et seq. Zwingle — Essay on, 212. Character of, 214. Comparison between Luther and, 217. Orthodoxy of, assailed on the Doc¬ trines of Original Sin and the Sal¬ vation of the Heathen, 219-221. Calvinism of, 222-224. Opinions of, on the Power of the Civil Magistrate in Beligion, 224, 225. Opinions of, on the subject of the Sacraments, 225-230. MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. COLLECTED WORKS OF TIIE REV. WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. EDITED HIS LITERARY EXECUTORS. VOL. I. EDINBURGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON. M DCCCLXII. MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, BDINBURGH. Mortis f itMisto % C. an* %. Clark, Ckintarsli. FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. FOUR LARGE VOLUMES IN DEMY 8vo, FOR ONE GUINEA PER ANNUM. Messrs Clark beg respectfully to invite tbe attention of the clergy and intelligent laity Messrs llakk ueg t ,mni-v Thev trust to receive a continuation of the paid in instaliuOTte^^^ ^ ^oN-gUBSCRIBERs are ^jZacecZ parenth .eses.. Twelve Volumes of this Series (only) will be supplied at the Subscription Price of Three Guineas (or a larger number at same ratio). Dr E. W. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on the PSALMS. By E. W. H° gstenberg, D.D., Professor of Theology m Berlin. In 3 vols. 8 vo, (33s.) w _ _-j.« , T)r v t? Hagenbach. — Compendium oi the History of DOOTRINESg By K R. Hagenbach.Id.D., Professor of Theology in the Uni¬ versity of Basle. In 2 vols. 8vo, (21s.) ^ __ . , . i Dr J. C. L. Gieseler.— Compendium of Ecclesiastical HISTORY. By J. C. L. Gieseler, D.D., Professor of Theology m Gottingen. 5 vols. 8vo, (L.2, 12s. 6d.) , Dr Hermann Olshausen.— Biblical Commentary on In 4 vols. demy 8vo, (L.2, 2s.) , Biblical Commentary on the Romans, adapted especially for Preachers and Students. By HERMARK OLSHAUSEN, D.D., Pro .essor Theology in the University of Erlangen. In 1 vol. 8vo, (10s. 0 Biblical Commentary on St Paul’s First and Second EPISTLES to the CORINTHIANS. By Hermann Olshausen, D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Erlangen. In 1 vol. Svo, (. &■) _ ■Rihlical Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the rA i A PT ANS EPHESIANS COLOSSIANS, and THESSALONIANS. ByHER- Thetdo^in the University of Erlangen. In 1 yol. 8 vo, (10s. 6d.) . _ , . , Biblical Commentary on St Paul s Epistle to the PHILIPPIANS, to TITUS, and the FIRST to TIMOTHY ; m Continuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Lie. August Wieslnger. Hi 1 vol. 8vo, (10s. bd.) Biblical Commentary on the Hebrews. By Dr Ebrard. In continuation of the Work of Olshausen. In one vol. 8vo, (10s. 6d.) Dr Augustus Heander. — General History of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION and CHURCH. By Augustus Neander D D Irans- lated from the Second and Improved Edition In (L’2’ 9s‘ 6d') This is the only Edition m a Library enze. Dr C. J. Nitzsch.— A System of Christian Doctrine. By C. J. Nitzsch, D.D. Translated from the Fifth Revised ana Enlarged German Edition. 1 vol. 8vo, (10s. 6d.) Prof H. A. Ch. Havernick. — General Introduction TO* THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Professor Havernick. 1 vol. 8vo, (10s. 6 •) Dr Julius Muller.— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr Julius Muller. 2 vols. 8vo, (21s.) HUorftg ;PubIt£l)etl bo C. anK Clatdt. FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. The Second Series comprises the following Works. 20 Yols Subscribers’ price, Five Guineas. Dr E. W. Hengstenberg. — Christology of the Old TESTAMENT, and a COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D., Professor of Theology, Berlin. Four vols. (L.2, 2s.) Dr M. Baumgarten.— The Acts of the Apostles ; or, THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By M. Baumgarten, Ph.D., and Professor in the University of Rostock. Three vols. (L.l, 7s.) Dr Rudolph Stier. — The Words of the Lord Jesus. By Rudolph Stier, D.D., Chief Pastor and Superintendent of Sclikeuditz. In Eight volumes 8vo, (L.4, 4s.) Dr Carl Ullmann. — Reformers before the Reforma- TION, Principally in Germany and the Netherlands. Translated by the Rev. R. Menzies. Two vols. 8vo, (L.l, Is.) Dr K. F. Kell. — Commentary on the Book of Joshua. By K. F. Keil, D.D., Ph.D., Professor, Dorpat. 