YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE EEFOEMEES

THEOLOGY OP THE EEFOEIATM.

BY THE LATE

WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.

EDITED BY HiS-MpEARY EXECUTOES.
Trowbridoe Referee

SEct}N&&&rTON.

EDINBURGH:
T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON.
MDCCCLXVI.

Yale Divinity Library
New HavenJ^onn.

MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.

PREFACE.

In introducing the present volume to the Public, the
Editors feel that a few words of explanation may be
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 be 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 entrusted 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 were
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
Cunningham 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 EEFORMATION,  1
LUTHER,  54
THE REFORMERS AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE, . . Ill
MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND,  149
ZWXNGLE AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, . . 212
JOHN CALVIN,  292
CALVIN AND BEZA,  345
CALVINISM AND AEMINIANISM,  413
CALVINISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL
NECESSITY  471
CALVINISM AND ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION, ... 525
\THTi EEFORMEES AND THE LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY, . 600

LEADERS' OF THE REFORMATION.*

j HE 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 uninspired 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 improvements in all matters
affecting literature, civilisation, liberty, and eocial 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 reli
gion. 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 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

* British and Foreign Evangelical I " Leaders- of the Reformation,
Review, April 1860. ¦ | by John Tolloch, D.D." 1859.
VOL. I. - , 1

5 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
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
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

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 3
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 pre
tender to candour, has, in the last of his lectures on ecclesiastical
history, made it manifest that he considered the chief benefits
which the Reformers 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 arti
fices ; and that he despised all their zealous efforts and contendings
in restoring the pure gospel of the grace of God — the true sys
tem 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 promot
ing 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 Wegscheider dedicated his " Institutiones Theologise
Christiana? DogmaticaB," 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 farther 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 witli their great zeal
for what they l'eckoned truth, and their strenuous and vehement
opposition to what they reckoned error, proved that after all they
were nothing better than narrow-minded bigots. Hallam, in his
" Literature of Europe during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries,"
has some statements to this effect ; and the facts on which he
founds are in the main true, though they certainly do not warrant

* Vol. i. p. 270.

4 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
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 repu
tation 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
maintaining that men are entitled and bound to judge for them
selves, upon their own responsibility, as to what God in His word

Part I. chap. iv. sees. 60, 61.

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION.

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 their 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
laboured to advance. The highest honour of the Reformers, or
rather the principal gift which God gave them, viewed as public

* 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.
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 Re
formers, 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 arrangements of His church were to be regulated ;
and to effect that these true scriptural doctrines should be exten
sively 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 doctrines were true and false, accord
ing to the standard of His own written word. Their unquestion
able sincerity and integrity, their unwearied zeal and activity,
their great talents and their undaunted courage, would only have
shed a false glare around a bad 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 nothing 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 we believe with them that
it is the right standard, we are firmly persuaded that what they

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 7
opposed was error— grievous and dangerous 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,
though not in the main features of their theological system, yielded

8 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
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 in
fluence of the system in which they had been educated, and on
the other hand, what is equally natural, that they were some
times 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's work 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 Tulloch's book, as a whole, would have been entitled to very
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
gave them to do, to bring out from the sacred Scriptures right

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 9
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,
lias 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
impressions in regard to the history of the Reformers must be

10

LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION.

[Essay I.

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
loch that, denying this, he should have treated them with so large
a measure of justice and fairness inmost 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."J
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, not
withstanding his great mental powers, and the great light he has
thrown upon many important topics of discussion, had j^et sucn
defects and infirmities as to unfit him verv 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
certainly deals out to them a large measure of justice and candour,

* P. 72. t P. 317.
X 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. 30, 35.)

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 11
though he does not appreciate fully either their talents or their
services. Calvin, however, as might be expected, does not fare so well
in Dr Tulloch's hands. He was so thoroughly the great repre
sentative of all that Dr Tulloch seems most heartily to disapprove
and dislike, — viz. a distinct and definite system of theological
doctrine, and a church organization upon the model of apostolic
precept and practice, — that it was scarcely to be 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 " to take high
rank as a thinker." But we have a strong impression that he
comes far short of a just appreciation even of Calvin's mental
powers and capacities. And it should not be 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 " Life of Calvin,"
by strong statements about his great talents, his literary excel
lences, 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 frequently 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 admir
ably fitted to counteract some of the prevailing misconceptions 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 Jules 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 Fare], Viret,
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 of

12 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
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*— " 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 "overflowing" in a different sense from other men; for if
we 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, has 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 Society, con
taining 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 when 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
fairness to give 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 very 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
influences which had descended as a hoary heritage of ages to the sixteenth
eentury."f " 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. f 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 systematizing
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 discriminate 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 bibli
cal 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." f
" 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. fP-166.

14 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
hardly been intelligible to Calvin generally asserts itself— a spirit which
recognises 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
(Mansel, in his Bampton Lectures) has shown with convincing 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 Inslitutio Christianas Religionis no longer satisfies, and a
new Instiiutio 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 hfe, 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 book ; and in commenting ;
upon them in order to show this, we shall speak of the theoloo-y
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
* Pp. 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 has, 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
understood 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 having succeeded in the main in bringing 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
incompetency of all theological systems whatever.
Dr Tulloch's position is pretty distinctly indicated in the some
what enigmatical deliverance, "The old 'Institutio Christianas Reli-

18 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
doctrines 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
subject. 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 characterize 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
revealed to us in the word of God.
2d, That the Reformers erred in their 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 that 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 Tulloch 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
together 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 Tulloch 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 both 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 " 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 their 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
" 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 " 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 " 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
" 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 and 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,'7 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 book which does not profess to discuss theo
logical topics. We refer to it for the purpose, first, of expressing
a doubt whether it was quite right and fair in Dr Tulloch to in
troduce what has so unfavourable a bearing 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
Reformation, 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 " may, by good and necessary consequence, be de
duced from Scripture." It is admitted, on the other hand that
men have often gone too far in making deductions from scrip
tural statements, and especially, what is with many a great bug
bear in the present day, in making deductions from doctrines

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 21
assumed 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 upon 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 "Bamp-
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 their 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 very 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
Mansel's principles, so far as theological subjects are concerned, is to
expose the unwarrantable presumption of the objections commonly
adduced against the leading doctrines that seemed 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
doctrines 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 Tulloch's allegation that they
establish 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 Scripture 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 Scripture as affording the chief direct positive
proof of all they teach, and they undertake to show that the
materials which Scripture 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 every one of them, and to have recourse to
rational considerations only for confirming the proof, and espe
cially 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 " 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 " 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 posi
tively and explicitly certain great truths, but by plain implication
denies certain errors opposed to them, which have been held by
Papists and Arminians to be taught in Scripture ; and the ques
tion raised by it is this, — Are the doctrines asserted, or the doc
trines 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 mate
rials 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 has 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 the 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
evervwhere 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."! * P. 52. f 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, —
unworthy, 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 andillegitimate1?
Or is there really an utter want of materials in Scripture for
determining the question, either on the one side or on the other %
The way in which Dr Tulloch has spoken in regard to this im
portant doctrine of the Reformation suggests and warrants such
questions 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 " 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 " a lio-fit 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 church, as naturally
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.
3d, 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 perma
nently binding upon the church.
ith That the church should be altogether free and independent
of civil control, and should conduct its own distinct and independent
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,
1st, 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.
3d, 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 1 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 further 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, 'This is the form of the divine kingdom presented in Scripture.'"!
" 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 tod 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. "J "But
were not these ' 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
condition 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. tP-179. J P. 181. § Pp. 182-3.

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 31
In order to establish his position, Dr Tulloch 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 anything 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 veiy 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 authorized 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. J'--''/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 be 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
be carried out without some exceptions and modifications, and
because difficulties may be raised about some of the details of its
application which cannot always be very easily solved. Both
these extremes have been often exhibited in connection with this
principle. Both of them are natural, but 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 word 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 His 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, every
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
His 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 con
fusion, 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 innova
tions, whether selected or invented, have produced, or would pro
duce 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
ineptim, — 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 1 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 platform,
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 discus
sions to which they have given rise, as distinctively characteristic
of English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians ; whereas, in all
their intrinsic littleness and paltriness, they are really characteristic
only of those who contend for introducing or retaining 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 successful
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
more modern defenders of the Church of England, who have
commonly claimed a divine right for their government, and not a

38 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
few of whom have gone the length of unchurching Presbyterians
and Cougregationalists. 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 their system of
government. Dr Tulloch seems to have thought it impossible to
dispense with this misrepresentation ; and accordingly he tells us
that Presbyterian ism " 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
lation 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, ecclesiastical or civil."

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 39
Dr Tulloch 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
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
abstract 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 main
tain is put in the shape of an abstract proposition, in which the
advocates of all the different forms of church government —
Papists, Prelatists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists — may
concur ; in other words, when the general position is laid down,
that a particular form of church government, without specify
ing what, is sanctioned by Scripture, we admit that the mate
rials 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. The strength
of the case is brought fully out only when it is alleged that

40 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
some one particular form of church government specified, as
Prelacy or Presbyterianism, is sanctioned and imposed by Scrip
ture. The best and most satisfactory way of establishing the
general position, that the Scripture sanctions and imposes a par
ticular form of church government, is to bring out the particular
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 organized, 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 mip-ht
be confidently expected to give rules so complete and minute as to
constitute what might with any propriety be called a form of
church government. And, on the other hand, while it is evident that

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 41
the Christian church was intended to be 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
weight 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
what the particular form of church government is which the
Scripture sanctions, and have produced the evidence that Scrip
ture does sanction that form, and, of course, a form — which will
be a sufficient answer to the allegation that He could not have
done so.
We think we 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
church 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 " 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 pro
gress, is truly ridiculous.
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-sounding
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 uncommon
among a certain class of Prelatists, must appear to men who
know anything of the general genius and spirit of the Christian
system, and who 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 their 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 divinwn 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 Presby-
terianism, 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 erroneous
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 mainten
ance 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
different 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 Scripture, 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, wa 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
practice, 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 com
bination 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 Scriptures to good account, or in deriving from them the
amount of clear and definite knowledge of divine things which
they are fitted and intended to convey.
It might be a useful and interesting subject of investiga
tion, to bring out a view of the way in which these different and
opposite 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 willing 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 the 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 their 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 realized 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 inju
rious, 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 J.
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 latitudinarians,
or men of progress, to be found in every generation of theologians
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 " 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 theology 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 to 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 confes
sions of the Reformed churches, the most important body of un
inspired documents in existence. But the subject is too vitally
important to be set aside as altogether beyond the pale of further
investigation, 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 Re
formation will not do for the nineteenth century. We know
something of the process by which Arminians and Socinians,
rationalists and latitudinarians, have laboured to show that the theo
logy 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 " exegetical method" which is to revoiu-
VOL. I. *

50 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
tionize theology, and that Dr Tulloch should unfold his " spirit of
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 overturn
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 mediaeval 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 immea
surable 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-

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 51
dom (word) in Scripture — a spiritual authority addressing a spiritual subject
—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" ?
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 " 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 quotation. There is a
* Pp. 87-8.

52 LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. [Essay I.
notion which seems to be pretty prevalent in the present day,
though as yet in a somewhat latent and undeveloped form,
and which produces some sympathy in the minds of many with
what is said in disparagement of creeds and confessions. 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 unfaith
fulness 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 contro
versy about confessions, it has ever yet been subjected to so
throrough, deliberate, and comprehensive an investigation as its
importance deserves. We have no wish to encourage the raising
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.
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 Tulloch's 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

Essay I.] LEADERS OF THE REFORMATION. 53
Tulloch here indicates with regard to the theological views of the
Reformers are not true ; and in flat contradiction to them 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 Scripture ; 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.

LUTHEK.*

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 Julids
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, espe
cially 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
promises, 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
slander their enemies, so far as they think they can do this with

Essay II.] LUTHER. 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 anything 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 3d, that the general prin
ciple 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 LUTHER. [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
unfavourable 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 pre
judiced readers to be a good case. In dealing with the materials
which Papists have collected for depreciating the character 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 conduct.
A careful application of these obviously just 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 again 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 Re
formation 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 sympathized
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 realized 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 simi-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
Protestant, as well 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
Reformers. Those who laboured long to un -Protestantize 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, who 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 "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 theo
logy, 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 kind, 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, has
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
the Edinburgh Revieio* 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-
* Vol. lx.

62 LUTHER. [Essay II.
publication of the note W in the " Mission of the Comforter,"
though forming by itself a goodly octavo. All that was available
of what he had been preparing for the new edition is the mere
references to above eighty 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 produc
ing any great amount of valuable matter ; but, from the number
and character of the references which have been preserved and
published, 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 that his 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 characterized 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 repre
sentation of the character and opinions of Luther is immeasur
ably more just and accurate than that given by his opponents ;
and that in his " polemic" with them, he has established a most
decided superiority.
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
handler 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 LUTHER. [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 un
folding 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 characterized 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 be 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
produce 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
TOL. I. 5

66 LUTHER. [Essay II.
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 influence1, 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 " Vindication of Luther," about ninety 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 forty to an exposure of a Popish attack upon him
by Moebler ; and the remaining 170 pages are occupied with an
answer to the assaults of " the great Protestant authorities," Mr
Hallam and Sir William Hamilton.
Newman had attacked Luther only incidentally, and some
what cautiously, in his book on "-Justification;" 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
he 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 the 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 strdngly
prejudiced against him. He plainly enough indicates that he
had been somewhat influenced, in judging of Luther, by the
' representations of Bossuet ; and as this is a topic to which we
* Pp. 83-84.

68 LUTHER. [Essay II.
shall have occasion afterwards to advert, in pointing out Sir
William Hamilton's obligations to the great Popish champion,
we quote an interesting passage from this section of the Vindi
cation : —
" 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 he
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 ' 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 pronounce. Bossuet's
mind was so uncongenial to Luther's, so artificial, so narrow, sharing in the

Essay II.] LUTHER. 69
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 misrepresen
tations should not be made unsupported by proofs, I will cite two or three
examples, showing how the quotations from Luther, which in his pages seem
very reprehensible, become innocent when viewed along with 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 Ward
labours to collect evidence from all quarters against Luther, and
Mr Hare gives the following summary of the results of his re
searches : —
" 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 Symbolik ; ' 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. Verily, a formidable array of witnesses,
picked out with a due recognition of the judicial maxim, that second-hand
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." j
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 has
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 Romanizers, 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 Symbolik
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. Iu
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 Provinciales ' 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

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 spiritualized 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 of, —
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 works. Baur, on the
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 he
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 the
doctrines of the Reformation, and his exposure of the Tridentine fallacies, as
well as of Moehler's, is complete." *
Moehler has produced and given prominence to what is cer
tainly the worst and most offensive passage that has yet been found
in Luther ; and Mr Hare has carefully considered it, and conclu
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
suggest, viz. of embodying a deliberate exhortation to the practice
of immorality. As this will probably continue for some time to
be a favourite topic of invective with Romanists and Romanizers,
* Pp. 169-172.

72 LUTHER. [Essay II.
it is proper that 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,! is this : " 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 he
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 XIV.
when he revoked the Edict of Nantes ? or to poor Mary 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 doux 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 VI. ? No ; but to Melancthon, of all men that ever lived! Not to
Munzer ; not to Alexander VI. ; 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. "J
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. j Vol. i. p. 183. J 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. We must refer to the Vindication for the details
of all this, but 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, — Venias
papales tantas esse, ut solvere possint hominem, etiamsi quis per impossibile 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
go thither. So, again, in his grand letter to the Elector from the Wartburg,
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, arid 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 hfe, 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 LUTHER. [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 "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 Melancthon 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 " warrant and example in the
writings of Luther himself," though it was -professedly to establish
this that Sir William collected his " 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
pamphlet, indeed, he retracted the charge which, nine years before,
* Vol. lx. p. 225.

Essay II.] LUTHER. 75
in the Edinburgh Revieiv, he 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 charge under
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, for the first
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 Melancthon ; 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 him pub
licly to preach (and who ever preached with the energy of Luther !) incon
tinence, 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 manners
throughout the sphere of the Reformer's- influence was, for a season, the
natural result. The ardour of the boisterous Luther infected, among others,
even the ascetic and timorous Melancthon. Polygamy awaited only the per
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 homceopathically 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 Mohammedan licence. As it was, polygamy was never aban
doned 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, "f
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 " 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 " 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 scrutinized, 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 anything 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. j- Ibid. p. 59 of 2d Ed.

Essay II.] LUTHER. 77
quoted from him should be scrutinized 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 Revieiv, 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, but 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
confusions 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, espe
cially 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 LUTHER. [Essay II.
ments : — " But, before all things, I beseech 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 ' 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 dare say, could easily produce a copious anthology
of this sort. But this would be no sufficient proof of the truth of
the charge, that Luther " 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 be
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 every
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 subjects,
and evidently thinks that he is entitled to treat with contempt
all the existing professional cultivators of theological literature.
The eminence he has reached in his own department, the con
fidence with which he dogmatizes on theological and ecclesiasti
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
has 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 in 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 subtilty. Sir William 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 William's name is
fitted to do, in matters in which no deference whatever is due to
him, and which no man must be permitted 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 his
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 " 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
" 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 con
tinuous extract, are made up of four scraps from different parts
of the treatise, " De Servo Arbitrio ;" and that they were taken
not from the original, but from Bossuet's " History of the Varia
tions of the Protestant Churches," where they are given with some
deviations from the original 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
" 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 thisfrst head, but 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 Theoduls Gastmahl corresponded, so far as they went, with those also
given by Bossuet, and as, from my own recollection (and the testimony, I
think, of Werdermann), they fairly represented Luther's doctrine ; I literally
translated the passages, even in their order, as given by Von 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 1 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 unfaithfully
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 Hare has proved their incorrectness, though
perhaps he has somewhat overrated the magnitude of the differ
ences in point of substance between the original and the transla
tions. 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 ex-

* Discussions, 2d Ed. pp. 506-7.
VOL. I.

82

LUTHER.

[Essay II.

animation," 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 " Qne sa prescience et la
providence divine fait que toutes choses arrivent par une im-
muable, 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 ex
tracts, 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 ."J 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 mis
representing 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 riecessarium et salutare Christiano
nosse, quod Deus nihil prsescit contingenter, sed quod omnia
incommutabili et seterna, 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.
X P. 512.
I Luther's Latin Works,

Jena,

1557, torn. iii. folio 170. We have
added the next sentence, to exhibit
the meaning more fully.

Essay H.] 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 Deus ; he now ascribes it to the voluntas : whereas Luther
ascribes it to neither ; but breaks off from them into a new sen
tence, 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 overleaping 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 in
accuracy from him, and he continues to adhere to it even " after
full examination " 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 Arbitrio," 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 n.
works, make more unwarrantable and startling statements about
the decrees and the agency of God, in their bearing upon men's
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 everything that might rank
under this head, the treatise plainly and explicitly asserts the
fundamental 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 "De Servo Arbitrio," copiously provided with annotations,
" quibus," as is set forth in the title-page, " B. Vir ab accusatione,
quasi absolutum Calvinianorum, vel durius, aliquod Dei decretum
in libro ipso statuerit, prsecipue vindicator." 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 giving
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 IT.] LUTHER. 85
a few pages of the notes to the " Discussions." * " Mr Hare's obser
vations under this head of speculative theology exhibit significant
specimens of inconsistency, bad faith, and exquisite error. I shall
adduce instances of each. But his baseless abuse — that I shall
overpass." " He is only a one-sided advocate, an advocate from
personal predilection and antipathies ; and even as such, his argu
ments are weak as they are wordy." " 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 be added, but 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 inr
timated purpose to republish Note W, — a purpose accomplished in
the volume now lying before us), " for it is simply a verbose con
glomeration of what I shall refrain from characterizing; the author
making more mistakes or misrepresentations than the note — how
ever confessedly 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," but 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
before the public conclusive proof that much, we do not say all, of
what Sir William has here alleged against his antagonist, is true
of himself. And the ground of it is nothing more than this,
that Mr Hare's work, when carefully scrutinized, exhibits a few
instances of the oversights, errors, and partialities, which may
be pointed out, more or less, in nineteen-twentieths of the most
respectable 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 William'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 ; but 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 " persons of ordinary
information," he had been indebted for his specimen of Luther's
speculative theology ; and, accordingly, he says of him, " 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 characterized 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 false
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 " Histoire de
la Religion des Eglises Reformers,"* without being satisfied of the
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 everything like argument in it has been completely
demolished, and that its author has been sadly exposed ; while
we cannot but admit, that even when everything needful to
satisfy the understanding has been provided, the admirable skill
and adroitness 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 of
error ; Protestants have from the first been constantly varying in
the doctrines they professed to hold : and, therefore, their views
are erroneous. In opposition to this, it has been proved — 1st,
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 his
own misrepresentations ; and 3d, That the argument, in so far as
it has any weight, may be retorted with far greater force upon the
Church of Rome. These positions have been proved by Basnage
in the most satisfactory and conclusive manner ; so that, so far as
argument is concerned, the book has been thoroughly demolished.
But Bossuet's great art throughout the whole work is, that he has
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 be
wholly untenable. Bossuet's want of integrity, so far as this work
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.
We 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 were 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 anything
which reminds us that that system reduced a man so noble in
many respects as Bossuet was, to such artifices, and imperilled, 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 ;r«£«?Loy« 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 lie 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 anything 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
darkness, 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 gloating
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 LUTHER. [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 has 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 pub
lications relative to this story, and that he has collected a con
siderable 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 along 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, or
* P. 515.

Essay II.] LUTHER. 91
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. Sir
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
honourable men, if he had never meddled with the second mar
riage of the Landgrave of Hesse, and had left it to be handled by
Romanists and Romanizers. We 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 Sir William's
mode of dealing with it.
Luther's conduct in this matter has not been approved of by
Protestants, but, on the contrary, has 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 Bousset's " History of the Variations,"
at once admits that Luther's conduct was wrong; and so does
Seckendorff, in his great work, " De Lutheranismo." This un
doubtedly is the right and honest course to pursue in the matter ;
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 misrepresenta
tions of Bossuet in his commentaries upon this subject ; and has
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, will 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 hfe, is wholly left out ; so that it seems
as if they had had no thought of their pastoral responsibility, but readily
consented 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." According to the former
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 view, it was an
* Pp. 235-241.

Essay II.] LUTHER. 93
error of opinion, or what, 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 William's
second deliverance upon the subject, viz. that the conduct of
the Reformers is to be 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 William's posi
tions, especially of his leading one, which ascribes to Luther and
Melancthon 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. For, from first to last,
it is plain that the licence, which the divines declare themselves unable to
condemn, is meant by them to be regarded as a dispensation, and not as
authorizing 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 general
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. Here
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 everything 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.
" Thus 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

91 LUTHER. [Essay II.
which he desired at heart to establish generally, the patriarchal practice of
polygamy."* 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. 242-3. f Pp. 256, 257.

Essay II.] LUTHER. 95
He sums up the matter in this way : —
" 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 by
the law, he did not deem himself warranted in condemning it absolutely, when
there appeared, in special cases, to be a strong necessity, either with 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 licence, — 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 which 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 we forget what difficulties have in all ages compassed the
settlement of special matrimonial cases. They may perhaps be less now 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 own condition is the normal one for the whole human race :
but if we compare the laws of marriage which prevail in the various branches
of Christendom, and know anything 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 law 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 realize 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, with 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 would not have availed, in his judgment, to sway the balance so much as

96 LUTHER. [Essay II.
a hair's-breadth. 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 authorized 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 such 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 vindicating
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 " an
articulate manifestation," " a chronological series of testimonies,"
in support of this charge. There is nothing new, certainly, in this
allegation. It was brought forward by Bellarmine,t 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, " Polygamia
Triumphatrix" of Lyser. We do not suppose that Sir William's
" articulate manifestation," if it ever see the light, will contain
anything but what has been kndwn 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, that 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 has
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 "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 " 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

* See quotation, pp. 75, 76.
VOL. I.

98 LUTHER. [Essay II.
that Luther and Melancthon 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 Melancthon 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 ought to be condemned.
It is an interesting and instructing circumstance, that one
spot, in some respects similar, stains the character of John Knox ;
and we could riot possibly find words that would, in our judgment,
describe Luther's conduct in this matter more correctly than those
in which Dr M'Crie 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 morahty, than
it was contrary to the stern uprightness and undisguised sincerity which
characterized 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 " 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." f 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. f 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 endea
vours 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 recanta
tion, and a humble acknowledgment of the wrong he has done to one of the
noblest pillars of Christianity, one of the greatest benefactors of mankind?"*
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 characterize 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 of

• Pp. 286, 287.

100 LUTHER. [Essay II.
his works and of his character, we are very confident that these
odious charges cannot be 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. We
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 our 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 rendering 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 ev ery

Essay II.] LUTIIER. 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 hfe ; 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 weak
nesses are only so great, because his virtues are so great.,n\
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 be 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 unauthorized
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. t Pp- 293-4.

102 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 zealously 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 very 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 IX] LUTHER. 103
views defective and erroneous regarding it,- — until, by the 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 scrip
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
followers were practically and in reality relying upon their own
works and merits, and upon the works and merits of other sinful
creatures 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 forgive
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 for produc
ing holiness of heart, and peace and joy in believing. And his life
was mainly devoted to the exposition of these fundamental prin
ciples of Christian truth, and the application and enforcement of
them in opposition to all the corruptions and abuses, theoretical
and practical, of the Church of Rome. He was enabled to bring
out his views 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
relation 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 gratui
tous justification, as indispensably necessary for men, and actually
provided 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
fundamental articles of Christian truth, and upon the interpretation
of the most important portions of the word of God.
Luther* can scarcely be 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 bearings on
a sinner's acceptance, without always taking in all the different
aspects in which they are 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 authorized or required them. He seems to think that
the great evil of the Romish rites and ceremonies — even those
which, upon scriptural principles, should be chiefly and primarily
denounced 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 I Lectures on Church History, and did
taken from Dr Cunningham's MS. [ not appear in the Review.— Eds.

Essay II.] LUTHER. 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 be 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 immediately,
in every instance, a sin against God, irrespective of all other
consequences, — and to establish further the important principle,
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 unauthorized 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, he 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 those 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 un
favourable 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 absurdity, 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 Evangelicse. 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 be

lievers as a rule of life. This subject,
of the use of the Law under the gospel
dispensation, is stated with admirable
clearness 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 have 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 Controversy,
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,*
" What is the Lutheran doctrine1? 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 seemed determined to make Luther a pope, whether he
himself, and those who have adopted his leading principles solely
because they believed 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
views, 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 modification.
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
followers, in a subsequent generation, openly deviated from scrip
tural orthodoxy on these points, they set themselves to prove that
* Luther's Confessions and Retractations.

Essay II.] LUTHER. 109
Luther had never held Calvinistic principles ; and for several
succeeding 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 be 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, " 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 pre-ordaining all things ; in
conferring, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will,
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 alleging that Luther ever retracted the sentiments contained
in this work. Indeed, at a much later period of his life, in' 1537,
he expressly declared that of all his works, his treatise, " De Servo
Arbitrio," and his larger " 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
commentary, it appears plain, that they do not contain, even in
* C. 26.

110 LUTHER. [Essay II.
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 every 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, torn. viii. pp. 640-50.

THE REFORMERS

THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE.*

Sir William Hamilton,! in the course of his attack upon
Archdeacon Hare, introduces a lengthened and elaborate historico-
theological 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 universally 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 Protestantism, for the first, in
deed only time, formally declared '¦not to be of the essence of faith ;' and,

* British and Foreign Evangelical
Review, October 1856.
Discussions on Philosophy 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 but 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 Anghcan
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 incog
nizant 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
towards Catholicity, should have been overlooked, as indeed, in his days, un
developed, 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 signalized by any theologian, Protestant or Catholic ;
whilst the Protestant symbol ('¦Fides sola justifi cat,' — ' 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 hope to be able to prove that this elaborate statement
contains about as large an amount of inaccuracy as could well
have been crammed into the 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 tins 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 generally
held very high views upon the subject, — that they were in the
habit of speaking very strongly of the importance and necessity
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 be 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
necessary 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 '
YOL. 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 were the more induced
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 Re
formers. They were accustomed to allege that Protestants, upon
Protestant principles, could have no certainty, and nothing more
than a probable persuasion, 1st, That the books generally re
ceived, or any particular books specified, were possessed of divine
authority ; 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 implicitly 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 faith, 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 gainsayers, 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 thesfe 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 for 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 personal
salvation. In order to have a sure and at the same time a com
pendious way of getting the highest assurance, even the certainty
of faith, upon all these subjects, they substituted the Holy Spirit
instead of th« 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. But we 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 work in
which they were engaged. They saw abundant ground in Scrip
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 their 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, " Whosoever believeth in the
Lord Jesus 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 unwarrant
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 forgiven
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.
tion of their 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 import
of faith, have been able to carry it out in full consistency, but
have become entangled in contradictions. Luther, indeed, con
tradicted himself very explicitly upon this point ; for while there
are passages in his works which very unequivocally represent
personal assurance as necessarily involved in saving faith, and
while this doctrine is taught in the Confession of Augsburg,*
and in the Apology for it,f — both which works are symbolical 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 contained in Scrip
ture, and of course only secondarily and inferentially 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 definition 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 recon
ciled with the formal definition, 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.
t Tittmann's Libri Symbolici Ecclesise 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
calm 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 hfe. 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 hfe 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

* B. iii. c. ii. s. 17, 18.

122 THE REFORMERS [Essay III.
the precise questions which persons imperfectly acquainted with 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 {fiducia).
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 very
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
defenders 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 fiducia which is included in justifying faith. The generality
of modern divines and some of the Reformers held that this fiducia

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, but 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 deberent) 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 hind 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.
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 kind 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
Reformers 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 " Institutes," and also in his " 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 Con
fession, 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, Genevan, 1581, pp. 154-5, 160, 207-9.

Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE.

125

prehending assurance.* The Belgic Confession, composed in
1563, contains no assertion of these views, though its authors
probably believed them, as they afterwards added the Heidelberg
Catechism to their Confession as symbolical. The later Helvetic
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 views
of the Reformers upon this subject, and thus paving the way for
the more explicit' rejection of them by the Westminster 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
relation 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
Catechisms that Perkins had in view
in an interesting passage in his " Re
formed Catholic," published in 1598.
Perkins was a very eminent divine, a
thorough Calvinist, and a man of dis
tinguished piety. The passage we re
fer 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 re
quired some modification. It is as
follows : — " This doctrine (that of im
plied 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 chil
dren 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. Se
condly, this point of doctrine serves to
rectify and in part to expound sundry
catechisms, in that they seem to pro
pound faith unto men at so high a
reach as few can attain unto it, — ¦
defining it to be a certain and full per
suasion 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 degrees and measures
thereof are to be expounded, that weak
ones, to their comfort, may be 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 William'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 : —
" 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
universally held in the Protestant communities to be the criterion
and condition of a true or saving faith." Here the first thing to
be noted is the assumption, that " personal assurance, special faith,
— fiducia, plerophoria fidei, fides specialis" do, in the writings of
the Reformers, all mean one and the same thing ; and that this
one thing is " the feeling of certainty that God is propitious to
me, that my sins are forgiven." We could easily show that this
assumption 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 " 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 Zanchius, 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
acquainted with Luther's writings can believe. The assertion
that " assurance stands, essentially, part and parcel of all the
confessions 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 West
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 Wil
liam'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 hold
ing that assurance is of the essence of saving faith have been
subjected to ecclesiastical discipline, this error was held in con
junction 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 West
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, assur
ance still stands a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief T 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? He 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 ; like
wise the sixth Lambeth Article." The authorities here referred
to are two, viz. the first Book of the Homilies, and the Lambeth
Articles.

Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 129
Now, in regard to the Books of the Homilies, we think it can
be shown, 1st, That they are not properly symbolical books of
the Church of England, so that the clergy are to be held bound to
maintain and teach everything 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
justification. 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 everything contained in
these books. The Homilies were intended to furnish materials for
popular instruction, and not to regulate the terms of ministerial
communion. A conscientious man, who had subscribed the
Articles, would not, indeed, consider himself at liberty, without
first renouncing his 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 everything 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 anything 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
VOL. 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 foresaid 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 : "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 be 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
Theology at Sedan to the French Protestant Church, of whom •
we shall have afterwards occasion to speak more fully, gives the
following statements of the differences which have been exhibited
among Protestant divines upon this subject : —
" Hie observandum est, fiduciam apud doctores Reformatos pluribus modis
smni, 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

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 Reformats theologi de fiducia varie loquuntur,
dum quidam dicunt fiduciam esse partem fidei primariam, et proprium illius
actum, alii vero istud negant et docent fiduciam esse quidem fidei prolem
atque effectum, sed non tamen actum ejus proprie dictum ; ac praeterea
fiducial nomine, alii quidem istud, alii vero aliud, intelligunt."
He then mentions four 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 ille per quern in Deum
recumbimus, ill! innitimur, et ei adhaeremus, 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."*
Turretine explains the distinctions applicable to this matter
with his usual masterly ability, in this way : —
" Diversitas quae inter orthodoxos occurrit oritur ex diversa acceptione
fiducial, quae trifariam potest sumi. 1. Pro fiduciali assensu seu persuasione
quae 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 Christi, quo fidelis, cognita veritate et bonitate
promissionum, ad Christum confugit, ilium recipit et amplectitur et in illius
meritum unice recumbit. 3. Pro confidentia seu acquiescentia et tranquilli-
tate animi quae oritur ex refugio animae ad Christum 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 Sedanenses, de fidei' justifi- I f Loc. xv. qu. x. s. 3, v., also qu.
cantis natura et essentia, pp. 213, 224. | xii. s. 4.

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 were
symbolical and authoritative, they would not make " assurance,"
in the precise and definite sense in which Sir William here uses
the word, " a necessary tenet of ecclesiastical belief."
Sir William's second proof of his position is the " 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
alleging, 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 : — " Homo vere fidelis, id
est, fide justificahte prseditus, certus est plerophoria 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, "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 be 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 Establish
ment, but he further says, that it does so " more articulately " in
the Irish. He gives no other references than those we have
examined, to the Homilies and the Lambeth Articles, and of course
none bearing upon the alleged greater " articulateness" of the Irish
Church in this matter. The truth probably was this: Sir William
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 articulateness of the Irish Church, and to refer to the
sixth Lambeth Article. In " the Articles of Religion agreed upon
by the archbishops 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 Faith:"—
" By justifying faith, we understand not only the common belief of the
articles of Christian religion, and a persuasion of the truth of God's 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 " 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
Heidelberg, though it is very far from being explicit in declaring
their peculiar views 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 "certus est" a change which con
firms 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 inte
resting, however; and we would refer those who desire full infor
mation upon this subject to Hardwick's " History of the Articles
of Religion," — a book which, notwithstanding its strong anti-Cal-
vinistic 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 different
forms. He gives five " curious contrasts," but the first three 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 Re
formed 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
signalized 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 signalized 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 William alleges —
was developed in Bossuet's time, and was not overlooked by him,
but was distinctly set forth, though not much enlarged upon, in
his " History of the Variations." Indeed, all Sir William'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 Variations." *
" 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 paoifique de tous les ministres, adoucissent le plus qu'ils peuvent le dogme
* Liv. xiv. s. 90.

136 THE REFORMERS [Essay III.
de I'inamissibilite de la justice et meme celui de la certitude de salut: et deux
raisons les y portent : la premiere est I'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 de'savouent ces dogmes impies, louons-
en Dieu, et, sans disputer da vantage, prions les seulement de considerer que le
Saint Esprit ne pouvait pas etre en ceux qui les ont enseignes, et qui ont fait
consister une grande partie de la Rdforme dans de si indignes idees de la justice
Chretienne." So far from this variation not having been signalized 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, we 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
assurance 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 substance

Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 137
the views in regard to faith and assurance which are set forth
in the Westminister Confession, . prepared twenty years before;
and Le Blanc, without any parade of proofs or authorities, de
clared 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 Arnauld,
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 assur
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 every
believer 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
terminates 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 Theologies? de fidei justificantis natura et essentia, in
quibus varise Protestantium sententise referuntur et expenduntur,
et breviter refelluntur quae super ea re quidam liber recens Scrip-
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. t Liv. x. c. iv.

138 THE REFORMERS LEssay 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 'un
warrantably in asserting that the opposite view was that which
had always been and still was held by Protestants. He claims in
support of his views the concurrence of Zanchius, Peter Martyr,
Musculus, Perkins, Bishop Davenant, and the other English
divines who attended the Synod of Dort, Ames, Du Moulin,
Walseus, Wittichius, Mestrezat, etc. He expresses his concur
rence in the 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 gene
rally 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 prevalent ;
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 Protes
tants, in ascribing to them generally the doctrine of assurance. He

* Pp. 211, 216, 221, 222, 229.

Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 139
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
Impies 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 pour la Morale des Reformes, ou Defense
de leur doctrine touchant la Justification, la perseverance des vrais
saints, et la certitude que chaque fidele peut et doit avoir de son
salut," in reply to Arnauld's " Renversement." This work Claude,
the most distinguished defender of Protestantism in France, pro
nounced to be " 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 evidence of this,
referring to Le Blanc's Theses for additional testimonies, and
shows very ably and ingeniously, that neither the earlier nor the
later 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 conclusively
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 even
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

HO 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 logo
machies. He applied this principle to some of the topics contro
verted 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 skilfully availed himself in his work entitled,
"Prejuges Legitimes contre 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 importance 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 has been derived, not from the perusal of his
own writings, but from other sources. His reputation has 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, making
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 rash
ness and recklessness about him that often led him into scrapes,
and afforded 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 engaged, 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.

Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 141
This was just the kind of man whom Bayle was peculiarly qualified
to expose ; and he has done his best to turn his opportunities to
good account. But all who are acquainted with Jurieu'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 repu
tation has been damaged by Bayle's Dictionary, yet the mischief
has been in some measure repaired by a very full, elaborate, and
interesting life, in which justice is done him, in Chauffepie's
Supplement to Bayle.*
Arnauld, Le Blanc, and Jurieu, 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 unknown
until it was "signalized" by himself. We could easily prove that
this variation has been "signalized" by many theologians. But it
is unnecessary to dwell upon this point. We shall quote one speci
men, 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, " Marckii Compendium Theologias."t
" Non diffitendum interim, de hac ipsa fiduciali applicatione diversum sen-
tire quoque nostros. Dum antiquiores juxta catachesim nostram faciunt hunc
Actum fidei essentialem, ad justificationem et salutem necessarium, sed
non absque antecedenti amplexu et connexa resipiscentia concipiendum ;
Recentiores vero plures volunt potius esse earn fidei ipsius et justificationis
consequens, quod abesse possit, fide et salute manente, 1. Turn ob multorum
vere 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 falsum credendum
cum remissio fidem sequatur, vel prb omnibus juxta hoc officium credendi
mortuum esse Christum, clamant ; 3. Turn denique, quod haec fiducia magis
Dei beneficium speciale paucioribus proprium, quam 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

* Vol. iii. f 0. 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
included 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 " signalized " 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
doctrine 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
bringing forward the notion that personal assurance is necessarily
included 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
own 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 " 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 has 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 ; 2c?,
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, vui 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
metaphysical speculation are provided, by the class 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 fidei 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 after
wards brings out somewhat more fully and freely, though still
not without precaution, what he and Romish writers in general
have inculcated upon this point. :| 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;" 3. "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. f De Justific. lib. iii. c. ii. et iii. . X C. viii.

Essay HI.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 145
nisi a paucjs, 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
certainly 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
with 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
subject, 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 " 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 be 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
important differences between Protestants and Romanists on the
subject 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 " evisce
rated," 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 very 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

Essay III.] AND THE DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. 147
William'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 justifies? Is it as an instrument, or as a condition, or
as a meritorious 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
inconsistency, maintain all the doctrines of the Reformers upon
these important points.
Sir William adverts to the fact, that the deviafion 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 Con
fession ; and yet there can be no doubt that the whole doctrine of
the Reformers upon the subject of justification is set forth with
most admirable fulness and precision in the eleventh 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
we 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,
" 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 pro
fessedly by the whole body of Calvinistic divines, both before-and
since the variation which Sir William has signalized. And yet we
fear it has at all times been too, much neglected, both theoretically
and practically, 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 re
ligion amongst us — one main reason why there is so little of real

148 REFORMERS AND DOCTRINE OF ASSURANCE. [Essay III.
communion 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
controversial discussions, and have failed in producing any bene
ficial 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
subject 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 buckled on their armour, and have demonstrated by
irrefragable logic, that these positions are characterized 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 coining 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
controversy. 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 substitute for the realization and application of what 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 conse
quences 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 CHUECH OF ENGLAND/

The^e 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 Reformatorum, and began with
putting forth, in 1834, the first volume of the whole writings of
Melancthon. The work proceeded very slowly, one volume only
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
foundation-stone of the pedestal of a brazen statue of Melancthon,
erected at Wittemberg 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
Review, Jan. 1861.
Philippi Melanthonis Opera qile
SUPEESDNT omnia. 1834-1860.

The Works of the Parker Society.
1841-1855.

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, " 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-
Popish, 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. Legh
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 tire 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, viz. in
going back to the men who suffered for their Protestantism 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 others,
who were confessors or martyrs under Henry, who are on every
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 been per
haps 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
incurred 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
thon 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, " with
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 devoted
the fifth 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 worst
construction upon all his shortcomings in word and deed, and thus
producing the most unfavourable impression of his character 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 IV.
loveliest specimens of the 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
degree 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 unnecessary 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 the 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 religion
in which the opposite policy of tempting men into latitudinarian
indifference to truth may be tried with success, and tried with the
more success, because of the natural reaction from the low-minded
and offensive bigotry that preceded it. On this general ground,
we are persuaded that unnecessary contentions about matters which
do not deserve, or do not at the time require, to be contended for,
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 God, and who are raised by Christian
principle above the influence of selfish and worldly motives in their
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 are very
apt to mingle with men's zeal for truth, and tend to involve them
in the guilt of being wanton disturbers of the peace, or obstructors
of the unity and harmony, of the church. And the instances have
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 ordi
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
unquestionably 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 be 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 peril 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
rize 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 union with others with whom, on other points, they are

Ussay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 157
agreed. But though it would be manifestly absurd to deny this
as a general position, its practical application is attended with great
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 required
most carefully to guard. There can be no doubt that an unscrip-
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
ing, 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
being 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
regard 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 in
tegrity. 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 main
tenance, and tending to exclude a due measure of reliance upon
God's providence and promises, led him into those compromises
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
willing 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 similiar testi
mony from Calvin, in a letter addressed to Melancthon himself,
while faithfully expostulating with him about his conduct in th6
adiaphoristic controversy— a letter which is most honourable to
its author, while it does ample justice to him to whom it was
addressed. " 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 in
fluence 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 this 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? What 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
restricted in its application to the doctrines which Melancthon
continued 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 in 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 Melancthon 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
long 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 public 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 " 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 pecu
liar doctrines, and there is no good reason to think that he ever
abandoned them. Melancthon, so far as we can judge from his
Apology, 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 Melancthon 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 I is alleged to have addressed to the Car-
that the two letters which Melancthon | dinal Legate Campeggio at the Diet

Essay IV.]

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

161

The first edition of his 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 " since all things
happened 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 doc
trine which Calvin never taught, and which forms no necessary
part of the Calvinistic system, though it has been held by some Cal
vinistic theologians. Calvin held, and the Westminister Standards
expressly 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, — but 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, torn. ii. p.
168. * Scott has given a brief summary
of the differences among the various
editions of this work, of which the
VOL. I.

earlier ones have become extremely
scarce (vol. ii. c. xii. pp. 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. 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, contemporane
ously with the last edition of Melancthon's Commonplaces, his
" Defensio sanas et orthodoxy doctrinse de Servitute et liberatione
humani 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, " et quidem scio hsec
cum tuis congruere, sed sunt ira^vrepa 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 honoured
to render to the cause of truth and religion, — it is but justice to
Melancthon to say, that in whatever vague, general, and am
biguous 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 prwcipue 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 angustise 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 Refor
mation. Bossuet, indeed, after having laboured to prove that
Melancthon'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 justification by imputed righteousness, f

* Weisman Historia Ecclesiastica, I t Histoire des Variations, lib. v.
vol. ii. p. 201. | sects. 29, 30.

164 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV
Whatever, then, may have been Melancthon's personal ex
cellences as a man and a Christian, and whatever his services
to the cause of Protestant truth, we see about him very plain
indications 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 in
fluence 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
eminence 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 have continued
unchanged for 300 years, while the theological views that pre
vailed in the church have varied so much, this has led at different
times to a great deal of discussion as to what the Articles really
mean, or were intended to mean, and as to what subscription to
them may be fairly held to imply. Calvinists generally have
contended that the natural, obvious sense of the Articles is Cal
vinism, — 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 estab
lished them in the beginning of Elizabeth's 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 there 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 putting the Articles
to a degree of straining and torture that is unwarrantable and
dangerous. The Arminians, 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 "the 17th Article seems
to be framed according to St Austin's doctrines," that " it is very
probable that those who penned it meant that the decree 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 Ar-
minianism ; others, that they teach both ; and others again, that
they teach neither, but some other scheme of doctrine different
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 " 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 Arminian, or both, or neither. Such questions
cannot of course be intelligently or satisfactorily handled, except
by men who thoroughly understand what Calvinism is, and what
Arminianism is ; and this cannot be attained without a real famili
arity 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 quwstionis in
the controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians. We
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 grounds
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 we cannot make the
same admission in regard to those men who 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 in
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 IV.
of the theology of the Church of England, it may be 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 authorized symbols, has been
incontrovertibly established, by evidence multifarious in kind and
superabundant in degree. This is proved by the whole 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-Csesarem " was
published in 1625. It was intended to defend himself against
the charge, founded upon a previous work, of leaning towards
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 authorized formularies of the church.
The House of Commons, which at that time was 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, who had been a few years before the
head of the English delegates sent to the Synod of Dort, and had
proved himself fully worthy 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
difference in doctrinal matters between the Conformists and the

Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 169
Puritans. Carleton died in 1628, and through Laud's influ
ence Montague was appointed to succeed him in the see of
Chichester. Arminianism continued to advance, and, in 1630, Prynne, the
famous lawyer, published his " Anti- Arminianism, or the Church
of England's old antithesis to new Arminianism." This is a vast
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 work gave
mortal offence to Laud and his faction, who were now all-power
ful, and was understood to be the principal cause of the barbarous
punishment which was soon afterwards inflicted upon Prynne,
though his Histriomastix was made the pretence for it. It is
a remarkable instance of providential retribution, that Prynne
became ultimately the chief instrument of accomplishing " Can
terbury's doom," as he called one of his books against Laud, and
bringing him to the scaffold. Prynne was a man of great research
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 " 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 parti
cular application of them. He declares that up till the time when
he wrote he could mention only five men who had come forward
publicly to defend Arminianism. These were Barret and Baro,
— iwhose cases were mixed up with the history of the Lambeth
Articles, and the proceedings against whom sufficiently proved
that, in the last decade of the sixteenth century, the whole learn
ing and influence of the Church of England were Calvinistic, —
Thompson, who, he says,* was " a dissolute, ebrious, profane,
luxurious English-Dutchman," and who, in 1614, published a
treatise against the perseverance of the saints, which was answered
by Dr Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, — Montague, already
* P. 260.

170 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.
mentioned, 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, but
we have no doubt that he has produced and indicated materials,
which, taken in cumido, 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 compe
tent judges among the clergy of the Church of England was
Calvinistic, as opposed to Arminian, — and that the fundamental
principles of Calvinism, though cautiously and temperately ex
pressed, were embodied, and were intended to be embodied, in
the church's authorized 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, " 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 con
fidence 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 partisan. 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 " 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 church 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 "trust in him as an
authority." 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, " 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, " The Case of Subscription
to the Thirty-nine Articles considered." In this pamphlet he laid
clown 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 IV.
hominem, and Waterland published a " Supplement to the 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
collected 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. He sets out with boldly averring — " 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 17th Article,
he winds up with this very lame and impotent conclusion — " 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 " Blackburne's Con
fessional," advocating very 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 "Methodist" students from
Oxford. Sir Richard Hill, brother of Rowland, defended the

* Works by Bishop Van Mildert, vol. ii. pp. 341,-352-3.

Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 173
expelled students, by showing that their opinions on doctrinal
subjects were the same as those of the founders of the Church of
England, in a pamphlet entitled, "Pietas Oxoniensis;" and when
Dr Nowell 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, " Historic Proof of the Doctrinal
Calvinism of the Church of England." This work is highly
creditable 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
xVrminianism 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 Winchester'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 " Churchman's Remembrancer."
We have already had occasion to refer to the revival of the
discussion about the historic Calvinism of the Church of England, N
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 Overton
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 " True Churchman,"
in an octavo volume of nearly 500 pages, to which he gave a title,

174 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV. •
framed after a model which was common enough among the older
controversialists, but which modern civilisation has exploded. It
was called, " Vindiciaa Ecclesiae Anglicanse, in which some of the
false reasonings, incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresenta
tions, in a publication entitled, etc., are pointed out." Overton's
" True Churchman " is singularly free from " false reasonings,
incorrect statements, and palpable misrepresentations;" while
Daubeny's Vindicise superabounds in these beauties, as was con
clusively proved in two works published in 1805, the one entitled,
" Candid Examination of Daubeny's Vindicias,'' 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, "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 signalize 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,
extracted from Calvin's own writings. Yet this reasoning of Dr Kipling is
continually represented as '¦demonstrative and incontrovertible;1 as possessing
' uncommon merit;' as ' invincible,' and not less clear than ' mathematical demon
stration itself;1 as having 'proved to demonstration1 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 Oxford, and after
wards Archbishop of Cashel, and it is entitled, " An Attempt to
illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which the
Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistic." Dr Laurence was
a man of superior learning and ability; he has made some valuable
contributions to our theological literature; his "Bampton Lecture"
contains a great deal of interesting and valuable matter, it has
been republished repeatedly — the fourth and last edition having
come out in 1853 — and it is now justly regarded as the standard
work on the Arminian side. On these grounds it will be 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 Cal
vinism." He had given, in a previous work, " Elements of
> Christian Theology," 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 history and formularies of the Church of England.
This work was at one time prodigiously commended. Indeed, we
have a recollection of having once looked into a book by an
Episcopalian clergyman, in which it was extolled as one among
the four or five greatest works ("Butler's Analogy" being men
tioned as one) the Church of England has produced. The book has
long since found its level, and is now regarded as a very mediocre
production, displaying considerable diligence in the collection
of materials, but an utter want 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 somewhat 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
Sandford over 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. W. 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 Legh 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
different aspect, in connection with the controversy about bap
tismal regeneration. Dr Goode, now Dean of Ripon, to whose
great learning and ability as an opponent of Tractarianism and a
defender of evangelical truth, we have repeatedly borne a cordial
testimony, published, in 1849, a most valuable and important work
on this subject, entitled, "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 he 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
prepared her formularies, her Articles and Liturgy, in the reign
of Edward, and established them, with scarcely any change and
almost 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 with 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 has 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 Wilberf orce, who had not then joined the Church
of Rome, 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 " Bampton 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 pro
tests " against the injustice with which Goode treats Archbishop
VOL. I. 12

178 MELANCTHON 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 riot
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.t 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. "J
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
Reformers invited to this country by Cranmer, and the invitations addressed
to him are very carefully recorded ; while the fact is, that, with this single
exception, almost all, if not all, who were invited to this country by Cranmer,

"* P. 235. I X Effects of Baptism, p. 55, 2d
f History of the Articles, p. 372. | Edit.

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
expressions, 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.
" ' Horribile quidem decretum fateor !' were the precise expres
sions which he used when shuddering at his own favourite idea
of irrespective reprobation." % 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
" horribilis Dei majestas," II 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 Laurence 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. j X Sermon ii. p. 45.
f Sermon viii. Note 4, p. 375. | || Inst. lib. iii. c. 20. s. 17.

180 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.
In his 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 be 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 Apostles' Creed, which is just the
creed of the Roman Church. This topic of the descent into hell
did not find 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 " 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 " 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.f
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 noticg, and was not generally received even
in the continental Reformed churches ; and Faber has followed

* P- 245. f Inst. lib. ii. c. xvi. ss. 8 and 18.

Essay IV.]

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

181

him 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 repeatedly
sought his advice, and urged him to correspond with King Edward.
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, Bul-
linger, and Melancthon. Calvin's great work, the Consensus
Genevensis, or Treatise de ^Eterna 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 course
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 Parker .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 various parties,
civil and ecclesiastical, but not yet published : —
" The greater number among us, of whom I own myself to be 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
learned and excellent John Calvin, against Pighius and one Georgius Siculus,
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." t

* 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 IV.

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 Calvin
ism of the English Reformers, in a minute investigation of the
question how far Calvin and his writings were known to them or
consulted by them in the year 1552.
We 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
Heylin downwards, have undertaken the defence of the same cause.

his Hist. Eccles., torn. -\ iii. pp. 721-4 ;
but they were certainly very little
known in this country till published
by the Parker Society. The apology

for Laurence 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 cprrectives 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 in which he
applies his general principle is to this effect. He brings out fully
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 of
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. The
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 Pelagian
views which generally prevailed before the Reformation. But
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 smallest 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 Melancthon, 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
established, 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 import
ance. 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
Reformers, which did not go beyond the standard of what might
now be called Arminianism. But this is of no real value in prov
ing 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 Rome 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 failure 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-Calyinistic than they were ; and he utterly fails to
bring out any substantial difference, though he professes to have
done so, between the doctrine which he ascribes to the schoolmen,
and that which he ascribes to Melancthon and the Lutherans, and
which he represents as the doctrine of the English Reformers.
Mr Mozley, a man of a far higher order of intellect, and much
more profoundly versant in the subjects of which he treats, 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 Cal
vinist. Mozley, like most men who have intellect enough and

* C. x. pp. 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 qumstionis 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 maybe 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 Pp. 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 be 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 Disser
tation on the 17th 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, t and by Archdeacon Daubeny, in his Vin-
dicise.lf 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
away 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 African
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
certain 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 whole of the ordinary teaching of the church,
though it had never been formally sanctioned as authoritative and

* P. 79. f Vol. ii. p. 320. X P- 80.

188

MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.

binding. In these circumstances the Church of Rome 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 their 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 has 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 Calvinistic, and the Pelagian or Arminian, systems
of theology, — that the true status quwstionis 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 Ay 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
features, which has been carried on,
in every age, by the Augustinians,

Thomists, Dominicans, Jansenists,
and Calvinists on the one side, and
by Pelagians, Scotists, Franciscans,
Jesuits, 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 Jansenists always contended, to
maintain, if they chose, the whole theological system of Augustine.
The Church of Rome 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 substance
of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.
While it is certain that the great body of the Reformers
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
difference between the views of Augustine and Calvin 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 Reformers, 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,
representing, 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 Reformers 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 prin
ciples. Melancthon went from one extreme to another, and the
cause of his deviations both from sound doctrine and sound practice

190 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.
on public questions, is plainly to be traced to weaknesses and
infirmities, palpably discernible both in his mental and moral con
stitution. 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
influence, 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
Melancthon. Bullinger was a Calvinist, though a very cautious
and 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 Bullinger had more
influence with the English Reformers, and upon the reformation
they effected, than either Melancthon 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, who mainly
determined the character of the English Reformation, were a good
deal Melancthonian in their general character, tendencies, and sym
pathies. Cranmer resembled Melancthon both in his excellences
and his defects, and would, we fear, in similar circumstances, have
gone as far in sacrificing principle and in compromising truth, as
Melancthon was ready to have done at the Diet of Augsburg in
1530. Indeed it is, and will always remain, something of a mys
tery, how Cranmer contrived to thread his way through the rocks
and quicksands of Henry's reign, without sacrificing his integrity.
The English Reformers were, upon the whole, cautious and
timid men, who leaned decidedly to the side of peace, quietness,
compromise, and who were trained by their peculiar, and in many
respects unfavourable, circumstances, to the habit of avoiding,
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 his
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 influence 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 he 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 IV.
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, but 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 approving
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 indefinite
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 eould comfortably subscribe the
17th Article. 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 stringently, 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 exhibi
tions of incompetency or of something worse.
We can only make a few observations upon the 17th 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
endued 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
religiously in good works ; and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to
everlasting felicity.
" Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be
VOL. I. 13

194 MELANCTHON AND THE 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 ; but 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
notorious, that this mode of speaking is universal among Cal
vinistic divines in unfolding the practical application of their
doctrine, — that the second part of the statement is given in the
very words of Calvin himself, — and that the first part of it, too, is
found in substance, though not verbatim, in his writings. No Cal
vinist 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 CHURCH 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 " every person is an elect, whom some duly authorized
minister of the gospel has baptized in the Christian faith ;" j- and
sometimes it is glossed over with more skill and plausibility, as by
Archbishop Laurence in his "Bampton Lectures." But the lead
ing idea is the same : " chosen in Christ" means, chosen as Chris
tians, i.e. chosen to enjoy the outward privileges of the church ;
and as to God's having decreed to deliver them from curse and
damnation, 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

Vol. ii. p. 301. t P. 86.

196

MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.

dependent upon themselves, upon their improvement of their
privileges. Laurenee dwells at considerable length upon the expression
" 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
" 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 who duly receive and apply the means
of salvation whieh He has thus gratuitously provided for them."*
The argument founded upon the expression " chosen in Christ,"
the only thing in the leading section of the Article alleged to
have the appearance of being anti-Calvinistic, can be easily
disposed 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 deeided Calvinists,
even when this is not conceded in regard to Cranmer and his
associates. This concession indeed could not decently be 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 everything away to
the very quick, and do not differ from your doctrine by a nail's
breadth." t
2d, The phrase "chosen in Christ" is a scriptural expres-

* Pp. 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" (pp. 54, 90) ; and this charge
is undoubtedly true in substance,
though Laurence has not perhaps
brought out his notion quite so fully
and explicitly.
t Zurich Letters, 1st series, p. 59.

Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 197
sion ; and as the Calvinists of course think that they can interpret
it in entire accordance with their theological views, it is just as
unwarrantable to infer Arminianism, as it would be to infer
Calvinism, 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
century, 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
comparing 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
writings, and was intended to embody the views which he came
ultimately to adopt. But we think it scarcely possible for any
one at all versant in these matters, to compare the Article with
Melancthon's section on predestination, without seeing a marked
contrast 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 " 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 Uullinger.
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 OF ENGLAND. 199
that the founders of the Church of England were moderate, as dis
tinguished from extreme or ultra Calvinists, and that the doctrine
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 be held to be 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 riot 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.
But 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 disbelieved
when they tell us, as a matter of fact, that in their convictions
they have come thus far, but that they stop here, merely beoause
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
arbitrary 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 pro
fess, 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
personal convictions of individuals, but with the public formularies
which they prepared for the church. The same qualities and
influences 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 IV.
for the 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 state
ments 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
principles which they do not themselves perceive or admit, or
should have any doubt thrown upon the trustworthiness of their
professions 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 in elaborate expositions and defences

to disprove the Calvinism of the
17th Article, to give numerous and
lengthened extracts from Calvin. One-
fourth part of the whole of Win
chester's pamphlet upon the subject,
and one-third of Kipling's, is made
up in this way. This has a great
appearance of fairness, but it is really
a controversial 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

of the doctrine, prepared by an in
dividual, and intended merely for
general perusal. The question is not,
whether the compilers of the Articles
agreed in all respects with Calvin as
an individual, but whether they pro
fessed the fundamental principles of
the system of theology usually called
after his name. The only fair com
parison is between the 17th Article
and the statements on predestination
contained in the Calvinistic confessions
prepared about the same time ; and
here certainly there is no incon
sistency, scarcely even an apparent
discrepancy.

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
principle of Calvinism, — that the admission or denial of which
constitutes 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 acknowledge himself, to be a Calvin
ist, who believes that God from eternity chose some men, certain
persons of the human race, absolutely and unconditionally, to
salvation 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
particular topic ; and 2d, That they may be all legitimately and
conclusively 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,

202 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.
ought to lead men to the firm belief and the open maintenance of
the doctrines generally held by Calvinists, with regard to what
is commonly, though improperly, called reprobation, the nature
and extent of the atonement, 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 improvement 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 election, 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 which 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 purposed from eternity, and does in time, in regard to. those1
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 : — " 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 general
name of universal redemption, graduating from the grosser form,
which would exclude not only all Calvinistic principles, but all
right 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 OF 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 Ralph
Wardlaw. We have never been at all impressed with the reason
ings of these men in favour of universal redemption; but we
cannot, 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, " Dissertationes Duse prima
de Morte Christi, altera de Prasdestinatione et Reprobatione ;"
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 professed Calvinistic views upon other points, the second
is a most thorough and masterly exposition and defence of the
views ordinarily held by Calvinists in regard to election and
reprobation. Indeed, we do not believe that there exists a better
or more satisfactory 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

MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.

doctrine is a necessary part of Calvinism. It is certainly a neces
sary part of Calvinism, that all those whom God has absolutely
chosen to salvation shall be saved ; and no man ever held the
Calvinistic 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;! 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.
t 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 every 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 theological
speculation; and no one has ever prosecuted this investigation
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, however
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 IV.
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
devoted 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 be 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 authorized 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 be 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
misunderstood, or perverted, or suppressed ; but it exists in the
ineradicable 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 light, and been led to embrace Christ as his Saviour.
This is really the sum and substance of Calvinism. It is just the
intelligent 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
revealed truth.
There is, indeed, a vast amount of evidence that can be
adduced in favour of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when
VOL. I. 14

210 MELANCTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF [Essay IV.
this doctrine is looked at nakedly and by itself, — evidence from
Scripture, reason, and experience, — evidence which is fitted to
impress, and has impressed, 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 authorities 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 Scripture 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 im
pressions of religious men, greatly superior both in amount and
value to what may appear upon a superficial view of the matter.
These testimonies, 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
confirmation 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 Arininians 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 imper
fect indications given us in Scripture on this profoundly mys
terious 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, namely,
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

Essay IV.] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 211
existence and the permanence of moral evil among God's rational
and responsible creatures.
The Bible assumes or asserts, while it scarcely professes to
explain, 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

DOCTKINE OF THE SACKAMENTS.

It is a very common practice of Popish writers to represent
Protestantism and the 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 contemplated in
the light in which they, not we, represent him, viz. as the author
and founder of a new religious system. Independently of the
utterly unfounded and erroneous assumptions in point of prin
ciple 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 oppose 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 and Farel, of whom so very interesting
an account is given by Dr Merle D'Aubigne in the twelfth book
of his "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 organization 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.
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,
* Vol. iii.

214 .ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
and merely followed his 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 organization 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 has 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 well-being of their country, or in seeking, in 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 direct
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 partisan
ship which may be agitating the community. But since they are
not required to abandon wholly the discharge of the duties, or 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 ob
struction 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, viewed in
connection with the whole circumstances in which they took place.
Many countries were so situated at the, time of the Reformation,
that it was scarcely possible to keep political and religious matters
entirely distinct, and scarcely practicable for men who were
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 with so much advantage to his
country, in Scotland, it was at least equally warrantable and
necessary 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
Rome, 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

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 217
valuable life of Zwingle was of necessity occupied in exposing
the 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 extravagances 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
infallible 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 book of the " 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 study 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 fun
damental 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 pro
mised to cherish Christian love towards one another " as far as
the conscience of each will allow" — " quantum cujusque conscien-
tia 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 Popery, 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, and 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-
hian's " Historia Sacramentaria," Pars
altera, p. 77 ; Hottinger's " Historia
Ecclesiastica," torn. viii. p. 444. They

are also given, but not quite so fully
and accurately, in Melchior Adam's
Vitse Germanorum Theologorum, Vita
Zwinglii, p. 32.

220 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
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 vit& tulisset, seternsi morte nobis in eo moriendum
fuisset, neque unquam in regnum dei et beatitudinem seternam
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
representation 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 be saved "by framing their
lives according 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
indicate 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 acording 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.