8vo, (10s. 6d.) Dr K. F. Keil.— Commentary on the Books of Kings. By Professor Keil, of Dorpat. Supplemented by Commentary on the BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. By Professor Bertheau of Gottingen. Two vols. 8vo, (L.l, Is.) N.E. — A single Year’s Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. The following is the order of Publication of the Second Series : — 4th Year (1857). S tier’s Words of Jesus, Vol. 6. Keil on Joshua. Keil and Bertheau on Kings and Chronicles, 2 Vols. 5th Year (1858). Stier’s Words of Jesus, Vols. 7 and 8. Hengstenberg’s Christology, Vols. 3 and 4. Isj! Year (1854). ITcngstenberg’s Christology, Vol. 1. Baumgarten on the Acts, 3 Vols. 2d Year (1855). Ollmann s Reformers, 2 Vols. Stier’s Words of Jesus, Vols. 1 and 2. 3d Year (1856). Hengstenberg’s Christology, Vol. 2. Stier’s Words of Jesus, Vols. 3, 4, 5. FOREIGN THE0LQOIGAL LIBRARY. The Third Series comprises the following Works, so far as already published. Subscription 1859-1860-1861- 1862, Four Guineas. Professor Kurtz.— History of the Old Covenant ; or, OLD TESTAMENT DISPENSATION. By Professor Kurtz of Dorpat. In three volumes. (L.l, 11s. 6d.) Dr Rudolph Stier _ The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the EPISTLE OP ST JAMES. By Bukjph Stier, D.D., Chief Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. One volume. ( • v Professor Tholuck.— Commentary on the Gospel ol ST JOHN. By Professor Tholucic, of Halle. Translated from the Sixth E 1 ion o the Original, by Charles P. Krauth, D.D. In one volume. (Js.) Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Sermon on THE MOUNT. By Professor Tholuck, of Halle. Translatedfrom the , our Revised and Enlarged Edition, by the Rev. E. Lundin Brow, M.A. In one volume. (10s. 6d.) _ , Dr E. W. Hengstenberg.— Commentary on the Book: of ECCLESIASTES. To which are appended : Treatises on the > Song of Jj^omon; on the Book of Job; on the Prophet Isaiah ; on the Sacrifices °f Holy I Scripture , _and on the Jews and the Christian Church. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D. Irans lated by Rev. D. W. Simon. In one volume, 8vo. (9s.) Dr John H. A. Ebrard.— Commentary on the Epistles of ST JOHN. By Dr John H. A. Ebrard, Professor of Theology m the Umversi y of Erlangen. Translated by the Rev. W. B. Pope. In one volume. (10s. 0d.) Dr J. P. Lange. — Theological and Homiletical COMMENT AKY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST MATTHEW. Speomlly Designed and Adapted for the Use of Ministers and Students. By J. P. £ of Divinity in the University of Bonn. Translated by the Rev. A. Edersheim, 1 h. 11. Yols. L, II. (10s. 6d. each.) Dr J. A. Dorner.— History of the Development oi THE DOCTRINE OP THE PERSON OP CHRIST. By Dr J. A. Dorner, Pro¬ fessor of Theology in the University of Gottingen. Divisions I. and II. Vo. . Translated by Revs. Dr W. L. Alexander, and D. W. Simon. (10s. 6d. each.) N.B.—A single Year’s Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. The following is the order of Publication of the Third Series. 1st Year (1859). 2 d Year (1860). Hengstenberg on Ecclesiastes, 1 Vol. Tholuck on St J obn, 1 Vol. Tholuck’s Sermon on the Mount, 1 Vol. Ebrard on Epistles of J ohn, 1 V ol. Kurtz on Old Covenant Dispensation, 3 Vols. Stier on the Risen Saviour, etc., 1 V ol. 3d Year, 1861. Lange on St Matthew’s Gospel, Vols. I. and L II. Corner on Person of Christ. Div. I., Vol. I.; and Div. IL, Vol. I. The First Issue for 1862, will be Dorner, Div. I, Vol. 11. , and Lange , Vol. III. Annual Subscription, One Guinea. Subscribers’ Names received ty all Booksellers. (For Non-Subscribers only) Hamilton, Adams, & Co., London. 4 mavte PubltJaijcK bn E. an* €. Clark. CHEAP RE-ISSUE OF IKE WHOLE WORKS OF DR JOHN OWEN. EDITED BY REV. W. H. GOOLD, D.D., EDINBURGH, WITH LIFE BY REV. ANDREW THOMSON, D.D. In 24 Volumes, demy 8vo, handsomely bound in cloth, lettered. With Two Portraits of Dr Owen. Several years have now elapsed since the first publication of this Edition of the Works of the greatest of Puritan Divines. Time has tested its merits ; and it is now admitted, on all hands, to be the only correct and complete edition. At the time of publication it was considered — as it really was — a miracle of cheapness, having been issued, by Subscription, for Five Guineas. In consequence of the abolition of the Paper Duty, the Publishers beg now to issue Proposals for a Re-issue of the Twenty-four Volumes (to Subscribers only) for FOUR GUINEAS. As there are above Fourteen Thousand Pages in all, each Volume therefore averages Five Hundred and Ninety Payes. It will be issued on the following conditions : — 1. Six Volumeslwill be issued annually — in one delivery on 1st March of each year — the Subscription of One Guinea being remitted in advance. 