222 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
garded as the peculiarities of the Calvinistic system, though we
are persuaded that none but 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
deliverance 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 foreordination 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
inculcated 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." t 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 represen
tations of the theological sentiments of the Reformers are very

Murdock's Translation by Reid, p. 664. f Century xvi. c. 12.

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 223
full and accurate, and whose Continuation of Milner is, on this
account, peculiarly valuable, and deserving of the highest com
mendation, 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 " Elen-
chus in Strophas Catabaptistarum," or his treatise, " 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 " Elen-
chus,"* he gives the following statement as a summary of Paul's
argument in the Epistle to the Romans : — " Fide servamur, non
ex operibus. Fides non est humanarum virium sed dei. Is ergo
earn dat iis quos vocavit, eos autem vocavit quos ad salutem des-
tinavit, eos autem ad hanc 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 summa est electionis a Paulo tractatae." 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
anything foreseen in them, but solely according to the counsel of
His own will. And in his treatise, " De Providentia Dei," he has
a chapter, the sixth, on " Election," in which he fully explains his
views in such a way as to leave no room for doubt as to their
import, 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. " Quae mihi sententia, ut olim scholas colenti pla-
cuit, ita illas deserenti et divinorum oraculorum puritati adhserenti,

Opera, torn. ii. p. 34, a.

224 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
maxime displicuit." * And then he proceeds to show, with a
clearness and a force not unworthy of Calvin himself, that this
Arminian 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 sove
reignty, 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 Hot-
tinger 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 " 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 mis-statements of Mosheim and Milner about the theo
logical views of Zwingle, are rather remarkable specimens of the
"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 " Zwingle
assigned to civil rulers full and absolute power in regard to reli
gious matters, and, what many censure him for, subjected the

* Opera, torn. i. p. 366, b. I Scott, vol. iii. pp. 142-152, and 194-
t Hottinger, torn. viii. pp. 616-650. | 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
were 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
fundamental difference between this principle of Zwingle's and
the proper Erastian tenet, which ascribes to the civil magistrate
jurisdiction or authority, not merely circa sacra, but in sacris, as
inherently 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 pre
vails, 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 naked

* On this subject, see Zwingle, De p. 248. Gerdes's Historia Reforma-
Vera et Falsa Religione. De Magis- tionis, torn. i. pp. 286-7, and Supple-
tratu, torn. ii. pp. 232-3, and Sub- ment to Preface. Scott, iii. pp. 32
sidium sive Coronis de, Eueharistia, and 91.
VOL. I. 15

226 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
and bare signs or symbols, emblematically and figuratively repre
senting 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
before the church or one another of the views which they have
been led to entertain upon the great doctrines of Scripture con
cerning the way of salvation, as well as a public pledge to follow
out consistently the views thus professed ; and there are un
doubtedly statements in Zwingle's writings which seem fairly
enough to imply, that this was the whole doctrine which he taught
concerning the sacraments. This doctrine was generally regarded
by Protestants, especially after Calvin had published his yiews
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
explained 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 plainness.
It is not wonderful that he did not succeed perfectly in hitting the
golden mean, or that the reaction against the monstrous and ruin
ous system which had been wrought out and established in the
Church of Rome, tempted him to try to simplify the subject of the
* C. 21.

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS.

227

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 rendered 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, "De 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 "Ratio Fidei," he continued to assert, "Sacramenta
tarn abesse ut gratiam conferant, ut ne adferant quidem aut dis-
pensent." But many Protestants, who were far enough from
regarding 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 any
thing that might be said in commending and exalting the sacra
ments, provided that what was spoken symbolically was understood
and applied symbolically, and that the whole honour of whatever
spiritual benefit was derived was ascribed to God, and not either

* We may give a specimen of what
is a common mode of speaking among
Protestant authors, from Willet's
Synopsis 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 ; instrumentalmeans
they are to increase and confirm our
faith in the promises of God ; of them
selves they have no operation, but, as
the Spirit of God worketh by them,
our internal senses being moved and
quickened by those external objects.
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 sacraments, but
faith is the more principal, and the
sacraments have no other use or end
than as they are helps for the strength
ening of our faith. Grace of themselves
they can give or confer none."

228 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
to the 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 con
stituting 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 sacra
ments 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 the 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 authorized 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 dangerous
doctrine in regard to the sacraments which had been inculcated
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 history
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 sacfaments were these : — 1st, That great
care' should be taken to avoid anything which mh^i appear to

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 229
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 He 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 participating in the sacrament, he performed. Zwingle was
deeply persuaded that the right mode of investigating this sub
ject was not to follow the example of the Fathers, in straining
the imagination to devise unwarranted, extravagant, and unin
telligible notions of the nature and effects of the sacraments, for
the purpose of making them more awful and more influential,
but to trace out plainly and simply what is taught and indi
cated in Scripture regarding them. By following out this course,
conscientiously 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 sub
ject ; 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 has 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 V.
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 sympathize 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 his shortcoming or deficiency it is not
very easy to estimate. Indeed, in regard to this latter point, it
should not be forgotten, that of the important document commonly
called the "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 further that
is connected with the personal history of the great Reformer of
German Switzerland.! 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, torn. 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 the principal charges which have
been adduced against Zwingle, and of
the leading misrepresentations which
have been put forth of his hfe 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 HistoriaEcclesiastica,"
torn. viii. pp. 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," torn. i. and ii. ; Gerdes's
" Historia Reformationis," torn. 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," lxvii., occu
pying a similar place to Luther's
"Theses," but exhibiting a much fuller
view of scriptural anti-papal truth ; his
" Ratio Fidei," presented to the Em
peror at the Diet of Augsburg in 1 530 ;
and his "Expositio Christianse 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 which are still
interesting, are the Explanation of the
Sixty-seven Articles, the "Commen-
tarius de Vera et Falsa Religion e," and
the treatise "De Providentia Dei."

232 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
set forth 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 " 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 Martyr, the very earliest of the
Fathers who was not contemporary 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 ago 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 anti-scriptural 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 seventh 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 " through the sacra
ments of the church all true righteousness either begins, or when
begun is increased, or when lost is repaired ; " " 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 ; " " 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 " (ponunt 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 ZWINGLE 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 be 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 operatum ; 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
Rome. 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 He 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 sacrament, or in any outward ordinance whatever. Scrip
ture, we think, plainly teaches this great truth, that as soon as,
and in every instance in which, men are united to Christ by faith,
they receive justification and regeneration ; while without or apart
from personal union to Christ by faith, these indispensable bless
ings are never conferred or received. Every man who is justified
and regenerated is certainly admitted into heaven, whether he
have been baptized or not ; and there is no ground in Scripture
for maintaining either that every one who has been baptized has
been forgiven and regenerated, or that those who have not been
baptized 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 prmcepti, .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 V.
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-posgession of spiritual blessings, — either excludes men from
heaven, or affords evidence that they will not in point of fact
be admitted there. Regeneration or conversion, as implying a
thorough change of moral nature, is necessary, both ex necessitate
prmcepti 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, but also because, from the nature of the
case, the result cannot be 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 be 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 effi
cacy of these ordinances, it does not of itself give us any direct
information as to what the sacraments are, — as to their nature,
objects, and effects. Protestants profess to have a certain theory
or doctrine in regard to the sacraments, as well as Romanists and
Tractarians. A definition of the sacraments — or, throwing aside
the technical scholastic meaning of the word definition, a descrip
tion of the leading features of the sacrament, or a statement of the
main positions held concerning them — is properly the sacramental
principle ; 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 sacra
ments; while Zwingle, throwing back the nickname, protested that
it might be applied with more propriety to those who made great
mysteries of the sacraments, and ascribed to them a value and
importance 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 has assumed in the present day. The
Tractarians seem to think that none ought to be 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
designate the fundamental idea of the general doctrine of Scrip
ture 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 inves
tigation 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 bring 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 posi
tion. 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 confusion in

238 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
men's conceptions upon this subject. While the sacraments in
dividually, 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 ordi
nances for which the designation of a sacrament might be claimed,
has been, very much overlooked. Even the boasting of the Trac
tarians about the sacramental principle, has not led to much dis
cussion about the nature and design of the sacraments in general.
The two latest works, so far as we know, which have been pub
lished 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 "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 " 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 sacra
ments ; and that many even of those 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

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 239
Supper, while they have scarcely even a fragment of an idea of
a sacramental principle, or of any general doctrine or theory on
the subject 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 Sacramentis 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, be 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; but 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
sacraments in general, or with respect to baptism ; but 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 be
lievers, 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 con-
substantiation. 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-

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 ac
quainted 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

* See Goode's "Vindication of the I 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.
be imputed to them, if by any fair process of construction it can
be avoided ; and it is in the 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 gene
ral description 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, be 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

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 243
to realize what this involves. In addition to this general descrip
tion of baptism as a sacrament, common to it with the Lord's
Supper, the Catechism proceeds to give a more specific descrip
tion 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 applies in
point of fact to all who have been baptized, and that all who
have received the outward ordinance of baptism are warranted
to adopt this language, and to apply it to themselves. But the
true principle of interpretation is, that this description of bap
tism applies fully and in all its extent only to those who are pos
sessed 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 we, who are supposed to be the
parties speaking ; and the question is, Who are the we ? 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 vje, 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 exami
nation 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

244 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
are for the use and benefit of believers, and this principle must be
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 whole 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 only
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 back again to the main subject
which we wished to consider, — viz. the true doctrine of the
Reformed 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 cove
nant of grace ; that is, of the truths which unfold the provisions
and arrangements of the covenant, and of the spiritual blessings
which the covenant provides and secures, — not only signifying or
representing Christ and the benefits of the new covenant, but
sealing or confirming them, and in some sense applying them
to believers. As the sacraments are the signs and seals of the
covenant, so they belong properly to, and can benefit only, those
who have an interest in the covenant, the fosderati; 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 bene
ficial. 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
explained, 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
baptism 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 be
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 V.
we see it ordinarily administered to infants, and very seldom to
adults. This leads us insensibly to form very defective and
erroneous conceptions of its design and effects, or rather to live
with our minds very much in the condition of blanks, so far as
concerns 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 administered. A sense of this difficulty is very apt to tempt
us to remain contentedly in great ignorance of the whole sub
ject, 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 it is quite plain to any one
who is capable of reflecting upon the subject, that it is adult
baptism alone which embodies and brings out the full idea of
the ordinance, and should be regarded as the primary type of it,
— that from which mainly and principally we should form our
conceptions of what baptism is and means, and was intended to
accomplish. It is in this aspect that baptism is ordinarily spoken
about and presented to our contemplation in the New Testament,
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
obligation of infant baptism can be conclusively established from
Scripture ; 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
doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; or for stating such a distinct
and definite alternative with respect to the efficacy of the ordi
nance in individuals, as has been stated above in the case of adult
baptism 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 diffi
culties attaching, to give a precise and definite statement as to its
design and effect in their 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 ordi
nance, — 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 ordinance 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 ex
plicitly stated, by the Reformers in preparing their confessions of
faith, and in their discussions of this subject. It is impossible to
briner out from their statements about the sacraments a clear and
consistent 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 be the instrumental cause,*
dealt with the subject on the assumption that they were describ
ing 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 opponents, accommo
dated 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 sub
stantially identical. They certainly did not mean to assert or
concede the Popish principle, of an invariable connection between
the outward ordinance and the spiritual blessing ; for it is quite
certain, and can be conclusively established, that they rejected
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 baptized 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 Pro
testants, 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
countenance 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 views 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 THE SACRAMENTS. 249
was very important, with 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
anxious 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 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 are capable of exer
cising faith. It also teaches, by plain implication, in the pre
vious question, the 91st, that the wholesome influence of the
sacraments is experienced only by those who " by faith receive
them." All this is applied equally to baptism and the Lord's

250 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
Supper. Its general import, as implying a virtual restriction
of these ordinances to believers, is too clear to be misunder
stood or to admit of being explained away. And then, again,
the apparent discrepancy between this great principle, and the
position that " 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 believers, 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
implies that spiritual benefit is derived from the sacraments only
by " 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? 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 believers
themselves, may be admitted to one of the sacraments because of
their relationship to believers.
A similar doubt might be started about the meaning and appli
cation of the parallel passage in the Larger Catechism.* A sacra
ment is there described as " 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 Scripture, —
the expression, "those that are within the covenant of grace," might
include the children of believers, who were regarded as fosderati,
and as thus entitled to the "signa et sigillafosderis." 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
immediately, 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 course, 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 Shorter
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
infant baptism, — a concession not affecting the scriptural evi
dence for the maintenance of the practice of baptizing infants,
but merely the fulness and completeness of the doctrinal explana
tion that should be given of its objects and effects.
The explanation we have given upon this point is in full
accordance with the views set forth in the Westminster Confession
of Faith, and in the confessions of the Reformed churches gene
rally. They all of them assert the scriptural authority of infant
baptism, while at the same time most of them, though with different
degrees 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 indispens
able 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 V.
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 be 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
instituted 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, He 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 His 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 be 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 God,

256 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
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, there are two views that 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 the 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 V.
the very important document formerly referred to, called " 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, "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 gene
rally entertained by the Reformed divines, and it is adopted in the
Westminster Confession,-]- where, after describing it as the end or
object of the sacraments " 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 service 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
provisions 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. i C. 27, s. 1.

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 259
the 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
infer 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 contemplat
ing 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 Reformed 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-

260 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 operato, or by some sort of physical
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
that it is not easy to fix upon any definite modes of state
ment, which can be said to be distinctly Protestant as opposed to
Romanism, about the true character and functions of the sacra
ments as means of grace, viewed apart from the doctrine held with
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 or is
laid up in them, and that they give it out- and yet Calvin, in his
" Antidote to the Council of Trent," seventh session, admits that
there is a sense in which it is true " 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
apart from the 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 justi
fication, 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 : " 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 first
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 sacraments 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 V.
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 sacra
ments 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 ; assum
ing only, in the meantime, that the position, universally admitted,
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, " 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 further,! hi speaking still of
the sacraments, and of course of baptism as well as the Lord's
Supper, asserts that "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 " sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by
Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party bap-

* Ch. xxvii. sec. 1. t Sec. 3.

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 263
tized into the 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, arid must receive regeneration and remis
sion ; and that without this, indeed, they cannot be saved. But
the statement in the Confession _ plainly assumes, that each indi
vidual 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 ex
istence of faith in all who rightly receive them ; and that they
produce their appropriate beneficial effects only through the
operation and exercise of faith in those who partake in them.
The Reformed divines, not holding the doctrine of baptismal re
generation, did not regard the baptism of infants as being of suffi
cient importance to modify the general doctrine they thought
themselves 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. Buddseus, one of the best of the

264 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V,
Lutheran divines, a man whose works exhibit a very fine combina
tion 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 obsignatid) of tie
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
object and effect of the sacraments, and of course of baptism as
well as of the Lord's Supper, was just the confirmatio fidei, — 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 Christiana? 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.
"3<f, That faith is the medium, the mouth, and the hand, by which we
rightly receive and perceive the sacraments.
" 4th, That the faith of those who lawfully receive the sacraments is
confirmed 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
individually, and were promising and sealing to them remission of sins and
eternal hfe ; 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.
" 6$, That by the sacraments the promises of the covenant of grace are
offered and sealed, under the condition of true faith and penitence.
" lih, That only true believers and true penitents, using the sacraments
worthily, receive not only the signs, but also the things signified, which are
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.
" 9^, That unbelieving and impenitent persons receive only the naked signs
but not the things signified ; that nothing is sealed to them ; that, moreover,
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.
" Wth, That the sacraments do not, in the first instance, bestow grace, faith,
and penitence, and are not the instruments of producing the beginnings of
faith and penitence, but only confirm, increase, and seal them."*
It will be observed that all these important doctrinal state
ments are made concerning the sacraments, and of course are
intended to apply equally and alike to baptism and the Lord's
Supper ; and that the sum and substance of what is here asserted
of both these ordinances is, that, in the case of adults, they were
intended only for persons who have already been enabled to be
lieve and repent, and that it is believers only who do or can derive
any benefit from partaking in them, all others using them only to
their own condemnation. We do not adopt every expression in
this summary just as it stands. But we have no doubt that, in its
substance, it is in full accordance with the teaching of Scripture,
and of the Reformed as distinguished from the Lutheran churches.
Upon the second of these points, indeed, — the historical question
of the identity of these views with those of the Reformed churches
and of the leading Reformed divines of the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries, — Vitringa has produced his evidence at length.

* C. xxiv. torn. vi. p. 489.

266 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
His quotations fill about twenty pages, and are certainly amply
sufficient to establish his position. They prove that the quotation
we have produced, contains a correct summary of the doctrine of
the Reformed churches in regard to the proper subjects of the
sacraments. Vitringa gives extracts from eight or ten of the con
fessions of the Reformation period, and from above fifty of the
most eminent divines of that and the succeeding century. He has
thus brought together a vast store of materials, abundantly suffi
cient to establish his position, so far as authority is concerned ; and
we think it may be worth while to give the names of the divines
from whom he produces his extracts. They are Zwingle, CEcolam-
padius, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Ursi-
nus, Olevianus, Sadeel, Whitaker, Aretus, Sohnius, Polanus,
Chamier, Junius, Perkins, Bucanus, Kuchlinus, Acronius, Trel-
catius, Scharpius, G. J. Vossius, Maccovius, Walaeus, Rivetus,
Amyraldus, Altingius, Forbes, Voetius, Wendelinus, Cocceius,
Hottinger, Heidanus, Maresius, Venema, Burman, Mastricht, Wit-
sius, Turretine, Heidegger, Leydecker, Braunius, Marckius, Roell,
Meyer, Gerdes, Wyttenbach ; in short, all the greatest divines of
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here is a storehouse of
names and quotations, which might enable any one to set up as an
erudite theologian by means of a stock of second-hand authorities.
We are dealing at present only with the historical and not
with the scriptural view of the case ; but we may briefly advert
to the kind of proof by which it can be shown, that the proper
subjects of the sacrament are only believing and regenerated men.
The general place or position of the sacraments seems plainly to
indicate that they were intended only for those who had already
been led to embrace Christ, and had been born again of His word.
It is evident, from all the representations given us on this subject
in the inspired account of the labours of the apostles, that men
first of all had the gospel preached to them, were warned of their
guilt and danger as sinners, and were instructed in the way of
salvation through Christ; and that thus, through the effectual
working of God's Spirit, they were enabled to believe what they
were told, to embrace Christ freely offered to them, and to receive
Him as their Lord and Master. They were told, among other
things, that it was Christ's will that they should be baptized, and
should thereby publicly profess their faith in Him, and be formally
admitted into the society which He had founded. When, in these

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 267
or in similar circumstances, and upon these grounds, a man asks
and obtains the administration to him of baptism (of course we
speak at present only of adults, for, upon grounds formerly ex
plained, we must form ouriprimary and leading conceptions of the
import and object of this ordinance from the baptism of adults,
and not of infants), the application seems plainly to carry upon
the face of it, a profession or declaration, that he has been led to
choose Christ as his Saviour and his Master, and is determined in
every way to follow out this profession of entire dependence and
of implicit subjection. If faith and regeneration are necessary
preparations and qualifications for baptism, they must of course
exist in all who come to the Lord's table, which, from its nature,
and from the place it occupies in the apostolic history, must
manifestly come after baptism.
These obvious general considerations tell in favour of the
position, that the sacraments were instituted and intended only
for believers ; and this view is confirmed by a closer examination
of the particular features and provisions of the ordinances them
selves. In regard to the Lord's Supper, it is generally admitted,
that it is intended for, and can be lawfully and beneficially par
taken of only by, those who have already been received into God's
family, and are living by faith in His Son. An attempt, indeed,
was made in the course of the Erastian controversy, as conducted
at the time of the Westminster Assembly, to set up the notion
that the Lord's Supper is a converting ordinance, and may there
fore be rightly partaken of by those who have not yet believed
and been regenerated. But this notion, manifestly got up merely
for the purpose of undermining ecclesiastical discipline, was un
answerably exposed by George Gillespie, in the third book of his
"Aaron's Rod Blossoming." And when a similar notion was,
with a similar purpose, promulgated about a century later among
the Congregationalists of New England, it was again put down,
with equal ability and success, by Jonathan Edwards, in his
" Inquiry into the Qualifications for Communion." The notion
has not again, so far as we are aware, been revived in any such
circumstances as to entitle it to notice. It is otherwise in regard
to baptism. Some men seem to shrink from laying down the
position, either that the sacraments, or that baptism, should be
held to be intended for believers, and of course to require or pre
suppose faith and regeneration, because this leaves out and seems

268 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
to exclude the case of infant baptism, — a difficulty which neither
the Reformers nor the compilers of the Westminster standards,
though decided pasdobaptists, allowed to influence or modify their
statements. Others take wider and more definite ground, and
endeavour to establish a great disparity between baptism and the
Lord's Supper as to their import and objects, and to disprove the
equal applicability to both these ordinances, of the definition and
description usually given of a sacrament. No one, indeed, can
deny, that there are some points in which baptism and the Lord's
Supper stand alone and resemble each other. All admit that both
these ordinances are emblems or symbolical representations of
scriptural truths, fitted and intended to embody and to exhibit
the great doctrines revealed in the word of God concerning the
salvation of sinners. This description is undoubtedly true of these
ordinances so far as it goes. It is admitted by all Protestants,
that this description applies equally and alike to baptism and the
Lord's Supper, and that there are no other institutions under the
Christian economy to which it does apply. But the question is,
Can we not get materials in Scripture for giving a more complete
and specific account of what is equally true of these two ordinances,
and may therefore be set forth as the full and adequate descrip
tion of the sacraments ? and more especially, have we not materials
for making statements of a more precise and specific kind, both
about the subjects and the objects of these ordinances, that shall
apply equally to both of them ? This at least is what has been
generally maintained and acted upon by Protestant divines. They
have embodied the substance of these materials in their description
of a sacrament ; and the leading features of this description, as set
forth in the Westminster standards, are, that both ordinances,
equally and alike, are intended for believers, and represent, seal,
and apply to believers Christ and His benefits.
So far as concerns the subjects of the sacraments, the topic
with which at present we have more immediately to do, it is gene
rally admitted, that partaking in the Lord's Supper implies a
profession of faith in Christ, and is therefore warrantable and
beneficial only to believers. But many, and we fear a growing
number, refuse to admit this principle as applicable to baptism.
It is contended, not only that infants who are incapable of faith
ought to be baptized (a position which all the Reformers and all
the confessions of the Reformed churches decidedly maintained,

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 269
though they did not allow it to affect their general definition of
a sacrament), but also that 'adults may be admitted to baptism,
though they are not, and do not profess to be, believers and re
generate persons, — baptism, it is alleged, not expressing or im
plying a profession of believing in Christ, but only a profession
of a willingness to be instructed in the principles of Christianity.
This notion is flatly opposed to the leading views with respect to
the sacraments which have always prevailed in the Protestant
churches, and been embodied in the Reformed confessions. But
it seems now to prevail to a considerable extent among the Con-
gregationalists of this country. And we fear that it is likely to
continue to prevail, because while it can be defended with consider
able plausibility in argument, it has also this important practical
advantage, that it furnishes a warrant, or an excuse, for baptizing
the infants of persons who could not be regarded as qualified to
be members of the Christian church in full standing, or as admis
sible to the Lord's table. There is a very elaborate and ingenious
defence of this view of the import and object of baptism, and of
the absence of all similarity in these respects between it and the
Lord's Supper, in Dr Halley's work, entitled, " Baptism, the De
signation of the Catechumens, not the Symbol of the Members,
of the Christian Church," which Dr Wardlaw, in reply to whom
chiefly it was written, did not answer, and which Dr W. Lindsay
Alexander has pronounced to be unanswerable. We think it can,
and it certainly should, be answered. But this we cannot attempt
at present, our object being chiefly explanation rather than de
fence. The attempt to make so wide a gulf between baptism and
the Lord's Supper, and to extend the application of baptism be
yond the range of the membership of the church, so as to include
all who are placed, by their own voluntary act, or that of their
parents, under the church's superintendence and instruction, while
neither in connection with their own baptism nor that of their
children are they held to make a profession of faith and regene
ration, is, of course, flatly opposed to the definition or description
of a sacrament, given in the confessions of the Reformed churches
as applicable to both ordinances. It is also, we are persuaded,
inconsistent with every consideration suggested by the symbolic or
emblematic character of the ordinance as an outward act, implying
a declaration or profession of a certain state of mind and feeling
on the part of the person baptized, and with all that is asserted

270 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
or indicated in Scripture as to the connection between baptism on
the one hand, and remission and regeneration on the other.
It is, as we have explained, of fundamental importance in
judging of these symbolical ordinances, to attend to the profession
implied in the outward act, and to the correspondence between
the outward act and the state of mind and heart of the recipient.
When a man asks, in obedience to Christ's commands, to be
solemnly washed with water, in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, and when, in compliance with this request,
he has baptism administered to him, he seems as plainly and as
explicitly to make a profession of faith in .Christ, as when he
applies for and obtains admission to the Lord's table. Baptism,
indeed, may be said to be a formal and solemn entering into
Christ's service, implying a promise to be thereafter governed and
guided by Him. And it surely is this, at least, — that is, this is
just about as low a view as can be taken of the ordinance, and of
the act of engaging in it. But even this view of it implies, that
in the honest and intelligent reception of baptism, such views of
Christ are professed as presuppose the existence of saving faith.
Men cannot honestly and intelligently enter Christ's service, and
profess their unreserved submission to His authority, unless and
until they have been led to adopt such views of what is revealed
in Scripture concerning Him, as imply and produce true faith in
Him as a Saviour. Why should any man desire and ask to be
washed with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, unless he has already been led to adopt such views
of the three Persons of the Godhead, and of the way of salvation,
as must have led him to embrace Christ as all his salvation and
all his desire ? In short, an application to be baptized, and the
being actually baptized as the result of the application, plainly
imply a profession, that the person so acting has been already led
to believe in Christ, to receive and accept of Him as his Saviour
and his Master; and that he intends to profess or declare, by being
baptized, the views he has been brought to entertain concerning
Christ, and the relation into which he has been led to enter with
respect to Him, and to pledge himself to the discharge of all the
obligations which these views and that relation impose. When
this state of mind and feeling has not been produced, we cannot
conceive that the baptism of an adult can be an honest and intel
ligent act. The nature of the act itself, and the almost universal

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 271
consent of the Christian church, in every age and country down
till the present day, attach this meaning and significance to the
baptism of an adult ; and if so, the baptism of any one who has
not believed and been born again, must be a hypocritical form.
This view of the matter is confirmed, we think, by all that is
said in the New Testament, whether in explicit statement or in
indirect allusion, concerning the relation between baptism and the
great spiritual blessings which are invariably connected with faith
in Christ, viz. remission and regeneration. The relation subsist
ing between baptism and these fundamental blessings involves a
discussion of the whole topics comprehended in the controversy
about baptismal justification and regeneration ; and on this we
cannot enter. It seems to us pretty plain, that the scriptural state
ments which are-usually brought to bear upon the settlement of
this controversy, and which are founded on by the advocates of
baptismal regeneration, imply that some connection subsists be
tween baptism, in the legitimate use of it, and these fundamental
blessings; while the view which has been devised by modern Con-
gregationalists, and is defended by Dr Halley, seems to deny any
connection whatever between them. The texts referred to seem to
imply either, that baptism, in the right and legitimate use of it, is
a sign or symbol, a seal and a profession of remission and regenera
tion, as previously conferred and then existing in the party baptized;
or else that regeneration is produced or bestowed in baptism, and
through the instrumentality of that ordinance. The first of these
views is, we are persuaded, that which is sanctioned by Scripture,
and certainly it has been generally taught by the Reformed
churches. The latter is the common Popish and Tractarian doc
trine; and though it has no solid scriptural ground to rest upon,
it can be defended from Scripture with some plausibility, and this
is more, we think, than can be said, so far as concerns this branch
of the argument, in favour of the notion that baptism may be
rightly and honestly applied for and received by men who have
not already and previously received faith in Jesus Christ, the for
giveness of their sins, and the regeneration of their natures. We
would only say, before leaving this subject, that we cannot but
regard the serious error to which we have adverted, as affording
another illustration of a danger formerly mentioned, that, namely,
of allowing the notions or impressions which the special exceptional
case of infant baptism is apt to suggest, to influence unduly our

272 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
views about baptism in general, and even about the sacraments
as a whole. The giving undue prominence to the special case of
infant baptism, is very apt to blind men's eyes to the strength of
the evidence, that baptism in its general import and object — that is,
adult baptism in its legitimate use — implies a profession of faith in
Christ, and can therefore be rightly received and improved only
by believers ; while at the same time the temptation to reject this
great scriptural principle, which is so explicitly set forth in almost
all the confessions of the Reformed churches, is strengthened by
the opening thus made, for giving baptism to the children of those
who do not make a profession of faith, and who would not, or
should not, have been admitted to the Lord's Supper.
2. We must now proceed to advert to the second leading divi
sion of the subject, viz. the objects of the sacraments, or the pur
poses for which they were instituted, and which they are fitted and
intended to serve, — or, what is virtually the same thing, the bene
ficial effects which men are warranted to expect, and do receive,
from the right use of them. There is, as we have mentioned, a
very close connection between this topic and that which we have
already considered. If the sacraments were intended for believers,
— if their proper subjects are those only who have already been
united to Christ, and been born again of His word, — then it follows
that they could not have been fitted or intended to be auxiliary or
instrumental in bestowing or producing anything which is implied
in the existence of saving faith, or in effecting anything which is
involved in, or results from, saving faith, wherever it exists. Upon
the ground, then, of what has been already set forth under the
former head, it follows, not only that justification and regeneration
are not bestowed or produced in or by baptism, but that they
must have been already bestowed and produced before baptism
can be lawfully or safely received. This is a principle of funda
mental importance, and it is confirmed by all that is taught us
in Scripture, both with respect to the subjects and the objects of
the sacraments. There is, indeed, no principle more important
with reference to this whole matter, whether viewed theoretically
or practically, whether regarded as an exposition of truth, or as a
security against corruption and abuse, than that the sacraments are
intended for believers, and of course must have been fitted to aid
them in some way or other in the great work of carrying on the
life of God in their souls, in promoting their growth in knowledge,

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 273
righteousness, and holiness. The sacraments are means of grace,
— that is, they are ordinances or appointments of God, which are
intended to be in some way auxiliary or instrumental in convey
ing to men spiritual blessings. The blessings conveyed by the
sacraments, and to be expected from the right use of them, cannot
of course be those which, according to God's arrangements, are
conveyed to men, and must exist in and be possessed by them,
before the sacraments can be lawfully and honestly received. It
is a fundamental principle of scriptural doctrine, that justification
and regeneration are necessarily and invariably connected with
faith, and that they are contemporaneous with it, whatever may be
the precise relation subsisting among them in the order of nature.
Whoever has been enabled to believe in Jesus Christ has been
justified and regenerated; he has passed through that great ordeal
on which salvation depends, and which can occur but once in the
history of a soul. And if these principles are well founded, then
the spiritual blessings which the sacraments may be instrumental
in conveying, can be those only which men still stand in need of,
with a view to their salvation, after they have been justified and
regenerated by faith. And these are the forgiveness of the sins
which they continue to commit, a growing sense of God's par
doning mercy, and grace and strength to resist temptation, to
discharge duty, to improve privilege, and to be ever advancing
in holiness ; — or, to adopt the language of the Shorter Cate
chism in describing the blessings which accompany or flow from
justification, adoption, and sanctification, they are " assurance of
God's love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase
of grace, and perseverance therein to the end." There is nothing
asserted or indicated in Scripture to preclude the conveyance of
any or all of these blessings, through the instrumentality of the
sacraments, as well as of the other means of grace. On the
contrary, there is good scriptural ground why believers should
expect to receive, in the right use of the sacraments, any or all of
these blessings, according as they may need them. And accord
ingly, it is the genera] doctrine of the Reformed confessions, that
the great leading object of the sacraments — the main purpose
which they were designed and fitted to accomplish — is just to be
instrumental or auxiliary in conveying these blessings to those
who have believed through grace, in producing these results in
those who have already been renewed in the spirit of their minds,
VOL. I. 18

274 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
and to do this mainly, if not solely, by strengthening and confirm
ing their faith.
We have already had occasion to quote the principal passages
in which this doctrine concerning the great leading object or
design of the sacraments is set forth in the Westminster symbols,
but it may be proper to advert to them somewhat more formally
in this connection. In the Confession of Faith,* the main position
laid down regarding the sacraments is this, that they " are holy
signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted
by God, to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our
interest in Him; as also," etc. Here the general nature and
character of the sacraments is declared to be, that they are holy
signs and seals of the covenant of grace; and the principal object
— the leading design, on account of which they were instituted
by God — is said to be " to represent Christ and His benefits, and
to confirm our interest in Him." The " representing Christ and
His benefits" applies more properly to the sacraments in their
character and functions as signs ; " the confirming our interest in
Him," in their character and function as seals. The representing
or signifying Christ and His benefits, — that is, the blessings of
the covenant of grace, and the doctrines or promises which unfold
and offer, and which, when believed and applied, instrumentally
convey or bestow them, — applies more immediately to the mere
symbols or elements, and to the preaching of the gospel to all,
without distinction or exception, which is involved in the selection
and appointment of such symbols, as recorded in the New Testa
ment. The " confirming our interest in Him " brings under our
notice the more limited and specific object of the sacraments, as
brought out in the actual individual participation in them by
persons duly qualified and rightly prepared. This latter state
ment suggests at once, as a fundamental point in the doctrine
of the sacraments, — and, of course, as true of baptism as of the
Lord's Supper, — that they are intended only for those who have
already obtained an interest in Christ by faith, and that they are
designed to benefit these persons mainly by confirming this
interest in Christ, which they have already acquired, and which
they must have possessed before they could lawfully and bene
ficially partake even in the initiatory sacrament of baptism. This
* C. 27.

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 275
important principle is also explicitly declared in the 19th chapter
of the Confession, which treats of Saving Faith. Concerning
saving faith, it says, that "it is ordinarily wrought by the ministry
of the word, by which also, and by the administration of the
sacraments and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." Here
the increasing and strengthening of saving faith, previously pro
duced and already existing, is ascribed to the administration of
the sacraments, and of course is predicated equally and alike
of baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and this incidental, though
most explicit, assertion of the principle, that the sacraments were
designed to increase and strengthen saving faith, shows how
familiar the minds of the compilers of the Westminster Confession
were with a doctrine, which is now very much ignored by many
who profess to follow in their footsteps.
The same doctrine as to the objects of the sacraments is very
explicitly set forth in the Larger Catechism, where, in answer
to the question,* What is a sacrament ? it is said, that " a sacra
ment is 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 and all other graces, to oblige them to obedience, to
testify and cherish their love and communion one with another,
and to distinguish them from those that are without." We have
already shown that, according to the strict grammatical construc
tion of this sentence, the expression, " those that are within the
covenant of grace," is used simply as synonymous with believers,
and not in the wider sense in which it might include also the
children of believers ; and that, therefore, the Larger Catechism
agrees with the Confession of Faith and the Shorter Catechism,
in setting forth this great doctrine in regard to the subjects
of the sacraments, viz. that they are intended for believers, for
those who have already received the gift of faith ; not meaning
to exclude the baptism of infants, — which was regarded as fully
sanctioned by scriptural authority, — but virtually conceding, 1st,
That the full and adequate idea of a sacrament, as exhibited
in adult baptism and the Lord's Supper, does not directly and
thoroughly apply to the case of infant baptism ; and 2d, That it is
of more importance to bring out fully and explicitly, the sacra-
* Q. 162.

276 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
mental principle, — the true and full doctrine of the sacraments,
— as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord's Supper, than to
attempt to lay down some more vague and diluted view upon this
subject, which might include the special and peculiar case of the
baptism of infants. This being assumed, we see that the Larger
Catechism, in entire accordance with the Confession of Faith,
gives it as the true account of the general nature and character of
the sacraments, that " they signify, seal, and exhibit " the benefits
of Christ's mediation to believers, and that their primary leading
object is to strengthen and increase faith and all other graces,
where these have been already produced. The three other objects
here assigned to the sacraments, viz. " to oblige them to obedience,
to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another,
and to distinguish them from those that are without," — all, be it
observed, applicable only to believers, — are usually described by
theologians, and were no doubt regarded by the Westminster
divines, as the secondary or subordinate objects or ends of the sacra
ments. And it is plain that, in respect of intrinsic importance
in their bearing upon the salvation of sinners, they do not stand
upon the same level with the great object and result of strengthen
ing and increasing faith and all other graces, and thereby signify
ing, sealing, and exhibiting the benefits of the covenant of grace.
The general definition or description of a sacrament given in
the Shorter Catechism is very explicit in declaring, that the pro
per subjects of the sacraments are believers, though it does not
bring out so formally and fully what are their objects or ends,
except in so far as the truth upon this point is implied in their
general nature and character. But as the statement in the
Shorter Catechism is that with which most people in Scotland
are familiar, though in many cases, we fear, familiar only with
the words, without understanding the meaning, it may be proper
to give a somewhat full and formal explanation of it, even though
this may involve some repetition. It is this : " A sacrament 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."
1. This statement explicitly asserts, as we have shown, that
the sacraments, baptism as well as the Lord's Supper, are in
tended for believers, and produce their appropriate beneficial
results only in those who by faith receive them ; while it assumes

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 277
or takes for granted, that those who partake in them are duly
qualified for doing so, by the possession of that faith which, in
receiving them, is professed or declared.
2. The things which are represented, sealed, and applied to
believers in the sacraments are, " Christ and the benefits of the
new covenant ;" not some of the benefits of the covenant, however
important and fundamental, but these benefits as a whole, — every
thing, including both a change of state and of character, which is
invariably connected with saving faith ; not the covenant of grace,
regarded merely as a statement or exposition of a certain compact
or transaction revealed in Scripture and bearing upon the salva
tion of sinners, but the grace of the covenant, or the blessings
which the covenant offers, conveys, and secures. Any attempt
to represent baptism, or the water the application of which con
stitutes baptism, as representing or signifying remission, — apart
from regeneration, or regeneration apart from remission, — and
any attempt to explain the difficulty about sealing by distinguish
ing between the covenant of grace and the grace of the covenant,
and alleging that sacraments are seals of the covenant, but are
only signs or symbols of spiritual blessings, — is precluded by the
terms of this statement, and still more explicitly by the further
explanation given in the Confession of Faith and Larger Cate
chism. 3. " Christ and the benefits of the new covenant" are here
declared to be equally and alike " represented, sealed, and applied ;"
and this one complex position being predicated of them, it cannot,
in consistency with this statement, be alleged that these benefits,
or any of them, are either represented and not sealed, or sealed
and not represented, in reference to any one class or section of
legitimate and worthy recipients. The admission of the accuracy
of this description of a sacrament implies, that there is a sense in
which Christ and His benefits are, in baptism and the Lord's
Supper, not only represented and signified, but also sealed and
applied to believers.
4. The "signify, seal, and exhibit" of the Larger Catechism
are evidently identical with the " represented, sealed, and applied"
of the Shorter,- — " signify" being synonymous with " represent,"
and "exhibit" with "apply." And in considering these expres
sions, we have first to advert to the question of the consistency of
this account of the nature and character of the sacraments, with

278 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
the view which, as we have seen, is given in these symbols, of their
main object, their principal design. There is no difficulty in per
ceiving how the signifying and sealing here ascribed to the sacra
ments accord with the doctrine which represents their leading
object to be, to confirm or strengthen a faith previously existing,
and thereby to contribute to convey the blessings which believers
still need. Signifying and sealing naturally suggestthe idea, that
the things signified and sealed not only exist, but are actually
possessed by those to whom they are signified and sealed. What
ever may be the precise kind of influence and effect indicated by
these words, they assume or imply, that the things of which they
are predicated have been already bestowed or conveyed, and are
now held or possessed. The sacraments are for believers. In
describing their general nature and character, it is usually assumed
that the persons who receive them are duly qualified by the pos
session of faith; by receiving the sacraments, they express and
exercise their faith ; they thus have all the great fundamental
blessings, the possession of which is invariably connected with the
existence of faith, signified and sealed to them ; and the tendency
and effect of this are to strengthen and increase their faith, and
thereby to convey to them more fully and abundantly those other
blessings of which they still stand in need.
But while the signifying and sealing ascribed to the sacraments
are plainly, whatever may be their precise meaning and import,
quite accordant with the general doctrine taught concerning their
objects, there seems to be more difficulty about " exhibiting" or
" applying." Do not these words convey the idea of conferring
or bestowing what was not previously possessed ? Do they not
thus sanction the notion that Christ and His benefits are conveyed
or bestowed, not previously to the lawful reception of the sacra
ments, but in and by the use of them ? Now, in opposition to
this notion, we take the position, that the doctrine that the sacra
ments are for believers, and assume the previous existence in
worthy recipients of the great spiritual blessings with which saving
faith is invariably connected, is far too explicitly and too fully set
forth in the Westminster symbols, in accordance with the general
doctrine of the Reformed churches, to admit of its being set aside
or involved in uncertainty, on the ground of a single vague and
ambiguous expression, even though there were greater difficulty
than there is, in interpreting that expression in harmony with the

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 279
general strain of their teaching. The proof of this in the state
ments of the Confession and Catechisms is too clear to require
the application of any collateral and subordinate evidence. But
it so happens that we have evidence of this sort, which would
be conclusive as to what was the doctrine which the Westminster
divines intended to teach upon this point, even though the lan
guage of their symbols, faken as a whole, had been much more
ambiguous than it is. This evidence we find in statements con
tained in Samuel Rutherford's " Due Right of Presbyteries," and
in George Gillespie's "Aaron's Rod Blossoming." Rutherford
and Gillespie are, literally and without any exception, just the
two very highest authorities that could be brought to bear upon
a question of this kind, at once from their learning and ability as
theologians, and from the place they held and the influence they
exerted in the actual preparation of the documents under con
sideration. That Rutherford held the views about the sacraments
which we have ascribed to the Westminster standards, is quite
certain, from the following quotations from the work above
referred to : —
" All believers as believers, inforo Dei before God, have right to the seals
of the covenant ; those to whom the covenant and the body of the charter
belongeth, to those the seal belongeth ; but in foro ecclesiastico, and in an
orderly church way, the seals are not to be conferred by the church upon
persons because they believe, but because they profess their believing ; there
fore the apostles never baptized Pagans, but upon profession of their faith."
" Certainly, God ordaineth the sacraments to believers as believers, and be
cause they are within the covenant, and their interest in the covenant is the
only true right of interest to the seals of the covenant ; profession doth but
declare who believe and who believe not, and consequently who have right to
the seals of the covenant, and who not ; but profession doth not make right,
but declareth who have right."*
There is no great difficulty connected with the Lord's Supper,
so far as concerns the point now under consideration. The
difficulty applies only to baptism, and in regard to baptism the
following statements of Rutherford are conclusive : —
" 1. Baptism is not that whereby we are entered into Christ's mystical and
invisible body as such, for it is- presupposed we be members of Christ's body,
and our sins pardoned already before baptism come to be a seal of sins par
doned. But baptism is a seal of our entry into Christ's visible body, as swear
ing to the colours is that which entereth a soldier to be a member of such an

* Pp. 185 and 258.

280

ZWINGLE AND THE

[Essay V.

army, whereas, before his oath, he was only a heart-friend to the army and
cause. " 2. Baptism, as it is such, is a seal, and a seal — as a seal — addeth no new
lands or goods to the man to whom the charter and seal is given, but only doth
legally confirm him in the right of such lands given to the man by prince or
state. Yet this hindereth not ; but baptism is a real legal seal, legally con
firming the man in his actual visible profession of Christ, remission of sins,
regeneration, so, as though before baptism he was a member of Christ's body,
yet, quoad nos, he is not a member of Christ's body visible, until he be made
such by baptism."*
Gillespie, in like manner, has the following explicit statement
upon this subject : — ¦
" The Papists hold that the sacraments are instrumental to confer, give, or
work grace ; yea, ex opere operato, as the schoolmen speak. Our divines hold
that the sacraments are appointed of God, and delivered to the church as
sealing ordinances, not to give, but to testify what is given ; not to make,
but to confirm saints. And they not only oppose the Papist's opus operatiim,
but they simply deny this instrumeutahty of the sacraments, that they are
appointed of God for working or giving grace where it is not. This is so well
known to all who have studied the sacramentarian controversies, that I should
not need to prove it ; yet that none may doubt of it, take here some few
instead of many testimonies, "f
Nay, what is somewhat remarkable, and singularly pertinent to
our present purpose, we find that the same difficulty which we are
now considering is stated and answered by Gillespie, and that his
answer to it is virtually a commentary upon the passage we are
examining, and establishes the sense in which it was understood
by those who may be regarded as its authors, — thus not only

*P. 211.
f B. iii. c. 12, p. 409. Gillespie's
quotations in proof of his position are
from the old Scotch Confession, the
Synod of Dort, and the Belgic Liturgy,
Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Muscu-
lus, Bucer, Festus Hommius, Aretius,
Vossius, Parseus, Walseus, etc. We
give one of his quotations from Ur
sinus, who was the principal author
of the Heidelberg or Palatine Cate
chism, because it is a very brief, terse,
and comprehensive statement of the
substance of the doctrine of the Re
formed churches, in regard both to
the subjects and objects of the sacra
ments, as contradistinguished from

the word or the truth ; and because we
wish to mention that there is no divine
of the sixteenth century, who has
brought out more clearly and fully the
great principle, that the leading object
of the sacraments is the confirmatio
fidei. " Quasi non pueris jam notum
verbum et conversis et non conversis
esse annunciandum, quo illi quidem
confirmentur, hi vero convertantur ;
sacramenta autem iis esse instituta
qui jam sunt conversi et membra
populi dei facti." Judicium de dis-
ciplina ecclesiastica. Oper. torn. iii.
p. 809, and not p. 89, as it is printed
in Gillespie.

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 281
proving that the doctrine we have asserted is to be maintained,
notwithstanding its apparent discrepancy, with one expression, but
at the same time showing in what way this apparent discrepancy
is to be explained. The remarkable passage is as follows : — " You
will say, peradventure, that Protestant writers hold the sacra
ments to be, 1, Significant or declarative signs ; 2, Obsignative
or confirming signs ; and 3, Exhibitive signs, so that the thing
signified is given or exhibited to the soul." Now these three
points are manifestly identical with the three words employed
in the Catechisms, — "signify, seal, and exhibit," in the Larger;
and "represent, seal, and apply," in the Shorter. The main
question is, What is meant by the third point, exhibit and apply,
or exhibitive signs ? and Gillespie's answer is this : —
" I answer, that exhibition, which they speak of, is not the giving of grace
where it is not (as is manifest by the afore-quoted testimonies), but an exhibi
tion to believers, a real, effectual, lively application of Christ, and of all His
benefits, to every one that believeth, for the staying, strengthening, confirming, and
comforting of the sold. Our divines do not say that the sacraments are exhibi
tive ordinances, wherein grace is communicated to those who have none of it,
to unconverted or unbelieving persons.
"By this time it may appear (I suppose) that the controversy between us
and the Papists, concerning the effect of the sacraments (setting aside the
opus operatum, which is a distinct controversy, and is distinctly spoken to by
our writers, — setting aside also the causalitas physica and insita, by which some
of the Papists say the sacraments give grace, though divers others of them hold
the sacraments to be only moral causes of grace), is thus far the same with
the present controversy between Mr Prynne and me, that Protestant writers
do not only oppose the opus operatum and the causalitas physica and insita,
but they oppose (as is manifest by the testimonies already cited) all causality
or working of the first grace of conversion and faith in or by the sacraments,
supposing always a man to be a believer and within the covenant of grace
before the* sacrament, and that he is not made such, nor translated to the
state of grace in or by the sacrament."*
We think it of some importance to show, that these views of
the sacramental principle, or of the doctrine of the sacraments,
which, though so clearly and fully set forth in the Westminster
standards, have been so much lost sight of amongst us, were
openly maintained by the leading divines of the Church of Scot
land during last century. Principal Hadow and Thomas Boston
may be regarded as the heads of two different schools of theology
* Pp. 496-7.

282

ZWINGLE AND THE

[Essay V.

in Scotland in the early part of last century, and, as happens not
unfrequently in theological discussions, they divided, we think,
the truth between them in the points controverted. They have
both left very explicit statements of their views upon this subject
of the sacraments, especially in regard to baptism, about which
alone there is any difficulty, so far as concerns the points we have
been considering. Principal Hadow lays down this position, that
the commonly received doctrine of the Reformed churches does
not " ascribe any other virtue or efficacy to baptism, than what is
moral and objective, in representing and signing the promises,
confirming of faith, and exhibiting or applying the promised
benefits of the covenant unto believers, by way of a sign and seal,
which still supposeth grace already conferred on those in whom
this sacrament hath its due operation ;" and he supports this and
one or two other positions of a similar import and tendency by
quotations from Zwingle, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Musculus,
Polanus, Wollebius, Aretius, Calvin, Beza, Spanheim, Turretine,
Heidegger, Bucer, Zanchius, Ursinus, Parous, Wendelinus, Rivet,
Walseus, Hoornbeck, Essenius, Leydecker, Mastricht, Witsius,
Alting, Maresius, Gomarus, Maccovius, Ames, Arnoldus, Daneeus,
Chamier, Amyraut, Du Moulin, — thus furnishing, like Vitringa, a
great storehouse of materials for a theological display.*
"Boston's views are brought out in the following extract from
his " Miscellany Questions in Divinity : " t —
" The sacraments are not converting but confirming ordinances ; they are
appointed for the use and benefit of God's children, not of others ; they are
given to believers as believers, as Rutherford expresses it, so that none other
are subjects capable of the same before the Lord. Either must we say they
have no respect at all to saving grace, or that they are appointed as means of
the conveyance of the first grace, — that is, to convert sinners, — or finally, for
confirmation of grace already received. If it be said they have no respect at
all to saving grace, then baptism cannot be called the baptism of repentance,
nor are persons baptized for the remission of sins, nor can it be looked on as
a seal of the righteousness of faith, all which is evidently against Scripture
testimony. If it be said they are appointed as means of the conveyance of the
first grace, then, first, either there are none converted before baptism, which
is manifestly false, or else baptism is in vain conferred on converts, which is
no less false. But surely in vain are means used to confer on any that which

* The Doctrine and Practice of the
Church of Scotland anent the Sacra

ment of Baptism, p. 23. Published
anonymously in 1704.
t Q. vi. Works in folio, p. 384.

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 283
they had before. Second, it were unfaithfulness to Christ and cruelty to men
to withhold the sacraments from any person whatsoever. Were it not soul-
murder to withhold the means of conveyance of the first grace from any, and
unfaithfulness to Him who will have all men to be saved and come to the know
ledge of the truth ? But that the sacraments, and particularly baptism, are
not to be conferred on all promiscuously, none can deny. Wherefore it re
mains that they are indeed appointed for confirmation, which doth necessarily
suppose the pre-existence of grace in the soul, seeing that which is not cannot
be confirmed." These quotations confirm everything we have said as to the
doctrine which has been regarded by the most competent judges
as taught in the Westminster standards. We give only one other
short quotation from Dr John Erskine, probably the greatest
divine in the Church of Scotland in the latter part of last century : —
" Scripture sufficiently proves that the sacraments of the New Testament
are signs and seals of no other covenant than that covenant of grace which
secures eternal happiness to all interested in it. And the partaking of them
manifestly implies a partaking of covenant blessings on the one hand, and the
exercise of faith on the other. To begin with baptism : John baptized for the
remission of sins, and so did Christ's disciples. We are told that baptism saves
us; and by baptism we are said to put on Christ, to die, to be buried, and to
rise with Him, because the water in baptism represents and seals that blood of
Jesus which cleanseth from the guilt of sin, and purchases for us the sancti
fying influences of the Spirit, and all other needful blessings. Baptism, then,
is a seal of spiritual blessings ; and spiritual blessings it cannot seal to the
unconverted."* We have now explained the doctrine taught in the Westminster
standards concerning the subjects and the objects of the two
sacraments of the Christian church, — that is, the persons who can
lawfully and beneficially partake in them, and the purposes which,
in these persons, they are fitted and intended to accomplish.
Another question still remains to be considered, viz. Have we any
further information as to the way and manner in which the
sacraments produce their appropriate effects, or as to the principles
which regulate the production of the results ? So much mischief
has been done to the souls of men by the perversion or abuse of
the sacraments, that we consider it necessary, in connection with
this branch of the subject, to state again distinctly what is, of
course, obviously implied in the views we have explained, viz.
that men who outwardly partake in the sacraments without having

* Theological Dissertations, Diss. ii. p. 94.

284 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
been previously led to believe in Christ Jesus, can derive from
them no benefit whatever. Persons who are still unbelieving and
impenitent, do not, in receiving baptism or the Lord's Supper,
discharge a duty, or perform an acceptable act of worship, or
enjoy and improve a privilege or mean of grace. On the contrary,
they are only committing a sin, because they are presumptuously
engaging in a sacred service, while destitute of the qualifications
which God has required, and because, in the very act of outwardly
receiving the sacraments, they are making a false and hypocritical
profession ; they are declaring by deeds the existence of a certain
state of mind and heart, corresponding to the outward act they
are performing, while it has really no existence. The sacraments
can be expected to become the means of grace, or the channels of
conveying spiritual blessings, only when men rightly receive them,
— that is, when they are duly prepared for the reception of them,
and when they faithfully improve them for their intended objects.
With respect to the due preparation, there are required what the
old divines used to call an habitual and an actual, or a general
and a special, preparation. The habitual or general preparation
is, of course, faith, without which already existing there can be no
warrant for participating in the sacraments, and no capacity of
benefiting by them ; and the actual or special preparation is just
faith in exercise, under the influence of right views and suitable
impressions of our own wants and necessities at the time, and of
the nature, character, and objects of the ordinance, whether it be
baptism or the Lord's Supper, in which we are about to engage.
It is only in these circumstances that the sacraments can be
expected to prove means of grace.
The question thus becomes limited to this, In what way, or
through what process, do the sacraments become instrumental in
conveying spiritual blessings to those persons who, having pre
viously believed in Christ, and been justified and regenerated,
receive these ordinances under a due sense of regard to Christ's
authority, and from a sincere desire to share more abundantly in
the blessings of which they still stand in need, and which are all
treasured up in Him? Now as to the way and manner, the
process and regulating principles, according to which these men
derive benefit from receiving the sacraments, the word of God
has certainly not given us much direct information. And this,
indeed, is just a part or a consequence of a more general truth,

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 285
viz. that Scripture does not ascribe to the sacraments any such
prominence or influence in the way of contributing to men's
salvation, by conveying to them spiritual blessings, as the Popish
or Tractarian theory does. There are, indeed, some important
negative truths bearing upon this subject, which are clear and
certain, and which it is important to remember and to apply, as
the great securities against error and abuse. Most of these have
been referred to already, but it may be proper now to state them
together, and in this connection. They are chiefly these —
1. That the sacraments do not occupy any such place in the
scheme of God's arrangements, as to make the participation in
them, or in either of them, necessary to the possession and
enjoyment of any spiritual blessing, or to entire meetness for
heaven. 2. That no spiritual blessings are derived from the, sacra
ments, without the previous existence and the present exercise of
true saving faith.
3. That the sacraments become effectual means of grace and
salvation, not from any virtue — that is, any power or worth,
personal or official — in him who administers them, nor from
any virtue in them, — that is, from any intrinsic efficacy in
herent in them, and resulting ex opere operato, — and that they
do not operate certainly and invariably in conveying any spiritual
blessings. 4. That the sacraments are not seals of spiritual blessings in
any such sense as implies that they are attestations to the per
sonal character or spiritual condition of those who. receive them,
or that the mere reception of the sacraments is to be held as of
itself furnishing a proof, or even a presumption, that those re
ceiving them are true believers, and may be assured that they
have reached a condition of safety.
These truths, it will be observed, are to a large extent nega
tive. They consist mainly of denials of certain notions about
the nature and necessity, the subjects, objects, and effects of the
sacraments, which are very apt to spring up in men's minds, and
which have been openly maintained by Romanists and High
Churchmen. And when we reflect upon the extent to which
these unwarranted and extravagant notions about the sacraments
have prevailed, and upon the fearful amount of injury they
have done to the souls of men, we reckon it about sufficient to

286 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
know, that in the case of adults they are not intended for those
who have not already faith and regeneration ; that they do not
produce any beneficial results which may not be comprehended
under the general head of aiding and assisting believers in carry
ing on the work of sanctification in their hearts ; and that they
do not directly and of themselves furnish any evidence, that faith
and regeneration have been produced, and that the work of grace
has begun. Let men firmly believe and carefully apply these
negative doctrines, and they will thus be preserved from error
and delusion, and at the same time will be able, if they care
fully improve what they know, and wait upon God for His
blessing, to derive from the sacraments all the spiritual bene
fits they were ever fitted and intended to be the means of
conveying. There is really nothing more declared or defined upon this
point in Scripture, or in the Westminster symbols, except what
may be implied in or deducible from their general character as
signs and seals of the covenant of grace. The general idea
suggested by the word seal is that of confirming ; and there is
no great difficulty in seeing how this idea may be applied to
the sacraments, without imagining that they are in themselves
attestations on God's part to men's individual character and con
dition, or that they involve anything very exalted or mysterious.
There is, first of all, the general consideration, that Christ having
expressly appointed these two special ordinances to be instruments
or channels of conveying to men spiritual blessings, in addition to
what may be called the more ordinary means of grace, the word
and prayer, we have in this very circumstance special grounds for
confidently expecting His special blessing when we receive and
use them aright. This consideration is well fitted to confirm us
in our determination to improve the sacraments to the uttermost,
and in our confident expectation of deriving spiritual benefit
from doing so.
And when we look more particularly to the character of the
sacraments as outward actions of a symbolic import, we see plainly
that they have an individualizing, appropriating bearing or ten
dency, which fits them specially for being made the instruments
in the hand of the Spirit of guiding us to a personal application
of divine truth to our own condition and circumstances, and thus
sealing or confirming our faith, love, and hope. A believer, in

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 287
partaking of the sacraments, stands forth, plainly and palpably, as
making a personal profession of his faith in Christ, and giving a
personal promise and pledge to persevere in faith and obedience.
The natural tendency of this is to lead him to realize more fully
his actual position, obligations, and prospects as a believer, and
this warrants the confident expectation that the Spirit will actually
employ it for accomplishing this result. But the sacraments are
to be regarded as signs and seals on the part of God as well as of
man. And in this aspect their sealing or confirming character
comes out in this way : God, by giving to a believer, in the ordi
nary course of His providence, an opportunity of partaking in the
sacraments, does not indeed thereby attest or indorse his personal
character and standing as a believer, but He may be said to single
him out and to deal with him in his individual capacity, — address
ing to him personally, and in a manner and circumstances pecu
liarly fitted to come home with power to his understanding, heart,
and conscience, the great truths of Scripture, with the knowledge,
belief, and application of which all spiritual blessings are con
nected; and thus intimating His readiness and willingness to
bestow, in connection with these ordinances, all needful spiritual
blessings, in accordance with all that He has revealed in His
word, as regulating His conduct in such matters. Viewed as
signs and seals on God's part, the sacraments may be fairly re
garded as signifying or intimating this ; and the declaration of all
this in such circumstances, and with such accompaniments, is well
fitted to exert a sealing or confirming influence upon the minds
of believers. The substance of this matter may be embodied in these two
positions,— 1 si, That the Holy Spirit ordinarily employs the
sacraments, when received by persons duly qualified and rightly
prepared, as means or instruments of conveying to them clearer
views and more lively and impressive conceptions of what He has
done and revealed in His word, with respect to the provisions
and arrangements of the covenant of grace, and their special
application to men individually. And 2d, That the Holy Spirit,
acting in accordance with the principles and tendencies of our
constitution, ordinarily employs the sacraments, as means or
instruments of increasing and strengthening men's faith with
reference to all its appropriate objects, and thereby of imparting
to them, in greater abundance, all the spiritual blessings which are

288

ZWINGLE AND THE

[Essay V.

connected with the lively and vigorous exercise of faith, — that
is, all those subordinate blessings — as in a certain sense they
may be called — which accompany and flow from justification and
regeneration.* We have now stated the substance of what is suggested by
Scripture, and set forth in the Westminster standards, concern
ing the way and manner in which the sacraments become means
of grace, and produce their appropriate beneficial effects ; and,
indeed, more generally, concerning the nature and character, the
subjects and the objects, the end and the effect, of these ordi
nances. And we have done so under the influence of a strong
desire and determination to avoid the very common and very in
jurious tendency, either directly to overrate the value and efficacy
of the sacraments, or to furnish facilities and encouragements to
others to overrate them, by leaving our statements on these sub
jects in a condition of great vagueness and confusion. Any
attempts to assign to them greater dignity, value, and efficacy
than we have ascribed to them, or to invest them with a deeper
shade of mystery, are, we are persuaded, not only unsanctioned
by Scripture, but inconsistent with the fair and legitimate conse
quences of what it teaches, and are fitted to exert an injurious
influence upon the interests of truth and holiness. The strong
natural tendency of men to substitute the tithing of mint, anise,
and cumin, for the weightier matters of the law, — to substitute the
observance of outward rites and ceremonies for the diligent culti-
vation of Christian graces and the faithful discharge of Christian
duties, — is strengthened by everything which, professedly upon
religious grounds, either adds to the number of the rites and cere
monies which God has prescribed, or assigns even to prescribed
rites and ceremonies an 'importance and an efficacy beyond what
He has sanctioned. In the second of these ways, as well as in
the first, the truth of God has been grievously perverted, and
the interests of practical godliness have been extensively injured.
Almost the only rites and ceremonies permanently binding upon
the Christian church are baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and these

* Beza explains sealing in this way :
— Q. Quid obsignationem appellas ? R.
Applicationem efficaciorem per fidei
incrementum, siquidem quo fides major
est, eo prsestantius est ejus effectum,

ut Christus cum suis donis magis ac
magis nobis ipsis velut insculpatur.
(QuEestionum et Responsionum Chris-
tianarum, Pars Altera, quae est de
Sacramentis, p. 24.)