2. A sufficient number having indicated their desire to receive the Twenty- four Volumes in one delivery, arrangements are made for this purpose, — the Subscription of Four Guineas being payable in advance. 3. The Publishers greatly prefer that intending Subscribers pay their Sub¬ scription through their respective Booksellers ; but they beg that, in any case, the names may be forwarded to them at once. 4. It is distinctly to be understood, that parties subscribing, subscribe for the whole Twenty-four Volumes. 5. The issue at Four Guineas will be strictly confined to Subscribers ; and after the List is complete, the Work will return to its former price. The first issue , Vols. 1 to 6, is now ready , and also the complete set of 24 Volumes. Messrs Clark trust to receive the support of the Clergy and Laity of all Denominations for this undertaking, which, in connection with Mr Nichol’s Series, and the publication of Howe by another firm, completes the grand gallery of PURITAN DIVINES. “ $ou hull finti tljat tit 3[oljn SDtoett tfjc learning of Ligljtfoot, Hie strength of Charnodt, tlje analyte of I)otoe, tlje sabour of JLctgljton, tfje tannest of It>CRtoooti, tlje glolo of Barter, the copiousness of Barroto, tlje splendour of Bates, arc all contkinctJ. Hie shoulti quicklp restore tlje rare of great tubincs if our cantnoatcs tocre nisctpitncti in Such lore.” — The Late Dr Hamilton oj Leeds. WORKS OF JOHN CALVIN, IN 51 VOLUMES, DEMY 8vo. Messrs CLARK beg respectfully to announce that the whole Stock and Copy¬ rights of the WORKS OF CALVIN, published by the _ Calvin Translation Society, are now their property, and that this valuable Series will be issued by them on the following very favourable terms : — 1. Complete Sets in 51 Volumes, Nine Guineas. (Original Subscription price about L.13.) The ‘ Letters,’ edited by Dr Bonnet, 2 vols., 10s. 6d. additional. 2. Complete Sets of Commentaries, 45 vols., L.7, 17s. 6d. 3. A Selection of Six Volumes (or more at the same proportion), for 21s., with the exception of the Institutes, 3 vols. 4. The Institutes, 3 vols., 24s. 5. Any Separate Volume (except Institutes), 6s. THE CONTENTS OF THE SERIES ARE AS FOLLOW: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Tracts on the Reformation, Commentary on Genesis, . Harmony of the last Four Books of the Pentateuch, . . . . Commentary on J oshua, . „ the Psalms, „ Isaiah, „ Jeremiah and Lamen¬ tations, . „ Ezekiel, „ Daniel, „ Hosea, „ Joel, Amos, and Oba- diah, „ Jonah, Micah, and Nahum, VOL. 3 3 2 4 1 5 4 5 2 2 1 Commentary on Habakkuk, Zepha- niah, and Haggai, . „ Zechariah and Malaclii, Harmony of the Synoptical Evan¬ gelists, . Commentary on John’s Gospel, „ Acts of the Apostles, „ Romans, „ Corinthians, „ Galatians & Ephesians, „ Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians, „ Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, „ Hebrews, . „ Peter, John, James, and Jude, VOL. 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 Amongst the Theological Works which were widely circulated in England and Scotland” during the latter part of the Sixteenth century, Translations of many of the Writings of John Calvin had a distinguished place. Of his eminence as a Divine and Commentator on the Holy Scriptures, it is unnecessary here to speak, though few are now fully aware of the very high respect in which his Works were held by all the leading English Reformers and Ecclesiastical Writers from Cranmer to Hooker, and the extensive benefits resulting to the Church of Christ from his literary labours. At that time, doctrines which he never held were not attributed to him ; nor were sentiments imputed to him which he never advocated. Bishop Horsley well advised to ascertain what is Calvinism and what is not. Copious Tables and Indices are appended to each of the Commentaries, etc., to facilitate reference, and to render the whole Series more generally useful and acceptable to every class of readers. 