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 289
have been in every age so distorted and perverted by exaggeration
and confusion, as to have proved, in point of fact, the occasions
of fearful injury to men's souls. It is true that men have some
times exhibited a tendency to go to the opposite extreme, to depre
ciate instituted ordinances, and to reduce their importance, value,
and efficacy below the standard which the word of God sanctions.
But the tendency to overvalue the sacraments, and to make the
observance of them a substitute, more or less avowedly, for things
of much greater importance, is far more common and far more
dangerous ; more dangerous, at once, because it is more likely to
creep in, and to gain an ascendency in men's minds, and because,
when yielded to and encouraged, it exerts a more injurious influence
upon the highest and holiest interests, by wrapping men in strong
delusion in regard to their spiritual condition and prospects, and
leading them to build their hopes of heaven upon a false founda
tion. We have confined ourselves to an explanation of the sacra
mental principle, or the general doctrine or theory of the sacra
ments as applicable to both these ordinances — a subject greatly
neglected and misunderstood. We have referred to baptism and
the Lord's Supper only in so far as this was necessary for illus
trating something connected with the exposition of the general
doctrine. We have had no occasion to dwell upon the Lord's
Supper, because the application of the general doctrine of the
sacraments to it is plain enough, and because there is no serious
difficulty connected with it, unless we had gone into the discussion
of the kind and manner of the presence of Christ in this ordinance,
which we regard as one of the most useless controversies that ever
was raised. We have been obliged to dwell at some length on bap
tism, and especially infant baptism, chiefly because of the peculiar
place which infant baptism holds, — a peculiarity, the ignorance
or disregard of which has introduced much error and confusion
into men's views upon this whole subject, The peculiarity is,
that infant baptism really occupies a sort of subordinate and ex
ceptional position ; while, at the same time, this peculiarity being
overlooked, and infant baptism coming much more frequently
under our notice than adult baptism, we are very apt to allow the
specialties of this peculiar case to modify unduly our views, not
only of baptism, but even of the sacraments in general.
The views we have set forth upon this subject .may at first sight
VOL. I. 19

290 ZWINGLE AND THE [Essay V.
appear to be large concessions to the anti-pasdobaptists, — those who
deny the lawfulness of the baptism of infants ; and to affect the
solidity of the grounds on which the practice of psedobaptism, which
has ever prevailed almost universally in the Christian church, is
based. But we are firmly persuaded, that a more careful consi
deration of the whole matter will show, that these views — besides
being clearly sanctioned by Scripture, and absolutely necessary for
the consistent and intelligible interpretation of the confessions of
the Reformed churches, and especially of the Westminster sym
bols — are, in their legitimate application, fitted to deprive the
arguments of the anti-psedobaptists of the plausibility they possess.
It cannot be reasonably denied, that they have a good deal that
is plausible to allege against infant baptism. But we are satisfied
that the plausibility of their arguments will always appear greatest
to men who have not been accustomed to distinguish between the
primary, fundamental, and complete idea of this ordinance as
exhibited in the baptism of adults, and the distinct and peculiar
place which is held by infant baptism, with the special grounds
on which it rests. We cannot conclude without simply stating
the following leading positions that ought to be maintained and set
forth, in order to guard against error and delusion on the subject
of infant baptism : —
lsi, That Scripture, while furnishing sufficient materials to
establish the lawfulness and obligation of infant baptism, does not
give us much direct information concerning it, — does not furnish
materials for laying down any very definite deliverances as to its
proper effects in relation to individuals ; and that the whole his
tory of the church inculcates the lesson, that upon this subject
men should be particularly careful to abstain from deductions,
probabilities, or conjectures, beyond what Scripture clearly sanc
tions. 2d, That while believers are under the same obligation to pre
sent their infant children for baptism as to be baptized themselves,
if they have not been baptized before, no infants ought to be
baptized, except those of persons who ought themselves to be
baptized as adults upon their own profession, and who, being thus
recognised as believers, are not only entitled but bound to be
habitually receiving the Lord's Supper.
3d, That while believers are warranted to improve the baptism
of their children in the way of confirming their faith in the salva-

Essay V.] DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 291
tion of those of them who die in infancy, and in the way of en
couraging themselves in a hearty and hopeful discharge of parental
duty towards those of them who survive infancy, neither parents
nor children, when the children come to be proper subjects of
instruction, should regard the fact that they have been baptized,
as affording of itself even the slightest presumption that they have
been regenerated ; that nothing should ever be regarded as fur
nishing any evidence of regeneration, except the appropriate proofs
of an actual renovation of the moral nature, exhibited in each
case individually : and that, until these proofs appear, every one,
whether baptized or not, should be treated and dealt with in all
respects as if he were unregenerate, and still needed to be born
again of the word of God through the belief of the truth.

JOHN CALVIN.*

John Calvin was by far the greatest of the Reformers with
respect to the talents he possessed, the influence he exerted, and
the services he rendered in the establishment and diffusion of
important truth. The Reformers who preceded him may be said
to have been all men who, from the circumstances in which they
were placed, and the occupations which these circumstances im
posed upon them, or from the powers and capacities with which
they had been gifted, were fitted chiefly for the immediate neces
sary business of the age in which their lot was cast, and were not
perhaps qualified for rising above this sphere, — which, however,
was a very important one. Their efforts, whether in the way of
speculation or of action, were just such as their immediate cir
cumstances and urgent present duties demanded of them, while
they had little opportunity of considering and promoting the per
manent interests of the whole scheme of scriptural truth, or the
whole theory and constitution of Christian churches. After all
that Luther, Melancthon, and Zwingle had done, there was
still needed some one of elevated and comprehensive mind, who
should be able to rise above the distraction and confusion of exist
ing contentions, to survey the wide field of scriptural truth in all
its departments, to combine and arrange its various parts, and to
present them as a harmonious whole to the contemplation of men.

* British and Foreign Evangelical
Review. The Works of Calvin in English,

by the Calvin Translation Society.
52 vols. 8vo. 1843-1856.
Letters of John Calvin. By Dr
Jules Bonnet.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 293
This was the special work for which God qualified Calvin, by
bestowing upon him both the intellectual and the spiritual gifts
necessary for the task ; and this He enabled him to accomplish.
God makes use of the intellectual powers which He bestows upon
men, for the accomplishment of His own purposes ; or rather He
bestows upon men those intellectual powers which may fit them
naturally, and according to the ordinary operation of means, for
the purposes which He in His sovereignty has assigned to them to
effect. He then leads them by His grace to. devote their powers
to His glory and service, He blesses their labours, and thus His
gracious designs are accomplished.
Calvin had received from God mental powers of the highest
order. Distinguished equally by comprehensiveness and pene
tration of intellect, by acuteness and soundness of judgment, his
circumstances in early life were so regulated in providence that
he was furnished with the best opportunities of improving his
faculties, and acquiring the learning and culture that might be
necessary with a view to his future labours. Led by God's grace
early and decidedly to renounce the devil, the world, and the
flesh, and to devote himself to the service of Christ, he was also
led, under the same guidance, to abandon the Church of Rome,
and to devote himself to the preaching of the gospel, the exposi
tion of the revealed truth of God, and the organization of churches
in accordance with the sacred Scriptures and the practice of the
apostles. In all these departments of useful labour his efforts were
honoured with an extraordinary measure of success. Calvin did
what the rest of the Reformers did, and in addition he did what
none of them either did or could effect. He was a diligent and
laborious pastor. He gave much time to the instruction of those
who were preparing for the work of the ministry. He took an
active part in opposing the Church of Rome, in promoting the
Reformation, and in organizing Protestant churches. Entering
with zeal and ardour into all the controversies which the eccle
siastical movements of the time produced, he was ever ready to
defend injured truth or to expose triumphant error. This was
work which he had to do in common with the other Reformers,
though he brought higher powers than any of them to bear upon
the performance of it. But in addition to all this, he had for his
special business the great work of digesting and systematizing the
whole scheme of divine truth, of bringing out in order and har-

294 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
mony all the different doctrines which are contained in the word
of God, unfolding them in their mutual relations and various
bearings, and thus presenting them, in the most favourable aspect,
to the contemplation and the study of the highest order of minds.
The systematizing of divine truth, and the full organization of
the Christian church according to the word of God, are the great
peculiar achievements of Calvin. For this work God eminently
qualified him, by bestowing upon him the highest gifts both of
nature and of grace ; and this work he was enabled to accomplish
in such a way as to confer the greatest and most lasting benefits
upon the church of Christ, and to entitle him to the commenda
tion and the gratitude of all succeeding ages.
The first edition of his great work, " The Institution of the
Christian Religion," was published when he was twenty-seven
years of age ; and it is a most extraordinary proof of the maturity
and vigour of his mind, of the care with which he had studied the
word of God, and of the depth and comprehensiveness of his
meditations upon divine things, that though the work was after
wards greatly enlarged, and though some alterations were even
made in the arrangement of the topics discussed, yet no change
of any importance was made in the actual doctrines which it set
forth. The first edition, produced at that early age, contained
the substance of the whole system of doctrine which has since
been commonly associated with his name, — the development and
exposition of which has been regarded by many as constituting a
strong claim upon the esteem and gratitude of the church of
Christ, and by many others as rendering him worthy of execration
and every opprobrium. He lived twenty-seven years more after
the publication of the first edition of the Institutes, and a large
portion of his time during the remainder of his life was devoted
to the examination of the word of God and the investigation of
divine truth. But he saw no reason to make any material change
in the views which he had put forth ; and a large proportion of
the most pious, able, and learned men, and most careful students
of the sacred Scriptures, who have since adorned the church of
Christ, have received all his leading doctrines as accordant with
the teaching of God's word.*

* In a work published a short time I following statement upon this point, —
before Calvin's death, Beza made the | a statement fully confirmed by all the

Essay VI.]

JOHN CALVIN.

295

The " Institutio" of Calvin is the most important work in the
history of theological science, that which is more than any other
creditable to its author, and has exerted directly or indirectly the
greatest and most beneficial influence upon the opinions of intelli
gent men on theological subjects. It may be said to occupy in the
science of theology, the place which it requires both the " Novum
Organum" of Bacon and the "Principia" of Newton to fill up in
physical science, — at once conveying, though not in formal didactic
precepts and rules, the finest idea of the way and manner in which
the truths of God's word ought to be classified and systematized,
and at the same time actually classifying and systematizing them,
in a way that has not yet received any very material or essential
improvement. There had been previous attempts to present the
truths of Scripture in a systematic form and arrangement, and to
exhibit their relations and mutual dependence. But all former
attempts had been characterized by great defects and imperfec
tions ; and especially all of them had been more or less defective
in this most important respect, that a considerable portion of the
materials of which they were composed had been not truths but
errors, — not the doctrines actually taught in the sacred Scriptures,
but errors arising from ignorance of the contents of the inspired
volume, or from serious mistakes as to the meaning of its state
ments. One of the earlier attempts at a formal system of theology
was made in the eighth century, by Johannes Damascenus, and
this is a very defective and erroneous work. The others which
had preceded Calvin's " Institutes " in this department, were
chiefly the productions of the schoolmen, Lombard's four books
of " Sentences," and Thomas Aquinas's " Summa," with the com
mentaries upon these works; and they all exhibited very defective
and erroneous views of scriptural truth. Augustine was the last
man who had possessed sufficient intellectual power, combined with
views in the main correct of the leading doctrines of God's word,
to have produced a system of theology that might have been
generally received, and he was not led to undertake such a work,
except in a very partial way. The first edition of Melancthon's-

facts of the case : " Hoc enim (Deo sit
gratia) vel ipsa insidia Calvino tribuat
necesse est, ut quamvis sit ipse ex
eorum numero qui quotidie discendo
consenescunt, nullum tamen dogma
jam bade ab initio ad hoc usque tem-

pus, in tarn multis et tarn laboriosis
scriptis, ecclesise proposuerit, in quo
ilium sententiam mutare et a semet-
ipso dissentire oportuerit." — Abstersio
Calumniarum, p. 263.

296 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
Commonplaces — the only one published before Calvin produced
the first edition of his " Institutes " — was not to be compared to
Calvin's work, in the accuracy of its representations of the doc
trines of Scripture, in the fulness and completeness of its mate
rials, or in the skill and ability with which they were digested and
arranged ; and in the subsequent editions, while the inaccuracy of
its statements increased in some respects rather than diminished,
it still continued, to a considerable extent, a defective and ill-
digested work, characterized by a good deal of prolixity and
wearisome repetition. It was in these circumstances that Calvin
produced his " Institutes," the materials of which it was composed
being in almost every instance the true doctrines really taught in
the word of God, and exhibiting the whole substance of what is
taught there on matters of doctrine, worship, government, and
discipline, — and the whole of these materials being arranged with
admirable skill, and expounded in their meaning, evidence, and
bearings, with consummate ability. This was the great and
peculiar service which Calvin rendered to the cause of truth and
the interests of sound theology, and its value and importance it is
scarcely possible to overrate.
In theology there is, of course, no room for originality properly
so called, for its whole materials are contained in the actual state
ments of God's word ; and he is the greatest and best theologian
who has most accurately apprehended the meaning of the state
ments of Scripture, — who, by comparing and combining them, has
most fully and correctly brought out the whole mind of God on
all the topics on which the Scriptures give us information, — who
classifies and digests the truths of Scripture in the way best fitted
to commend them to the apprehension and acceptance of men, —
and who can most clearly and forcibly bring out their scriptural
evidence, and most skilfully and effectively defend them against
the assaults of adversaries. In this work, and indeed in almost
any one of its departments, there is abundant scope for the exer
cise of the highest powers, and for the application of the most
varied and extensive acquirements. Calvin was far above the
weakness of aiming at the invention of novelties in theology, or
of wishing to be regarded as the discoverer of new opinions. The
main features of the representation which he put forth of the
scheme of divine truth, might be found in the writings of Augus
tine and Luther, — in neither singly, but in the two conjointly.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 297
But by grasping with vigour and comprehensiveness the whole
scheme of divine truth and all its various departments, and com
bining them into one harmonious and well-digested system, he has
done what neither Augustine nor Luther did or could have done,
and has given conclusive evidence that he was possessed of the
highest intellectual powers, as well as enjoyed the most abundant
communications of God's Spirit.
The two leading departments of theological science are the
exegetical and the systematic. The two most important functions
of the theologian are — first, to bring out accurately the meaning
of the individual statements of God's word, the particular truths.
which are taught there ; and second, to classify and arrange these
truths in such a way as to bring out most fully and correctly the
whole scheme of doctrine which is there unfolded, and to illustrate
the bearing and application t>f the scheme as a whole, and of its
different parts. And it is important to notice, that in both these
departments Calvin stands out pre-eminent, having manifested in
both of them the highest excellence and attained the greatest suc
cess. He has left us an exposition of nearly the whole word of
God ; and it is not only immeasurably superior to any commentary
that preceded it, but it has continued ever since, and continues
to this day, to be regarded by all competent judges as a work of
the highest value, and as manifesting marvellous perspicacity and
soundness of judgment. There is no department of theological
study the cultivators of which, in modern times, are more dis
posed to regard with something like contempt the labours and
attainments of their predecessors, and to consider themselves as
occupying a much higher platform, than the exact and critical
interpretation of Scripture ; and we think it must be admitted
that in modern times greater improvements have been made in
this department of theological science than in any other. Yet
Calvin's Commentary continues to secure the respect and the
admiration of the most competent judges, both in this country and
on the continent, even of those who are disposed to estimate most
highly the superiority of the present age over preceding genera
tions in the department of scriptural exegesis. And it is perhaps
the most striking illustration of the extraordinary gifts which God
bestowed upon Calvin, and of the value of the services which he
has rendered to Christian truth and to theological science, that he
reached such distinguished excellence, and has exerted so extensive

298

JOHN CALVIN.

[Essay VI.

and permanent an influence, both as an accurate interpreter of
Scripture, and as a systematic expounder of the great doctrines
of God's word.*
Besides the Commentary upon Scripture and the " Institutes,"
the leading departments of Calvin's works are his " Tractatus ''
and his " Epistoke," both of which are much less known amongst
us than they should be. The " Tractatus " are chiefly controver
sial pieces, in defence of the leading doctrines of his system when
assailed by adversaries, and in opposition to the errors of the
Papists, the Anabaptists, the Libertines, the advocates of compro-
. mises with the Church of Rome, and the assailants of the ortho
dox doctrine of the Trinity. His " Epistola?" consist partly of
confidential correspondence with his friends, and partly of answers
to applications made to him from all parts of the Protestant world,
asking his opinion and advice upon all the most important topics
that occurred, connected with the administration of ecclesiastical
affairs in that most important crisis of the church's history. They
manifest throughout the greatest practical wisdom and the truest
scriptural moderation, as well as warm friendship and cordial
affection ; and the perusal of them is indispensable to our form
ing a right estimate of Calvin's character, and of the spirit and
motives by which he was animated, while it is abundantly suffi
cient of itself to dispel many of the slanders by which he has
been assailed.
In these different departments of his works, we have Calvin
presented to us as an interpreter of Scripture, as a systematic
expounder of the scheme of Christian doctrine, as a controversial

* In proof of the truth of this
statement of the high estimate of Cal
vin's qualifications and success in the
department of exegesis, formed by the
most competent judges in the present
day, it is enough to refer to Professor
Tholuck's elaborate Dissertation on
Calvin as an interpreter of the holy
Scripture. Tholuck has published edi
tions of Calvin's Commentaries on the
Psalms, and on the New Testament ;
and in the dissertation referred to he
has set forth the grounds of the high
estimate he had formed of the value of
these works, under the four heads of
Calvin's doctrinal impartiality, exege
tical tact, various learning, and deep

Christian piety. Tholuck's very high
estimate of Calvin as an interpreter of
Scripture, is the more to be relied on,
and has probably exerted the greater
influence in Germany, because he is
not himself a Calvinist, and indeed
brings out, in the conclusion of his
dissertation, his divergence from Cal
vin's views on predestination and
cognate topics. Bretschneider and
Hengstenberg also, critics of the high
est reputation, and of very different
schools of theology, both from Tholuck
and from each other, have borne the
strongest testimony to Calvin's qua
lifications, as an interpreter.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 299
defender of truth and impugner of error, and as a friend and
practical adviser in the regulation of the affairs of the church ;
and his pre-eminent excellence in all these departments are, we
are persuaded, such as justly to entitle him to a place in the
estimation and gratitude of the church of Christ, which no other
uninspired man is entitled to share. Calvin certainly was not
free from the infirmities which are always found in some form or
degree even in the best men ; and in particular, he occasionally
exhibited an angry impatience of contradiction and opposition,
and sometimes assailed and treated the opponents of the truth
and cause of God with a violence of invective which cannot be
defended, and should certainly not be imitated. He was not free
from error, and is not to be implicitly followed in his interpreta
tion of Scripture, or in his exposition of doctrine. But whether
we look to the powers and -capacities with which God endowed
him, the manner in which he employed them, and the results by
which his labours have been followed, — or to the Christian wis
dom, magnanimity, and devotedness which marked his character
and generally regulated his conduct, there is probably not one
among the sons of men, beyond the range of those whom God
miraculously inspired by His Spirit, who has stronger claims upon
our veneration and gratitude.
We believe that this is in substance the view generally enter
tained of Calvin by all who have read his works, and who have
seen ground to adopt in the main the system of doctrine which he
inculcated as based upon divine authority. Many men who were
not Calvinists have borne the highest testimony to Calvin's great
talents and his noble character, to his literary excellences and his
commanding influence. But those who are persuaded that he
brought out a full, and in the main accurate view of the truth
of God with respect to the way of salvation and the organization
of the Christian church, must ever regard him in a very different
light from those who have formed an opposite judgment upon
these subjects. If Calvin's system of doctrine, government, and
worship is in the main scriptural, he must have enjoyed very
special and abundant communications of God's Spirit in the for
mation of his convictions, and he must have rendered most im
portant services to mankind by the diffusion of invaluable truth.
Men who are not Calvinists may admire his wonderful talents,
and do justice to the elevation of his general character, and the

300

JOHN CALVIN.

[Essay VI.

purity and disinterestedness of his motives. But unless they are
persuaded that his views upon most points were in the main
accordant with Scripture, they cannot regard him with the pro
found veneration which Calvinists feel, when they contemplate
him as God's chosen instrument for diffusing His truth ; nor can
they cherish anything like the same estimate of the magnitude of
the services he has rendered to mankind, and of the gratitude to
which in consequence he is entitled.
The Calvin Translation Society, which has done a great and
useful work by making almost all his writings accessible to English
readers, translated and circulated Professor Tholuck's Dissertation
formerly referred to ; and subjoined to it a number of testimonies
in commendation of Calvin's works, from eminent men of all
classes and opinions, of all ages and countries, including not only
Calvinists and theologians, but also infidels and Arminians, states
men and philosophers, scholars and men of letters. These testi
monies have been added to from time to time, and being now
collected together, they fill above 100 pages in the last volume of
his works, which contains the translation of his Commentary upon
Joshua. Many more testimonies to the value and excellence of
Calvin's writings might have been produced.* But this collec
tion as it stands could not probably be matched in the kind and
amount of commendation it exhibits, in the case of any other
man whose writings and labours were confined to the department
of religion. Indeed, it is probably true that no man whose time and talents
were devoted exclusively to subjects connected with Christianity
and the church, has ever received so large a share both of praise
and of censure. He has been commended in the strongest terms
by many of the highest names both in Christian and in general
literature; and the strength of their commendation has been gene
rally very much in proportion to their capacities and opportunities
of judging. But if he has received the highest commendation,
he has also been visited with a vast amount of censure ; the one

* There are some additional and
very valuable testimonies to Calvin's
character and writings given in his Life
in Haag's " La France Protestante,"
torn. iii. p. 109, especially from three
of the most eminent literary men of
the present age; Guizot, Mignet, and

Sayous. Haag brings out also an
interesting contrast between the can
did admissions of some of the older
Romish writers, and the unscrupulous
mendacity of his latest Popish bio
grapher Audin.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 301
being really, in the circumstances, just about as significant a tes
timony to his excellence and his influence as the other. The
Papists had the sagacity to see that Calvin — by his great talents
and the commanding influence which he exerted — was really their
most formidable adversary at the era of the Reformation. And
in accordance with their ordinary principles and policy, they
endeavoured to ruin his character by the vilest slanders. Most of
these calumnies being utterly destitute of all evidence, and there
fore disgraceful only to those who invented or repeated them,
have long since been abandoned by every Papist who retained
even the slightest regard for character or decency, though they
are still occasionally brought forward or insinuated. Some of the
Lutheran writers of his own time, and of the succeeding genera
tion, mortified apparently that Calvin's influence and reputation
were eclipsing those of their master, railed against him with bitter
malignity, and were even mean enough sometimes to countenance
the Popish slanders against his character. Specimens of this dis
creditable conduct on the part of the Lutherans, may be seen in
the answers made by Calvin himself, and by Beza, to the attacks
of Westphalus and Heshusius.
During Calvin's life, and for more than half a century after
his death, most of the divines of the Church of England adopted
his theological views, and spoke of him with the greatest respect.
But after, through the influence of Archbishop Laud and the
prevalence of Arminian and Pelagian views, sound doctrine and
true religion were in a great measure banished from that church,
Calvin, as might be expected, came to be regarded in a very
different light. During most of last century, the generality
of the Episcopalian divines who had occasion to speak of him
and his doctrines indulged in bitter vituperation against him,
and not unfrequently talked as if they regarded him as a monster
who ought to be held up to execration. Indeed, we do not know
that theological literature furnishes a more melancholy exhibition
of ignorance, prejudice, and bitter hatred of God's truth, than
the general mode of speaking about Calvin and his doctrines
that prevailed among the Episcopalian clergy of last century.
Some of them write as if they were ignorant enough to believe
that Calvinism and Presbyterianism were invented by Calvin,
and were never heard of in the church till the sixteenth century ;
and when they speak of him in connection with his views about

302 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
the divine sovereignty and decrees, we might be tempted to think,
from the spirit they often manifest, that they looked upon him
almost as if he himself were the author or cause of the fate of
those who finally perish. It is but fair to say that this state of
things has been greatly improved since the latter part of last
century. This is owing partly to the high commendation which
Bishop Horsley gave to Calvin's writings, and to the public
advice which he tendered to the Episcopalian clergy, as one of
which they stood greatly in need, viz. to see that they understood
what Calvinism was before they attacked it ; — but chiefly to that
far greater prevalence of evangelical doctrine and true religion,
which, though grievously damaged by Tractarianism, still forms
so pleasing a feature in the condition of the English Church.
Calvin has also had the honour to receive at all times a very
large share of the enmity of " the world of the ungodly," — of men
who hate God's truth, and all who have been eminently honoured
by Him to be instrumental in promoting it. Such persons seem
to have a sort of instinctive deep-seated dislike to Calvin, which
leads them to dwell upon and exaggerate everything in his cha
racter and conduct that may seem fitted to depreciate him. It is
not uncommon, even in our own age and country, to hear infidel
and semi-infidel declaimers, who know nothing of Calvin's writings
or labours, when they wish to say a particularly smart and clever
thing against bigotry and intolerance, — meaning thereby honest
zeal for God's truth, — bring in something about Calvin burning
Servetus. The leading charges commonly adduced against Calvin's cha
racter, as distinguished from his doctrines, are pride, arrogance,
spiritual tyranny, intolerance, and persecution. Some of these
are charges which, as universal experience shows, derive their
plausibility in a great measure from the view that may be taken
of the general character and leading motives of the man against
whom they may be directed, and of the goodness and rectitude of
the objects which he mainly and habitually aimed at. Those who
have an unfavourable opinion of a man's general motives and
objects, will see evidence of pride, obstinacy, and intolerance in
matters in which those who believe that he was generally influ
enced by a regard to God's glory and the advancement of Christ's
cause, will see only integrity and firmness, uncompromising vigour
and decision, mixed it may be with the ordinary remains of

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 303
human infirmity. The piety and integrity of Calvin, his para
mount regard to the honour of God and the promotion of truth
and righteousness, to the advancement of Christ's cause and the
spiritual welfare of men, are beyond all reasonable doubt. And
those who, convinced of this, examine his history with attention and
impartiality, will have no difficulty in seeing that for most of these
charges there is no real foundation ; and that, in so far as evidence
can be adduced in support of any of them, it really proves nothing
more than that Calvin manifested, like all other men, the remains
of human infirmity, especially, of course, in those respects to which
his natural temperament and the influence of his position and cir
cumstances more peculiarly disposed him. The state of his health,
the bent of his natural dispositions, and the whole influence of his
position, occupations, and habits, were unfavourable to the culti
vation of those features of character, and those modes of speaking
and acting, which are usually regarded as most pleasing to others,
and best fitted to call forth love and affection in the ordinary
intercourse of life. The flow of animal spirits, the ready interest
in all ordinary commonplace things, and the play of the social feel
ings, which give such a charm to Luther's conversation and letters,
were alien to Calvin's constitutional tendencies, and to his ordi
nary modes of thinking and feeling. He had a great and exalted
mission assigned to him ; he was fully alive to this, thoroughly
determined to devote himself unreservedly, and to subordinate
everything else, to the fulfilment of his mission, and not uncon
scious of its dignity, or of the powers which had been conferred
upon him for working it out. With such a man — so placed, so
endowed, and so occupied — the temptation, of course, would be
to identify himself and all his views and proceedings with the
cause of God and His truth, — to prosecute these high and holy
objects sternly and uncompromisingly, without much regard to
the opinions and inclinations of those around him, — and to deal
with opposition, as if it necessarily implied something sinful in
those from whom it proceeded, as if opposition to him involved
opposition to his Master. Calvin would have been something
more than man, if, endowed and situated as he was, he had never
yielded to this temptation, and been led to deal with opponents
and opposition in a way which only the commission of the inspired
prophets would have warranted.
Calvin did occasionally give plain indications of undue self-

304 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI. .
confidence and self-complacency, and of a mixture of personal
and carnal feelings and motives, with his zeal for the promotion
of truth and righteousness. But there is nothing suggested by a
fair view of his whole history that is fitted to throw any doubt upon
the general excellence of his character, as tried by the highest
standard that has ordinarily been exhibited among men.; or on the
general purity, elevation, and disinterestedness of the motives by
which he was mainly and habitually influenced. There is suffi
cient evidence that he still had, like the apostle, " a law in his
members warring against the law of his mind," and sometimes
" bringing him into captivity to the law of sin." And from what
we know, from Scripture and experience, of the deceitfulness of
the heart and the deceitfulness of sin, we cannot doubt that there
was a larger admixture of what was sinful in his motives and con
duct than he himself was distinctly aware of. But this, too, is
characteristic of all men, — even the best of them, — and there is
really no ground whatever for regarding Calvin as manifesting a
larger measure of human infirmity than attaches, in some form or
other, to the best and holiest of our race ; while there is abundant
evidence that, during a life of great labour and great suffering,
he fully established his supreme devotedness to God's glory and
service, his thorough resignation to His will, his perfect willing
ness to labour in season and out of season, to spend and to be
spent, for the sake of Christ and His gospel. It was assuredly no
such proud, arrogant, domineering, heartless despot as Calvin is
often represented to have been, who composed the dedications
which we find prefixed to his commentaries upon the different
portions of the Bible, and many of his letters to his friends, —
expressing often the warmest affection, the deepest gratitude for
instruction and services received ; and exhibiting a most cordial
appreciation of the excellences of others, a humble estimate of
himself, and a perfect willingness to be or to do anything for the
sake of Christ and of His cause. It was certainly no such man as
he is often described, who lived so long on such terms with his
colleagues in the ministry, and held such a place, not only in
their veneration and confidence, but in their esteem and affection,
as are indicated by the whole state of things unfolded to us in
Beza's life of him.
With reference to the principal charge which, in his own as
well as subsequent times, was brought against his motives and

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 305
temper, Calvin has put on record the following protestation, in a
letter written towards the end of his life, in the year 1558 :—
" I can with reason boast, however much ungodly men call me inexorable,
that I have never become the enemy of one human being on the ground of
personal injuries. I confess that I am irritable ; and, though this vice dis
pleases me, I have not succeeded in curing myself as much as I could wish.
But, though many persons have unjustly attacked me, an innocent, and, what
is more, well-deserving man, — have perfidiously plotted all kinds of mischief
against me, and most cruelly harassed me, — I can defy any one to point out
a single person to whom I have studied to return the hke, even though the
means and the opportunity were in my power."*
On a ground formerly adverted to, we have no doubt that
there was sometimes, in Calvin's feelings and motives, a larger
admixture of the personal and the imperfect than he was himself
aware of, or than he here admits. We always shrink from men
making professions about the purity of their motives, as we cannot
but fear that this indicates the want of an adequate sense of the
deceitfulness of sin and of their own hearts, a disposition to think
of themselves more highly than they ought to think. It would
not, we think, have been at all unwarrantable or unbecoming, if
Calvin, in the passage we have quoted, had made a fuller admis
sion of sinful motives, which he would no doubt have acknowledged
that the Searcher of hearts must have seen in him. And yet we
have no doubt that his statement, strong as it is, is substantially
true, so far as concerns anything that came fairly under the
cognizance of his fellow-men — anything on which other men were
entitled to form a judgment. Whatever the Searcher of hearts
might see in him, we believe that there was nothing in his ordinary
conduct, in his usual course of outward procedure, that could
entitle any man to have denied the truth of the statement which
he here made about himself, or that would afford any materials
for disproving it. And if this or anything like it be true, then
the practical result is, that the common notions about Calvin's
irritability, the extent to which he was ordinarily influenced by
personal, selfish, and sinful motives, are grossly exaggerated ; and
that, though this might be said to be his besetting sin, — that to
which his constitutional tendencies and the whole influence of his
position chiefly disposed him, — there was really nothing in it that
entitled any of his fellow-men to reproach him, or that could be

* Letters of John Calvin, by Dr Bonnet, vol. iii. p. 429.
VOL. I. 20

306 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
justly regarded as anything more than a display of that common
human infirmity, which even the best men manifest in some form
or degree. Calvin's superiority to the influence of personal, angry, and
vindictive feelings, is very fully brought out in the course he pur
sued with respect to the men who filled the office of the ministry
at Geneva after Farel and he had been driven into exile in 1538,
— a topic which has not been brought out in any of the histories
of Calvin so prominently as it should have been. Calvin and
Farel had been banished from Geneva, solely because of their
integrity and boldness in maintaining the purity of the church in
the exercise of discipline, by refusing to admit unworthy persons
to the Lord's Supper. Their colleagues in the ministry who were
not banished, and the persons appointed to succeed them, were of
course men who submitted to the dictation of the civil authorities
in the exercise of discipline, and admitted to the Lord's table
indiscriminately without regard to character. These men were
no doubt strongly tempted, in self-defence, to depreciate as much
as possible the character and conduct of Calvin and Farel, and to
this temptation they yielded without reserve. Three or four
months after his banishment, Calvin wrote from Basle to Farel,
who had been called to Neufchatel, in the following terms :* —
" How our successors are likely to get on I can conjecture from the first
beginnings. While already they entirely break off every appearance of peace
by their want of temper, they suppose that the best course for themselves was
to tear in pieces our estimation, publicly and privately, so as to render us as
odious as possible. But if we know that they cannot calumniate us, excepting
in so far as God permits, we know also the end God has in view in granting
such permission. Let us humble ourselves, therefore, unless we wish to strive
with God when He would humble us."
A division soon arose at Geneva upon the question, whether or
not the ministry of these men ought to be recognised and waited
on. Many — and these, as might be expected, were the best men
in the city in point of character and the most attached to Calvin
¦ — were of opinion that these men ought not to be treated as mini
sters, and that religious ordinances ought not to be received at their
hands. Saunier and Cordier (author of the " Colloquies "), men of
the highest character and standing, regents in the college, refused

* " Letters," vol. i. pp. 50, 51.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 307
to receive the Lord's Supper at the hands of these men, and were
in consequence driven from their posts, and obliged to quit the
city. Calvin — who had now taken up his abode at Strasburg —
was consulted upon this important question of casuistry, and gave
his decision on the side of peace and conciliation, advising them
without any hesitation to recognise and wait upon the ministry of
these men. And this may surely be regarded as a triumph of
reason and conscience over personal and carnal feeling. In the
whole circumstances of this case, as now adverted to, it is very
plain that all the lower and more unworthy class of feelings, every
thing partaking of the character of selfishness in any of its forms
or aspects, everything like wounded vanity or self-importance,
everything like a tendency to indulge in anger or vindictiveness,
must have tended towards leading Calvin to decide this question
in accordance with the views of those in Geneva whom he most
respected and esteemed. If Calvin had been such a man as he
is often represented, — so arrogant and so imperious, so much dis
posed to estimate things by their bearing upon his own personal
importance and self-complacency, and to resent opposition and de
preciation, — all that we know of human nature would lead us to
expect, that he would have encouraged his friends to refuse all
countenance to the existing clergy and to the ecclesiastical system
which they administered. The fact that he gave an opposite
advice may be fairly regarded as a proof, that the personal and
the selfish (in the wide sense of undue regard to anything about
self) had no such prominence or influence among his actuating
motives as many seem to suppose, — that the lower and more
unworthy motives were habitually subordinated to the purer and
more elevated, — and that their operation, so far as they did operate,
should not be regarded as distinctively characteristic of the indi
vidual, but merely as a symptom of the common human infirmity,
which in some form or degree is exhibited by all men, even those
who have been renewed in the spirit of their minds.
As Calvin's conduct in this matter illustrates not only his
elevation above the influence of personal and selfish feeling, but
also his strong sense of the importance of respecting constituted
authorities, and preserving the peace of the church, it may be
worth while to bring out somewhat more fully what he thought
and felt regarding it. The great general principle on which he
founded his judgment upon this question was to this effect, that

308 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
the men in office preached the substance of scriptural truth, and
administered the sacraments in accordance with scriptural ar
rangements, notwithstanding the promiscuousness of the admission
to partake in them, — and that this being secured, everything else
was, in the circumstances, of comparatively inferior importance,
and should be subordinated, as a motive in determining conduct,
to the respect due to the ministerial office and the persons who in
providence held it, and to a regard to the peace of the community.
He distinctly admits that the people were entitled to judge for
themselves, on their own responsibility, whether or not the mini
sters preached the gospel, and unless satisfied upon this point,
were fully warranted to abandon their ministry, — recognising thus
the paramount importance which Scripture assigns to the truth
and the preaching of it, as the great determining element on this
whole subject. It has been well said in regard to this matter,
that preaching the truth is God's ordinance, but preaching error
is not God's ordinance, and is therefore not entitled to any re
cognition or respect. The ground taken by Calvin recognises
this principle, and therefore, though it is abundantly wide and
lax, — more so, perhaps, than can be thoroughly defended, — it
gives no countenance whatever to the views of those who advocate
the warrantableness of waiting upon the ministry of men who
do not preach the gospel, but who are supposed to have other
recommendations, on the ground of their connection with some
particular system or constitution, civil or ecclesiastical. Calvin's
first explicit reference to this subject occurs in a letter to Farel,
written from Strasburg in October 1538. The question as there
put was this, " Whether it is lawful to receive the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper from the hands of the new ministers, and to par
take of it along with such a promiscuous assemblage of unworthy
communicants ? " Calvin's deliverance upon it was this : —
" In this matter I quite agree with Capito. This, in brief, was the sum
of our discussion : that among Christians there ought to be so great a dislike
of schism, as that they may always avoid it so far as lies in their power. That
there ought to prevail among them such a reverence for the ministry of the
word and of the sacraments, that wherever they perceive these things to be,
there they may consider the church to exist. Whenever, therefore, it happens,
by the Lord's permission, that the church is administered by pastors, whatever
kind of persons they may be, if we see there the marks of the church, it will
be better not to break the unity. Nor need it be any hindrance that some
points of doctrine are not quite so pure, seeing that there is scarcely any

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 309
church which does not retain some remnants of former ignorance. It is suffi
cient for us if the doctrine on which the church of God is founded be recog
nised, and maintain its place. Nor should it prove any obstacle, that he ought
not to be reckoned a lawful pastor who shall not only have fraudulently insinu
ated himself into the office of a true minister, but shall have wickedly usurped
it. For there is no reason why every private person should mix himself up
with these scruples. The sacraments are the means of communion with the
church ; they must needs therefore be administered by the hands of pastors.
In regard to those, therefore, who already occupy that position, legitimately
or not, and although the right of judging as to that is not denied, it will be
well to suspend judgment, in the meantime, until the matter shall have been
legally adjudicated. Therefore, if men wait upon their ministry, they will
run no risk, that they should appear either to acknowledge or approve, or in
any way to ratify their commission. But by this means they will give a
proof of their patience in tolerating those who they know will be condemned
by a solemn judgment. The refusal at first of these excellent brethren did
not surprise nor even displease me."*
Calvin discussed the same subject more fully in a letter ad
dressed in June 1539, "To the Church at Geneva;" and as it
is most honourably characteristic of its author, while this topic
has not received the prominence in his history to which it is
entitled, we shall quote the greater part of it.
"Nothing, most beloved brethren, has caused me greater sorrow, since
those disturbances which had so sadly scattered and almost entirely over
thrown your church, than when I understood your strivings and contentions
with those ministers who succeeded us. For although the disorders which
were inseparably connected with their first arrival among you, might with
good reason prove offensive to you ; whatever may have given the occasion, I
cannot hear without great and intense horror that any schism should ,settle
down within the church. Wherefore, this was far more bitter to me than
words can express ; — I allude to what I have heard about those your conten
tions, so long as you were tossed about in uncertainty ; since, owing to that
circumstance, not only was your church rent by division quite openly, but
also the ecclesiastical ministry exposed to obloquy and contempt 
Now, therefore, when, contrary to my expectation, I have heard that the
reconciliation between your pastors and the neighbouring churches, having
been confirmed also by Farel and by myself, was not found to be sufficient
for binding you together in sincere and friendly affection, and by the tie
of a lawful connection with your pastors, to whom the care of your souls is
committed, I felt myself compelled to write to you, that I might endeavour,
so far as lay in me, to find a medicine for this disease, which, without great
sin against God, it was not possible for me to conceal. And although my

* Vol. i. pp. 77-8.

310 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
former letters had not been very lovingly received by you, I was nevertheless
unwilling to be wanting in my duty, so that, should I have no further success,
I would at least deliver my own soul. Neither do I so much question your
spirit of obedience (of which, indeed, I have proof) towards God and His
ministers, as that I can at all fear that this my exhortation will have no
weight with you, neither has my sincerity towards you lain concealed. That
my advice has not been taken by you, I consider is rather to be imputed to
the circumstances of the time, when such was the state of disorder, that it was
very difficult indeed to determine what was best. Now at length, however,
when your affairs, by the favour of God, are in a more settled and composed
state, I trust that you will readily perceive that my only object is to lead you
into the right way; that being so persuaded with regard to me, you may
show in reality by what motive you are brought into subjection to the truth.
Especially, I ask you to weigh maturely, having put aside all respect of per
sons, of what honour the Lord accounts them worthy, and what grace He has
committed to those whom He has appointed in His own church as pastors and
ministers of the word. For He not only commands us to render a willing
obedience, with fear and trembling, to the word while it is proclaimed to us,
but also commands that the ministers of the word are to be treated with hon
our and reverence, as being clothed with the authority of His ambassadors,
whom He would have to be acknowledged as His own angels and messengers.
Certainly so long as we were among you, we did not try much to impress upon
you the dignity of our ministry, that we might avoid all ground of suspicion ;
now, however, that we are placed beyond the reach of danger, I speak more
freely my mind. Had I to do with the ministers themselves, I would teach
what I considered to be the extent and measure of their office, and to what
you also are bound as sitting under their ministry. Since, of a truth, every
one must render an account of his own life, each individual for himself, as
well ministers as private persons, it is rather to be desired that every one
for himself may consider what is due to others, than that he may require
what may further be due to him from some one else. Where such considera
tions have their due weight, then also this established rule will operate
effectually, namely, that those who hold the office of ministers of the
word, since the guidance and rule over your souls is entrusted to their
care, are to be owned and acknowledged in the relation of parents, to be
held in esteem, and honoured on account of that .office which, by the
calling of the Lord, they discharge among you. Nor does the extent of
their function reach so far as to deprive you of the right conferred on
you by God (as upon all His own people), that every pastor may be sub
ject to examination, that those who are thus approven may be distin
guished from the wicked, and all such may be held back who, under the guise
of shepherds, betray a wolfish rapacity. This, however, is my earnest wish
concerning those who in some measure fulfil the duty of pastors, so as to be
tolerable, that you also may conduct yourselves towards them in a Christian
spirit, and with this view that you may make greater account of that which
may be due by you to others, than what others owe to yourselves.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 311
" This also I will set forth plainly and in a few words. Two things here are
to be considered. The one, that the calling of your ministers does not happen
without the will of God. For although that change which took place upon our
departure may have been brought to pass by the subtlety of the devil, so that
whatever followed on that change may justly be suspected by you : in it, never
theless, the remarkable grace of the Lord is to be acknowledged by you, who
has not allowed you to be left altogether destitute ; nor let you fall back
again under the yoke of Antichrist, from which He hath once rescued you
already. But He rather wished that both the doctrine of the gospel should
still exist, and that some appearance of a church should flourish among you,
so that with a quiet conscience you might continue there. We have always
admonished you that you should acknowledge that overturning of your
church as the visitation of the Lord sent upon you, and necessary also for us.
Neither ought you so much to direct your thoughts against the wicked and
the instruments of Satan, as upon personal and individual sins, which have
deserved no lighter punishment, but indeed a far more severe chastisement.
I would now therefore once more repeat the same advice. For besides that
such is the particular and suitable remedy for obtaining mercy and deliverance
of the Lord from that just judgment which lies upon you, there is also another
very weighty reason that ought to bring you to repentance ; lest peradven-
ture we may seem to bury in oblivion that very great benefit of the Lord
towards you, in not having allowed the gospel edifice to fall utterly to ruin
in the midst of you, seeing that it has held so together, that as an instance
of His direct interference it must be reckoned as a miracle of His power, by
which alone you were preserved from that greatest of all calamity. However
that may be, it is certainly the work of God's providence, that -you still have
ministers who exercise the office of shepherds of souls and of government in
your church. We must also take into account, that those servants of God
who exercise the ministry of the word in the neighbouring churches, have, in
order to check such dangerous contests, themselves approved of the calling of
those men ; whose opinions we also have subscribed, since no better method
occurred to us by which we could consult your welfare and advantage.
That you are well assured of our conscientious integrity we have no doubt, so
that you ought at once to conclude, that we did nothing which was not sin
cere and upright. But putting out of view even all idea of kindly affection,
the very discussion of that delicate point was a proof quite as sincere as could
be given on my part, that you would have no obscure instruction from me.
Therefore, you must seriously look to it, that you are not too ready to disap
prove of what the servants of God judge to be essential to your advantage and
the preservation of the church. The other point to be well considered by you
is this, that there may be due inspection of their regular discharge of duty,
that they may fulfil the ministry of the church. And here, I confess, discre
tion evidently (nor would I wish to be the author of bringing any tyranny
into the church) is required, that pious men should esteem as pastors those
who do not stand only on their calling. For it is an indignity not to be-
borne, if that reverence and regard is to be given to certain personages, which

312 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI
the Lord himself desires may be assigned only to the ministers of the word.
Consequently, I readily grant you concerning that minister who shall not have
taught the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, whatever title or prerogative he
may put forth as a pretence, that he is unworthy to be considered as a pastor,
to whom due obedience can be shown in the ministry. Because, however, it
is clear to me in reference to our brethren who at present hold the office of
the ministry among you, that the gospel is taught you by them, I do not see
what can excuse you, as before the Lord, while you either neglect or reject
them. If some one may reply, that this or that in their doctrine or morals is
objectionable, I require you, in the first place, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that
so far as may be, you will first of all weigh the matter in your mind, and
without any hastiness of judgment. For since we all of us owe this on the
score of charity to one another, that we may not rashly pass sentence against
others, but rather, so far as lies in us, that we hold fast by clemency and
justice, much more is that moderation to be practised towards those whom
the Lord is pleased to peculiarly distinguish above others. And even although
there may be somewhat wanting which might justly be required of them (as
to which I am not able to speak definitively, since I have no certain know
ledge), you must just consider, that you will find no person so thoroughly
perfect as that there shall not be many things which are still to be desired.
Wherefore that rule of charity is not duly honoured by us, unless we uphold
our neighbours, even with their very infirmities, provided we recognise in
them the true fear of God and the sincere desire of following the very truth
itself. Lastly, I cannot possibly doubt, in so far as concerns their doctrine,
but that they faithfully deliver to you the chief heads of Christian religion,
such as are necessary to salvation, and join therewith the administration of
the sacraments of the Lord. Wherever this is established, there also the very
substance of the ministry ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ thrives and
flourishes ; and all due reverence and respect is to be observed toward him
who is the minister.
" Now, therefore, most beloved brethren, I entreat and admonish you, in
the name and strength of our Lord Jesus Christ, that turning away from man
your heart and mind, you betake yourselves to that one and holy Redeemer,
and that you reflect, how much we are bound to submit entirely to His
sacred commands. And if everything He has appointed among you ought
deservedly to be held inviolate, no consideration whatever ought so to deflect
you from the path of duty, that you may not preserve whole and entire that
ministration which He so seriously commends to you. If already you dispute
and quarrel with your pastors to the extent of brawls and railing, as I hear
has occurred, it is quite evident, from such a course of proceeding, that the
ministry of those very persons in which the brightness of the glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ ought to shine forth, must be subject. to contempt and reproach,
and all but trampled under foot. It is therefore incumbent on you carefully to
beware, lest while we seem to ourselves only to insult men, we in fact declare
war on God himself. Nor, besides, ought it to seem a hght matter to you,
that sects and divisions are formed and cherished within the church, which no

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 313
one who has a Christian heart beating in his breast can, without horror, even
drink in by the hearing of the ears. But that the state of matters is indeed
such where a separation of this kind exists, and as it were a secession between
pastor and people, the thing speaks for itself. In conclusion, therefore, accept
this admonition, if you wish me to be held by you as a brother, that there
may be among you a sohd agreement, which may correspond with such a
name ; that you may not reject that ministry which, for your advantage and
the prosperity of the church, I have been forced to approve of without any fear
or favour in respect of men. . . . Here, therefore, with the most fervent saluta
tion written by my own hand, do I supplicate the Lord Jesus, that He protect
you in His holy fortress of defence ; that He may heap on you His gifts more
and more ; that He may restore your church to due order, and specially that
He may fill you with His own spirit of gentleness, so that in true conjunction of
soul we may every one bestow ourselves in the promoting of His kingdom."*
We are not prepared to adopt every statement made by Cal
vin in this letter to the church of Geneva, or in the one to Farel
formerly- quoted ; but we think it very plain, that the decision
which he gave upon the important practical question submitted
to him, and the main grounds on which he rested it, conclusively
disprove some of the more unfavourable prevalent impressions
in regard to his character and motives,- — -especially the supposed
undue predominance of pride and arrogance, and more generally
of the irascible and vindictive tendencies of human nature. In
deed, we cannot conceive how any one can read Calvin's letters
with attention and impartiality without being satisfied of the
injustice of these impressions. Knowing how prevalent, and yet
how unreasonable, was the impression of Calvin's coldness and
heartlessness, and of his intemperate violence and imperious arro
gance, we once took the trouble of running over the first two
volumes of the English translation of his Letters by Dr Bonnet,
published at Edinburgh a few years ago, to collect proofs of the
falsehood of these impressions, and we noted on the fly-leaf the
pages which furnished materials fitted to serve this purpose. We
arranged the references under the two heads of — 1st, Strong and
hearty affection ; and 2d, Moderation and forbearance — i.e. mode
ration in his own judgment upon interesting and important topics,
and forbearance with those who differed from him. Our references
under both heads, our evidences of the possession of both these
features of character, soon swelled to a large extent, and at length

* Calvin's Letters, by Bonnet, vol. i. pp. 118-125.

314

JOHN CALVIN.

[Essay VI.

presented a body of proof which seems to us perfectly overwhelm
ing. It may interest and gratify some of our readers, if we give
as a foot-note the pages we noted in carrying out this design.*
They will find in them abundant evidence of Calvin's strong and
hearty affection, and also of his moderation and forbearance.
Every one knows that the favourite topic of declamation and
invective with the enemies of Calvin, is the share which he had
in the death of Servetus. All who, from whatever cause, hate
Calvin, and are anxious to damage his reputation, are accustomed
to dwell upon this transaction, as if it were one of the most dis
graceful and atrocious which history records ; until, from disgust
at the shameless falsehood, injustice, and absurdity of the common
misrepresentations regarding it, we are in some danger of being
tempted to view it, and other transactions of a similar kind, with
less disapprobation than they deserve.
Gibbon said, that he was " more deeply scandalized at the
single execution of Servetus, than at the hecatombs which have
blazed at the auto-da-fes of Spain and Portugal." And Hallam
has imitated the unprincipled infidel by saying, " The death of
Servetus has perhaps as many circumstances of aggravation as any
execution for heresy that ever occurred." t The latest writer we
have seen upon this subject, Mr Wallace, — we presume a Unitarian
minister, — in a work of very considerable research, entitled " Anti-
Trinitarian Biography," in three vols., published in 1850, writes
about it in the following offensive style : — " A bloodier page does
not stain the annals of martyrdom than that in which in this
horrible transaction is recorded;" he describes it as stamping
the character of Calvin as that " of a persecutor of the first
class, without one humane or redeeming quality to divest it of its
criminality or to palliate its enormity," as "one of the foulest
murders recorded in the history of persecution ;" and he speaks
" of the odium which his malignant and cruel treatment of Servetus
has so deservedly brought upon him." $ While men, who are the

* Vol. i. pp. 75, 79, 86, 89, 111,
119, 130, 133, 147, 151, 187, 195,
205, 208, 214, 222, 230, 242, 270,
283, 421, 434, 452 ; vol. ii. pp. 43, 50,
53, 95, 123, 257, 260-1, 295, 323,
377, 386, 407 -r and of his moderation
and forbearance, Letters xxv. and
xxvii. pp. 78, 87, 90-92, 113, 117,
126, 135, 158-9, 163, 175, 188-9,

194, 204, 211, 243, 257, 266, 270,
290, 306, 315, 356, 380, 396, 409,
417, 430 ; vol. ii. pp. 20-1, 47-9, 106,
177, 192, 212, 224, 233, 258, 270,
286, 315, 333, 346, 353, 394, 418,
428, 432.
t Literature of Europe, vol. i. p.
547. X Vol. i. pp. 442-6.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 315
avowed opponents of almost everything that has been generally
reckoned peculiar and distinctive in the Christian revelation speak
on this subject in such terms, other men, whom it would be unfair
to rank in this category, deal with this topic in a manner that is
far from being satisfactory ; and we could point to indications of
this both in Dr Stebbing, the translator of Henry's admirable Life
of Calvin, and in Principal Tulloch. On these accounts it may
be proper to make some observations upon this subject, though we
cannot go into much detail.
It is common for those who discuss this subject under the
influence of dislike to Calvin, to allege that those who do not
sympathize with them in all their invectives against him, are to
be regarded as defending or apologizing for his conduct in the
matter. Mr Wallace, in the work just referred to,* says: —
" Among other recent apologists of the stern Genevese Reformer,
M. Albert Rilliet and the Rev. W. K. Tweedie (now Dr Tweedie
of Edinburgh) stand conspicuous, but their arguments have been
ably and triumphantly refuted by a well-known writer in the
Christian Reformer for January 1847."
Now it is not true, in any fair sense of the word, that M.
Rilliet and Dr Tweedie are apologists for Calvin in this matter.
They both decidedly condemn his conduct ; and they merely aim
at bringing out fully the whole facts of the case, in order that a
fair estimate may be formed of it, and that the amount of con
demnation may be, upon a full and impartial examination of all
its features and circumstances, duly proportioned to its demerits.
Rilliet has evidently no sympathy with Calvin's theological views,
or with his firm and uncompromising zeal for truth. He has acted
only the part of an impartial historian. He has brought out fully
and accurately the whole documents connected with the trial of
Servetus at Geneva, and he has pointed to some of the inferences
which they clearly establish, — especially these, that Servetus's
whole conduct during the trial was characterized by recklessness
and violence, or by cunning and falsehood ; that Calvin was at
this time at open war with the prevailing party among the civil
authorities of Geneva, on the important subject of excommunica
tion ; that they took the management of the trial very much into
their own hands, without consulting with him ; that Calvin's

* Vol. i. p. 444.

316 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
interposition in the matter was much more likely to have brought
about the acquittal than the condemnation of Servetus ; that
Servetus knew this, and acted upon it; and that this was the
explanation of the reckless violence with which, during one im
portant stage in the trial, he publicly assailed Calvin. The only
fair question is, Are these positions historically true ? Have they
been sufficiently established ? M. Rilliet and Dr Tweedie answer
in the affirmative, and are in consequence set down as apologists
of Calvin. As to M- Wallace's allegation that M. Rilliet and
Dr Tweedie have been triumphantly refuted in the Christian
Reformer for January 1847, this is really little better than bluster
ing. There is nothing in the article referred to that refutes the
above-mentioned positions of Rilliet, which must be regarded as
now conclusively established. The article is mainly occupied with
an attempt to prove that the authorities of Geneva had no juris
diction over Servetus, since the offence for which he was tried was
not committed within their territory, and that there was no law
then in force in Geneva attaching to heresy the penalty of death.
The writer has failed in establishing these two positions ; but even
if he had succeeded in proving them, this would not materially
affect the question, so far as concerns its bearing upon Calvin, or
the estimate that ought to be formed of the part he took in it.
There is more plausible ground for Mr Wallace's allegation that
Dr Henry, in his Life of Calvin, defends his conduct in this
matter, although here, too, there is a great want of fairness mani
fested by not giving a full view of the biographer's sentiments.
No man in modern times defends Calvin's conduct towards
Servetus. No one indeed can defend it, unless he be prepared
to defend the lawfulness of putting heretics to death, and this
doctrine has been long abandoned by all but Papists. There is
no other ground on which Calvin can be defended, for he has
distinctly and fully assumed the responsibility of the death of
Servetus, though he endeavoured unsuccessfully to prevent his
being burned. Some injudicious admirers of Calvin have
attempted to exempt him from the responsibility of Servetus's
death ; and it is quite true that other causes contributed to bring
it about, and that it would in all probability have been effected,
whether Calvin had interfered in the matter or not. But there
can be no doubt that Calvin beforehand, at the time, and after
the event, explicitly approved and defended the putting him to

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 317
death, and assumed the responsibility of the transaction. Some
of Calvin's admirers were at one time anxious to free him from
the charge, founded on the letter which he was alleged to have
written to Farel in 1546, and. in which this passage occurs: —
" Servetus wrote to me lately, and added to his letter a large
volume of his delirious fancies. He intimates that he will come to
this place, if agreeable to me. But I will not interpose my assur
ance of his safety, for if he shall come, if my authority is of any
avail, I will not suffer him to depart alive." There is no reason,
however, to doubt the genuineness of this letter, which is pre
served in the Imperial Library at Paris. And there is nothing in
it which is not covered by the notorious facts, that Calvin firmly
believed and openly maintained that Servetus, by his heresy and
blasphemy, had deserved death, — that it was a good and honour
able work to inflict the punishment of death upon him, and
professed that he was quite willing to aid in bringing about this
result. Entertaining these views, he acted a manly and straight
forward part in giving expression to them. If Calvin had been
such a monster of cruelty and malignity as he is represented to
have been by his slanderers, from Bolsec and Castellio in his own
time, to Audin and Wallace in the present day, he would have
encouraged Servetus to come to Geneva, and then have got
him tried and executed. His letter, then, to Farel, is really no
aggravation of what is otherwise known and unquestionable in
regard to Calvin's views upon this subject.
The injustice usually exhibited by Calvin's enemies upon this
whole matter should just make his friends the more anxious to take
up no untenable position regarding it, to admit fully and at once
everything that can be proved as a matter of fact, and to maintain
no ground which cannot be successfully defended. His enemies
have little or nothing that is plausible to bring forward, beyond
what is involved in the general charge of believing and acting on
the lawfulness of putting heretics and blasphemers to death, except
what is furnished to them sometimes by injudicious friends of
the Reformer — taking up ground that cannot be maintained.
But while the conduct of Calvin in the case of Servetus must
be judged of mainly and primarily by the truth or falsehood of
the doctrine of the lawfulness of putting heretics and blasphemers
to death, and while every one now concedes that, tried by this
test, it cannot be defended, it is quite possible that there may be

318 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
other collateral views of the matter, which may materially affect
our estimate of the different parties, and tell powerfully in the way
either of palliation or of aggravation. Indeed, the only fair and
honest question in regard to the case of Servetus, now that the
lawfulness of putting heretics to death has been long abandoned,
is this — Does Calvin's conduct in the matter furnish evidence that
he was a bad or cruel man ? Does it prove him to have been in
any respect worse than the other Reformers, — that is, worse than
the best men of his age ? This is the only question which is now
entitled to consideration, and this question, we venture to assert,
must be answered in the negative by every one who is not perverted
by hatred of the truth which Calvin taught, by every one who is
possessed of impartiality and candour. The leading considerations
which prove that this is the only answer that can be given to the
question we shall merely state, without enlarging upon them.
1. The doctrine of the lawfulness and duty of putting heretics
and blasphemers to death, was then almost universally held, by Pro
testants as well as Papists, — by men of unquestionable piety and
benevolence, if there were any such persons,- — and those who were
zealous for God's truth were then not only willing but anxious to
act upon this doctrine whenever an opportunity occurred. There
is no need to produce evidence of this position ; but it may be
proper to advert here to a statement which seems to contradict it,
made by Dr Stebbing, the translator of Henry's Life of Calvin,
and adopted from him by Mr Wallace in his Anti-Trinitarian
Biography. Dr Stebbing thinks that Henry has gone too far in
defending Calvin, and in his anxiety to repudiate all concurrence
in this, he makes the following statement in his preface: — "Henry
has defended Calvin in the case of Servetus with admirable ability;
but the translator believes still, as he has ever believed, that when
men enjoy so large a share of light and wisdom as Calvin possessed,
they cannot be justified if guilty of persecution, because they
lived in times when wicked and vulgar minds warred against the
rights of human conscience." Now this statement obviously and
necessarily implies, that in Calvin's time it was only " wicked and
vulgar minds" who countenanced persecution, and that Calvin's
conduct is indefensible, because he agreed on this point only with
the wicked and vulgar, and differed from the better and higher
class of minds among his contemporaries. This is what Dr Steb
bing has said. But of course he could not mean to say this ; for

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 319
he must have known, if he gave any attention to what he was
saying, that the statement is unquestionably false. Every one
knows that in Calvin's time the defence of persecuting principles
was not confined to the " wicked and vulgar," but was almost
universal, even among the best and highest minds. It is to be
presumed that Mr Wallace did not perceive the folly or the false
hood of this statement of Dr Stebbing's, when he quoted it with
so much gusto, and set it forth as a " well-merited censure from
the pen of one of Calvin's most ardent admirers." *
2. Servetus was not only a heretic and a blasphemer, but one
about whom there was everything to provoke and nothing to con
ciliate. More than twenty years before his death he had put
forth views which led Bucer, one of the most moderate of the
Reformers, to declare that he ought to be torn in pieces. He con
tinued thereafter to lead a life of deliberate hypocrisy, living for
many years in the house Of a Popish prelate, conforming outwardly
to the Church of Rome, while at the same time he embraced
every safe opportunity of propagating his offensive heresies and
blasphemies against the most sacred and fundamental doctrines of
Christianity. He repeatedly denied upon oath all knowledge of
the books which he had published, and he conducted himself
during his trial with reckless violence and mendacity. We do
not mention these things as if they excused or palliated his being
put to death, but merely as illustrating the unreasonableness and
unfairness of attempting to represent the case as one of peculiar
aggravation, or as specially entitled to sympathy. Chaufepi£,
whose article on Servetus in the fourth volume of his Continua
tion of Bayle's Dictionary is perhaps, upon the whole, the best and
fairest view of the subject that exists, says : — " Unfortunately for
this great man (Calvin), he is more odious to certain people than
Servetus is. They cannot resolve to render him the justice
which no impartial person can refuse to him, without doing an
injury to his own judgment."
3. Servetus had been convicted of heresy and blasphemy by
a Popish tribunal at Vienne, and had been condemned to be
burned by a slow fire ; and he escaped from prison and came to
Geneva with that sentence hanging over him. During his trial
at Geneva the Popish authorities transmitted the sentence they

* Vol. i. p. 446.

320 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
had pronounced against him, and reclaimed him, that they might
carry it into execution. It was then put to Servetus, whether he
would go back to Vienne or go on with his trial at Geneva. He
preferred to remain where he was ; and there is good reason to
believe that the determination of the civil authorities at Geneva to
pronounce and execute upon him a sentence of death, was in some
measure produced by the fear that the Papists would charge them
with being indifferent, if not favourable, to heresy, if they spared
him. There is abundant evidence that this consideration operated
to some extent as a motive upon the conduct of the Protestant
churches at the time of the Reformation.* As a specimen of this
we may refer to Bishop Jewel's " Apology of the Church of Eng
land," a work which was approved of by the Convocation, and
thus clothed with public authority. In the third chapter of the
Apology, sect. 2, Jewel boasts that Protestants not only detested
and denounced all the heretics who had "been condemned by the
ancient church, but also that, when any of these heresies broke
out amongst them, "they seriously and severely coerced the
broachers of them with lawful and civil punishments." If this
was distinctly set forth and boasted of as an ordinary rule of pro
cedure in opposition to Popish allegations, we cannot doubt that
the consideration would operate most powerfully in so very pecu
liar, and indeed unexampled, a case as that of Servetus, in which
not only had a Popish tribunal condemned him to the flames, but
had publicly demanded his person that they might put that sen
tence in execution. In these circumstances no Protestant tribunal
could be expected to do anything else but pronounce a similar
sentence, unless either the proof of the charge of heresy and blas
phemy had failed, or they had believed it to be unlawful to put
heretics and blasphemers to death.
4. Although Calvin, after having, notwithstanding extreme
personal provocation, done everything in his power to convince
Servetus of his errors, approved of putting him to death as an
incorrigible heretic and blasphemer, he exerted his influence, but
without success, to prevent his being burned, and to effect that
he might be put to death by some less cruel and offensive process;
so that to talk, as is often done, of Calvin burning Servetus, is
simply and literally a falsehood.

Augusti Corpus Lib. Symb. Diss. Hist., pp. 590-2.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 321
5. The Reformers generally, and more especially two of the
mildest and most moderate of them all, both in their theological
views and in their general character, — Melancthon representing
the Lutherans, and Bullinger representing the Zuinglians, — gave
their full, formal, public approbation to the proceedings which
took place in Geneva in the case of Servetus.
6. Archbishop Cranmer exerted all his influence with King
Edward, and succeeded thereby, though not without great diffi
culty, in effecting the burning of two heretics, — one of them a
woman and the other a foreigner, — whose offences were in every
respect, and tried by any standard whatever, far less aggravated
than Servetus's.*
As all these six positions are notorious and undeniable, it must
be quite plain to every one who reflects for a moment on what
these facts, individually and collectively, involve or imply, that
the peculiar frequency and the special virulence with which Cal
vin's conduct in regard to Servetus has been denounced, indicate,
on the part of those who have done so, not only an utter want of
anything like impartiality and fairness, but a bitter dislike, to a
most able and influential champion of God's truth.
It might be supposed that most men, knowing these facts,
would admit that there are many palliations attaching to the death
of Servetus, and to Calvin's conduct in the matter ; and yet Mr
Wallace, as we have seen, as if determined to outstrip in the
virulence of his invective all that had been said by Papists and
infidels, describes it as being " without one humane or redeeming
quality to divest it of its criminality or palliate its enormity."
The ground on which men who are fond of railing at Calvin in
this style commonly excuse themselves, is an allegation to the
effect that he was mainly influenced in this matter by personal and
vindictive feelings, — that, under the influence of these feelings,
he had been long plotting Servetus's death, and seeking an oppor
tunity of cutting him off, — and that he gave information against
him to the Popish authorities at Vienne, and was thus the cause of

* Burnet, after narrating (History
of the Reformation, P. ii. B. i., under
the year 1549) Cranmer's very pro
minent and influential share in bring
ing about these two burnings, — the
one that of an Anabaptist woman,
the other that of an Arian Dutchman,

— adds, " One thing was certain, that
what he did in this matter flowed from
no cruelty of temper in him, no man
being further from that black disposi
tion of mind ; but it was truly the
effect of those principles by which he
governed himself."