1 The Venerable Calvin.— I hold the memory of Calvin in high veneration ; his works have a place in my library ; and in the study of the Holy Scriptures he is one of the commentators I most frequently consult. Bishop Horsley. . ‘Calvin's Commentaries remain, after three centuries, unparalleled lor lorce of.mmd, iustness of expression, and practical views of Christianity. Bishop oj Calcutta ( Wilson). J ‘ The Genevese Reformer (Calvin) surpassed Knox in the extent of his theological learning, and in the unrivalled solidity and clearness of his judgment.’— APCrie {Life of fCnox) i a minister without this, is without one of the best Commentaries on the Scriptures, and a valuable body of divinity.’— Bicker steth, Christian Student. 6 OTorfes ^uftltefirtf ftp C. anK €. Clarfe. JOHN ALBERT BENGEL’S GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. IJtofo first Cranskfcb into (Engtislj. WITH ORIGINAL NOTES, EXPLANATORY AND ILLUSTRATIVE. The Translation is comprised in Five Large Volumes, Demy 8vo, of (on an average) fully 550 pages each. Subscription, 31s. 6d., or free by Post 35s. The very large demand for Bengel’s Gnomon enables the Publishers still to supply it at the Subscription Price. The whole work is issued under the Editorship of the Rev. Andrew R. Fausset, M.A., Rector of St Cuthbert’s, York, late University and Queen’s Scholar, and Senior Classical and Gold Medalist, T.C.D. For the convenience of such as may wish only a portion of the Commentary , the volumes are sold separately at 8 s. 6d. each ( except Vol. II. 10s. Gd.). Vol. I.— INTRODUCTION, MATTHEW, MARK. Vol. II.— LUKE, JOHN, ACTS. Vol. III.— ROMANS, CORINTHIANS. Vol. IV.— GALATIANS to HEBREWS. Vol. V. — JAMES, to the End. 1 There are few devout students of the Bible who have not long held Bengel in the highest estimation, nay, revered and loved him. It was not, however, without some ap¬ prehension for his reputation with English readers that we saw the announcement of a translation of his work. We feared that his sentences, terse and condensed as they are, would necessarily lose much of their pointedness and force by being clothed in another garb. But we confess, gladly, to a surprise at the success the translators have achieved in preserving so much of the spirit of the original. We are bound to say that it is executed in the most scholarlike and able manner. The translation has the merit of being faithful and perspicuous. Its publication will, we are confident, do much to bring back readers to the devout study of the Bible, and at the same time prove one of the most valuable of exegetical aids. The “ getting up ” of those volumes, combined with their marvellous cheapness, cannot fail, we should hope, to command for them a large sale.’ — Eclectic Review. 1 We are heartily glad that this important work, of an English Translation of Bengel’s “ Gnomon,” has not only been fairly started, but has been successfully completed. Ben- gel’s “ Gnomon” has always been held in the highest estimation by all competent judges, as presenting a very remarkable, probably unexampled, combination of learning, sagacity, critical tact, evangelical unction, and terseness and condensation of style. Its growing popularity in Germany is, like the popularity of Calvin’s Commentary on the New Testa¬ ment, as edited by Tholuck, one of the very best signs of the times. . . The enterpris¬ ing publishers have secured, for this purpose, the services of several accomplished and thoroughly qualified scholars. Mr Fausset, of Trinity College, Dublin, acts as general editor and superintendent, and undertakes the translation of the Commentary upon the Gospels of Mark, Luke, John, and Acts of the Apostles. The Rev. James Bandinel of Wadham College, Oxford, has translated Bengel’s General Preface, and his Commentary upon Matthew’s Gospel. The Rev. Dr James Bryce, late of Aberdeen, has translated the portion upon the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, and has undertaken the rest of Paul’s Epistles. The Rev. Dr Fletcher of Wimborne has executed the translation of the remainder of the work on the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse.’ — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. •?