VOL. I. 21

322

JOHN CALVIN.

[Essay VI.

his being tried and condemned there. These assertions are to a
large extent utterly destitute of proof ; and in so far as there is
any appearance of evidence in support of them as matters of fact,
they furnish no foundation for the conclusions which have been
based upon them. The general allegation, that Calvin was mainly
or largely influenced by personal and vindictive feelings towards
Servetus, is destitute of all proof or even plausibility. There is
no evidence of it whatever, and there is no occasion whatever to
have recourse to this theory. All that Calvin ever said or did in
the case of Servetus, is fully explained by his conviction of the
lawfulness and duty of putting heretics and blasphemers to death ;
and by his uncompromising determination to maintain, in every
way he reckoned lawful, the interests of God's truth, and to dis
charge his own obligations, combined with the too prevalent habit
of the age to indulge in railing and abuse against all who were
dealt with as opponents. There were very considerable differences
in character and disposition between Cranmer and Calvin, but it
is in substance just as true of the latter as of the former, that his
conduct "was truly the effect of those principles by which he
governed himself." Calvin, in his last interview with Servetus,
on the day before his death, solemnly declared that he had never
sought to resent any personal injuries that had been offered to
him, — that many years ago he had laboured, at the risk of his own
life, to bring Servetus back to the truth, — that, notwithstanding
his want of success, he long continued to correspond with him on
friendly terms, — that he had omitted no act of kindness towards
him, — until at last Servetus, exasperated by his expostulations,
assailed him with downright rage. To this solemn appeal Servetus
made no answer, and there is no ground whatever to warrant any
human being to call in question its truth or sincerity. The truth
is, that there is at least as good evidence that Mr Wallace hates
Calvin as that Calvin hated Servetus.*
We have seen some specimens of the rancorous abuse with
which he assails the Reformer. But we have not exhausted his

* Armand de la Chapelle, whose
review of Allwoerden's Historia Mi-
chaelis Serveti in the Bibliotheque Rai-
sonnee for 1728-9, torn. i. and ii., is
characterized by great ability and
fairness, thus describes the conduct of
some of Calvin's accusers in his time,

and they do not seem to be much im
proved yet: — -"Je soutiens qu'il n'y
a que malice noire, et qu'aigre intoler
ance dans l'animosite personnelle que
certaines gens font paroitre contre cet
illustre Reformateur." — (Bib. Rais.,
torn. i. p. 400.)

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 323
performances in this way. He assures us that Calvin formed a
plan for the destruction of Servetus, and that he prosecuted it for
thirteen years before he succeeded in accomplishing his object,
— that he " came to the deliberate determination of plotting his
destruction," — that " he was always on the watch for something
by which he might criminate Servetus," — that he " was on the
watch for him, and caused him to be apprehended soon after his
arrival" in Geneva.* These are statements for which no evidence
has been or can be produced. They can be regarded in no other
light than as mere fabrications. Mr Wallace also gives us to
understand, that in his judgment the conduct of Calvin in this
matter showed him to be " a man who, under the guise of religion,
could violate every principle of honour and humanity."! Under
the guise of religion! We could scarcely have believed it possible
that any man would have insinuated a doubt of the sincerity of
Calvin's conviction, that he was doing God service and discharging
a duty in contributing to bring about the death of Servetus. The
sincerity and earnestness of this conviction do not, of course, furnish
any proof that he was right, or supply any materials for defend
ing his conduct. Still this conviction is an important feature in
every case to which it applies, and it ought always to be taken into
account. We do not believe that Mr Wallace will get much coun
tenance, even from Papists and infidels, in his insinuation, that
Calvin is not entitled to the benefit of it.
His allegation about "violating every principle of honour and
humanity," is probably intended to bear special reference to what
has been charged against Calvin in connection with the informa
tion against Servetus given to the Popish authorities at Vienne ;
and this is, indeed, the only feature of the case, the discussion of
which is attended with any difficulty. Mr Wallace's statement
upon the point is this : —
" Calvin, who was always on the watch for something by which he might
criminate Servetus, soon gave out that this work" (his last work, the " Chris-
tianismi Restitutio," which he had got secretly printed without his name at
Vienne, and the substance of which he had sent to Calvin some years before)
" was written by him. And availing himself of the assistance of one William
Trie, a native of Lyons, who was at that time residing at Geneva, he caused
Servetus to be apprehended and thrown into prison on a charge of heresy.
Some of the friends and disciples of Calvin have attempted to free him from

* Vol. i. pp. 432-4. f Vol. i. p. 446.

324 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
this odious imputation, and he has himself represented it as a calumny ; but the
fact that Servetus was imprisoned at the sole instigation of Calvin is too well
established to admit of dispute. Abundant proofs of it may be found in the
accounts of De la Roche, Allwoerden, Mosheim, Bock, and Trechsel."*
We will advert first to Mr Wallace's references to authorities.
He says that abundant proofs that Calvin was the author and
originator of the whole proceedings against Servetus at Vienne,
may be found in the accounts of De la Roche, Allwoerden,
Mosheim, Bock, and Trechsel. We have not read Mosheim and
Trechsel, but we are confident that the proofs to be found in the
other three authors are not abundant, and are not even sufficient.
De la Roche and Allwoerden published before Trie's three letters
to his friend at Lyons, which Calvin is alleged to have instigated
and dictated, were given to the public, and therefore were scarcely
in circumstances to judge fairly on this question.
De la Roche f does not enter into anything like a full and
formal investigation of this matter. The main evidence he adduces
that Calvin was the author or originator of Trie's letters, is a
statement to that effect made by Servetus himself on his trial,
coupled with the fact, that in his judgment Calvin's denial did
not fully meet the precise charge as laid. Allwoerden, whose.
work is in reality just the first edition of Mosbeim's, goes much
more fully into this matter, and produces additional proofs, though
they are not very "abundant" or satisfactory. His authorities
are only Bolsec in his Life of Calvin, and the anonymous author
of the work entitled, " Contra Libellum Calvini," etc., in reply to
Calvin's Refutation of the errors of Servetus. Bolsec, indeed,
says that Calvin wrote to Cardinal Tournon to give information
against Servetus, — that Trie wrote to many people at Lyons and
Vienne at the solicitation of Calvin, and that in consequence
Servetus was put in prison. $ But Bolsec's Lives both of Calvin
and Beza have always been regarded, except by Papists, whose
church Bolsec had joined before he published them, as infamous
libels, to which no weight whatever is due. The other work
referred to has been ascribed to Laelius Socinus and to Castellio ;
and it is not improbable that both were concerned in the produc
tion of it, as is supposed also to have been the case with another
work bearing upon this subject, and published under the fictitious

* Vol. i. p. 433. f "Bibliotheque Anglaise," torn. ii. 1717. X Bolsec, p. 11.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 325
name of Martinus Bellius. The author of this work says, that
those who had seen Trie's letters to his Popish friend, " think that
they we're written by Calvin, because of the similarity of the style,"
and that they were of a higher order than Trie could have pro
duced. This is all the evidence he adduces, and it plainly shows
that at the time the report rested merely upon conjecture or sus
picion. This anonymous and unknown author says also, that
" there are some who say that Calvin himself wrote to Cardinal
Tournon," — a statement which shows how thoroughly the whole
matter was one of mere hearsay. It is proper also to mention,
that it is this work which contains the report, given, however,
merely as a hearsay (sunt qui affirmant), that Calvin laughed
when he saw Servetus carried along to the stake. This report
even De la Roche, with all his prejudices against Calvin and Cal
vinism, denounces as an " execrable calumny," though it is really
a fair enough specimen of the way in which Calvin has been often
dealt with. De la Chapelle very happily ridiculed the manifest
and palpable insufficiency of this evidence, in this way : — " The
cotemporary enemies of Calvin only suspected that he was the
author of the letter, and behold now-a-days, 170 years after the
event, De la Roche and Allwoerden are quite certain of it. Per
haps in another 100 years, it will be found out that it was Calvin
himself who carried the letter to Lyons."*
But Trie's three letters have since been published, and may be
expected to throw some light upon this subject. They were pro
cured from Vienne, and published by Artigny in 1749, and they
have since been commented upon by Mosheim, Bock, and many
others. Bock is one of those referred to by Mr Wallace, as
exhibiting " abundant proofs" that Calvin employed Trie to effect
the apprehension of Servetus at Vienne. But the truth is, that
Bock, though strongly -prejudiced against Calvin, and though un
fair enough to allege that he was somewhat influenced by personal
and vindictive feelings in this matter, did not profess to produce
" abundant proofs" of the point now under consideration ; nay, he
expressly admits that it could not be proved, though he was strongly
inclined to believe it. The whole of what he says upon the sub
ject is this : — " An. Gul. Trie homo, indoctus, proprio motu an
Calvini instinctu et consilio hoc fecerit, certo quidem statui nequit

* " Bibl. Rais.," torn. i. p. 390.

326 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
non tamen vanse videntur conjecturce hanc illi dictasse epistolam,
qua Servetus tanquam hsereticus exurendus, accusabatur." * We
accept Bock's concession that there is no proof but only conjec
tures, but we do not admit that the conjectures are possessed of
any real weight or probability. Mr Wallace could easily have
found room, if he had chosen, for a summary of the " abundant
proofs" of which he boasts. But it was more convenient just to
make a flourish by a reference to Bock and other names, whose
works few were likely to examine.
Trie's letters not only afford no evidence, but do not even
furnish any plausible ground of suspicion, that Calvin was in
any way connected with, or cognizant of, the origin of this
matter, — that is, that it was at his instigation that Trie conveyed
information to his Popish friend about Servetus, and the book
which he had recently published. So far as appears from the
correspondence, Trie's statement about Servetus and his book
seems to have come forth quite spontaneously, without being sug
gested or instigated by any one. It has every appearance of
having come up quite naturally and easily, in the course of cor
respondence with a friend, who was urging him to return to the
Church of Rome, on the ground of the unity and soundness of
doctrine that prevailed there, as contrasted with the varieties and
heresies that were found among Protestants. This naturally and
obviously led Trie, as it would have led any one in similar circum
stances who happened to be cognizant of Servetus and his book,
to tell his friend of what had been going on of late, in the way of
heresy, in his own neighbourhood, and in a place where Popish
authorities had entire control. In short, there is no ground to
believe, or even to suspect, that Calvin was connected with origi
nating or instigating the proceeding, which ultimately led to Ser
vetus's apprehension by the Popish authorities at Vienne. If men
are determined to put the worst possible construction upon every
thing relating to Calvin, they may have some suspicion that he
instigated Trie to write to Vienne about Servetus. But Mr
Wallace's " abundant proofs" can really be regarded in no other
light than as downright audacity.
And then it must not be forgotten, that we have from Calvin
himself what must in all fairness be regarded as a denial of this

* Historia Anti-trinitariorum, torn. ii. p. 355.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 327
charge. In his Refutation of the errors of Servetus, he intimates
that it had been alleged against him, that it was through his
agency (mea opera) that Servetus had been seized at Vienne. Pie
scouted the idea as absurd and preposterous, as if he had been in
friendly correspondence with the Popish authorities ; and then he
concludes with saying, that if the allegation were true, he would
not think of denying it, for he would not reckon' it at all dishonour
able to him, as he had never concealed that it was through his
agency that Servetus had been seized and brought to trial at
Geneva. Calvin evidently saw no material difference in point of
principle, between doing what was practicable and necessary to
bring him to trial at Vienne, and doing what was requisite with
the same view at Geneva. He certainly could not mean by this
statement to deny what he did do in the way of furnishing mate
rials to be used as evidence against Servetus at Vienne ; for what
he had done in this respect was quite well known, and was dis
tinctly mentioned in the formal sentence of the Popish authorities,
which had been publicly produced in the subsequent trial. He
never could have thought of denying this, and therefore he must
have meant merely to deny that he was the author or originator
of the proceedings ; in other words, to deny that he had written
himself, or that he had instigated Trie to write, although even of
this he indicates that he would not have been ashamed if it had
been true.
This leads us to advert to what it was that Calvin did in con
nection with the proceedings against Servetus at Vienne; and this
topic may be properly connected with a statement of Principal
Tulloch's on this subject. Dr Tulloch, as might be expected,
seems disposed to press the more unfavourable views of this
transaction. He describes it as a "great crime," — he speaks of
" the undjdng disgrace which, under all explanations, must for
ever attach to the event," — and assures us that " the act must
bear its own doom and disgrace for ever." * Of his more specific
statements, the only one to which we think it needful to advert
is the following : —
" The special blame of Calvin in the whole matter is very much dependent
upon the view we take of his previous relation to the accusation and trial of
Servetus by the Inquisition at Vienne. If the evidence, of which Dyer has

* Leaders of the Reformation, pp. 101, 138, 144.

328 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
made the most, were perfectly conclusive, that the Reformer, through a
creature of his own of the name of Trie, was really the instigator, from the
beginning, of the proceedings against Servetus, — that from Geneva, in short,
he schemed, with deep-laid purpose, the ruin of the latter, who was then
quietly prosecuting his profession at Vienne, — and, from MSS. that had
privately come into his possession, furnished the Inquisition with evidence
of the heretic's opinions, — if we were compelled to beheve all this, then the
atrocity of Calvin's conduct would stand unrelieved by the sympathy of his
fellow-reformers, and would not only not admit of defence, but would present
one of the blackest pictures of treachery that even the history of religion dis
closes. The evidence does not seem satisfactory, although it is not without
certain features of suspicion. There can be no doubt, however, that Calvin
was so far privy, through Trie, to the proceedings of the Inquisition, and that
he heartily approved of them."*
This is a curious and significant passage, and seems to indicate
that Dr Tulloch occupies the position of one who is "willing to
wound, but yet afraid to strike." Dyer's Life of Calvin, the
authority here referred to by Dr Tulloch, was published in 1850,
and is got up with considerable care and skill. Its general object
manifestly is, to check and counteract the tendency to think more
favourably of Calvin, which had grown up in the community, in
connection with the labours of the Calvin Translation Society
and other causes. It was this too, probably, that called forth the
special virulence of Mr Wallace, whose Anti-Trinitarian Bio
graphy was published in the same year. But Mr Dyer goes
about his work much more cautiously than Mr Wallace. He
abstains generally from violent invective and gross misrepresenta
tion, and labours to convey an unfavourable impression by insinua
tion, supported by an elaborate and sustained course of special
pleading in the style of an Old Bailey practitioner, combined with
a considerable show of moderation and fairness. The reference
which Dr Tulloch, in the passage we have quoted, makes to Mr
Dyer, is fitted to convey the impression, that that author goes as
far as Mr Wallace in ascribing the whole proceedings connected
with Servetus's apprehension at Vienne to Calvin's agency or
instigation. But this is not the case. Mr Dyer was too cautious
to assert this. He saw and admitted that there is no evidence
that Calvin had anything to do with the origination of the matter,
— that is, no evidence that Trie's first letter was written at his
instigation or with his cognizance. * Pp. 138-9.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 329
"The Abbe d'Artigny goes farther than the evidence warrants, in positively
asserting that Trie's letter was written at Calvin's dictation, and in calhng it
Calvin's letter in the name of Trie. It is just possible that Trie may have written
it without Calvin's knowledge ; and the latter is therefore entitled to the bene
fit of the doubt. He cannot be absolutely proved to have taken the first step in
delivering Servetus into the fangs of the Roman Catholic Inquisition ; but what
we shall now have to relate will show that he at least aided and abetted it."*
It is true, as Dr Tulloch says, that Mr Dyer has made the
most of the evidence about Calvin aiding and abetting in the
matter. But there is really no mystery or uncertainty about this.
What Calvin did in this respect is well known and quite ascer
tained, though we do not deny that there is room for a difference of
opinion, or rather of impression, as to how far it can be thoroughly
defended. The principal sentence in the quotation from Dr Tulloch is a
piece of rhetorical declamation, and is characterized by the inac
curacy and exaggeration which usually attach to such displays.
It is not alleged by Mr Dyer, or indeed even by Mr Wallace,
that Calvin's conduct corresponded with the description which
Dr Tulloch has here pictured of it; and yet his statement plainly
implies that Mr Dyer has asserted all this to be true of Calvin,
has undertaken to prove it, and has produced evidence in support
of it, which, though not, in Dr Tulloch's judgment, sufficient to
establish it, is not destitute of weight. We cannot understand
what could have tempted Dr Tulloch to dash off such an inflated
and exaggerated description of Calvin's conduct, and to ascribe
it, without warrant, to the cold and cautious Mr Dyer. He surely
could not expect that his assertion, that Mr Dyer had undertaken
to prove all this, and thought that he had proved it, would be
sufficient to induce some people to believe it or to regard it as
probable, even though it " would present one of the blackest
pictures of treachery that even the history of religion discloses."
The first charge in this indictment against Calvin, given hypo-
thetically, so far as Dr Tulloch is concerned, but alleged by him
to be adduced and believed by Mr Dyer, is, that " the Reformer,
through a creature of his own of the name of Trie, was really the
instigator, from the beginning, of the proceedings against Ser
vetus." Now Mr Dyer, as we have seen, expressly admits that
this position cannot be proved, and Calvin himself has denied it,

Dyer's Life of John Calvin, p. 314.

330 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
while declaring at the same time that he would not have been
ashamed to acknowledge it if it had been true. The second
charge is merely a rhetorical expansion and amplification of the
first, with a fine touch added in the end by Dr Tulloch's own
hand, without any countenance from his authority, " that from
Geneva he schemed, with deep-laid purpose, the ruin of the latter,
who was then quietly prosecuting his profession (as a physician) at
Vienne." The clause which we have put in italics is fitted, and to
all appearance was intended, to convey the impression, that Ser
vetus had abandoned the work of propagating heresy and blas
phemy, in which he had been engaged more or less, occasionally,
for about a quarter of a century, — that he had retired from the
field of theology, and was quietly occupied with the practice of
medicine, giving no ground of offence to any one, when Calvin
devised and executed a plot for bringing him to trial and death.
Now all this is palpably inconsistent with the best known and most
fundamental facts of the case. Every one knows, that the whole
proceedings against Servetus, both at Vienne and at Geneva,
originated in, and were founded on, the fact of his having just
succeeded in getting secretly printed at Vienne, a large edition of
his work entitled " Christianismi Restitutio," in which all his old
heresies and blasphemies were reproduced. Servetus had taken
every precaution to guard against this work being known in his
own neighbourhood, but a large number of copies had been sent
to Frankfort and other places for sale, and one copy at least had
reached Geneva. Indeed, the substance of the information which
Trie's first letter conveyed to his Popish friend at Lyons was just
this, that this book had recently been produced and printed in his
neighbourhood, and that Servetus was the author and Arnoullet
the printer of it. So far is Mr Dyer from giving any countenance,
as Dr Tulloch insinuates, to this rhetorical flourish, about Servetus
"quietly prosecuting his profession at Vienne," that for a purpose
of his own — intending to damage Calvin in another way — he
calls special attention to the consideration, that Servetus's printing
his book at this time " was an overt act, and furnished something
tangible to the Roman Catholic authorities, who would have
looked with suspicion on mere manuscript evidence, furnished by
a man whom they considered to be a great heretic himself."*.
* P. 362.

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 331
This leads us to advert to the third and last charge in the
indictment, viz. that " from MSS. that had privately come into
his possession, he furnished the Inquisition with evidence of the
heretic's opinions." This charge, as here stated, is not put quite
accurately, but we admit that in substance it is not only adduced
but established by Mr Dyer. He puts it thus : — " But this (that
is, the admission that there is no evidence that Trie's first letter
was written with Calvin's knowledge) does not clear him from the
charge of having furnished the evidence by which alone Trie's de
nunciation could be rendered effectual ; and of thus having made
himself a partaker in whatever guilt attaches to such an act." *
Calvin did not perceive or admit that there was any guilt
attaching either to Trie's conduct or to his own in this matter ;
but he certainly did the substance of what is here ascribed to him.
The facts are these. Trie, in his first letter to his Popish friend,
— in which he told him of the publication of Servetus's work, and
gave the name of the author and printer, — enclosed also the first
leaf of the book. His friend communicated this to the Popish
authorities, who made some investigation into the case. But so
effectual had been the precautions taken by Servetus to secure
secrecy, that they could get hold of nothing tangible. Trie's
friend was in consequence requested to write to him again, and
to urge him to furnish, if possible, any additional materials that
might throw light upon the matter. In answer to this application,
Trie sent about twenty letters, which, a good many years before,
Servetus had addressed to Calvin, and which were to be used, not
as Dr Tulloch says, " as evidence of the heretic's opinions," but
as materials for establishing his identity. Trie's account of the
way in which he procured the letters is this, and it is all we know
of Calvin's procedure in this matter : j- —
" But I must confess that I have had great trouble to get what I send you
from Mr Calvin. Not that he is unwilling that such execrable blasphemies
should be punished ; but that it seems to him to be his duty, as he does not
wield the sword of justice, to refute heresy by his doctrines, rather than to
pursue it by such methods. I have, however, importuned him so much,
representing to him that I should incur the reproach of levity, if he did not
help me, that he has at last consented to hand over what I send."
Calvin had great hesitation in giving up these letters to Be

* P. 361. t Dyer, p. 316.

332 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
employed for this purpose, and it would have been better, perhaps,
if he had declined to comply with the application. Not that the
matter is one of any material importance, or that his conduct in
this affair can affect injuriously his general character in the esti
mation of intelligent and impartial men ; but that it is fitted to
give a handle to enemies, and has been regarded with somewhat
different feelings, even among those whose prepossessions are all in
his favour. Calvin had no doubt as to the lawfulness of his giving
up these letters for the purpose of establishing Servetus's identity.
His views as to the way in which heretics ought to be dealt with,
and the responsibility which, in consequence, he was quite willing
to incur in such cases, prevented any doubt as to the warrantable-
ness of the step proposed. His hesitation seems to have turned
only on its becomingness or congruity, — on the propriety of a man
in his position taking, in the circumstances, an active part in a
criminal process, which might result in the shedding of blood.
How far Calvin's conduct in this matter should be regarded as a
violation of the confidence that ought to attach to friendly inter
course, must depend very much upon the circumstances in which
the correspondence was begun, and carried on, and ended ; and
of all this we know nothing, and cannot judge. Taking even the
most unfavourable view which any reasonable man can form of
the transaction, there is really nothing in it — apart, of course, from
its assuming or implying the lawfulness of putting heretics to
death— that can be considered very heinous, or that is fitted to
create any strong prejudice against Calvin's general character.
There is not one of the leading Reformers against whom more
serious charges than this cannot be established.
It is satisfactory to know, that although these letters to Calvin
are mentioned among the pieces justificatives in the sentence pro
nounced upon Servetus by the Popish authorities, they had got,
before the sentence was passed, direct and conclusive evidence
from other sources, to prove, in the face of his deliberate perjury,
that he was Servetus, — -though he had lived for thirteen years in
Vienne under a different name, — and that he had printed and
published the heretical and blasphemous book which had been
ascribed to him. Dyer has given a full, and upon the whole a
fair, view of this branch of the case.*

* Pp. 319-325.

Essay VI.]

JOHN CALVIN.

333

We did not intend to dwell so long on this matter of Servetus.
But since so much has been put forth of late years, by Wallace
and Dyer, by Stebbing and Tulloch, fitted to convey erroneous
and unfair impressions upon some features of the case, we do not
regret that we have been led to enlarge somewhat upon it, although
confining ourselves strictly to what seemed to require explanation.*
The impression which the more temperate and reasonable
opponents of Calvin's views chiefly labour to produce with re
spect to his character is this, — that he was a proud and presump
tuous speculator upon divine things, very anxious to be wise above
what is written, and ever disposed to indulge his own reasonings
upon the deepest mysteries of religion, instead of seeking humbly
and carefully to follow the guidance of God's word, without
pressing any further than it led him. Now it is perhaps not very
unnatural that men who have never read Calvin s writings, and
who are decidedly and zealously opposed to his doctrines, may
have insensibly formed to themselves some such conception of his
general character and spirit, or may have very readily believed
all this when they saw it asserted by others. This notion, how
ever, has not only no foundation to rest upon, but it is contra
dicted by the whole spirit that breathes through the writings of
Calvin. We are not at present speaking of the actual truth of
his doctrines, but merely of the general spirit in which his exami
nation of God's word and his investigation of divine truth is con
ducted ; and upon this point we have no hesitation in saying, that
there is nothing which is more strikingly and palpably charac
teristic of the general spirit in which Calvin ordinarily conducts
his investigations into divine truth, and his speculations on the
mysteries of religion, than his profound reverence for the word
of God, the caution and sobriety with which he advances, and his

* We have already intimated that
we consider the Art. " Servetus," in
the fourth volume of Chauffepie's
"NouveauDictionnaire,"or Continua
tion of Bayle, as giving the best and
fairest view of the whole case. The
fullest collection of the materials
bearing upon his trial at Geneva is to
be found in Rilliet's work, entitled
" Relation de Proces Criminel," etc.,
published in 1844 ; or, still better, in a
translation of this work, published at

Edinburgh in 1846, under the title
"Calvin and Servetus," with an ex
cellent Introduction, consisting chiefly
of a fine sketch of Calvin's life by
the Rev. Dr Tweedie, who has also
contributed a valuable article to
the North British Review, vol. xiii.,
exhibiting a very successful appre
ciation of Calvin himself, and of his
modern biographers, Henry, Dyer,
and Audin.

334 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
perfect readiness at all times to lay aside or abandon every state
ment, or even mode of expression, that did not clearly appear to
him to have the sanction of the sacred Scriptures. And we think
it quite impossible for any man of fairness and candour to read
Calvin's writings without being constrained to feel that this was
the state of mind and the general spirit which he at least intended
and laboured to cherish and to manifest. Men of general fairness
and candour may continue, after reading Calvin's writings, to
think that he has brought out from the sacred Scriptures, doc
trines upon some of the deeper mysteries of religion which are
not taught there ; and some may even be disposed to allege that,
misled by the deceitfulness of the human heart, he did not always
know what manner of spirit he was of. But no person, we think,
of fairness and discernment can fail to see and admit, that he had
laid it down as a rule to himself, to follow humbly, implicitly,
and reverentially the guidance of God's word, that he carefully
laboured to act upon this rule, and honestly believed that he had
succeeded in doing so.
From the nature of the case, it is not easy to prove this by an
adduction of evidence. But there are one or two points of a
pretty definite description, which may be fairly regarded as con
firming it. It was not Calvin's practice to attempt to strain the
particular statements of Scripture, in order to bring out more
abundant evidence of doctrines which he believed to be true. On
the contrary, he has incurred the suspicion of some of the more
unintelligent friends of truth, by occasionally admitting that a
particular text gave no support to a sound doctrine, in support of
which it was commonly adduced. He showed no disposition, in
general, to sanction the use of unscriptural phrases and statements
in the exposition of scriptural doctrines ; and it has been thought
that, in some cases, — as in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity for
instance, — Calvin, disgusted with the unwarranted and presump
tuous speculations of the schoolmen upon this subject, even carried
to an extreme his anxiety to adhere to mere scriptural terms and
statements in the exposition of this mystery. Now, whether he
was right or wrong in the particular cases to which these observa
tions apply, his conduct in this respect indicates a state of mind, a
general spirit, and a habit of procedure, very different from what
are often ascribed to him, and may be fairly regarded as affording
evidence that the great object of his desires and aims was just to

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 335
ascertain and bring out truly and accurately the mind of God in
His word ; to submit his understanding and his opinions wholly
to the control of the inspired standard ; to go as far as Scripture
led him, and no farther, in the exposition of divine mysteries.
Whether he has in every instance succeeded in this object which
he proposed to himself, is, of course, a different question ; but we
confess we do not know where to find a finer model, in general,
of the spirit in which the examination of God's word and the
investigation of divine truth ought to be conducted, than in the
writings of Calvin ; and we are persuaded also, that the more
fully men imbibe his general spirit in this respect, and faithfully
act upon it, — a spirit which will lead them equally to go without
fear or hesitation as far as Scripture goes, and to stop without
reluctance where Scripture stops, — the more firmly will they be
convinced that the great doctrines with which Calvin's name is
commonly associated are indeed the very truth of God, 'and do
most fully show forth the perfections of Him " by whom are all
things, and for whom are all things."
We do not mean to attempt anything like theological dis
cussion ; but we would like to make a few observations on Cal
vin's historical position, viewed in relation both to the system
of doctrine usually called by his name, and to his principles with
respect to the worship and government of the church. The sum
and substance of what Calvin aimed at, and to some extent
effected, was to throw the church back, for the cure of the evils
by which she was polluted and disgraced at the era of the Refor
mation, upon the Augustinianism (or Calvinism) in doctrine, and
the Presbyterianism in worship and government, which he believed
to be taught in the New Testament. He of course adopted these
views, because he believed that the word of God required this.
On the scriptural evidence of his views we are not called upon at
present to enter. We can merely advert to one or two features
of the aspects which they present historically, especially when
contemplated in their bearing upon the condition to which the
church had sunk at the time when the Reformation commenced.
Doctrine (viewed more especially as comprehending the exposition
of the way of life, or the method of the salvation of sinful men),
worship, and government, — in short, everything about the church
or professedly Christian society, had fallen into a state of gross
corruption. There might be difficulties, from want of materials,

336 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
in pointing out precisely at what times particular corruptions in
doctrine, worship, and government were invented and introduced.
But it might be supposed that no one could fail to see and acknow
ledge, that the church of the fifteenth century, viewed both in its
Eastern and Western branches, — though it is with the latter that
we have more immediately to do, — was very different in all im
portant respects from the church of the first century, as brought
before us in the writings of the inspired apostles. The system,
however, which had grown up, and which overspread the church
in the fifteenth century, was too firmly rooted in men's passions,
prejudices, and selfish interests, to admit of the light of truth, as
to what the church should be, being easily let in. The Reforma
tion of the sixteenth century became, in consequence, a severe and
protracted struggle, requiring and giving scope for the highest
powers and qualities on both sides, both in choosing the ground
to be taken, and in keeping or maintaining it. And it is here
that the pre-eminent grandeur and majesty of Calvin shine forth.
A profound and penetrating survey of the existing condition and
of the past history of the church, combined with the study of the
word of God, in leading him to see, that the only thorough remedy,
the only effectual cure, for the deplorable state of matters that
now prevailed, — the only process that would go to the root of the
existing evils and produce a real and permanent reformation, was
to reject all palliatives and half measures, and to fall back upon
the thoroughness and simplicity of what was taught and sanc
tioned by our Lord and His apostles.
Perhaps the one most indispensable thing in order to the re
storation of true Christianity in the world, was the bringing out
from the sacred Scriptures of the whole doctrine of the Apostle
Paul in regard to the justification of sinners, and this was the
special work which God qualified and enabled Luther to effect.
The history of this doctrine of justification is remarkable. In
consequence of the particularly full and formal exposition of it
which the Apostle Paul was guided by the Spirit to put on record
in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, Satan seems to have
felt the necessity of carrying on his efforts to corrupt it in an in
direct and insidious way, — of proceeding by sapping and mining,
rather than by open assault. Accordingly, there was scarcely
anything like direct and formal controversy on the subject of
justification from the time of Paul to that of Luther. But yet

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 337
the true doctrine of Scripture on the subject had been very
thoroughly corrupted. All that is taught in Scripture in regard
to it had been thrown into the background and explained away,
without being directly and explicitly denied. Notions of an
adverse tendency had been introduced, diffused, and mixed up
with the general series of ecclesiastical arrangements, connected
especially with the efficacy of the sacraments, the conditions and
merits of good works, and the interposition of other creatures in
procuring the favour of God. By these processes, quietly and in
sidiously carried on, the doctrine of justification had been greatly
corrupted in the church even before Augustine's time, and he
did nothing to check the progress of corruption, or to introduce
sounder views upon this important subject. Indeed, his own
views upon it always continued confused and to some extent erro
neous. When Luther was honoured to bring out fully the true
scriptural doctrine of justification, which had been concealed and
buried so long, the Church of Rome rejected it, while all Pro
testant churches received it. Luther applied very fully the true
scriptural doctrine of justification to all the corruptions of the
Papal system which were directly connected with it, but he did
not do much in the way of connecting the doctrine of justification
with the other great doctrines of the Christian system. It was
reserved for the comprehensive master-mind of Calvin to connect
and combine the Scripture doctrine of justification as taught by
Luther, with the large mass of important scriptural truth set
forth in the writings of Augustine. And this combination of
Lutheranism and Augustinianism is just Calvinism, which is thus
the fullest, most complete, and comprehensive exposition of the
whole scheme, of Christian doctrine. It went to the root of the
prevailing corruption of Christian truth, and overturned it from
the foundation.
The grand heresy, which might be said to have overspread
the church for many centuries, was in substance this, — that the
salvation of sinful men, in so far as they might need salvation,
was to be ascribed, not to the one true God, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, but to men themselves and to what they
could do, or to what could be done for them by their fellow-men
and other creatures. This, more or less fully developed, was the
great heresy which lay under the whole elaborate externalism of
the mediasval and Romish religion. Almost everything that is dis-
VOL. I. 22

338 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
tinctive, either in the specific tenets and practices, or in the more
general features and tendencies, of the full-blown Popery with
which the Reformers had to contend, might be traced back, more.
or less directly, to this great principle ; while, on the other hand,
almost all the particular features of the system tended to deepen
and strengthen in men's minds the comprehensive heresy in which
they had their root and origin. Calvin saw that the only effectual
way of dealing with this great perversion of the way of salvation,
— so well fitted to lead men to build upon a false foundation their
hopes of heaven, — the only way to overturn it root and branch, to
demolish at once the whole height of the superstructure and the
whole depth of the foundation, — was to bring out fully and de
finitely the whole doctrine of Scripture concerning the place held
in the salvation of sinners by the Father, by the Son, and by the
Holy Ghost. He made it his great object to bring out and to
embody the whole doctrine of Scripture upon these subjects, and
accordingly Calvinism is just a full exposition and development of
the sum and substance of what is represented in Scripture as done
for the salvation of sinners by the three persons of the Godhead.
It represents the Father as arranging, in accordance with all the
perfections of His nature and all the principles of His moral govern
ment, and at the same time with due regard to the actual
capacities and obligations of men, the whole provisions of the
scheme of redemption, choosing some men to grace and glory, and
sending His Son to seek and to save them. It represents the Son
as assuming human nature, and suffering and dying as the Surety
and Substitute of His chosen people, — of those whom the Father
had given Him in covenant, — of an innumerable multitude out of
every kindred and nation and tongue, — as bearing their sins in
His own body, and bearing them away, — as doing and bearing
everything necessary for securing their eternal salvation. It
represents the Holy Spirit as taking of the things of Christ and
showing them to men's souls, as taking up His abode in all whom
Christ redeemed with His precious blood, effectually and infallibly
determining them to faith and holiness; and thus applying the
blessings of redemption to all for whom Christ purchased them,
and finally preparing them fully for the inheritance of the saints.
These are in substance the views given us in Scripture of the way
in which sinners of the human race are saved. They are views
which, as experience fully proves, are most offensive to the natural

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 339
tendencies and inclinations of men's hearts; and plainly as they
are taught in Scripture, there is a constant and powerful disposi
tion — especially when true religion is in a low or languishing con
dition— -to reject them or explain them away, and to substitute in
their room notions which, more or less directly, exclude or contra
dict them. They certainly had been thoroughly excluded from the
practical teaching, and from the whole plans and arrangements of
the church, at the period of the Reformation ; while it is true, on
the other hand, — -and it is this with which at present we have more
immediately to do, — that these views, and these alone, overturn from
the foundation the whole system of notions which then generally
prevailed, and which so fearfully perverted the way of salvation.
We believe that it is impossible to bring out accurately, fully,
and definitely, the sum and substance of what is taught in Scrip
ture concerning the place which the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost hold in the salvation of sinners, without taking up Cal
vinistic ground, — without being in a manner necessitated to assert
the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology.
It is, we believe, impossible otherwise to do full justice, and to
give full effect to what Scripture teaches concerning the sovereign
supremacy of the Father in determining the everlasting destiny of
His creatures, — concerning the death and righteousness of Christ,
as of infinite worth and value, and as infallibly efficacious for
securing all the great objects to which they are directed, — and con
cerning the agency of the Holy Spirit in certainly and infallibly
uniting to Christ through faith all whom the Father had given to
Him, and preserving them in safety unto His eternal kingdom.
Those who reject or put aside the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism
can, we think, be shown to be practically, and by fair construction,
withholding from God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
more or less of the place and influence which the Scripture assigns
to them in the salvation of sinners ; and to be giving to men them
selves, or at least to creatures, a share in effecting their salvation
which the Scripture does not sanction. And when Calvinistic
principles are rejected or thrown into the background, not only
is something, more or less, of necessity taken from the Creator
and assigned to the creature, but an opening is made — an oppor
tunity is left — for carrying on this process of transferring to man
what belongs to God to almost any extent, until the scriptural
method of salvation is wholly set aside or overturned.

340

JOHN CALVIN.

[Essay VI.

Men who profess to derive their opinions in any sense from
the sacred Scriptures, must be substantially — whether they will
or not, and whether they are aware of it or not — Socinians,
or Arminians, or Calvinists. The distinctive characteristic of
Socinianism is, that it virtually invests men with the power of
saving themselves, of doing everything that is needful for effecting
their own salvation.* Arminianism virtually divides the work of
saving men between God and men, and is more or less Pelagian
according to the comparative share and influence which it assigns
to the Creator and the creature respectively. Calvinism, and that
alone, gives to God the whole honour and glory of saving sinners,
— making men, while upheld and sustained in the possession and
exercise of all that is necessary for moral agency, the unworthy
and helpless recipients at God's hand of all spiritual blessings.
Calvinism not only withholds, in point of fact, from men, any share
in the work of effecting their own salvation, and ascribes this
wholly to God; but when rightly understood and faithfully applied,
it prevents the possibility of any such perversion of the gospel
scheme of redemption, of any such partition of the work of men's
salvation. And it is upon this ground that it was so thoroughly
adapted, not only to overturn from the foundation the whole
system of destructive heresy that had overspread the church at the
time of the Reformation, but to prevent, in so far as it might be
adopted and carried out, the possibility of the reintroduction of such
a dangerous perversion of scriptural principles and arrangements.
Popery, if we view it in relation to the method of salvation,
and have respect more to its general spirit and tendency than to
its specific tenets, may be said to belong to the head of Arminian
ism. Papists concur with the Arminians in admitting the divinity
and atonement of Christ and the agency of the Spirit ; but they
concur with them also in not giving to the Son and the Spirit the
commanding and determining position and influence in the salva
tion of sinners which the Scripture assigns to them. Popery thus
realizes the general idea above indicated of Arminianism, viz. that
it divides the work of saving sinners between God and sinners
themselves. What may be called the Arminianism of Popery — in
a sense which will be easily understood from the explanation that

* Coleridge tells us of a friend of
his, " a stern humorist," who bound
up a number of Unitarian tracts into

a volume, and titled it upon the back,
" Salvation made easy; or, Every man
his own redeemer."

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 341
has now been given — was, before the Reformation, of a very
Pelagian cast, — that is, the work of saving sinners was practically
taken almost entirely from the Creator and assigned to the creature;
— not, indeed, that men in general were represented, according to
the Socinian view, as able to save themselves, but, what is the
special peculiarity of Popery in regard to this subject, men were
represented as on the one hand able to do a good deal for saving
themselves, and then as dependent for the remainder, not merely
upon the Saviour and the Spirit, but also upon fellow-men and
fellow-creatures, upon saints and angels. And for this complicated
system of antiscriptural perversion of the way of salvation, the
only effectual cure, the only radical remedy, was the great Cal
vinistic principle, which distinctly, consistently, and unequivocally
ascribes the whole salvation of sinners, from first to last, to the
grace and the power of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost. This perversion of the way of salvation was most congenial to
man's natural inclinations and tendencies. Everything had been
done which human and Satanic skill could devise, to give it a
commanding influence over the whole current of men's thoughts
and feelings. It was firmly established over the whole of Chris
tendom at the Reformation; and if it were to be dealt with at all,
it would require the strongest appliances — the most powerful and
thoroughgoing influences — to counteract it, to drive it out and to
keep it out. And this was what Calvinism, and Calvinism alone,
— looking to the natural fitness of things, the ordinary operation
of means, — was adequate to effect. Calvin derived his system of
doctrine from the study of the sacred Scriptures, accompanied by
the teaching of the Divine Spirit. But there is nothing in the
fullest recognition of this that should prevent us — especially when
we are comparing Calvin with the other Reformers who enjoyed
the same privileges — from noticing and admiring the grasp and
reach of intellect, the discernment and sagacity, which God had
given to Calvin in such large measure, and which fitted him so
peculiarly for the station and the work that were assigned to him.
And this view of the admirable suitableness of Calvinism to go to
the root of the evils that polluted the church and endangered the
souls of men at the time of the Reformation, is confirmed by the
consideration, that all subsequent deviations from Calvinism in the
Protestant churches — whether leading in the direction of rational-

342 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
ism or traditionalism, whether pointing towards Socinianism or
Popery — have tended to bring back, in some form or degree, the
great ante-Reformation heresy, — the great heresy, indeed, of all
times, — that of taking the work of men's salvation from the
Creator and assigning it to the creature.
With respect to Calvin's views in regard to the worship and
government of the church, we had an opportunity, in discussing
Principal Tulloch's " Leaders of the Reformation," to state briefly
what they were, and to point out their magnitude and importance,
as throwing a flood of light upon the whole subject to which they
relate. His great principle of the unlawfulness of introducing
anything into the worship and government of the church without
positive scriptural sanction, evidently went to the root of the
matter, and swept away at once the whole mass of sacramentalism
and ceremonialism, of ritualism and hierarchism, which had grown
up between the apostolic age and the Reformation, which polluted
and degraded the worship of God, and which, in themselves and
in their connection with unsound views on the subject of justifica
tion, were exerting so injurious an influence on men's spiritual
welfare. Any other principle, or rule, or standard that could
have been applied to this whole subject, must have been defective
and inadequate, and must have left at least the root of the evil
still subsisting, to be a source of continued and growing mischief.
The fair and full application of Calvin's great principle, would at
once have swept away the whole mass of corruption and abuse
which had been growing up for 1400 years ; would have restored
the purity and simplicity of the apostolic church ; and have pre
vented the introduction of unauthorized and injurious innova
tions into the Protestant churches, and saved a fearful amount of
mischief, occasioned by the efforts made to retain or reintroduce
such things.
A fact or two will illustrate the elevation of Calvin's position
in regard to this class of topics. Augustine bitterly deplored the
prevalence of rites and ceremonies in his time, and declared that
the condition of the Christian church in this respect had become
more intolerable than that of the old dispensation. But having,
to some extent at least, abandoned the principle of the exclusive
authority of the written word in regard to rites and ceremonies, —
though he still held it fast in regard to matters of doctrine, — he had
no means of grappling with this giant evil, — he did not venture

Essay VI.] JOHN CALVIN. 343
to attempt to do so ; and matters continued at least without any
improvement in this respect for 1000 years. Luther objected to
the mass of rites and ceremonies with which he found the worship
of the Christian church overspread, mainly upon two grounds : —
1st, That they had from their number become burdensome and
distracting, tending to supersede and exclude other things of more
importance ; and 2d, That the idea of meritoriousness, which was
commonly attached to them, more or less definitely, tended to
pervert and undermine the great doctrine of justification. But
these principles, though undeniably true, still left the whole subject
on a very vague and unsatisfactory footing. Calvin grappled with
it in all its magnitude and difficulty, by maintaining, 1st, That
they were in the mass unlawful, simply because of their want of
any positive scriptural sanction; and 2d, That many of them,
independently of mere tendencies, were positively idolatrous, and
were therefore directly and immediately sinful, as being violations
of the first and second commandments of the Decalogue.
So much for worship; and then in regard to government,
Calvin took the best practicable means both for putting an end
to all existing corruptions and abuses, and preventing their recur
rence : — 1st, By putting an end to anything like the exercise of
monarchical authority in the church, or independent power vested
officially in any one man, which was the origin and root of the
Papacy ; 2d, By falling back upon the combination of aristocracy
and democracy, which prevailed for at least the first two centuries
of the Christian era, when the churches were governed by the
common council of presbyters, and these presbyters were chosen
by the churches themselves, though tried and ordained by those
who had been previously admitted to office ; 3d, By providing
against the formation of the spirit of a mere priestly caste, by
associating with the ministers in the administration of ecclesiastical
affairs, a class of men who, though ordained presbyters, were
usually engaged in the ordinary occupations of society ; and Ath,
By trying to prevent a repetition of the history of the rise and
growth of the Prelacy and the Papacy, through the perversion of
the one-man power, by fastening the substance of these great prin
ciples upon the conscience of the church, as binding jure divino.
These great principles, so well fitted to sweep away all the exist
ing corruptions and abuses in the government of the church, and
to prevent their recurrence, are evidently in accordance with the

344 JOHN CALVIN. [Essay VI.
fundamental ideas on which the modern theory of representative
government is based, and with the leading features of the provi
sion, which has commended itself to all our best and wisest men,
for the management of those religious and philanthropic associa
tions which form one of the great glories of our age.
In looking back upon the last three centuries, whether we
survey the history of speculative discussion or of the practical
influence of Christian churches, we have no reason to be ashamed
of our Calvinism or our Presbyterianism ; but, on the contrary,
are just confirmed in our admiration and veneration for Calvin,
or rather in our .gratitude to the great Head of the church for all
the gifts and graces which He bestowed upon that great man, and
for all that He did through Calvin's instrumentality.

CALVIN AND BEZA.*

We have given some account of the doctrine promulgated, and
of the influence exerted upon important theological questions, by
the leading Reformers, — Luther, Zwingle, and Calvin, — keeping
in view chiefly the object of furnishing materials for the formation
of correct opinions in regard to those aspects of their doctrines,
character, and influence, which have been made subjects of con
troversial discussion in more modern times. We have also given
a view of the character and theological position of Melancthon,
chiefly because of the influence he seems to have exerted in leading
the Lutheran churches to abandon the Calvinism of their master,
and even contributing eventually to the spread of Arminianism
among the Reformed churches, — and because of the connection
alleged to exist, historically and argumentatively, between his
views and those of the Church of England. The only other man
among the Reformers whom we propose to bring under the notice
of our readers is Beza. Beza stood in a relation to Calvin very
similar in some respects to that in which Melancthon stood to
Luther ; and there is this further point of resemblance between
him and the Preceptor of Germany, that they were the two great
scholars of the Reformation, in the more limited sense in which
that word is commonly employed, — that is, they possessed a
thorough and critical knowledge of the classical writers of Greece
and Rome, they had a great talent and predilection for philo
logical expositions and discussions, and they exhibited, in an
eminent degree, that cultivation and refinement both of thought

* British and Foreign Evangelical Review. July 1861.

346 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
and style, which a thorough acquaintance with classical literature
is so well fitted to produce.
Beza was, during the latter years of Calvin's life, most in
timately associated with him. He was one of the very ablest
defenders of Calvin's system of theology. He succeeded to the
high position which Calvin had long held, not only in Geneva,
but in the Protestant world ; and was, for a period of above forty
years after Calvin's death, the most prominent and influential
theologian in the Reformed, as distinguished from the Lutheran,
church. He was thirty years of age before he openly and
thoroughly abjured the Church of Rome, — a step which involved
exile from his native country, and the sacrifice both of a handsome
private patrimony and lucrative ecclesiastical benefices. But
after joining the Reformed church, and settling in Switzerland,
first at Lausanne and then at Geneva, he was spared, in provi
dence, for considerably more than half a century in the full vigour
of his powers ; and during this long period he was enabled, by
the excellence of his character, the strength of his intellect, the
extent of his erudition and literary acquirements, and by his
strenuous and unwearied exertions, to confer the most important
benefits upon the church of Christ and the cause of Protestant
truth. He exerted great influence for a very long period in most of
the Reformed churches, and in none more than in that of Scot
land. He advised and encouraged our own great Reformer, John
Knox, in the whole course of his arduous struggle with the
Church of Rome, and strenuously exhorted him to take care that
Scotland should be delivered from Prelacy as well.as Popery. He
did much to form the character and to direct the views of Andrew
Melville, who went to Geneva when a very young man, who was
for some years a professor in the university of that city over which
Beza presided, and who continued to carry on an intimate cor
respondence with Beza during the whole of his noble struggle in
his native land against Prelatic and Erastian usurpation.
Beza's character, as might have been expected, has been sub
jected, like that of bis great coadjutors in the work of the Refor
mation, to the most unscrupulous Popish slanders. The grosser
charges which have been adduced against him are unsupported by
any appearance of evidence, and are utterly unworthy of notice.
They are still occasionally adverted to, as well as those of a simi-

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 347
lar kind against Calvin, by some of the obscurer class of Popish
controversialists, though we are not aware that since the publi
cation of Bayle's Dictionary, any Papist, who wished to put on
even the appearance of a regard for candour or fairness, has ven
tured to repeat them. There is, indeed, one charge against Beza's
character of a less heinous description, which has a foundation in
truth, and of which even the more respectable Romanists have
endeavoured to make the most. It is, 'that in early life he pub
lished a volume of poetical pieces, some of which were of a licen
tious description. The fact is true ; but the circumstances of the
case, which Popish writers, of course, usually conceal, were these :
— The poems were written before he was twenty years of age, and
before he joined the Protestant Church, though it appears that even
as early as his sixteenth year he had some religious convictions, and
some impression of the falsehood of Popery. He afterwards re
peatedly and publicly expressed his contrition for the offence. He
did what he could to suppress the circulation of the work, and he
at length published, by the advice of his friends, another edition
of the poems, in which all that was unbecoming and offensive was
omitted. He always, indeed, denied and defied his enemies to
prove, that at any time his conduct was such as his poems might
have led men to suspect. And it is certain, in point of fact, that
some measure of looseness and coarseness in conversation and in
writing was not uncommon then, among persons whose general
character and conduct were in other respects unobjectionable.
It may be worth while to quote one or two of his expressions
of contrition for this juvenile offence, which was at once a sin
against the law of God, and at the same time, by furnishing a
handle to his enemies, an obstruction, to some extent, to his future
usefulness. In 1560, soon after his settlement at Geneva, he
published one of the most important of his smaller works, entitled
"Confessio Christianas fidei." He dedicated it to his early in
structor, Melchior Wolmar, who had been professor of Greek in
the universities of Orleans and Bourges, who had the singular
honour of being also for a time the preceptor of Calvin, who
exerted an important and wholesome influence in the formation of
the character and views of his two illustrious pupils, and who has
been immortalized by their grateful and affectionate eulogies. In
this dedication to Wolmar, Beza gives a brief but very interesting
summary of his past history, and refers to the publication of his

348 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
poems in the following terms : — " As to these poems, no one
condemned them earlier, or now detests them more, than I, their
unhappy author. I wish they were buried in perpetual oblivion,
and that God would grant me that, since what is done cannot
become undone, those who read my other writings, so different
from these, would rather congratulate me on the Lord's kindness
to me, than continue to accuse one who, of his own accord, con
fesses and deplores this sin of his youth." Again, in his note upon
Matthew i. 19, having occasion to refer, in explanation of the
word •jrapaheuypbaTtaat, to a statement of an ancient author, about
some one who had exposed himself to disgrace by publishing
" versus parum honestos," he introduces this reference to his own
case, — "Quod et mihi juveni, necdum in ecclesiam Dei adscito,
evenit, quam tamen maculam spero me turn dictis turn factis
eluisse." All this ought in fairness to have shut the mouths of
his enemies. But it had no such effect, and Papists have con
tinued ever since to dilate upon the "Juvenilia," as the poems
were called, and to make them much worse than they are, by
perverting some of their statements, which mean no such thing,
into actual confessions of heinous crimes. This is the only charge
that can be substantiated against Beza's character. It does not
affect his position or influence as a Reformer, as it was not till
about ten years after the publication of his poems that he joined
the cause of the Reformation. And after he did take this impor
tant step, he was enabled, by God's grace, for more than half a
century, not only to maintain an unblemished public reputation,
but to afford, like his fellow-reformers, the most satisfactory
evidences of personal piety, of zeal for God's glory, and of
devotedness to the cause of truth and righteousness.
Beza's works are, to a large extent, controversial and occasional,
— that is, they arose very much out of the particular controversies
which at the time engaged the attention of the Reformers, — and
on this account perhaps they have been less read in subsequent
times than they deserved. They comprehend, however, full dis
cussions of all the various topics which engaged the attention of
the Reformers, and affected the cause of the Reformation and the
interests of Protestant truth, during the whole of the latter half
of the sixteenth century. They thus occupy a very important
place in a survey of the history of theological speculation at that
important era; and in all of them certainly Beza has afforded

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 349
abundant proof, that he was possessed of great talents and ex
tensive erudition, and that he was fully qualified in all respects to
expound and discuss the most profound and difficult questions in
theology. The Church of Rome was still a formidable opponent ;
and Beza has made some valuable contributions to the Popish
controversy, especially in his "Antithesis Papatus et Christianismi,"
subjoined to his Confession of Faith, in his " Apologia de Justi-
ficatione," and in his treatise on "the Notes or Marks of the
True Church." The controversy between the Lutheran and the
Reformed churches, which had been much embittered in the
interval between the death of Melancthon in 1560 and that of
Calvin in 1564, continued during the remainder of the century ;
and Beza was thus under the necessity, as Zwingle had been, of
spending a great deal of time and pains in exposing the absurdities
of consubstantiation, and of the strange notion invented to explain
and defend it, known by the name of the ubiquity or omnipresence
of Christ's body. The Lutherans became much more unsound
in their general theological views after the death of their master ;
and they proceeded so far at length as to reject what are commonly
reckoned the peculiarities of Calvinism, while they still continued,
though very inconsistently, to repudiate, even in the " Formula
Concordise," the semi-Pelagian or Arminian views about synergism
or co-operation, to which Melancthon had given some counte
nance. This change, of course, widened the subjects of contro
versy between the Lutheran and Reformed churches ; and Beza
in consequence was led to write much, and he did it with great
ability, on predestination and cognate topics. The fuller discussion
which this important subject underwent after Calvin's death, led,
as controversy usually does when conducted by men of ability, to a
more minute and precise exposition of some of the topics involved
in it. And it has been often alleged that Beza, in his very able
discussions of this subject, carried his views upon some points
further than Calvin himself did, so that he has been described as
being Calvino Calvinior. We are not prepared to deny altogether
the truth of this allegation ; but we are persuaded that there is
less ground for it than is sometimes supposed, and that the points
of alleged difference between them in matters of doctrine, respect
chiefly topics on which Calvin was not led to give any very formal
or explicit deliverance, because they were not at the time subjects
of discussion, or indeed ever present to his thoughts.

350 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
The principal subjects in regard to which the allegation re
ferred to has been made, are the question controverted between
the Sublapsarians and the Supralapsarians about the order of the
divine decrees in their bearing upon the fall of the human race, —
the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, — the extent of
the atonement, — and the nature and import of justification. It
may not be uninteresting to explain how the matter stands as to
the views of Calvin and Beza respectively upon these important
subjects. We mean to devote to this matter the principal portion
of our present discussion ; and we think it will appear, from the
survey, that there is really no very material difference between
the theology of Calvin and of Beza, any apparent discrepancy
arising chiefly from the usual tendency of enlarged controversial
discussion to produce a greater amount of exactness and precision
in details ; while it may also appear that Beza, by his very able
exposition and defence of the doctrines of Calvin, has rendered
important services to the cause of scriptural theology and Protes
tant truth, and has to some extent anticipated that exactness and
precision with respect to definitions and distinctions, which are
characteristic of the great systematic divines, especially the Dutch
and Swiss theological professors, of the seventeenth century. But
we must first notice the services of Beza in some other departments
of theological literature.
A class of subjects came to be discussed in the latter part
of the sixteenth century which had not engaged so much of the
attention of the earlier Reformers, — especially the Erastian and
the Prelatic controversies, — and in the discussion of these matters
Beza bore his part nobly as an able and faithful champion of the
truth. The Erastian controversy, indeed, as conducted between
Erastus and Beza, turned mainly upon the particular subject of
the excommunication of church members ; and it was not till the
following century, that the whole of the principles usually re
garded by Presbyterian divines as comprehended in the Erastian
controversy, were subjected to a full and thorough discussion.
Still, even at that early stage, the question was mooted, on which
the entire progress of the subsequent discussion,, down even to our
own day, has made it more and more manifest that the whole con
troversy hinges, — viz. whether or not Christ has appointed in His
church a government, distinct from, independent of, and in its
own province not subordinate to, civil magistracy. And on this

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 351
great question, as well as on the particular topic of excommuni
cation comprehended under it, Erastus took the side which has
always been supported by politicians, sycophants, and worldlings,
while Beza ably defended that which has been adhered to by all
intelligent and conscientious Presbyterians.
The subject of Prelacy was more fully discussed during this
period than that of Erastianism, mainly because the Church of
England, differing in this from almost all the Reformed churches,
adopted a prelatic constitution. Beza entertained very strong and
decided views upon this subject, and his two books, the one, " De
Triplici Episcopatu," and the other a reply to Saravia's " Trea
tise de Ministrorum Evangelii Gradibus," are still important and
valuable works in the contest between Presbytery and Prelacy ;
although Episcopalian controversialists have continued, down even
to the present day, to produce garbled and mutilated extracts from
Beza as well as from Calvin, to prove that these great men were
favourable to the prelatic form of church government. Hadrian
Saravia, his principal opponent upon this subject, had been a
minister in the Low Countries, and was ultimately settled as a
prebend of Canterbury, where he became intimate with Hooker.
He, of course, knew well that Beza was a decided Presbyterian,
and indeed he gives him the exclusive credit of preventing Prelacy
from being adopted in the Reformed churches. " Nam hoc audeo
affirmare, si unus D. Beza episcopos retineri ecclesise judicasset
utile, nullse ab iis abhorrerent Reformats ecclesise, quae hodie
episcopos nullos admittere primum reformationis esse caput sesti-
mant."* This is really doing Beza too much honour; for we
may confidently assert, that Andrew Melville would have kept
Prelacy out of Scotland at least, even if Beza had been tempted
to abandon the cause of Presbytery. It is, however, a fine testi
mony to the important and extensive influence which Beza exerted,
in maintaining in the Protestant churches that form of govern
ment which has the full sanction of apostolic practice as set before
us in the New Testament, — confirmed by the testimony of the
only genuine and authentic remains of apostolic men, the Epistles
of Clement and Polycarp, — and which was decidedly approved of
by the great body of the Reformers.
Beza was one of the very first who attempted anything in an

* Prologus ad Examen Tractatus de Triplici Episcopatu.

352 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
important department of theological literature, which has since
his time received a great deal of attention. We mean what is
now usually comprehended under the two heads of criticism and
exegesis, — the former including everything bearing upon the
settlement of the true text of the Greek New Testament, or of
the actual words which should be held to constitute it ; and the
latter including everything bearing upon the exact grammatical
interpretation of all the words and phrases which are found to
compose it. And Beza's labours in these departments, including
his different editions of the Greek text from MSS., and his trans
lation and annotations or commentary, were such as — consider
ing the circumstances in which he was placed, and the means and
opportunities he enjoyed — reflect great credit upon his scholarship
and critical acumen. A very unjust and unfair attack has been
made upon Beza's character and labours, through the medium of
his translation of the New Testament into Latin, and his annota
tions or commentary upon it, by Dr Campbell of Aberdeen, in
the tenth of his " Preliminary Dissertations to his Translation of
the Gospels ; " and as we remember receiving from the perusal of
this Dissertation in our student days an unfavourable impression
of Beza, which we have been long satisfied was thoroughly unjust,
we think it proper to make some observations upon it.
Dr Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations form a work which
is in many respects very valuable, — one of the most important
contributions, indeed, which have been made by Scotland to a
department of theological study far too little cultivated among
us — the critical exposition of the New Testament. It is a work,
however, which ought to be read with^niuch caution, as there is
not a little about it that is very defective\ and objectionable, and
fitted to exert an injurious influence upon Hie minds of students
of theology. Dr Campbell was a very great pretender to im
partiality and candour. But it is very plain, th^t heHiacf his
blinding and perverting prejudices like other meiu'lnd that these
were not in favour of what we have been accustomed to regard
as the most important truths revealed in God's word, or of the
men who were most zealous in defending them. We had for
merly an opportunity of pointing out* how destitute Dr Campbell
was of all adequate sense of the importance of sound doctrine,
* P. 3.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 353
and how incompetent, in consequence, he was to appreciate aright
the most important service rendered to the church by the Refor
mers. Such a man was not to be expected to have any liking to
so able, faithful, and zealous a champion of Scripture truth as
Beza was. And accordingly, in the Dissertation formerly referred
to, he has made an attack upon Beza's Latin translation of the
New Testament, and upon his character generally, which we
think belies all his loud and frequent professions of fairness and
candour. The general charge which he adduces against Beza, and which
he illustrates by a detail of instances, is that — under the influence
of theological prejudice and partisanship — he mistranslates a
number of passages, and even acknowledges that he had done this
in order to promote his own theological views, or to deprive those
of his opponents of some appearance of scriptural support. The
case is put by Dr Campbell in a very unfair and exaggerated
form, and in such a way as evidently to insinuate a charge against
Beza's integrity in dealing with the word of God. He has ad
duced nothing, however, which — even were it all true and correct
— would amount to a proof of anything like a want of integrity.
For there is not the slightest ground to allege, that Beza either
introduced into his translation, or brought out in his annotations,
anything but what he honestly believed to be the true and real
mind of God in His word. The charge derives its whole plausi
bility from these two things : — 1st, That Beza was not always
sufficiently careful to keep distinct the functions of the mere trans
lator and those of the commentator, and did in consequence some
times deviate in his translation from the literal meaning of the
mere words, that he might bring out more plainly and distinctly
what he believed to be the true scriptural sense of the passage ;
and 2d, That he sometimes assigned, as the reason for this devia
tion, that a more literal translation of the mere words would
seem to contradict some other portion of Scripture, or some truth
which he believed to be taught there, — a statement on which,
wherever it occurs, Dr Campbell puts an unfair and offensive
construction, as if it were a confession of a dishonourable or
fraudulent motive or purpose. Now, this conduct of Beza indi
cates, no doubt, a defective and erroneous conception of the pre
cise and proper functions of the mere translator, as distinguished
from the commentator ; but it should not be regarded as incon-
VOL. I. 23

354

CALVIN AND BEZA.

[Essay VII.

sistent with integrity, especially when we take into account the
circumstances in which the translation was put forth, and the
relation between it and the commentary. Beza's translation of
the New Testament into Latin was not published, or intended to
be used, separately or by itself, but was printed alongside of the
original Greek, while the Vulgate Latin version was also inserted
in a third parallel column ; and the annotations subjoined at the
foot of the page, were intended chiefly to explain the reasons of
the translation, which was thus virtually embodied in the com
mentary as a part of it.
The true state of the case will be better understood by advert
ing to the instances which Dr Campbell founds upon; some of
which indeed are based upon misrepresentation, and others are
mere specimens of wire-drawn criticism and special pleading, illus
trating nothing but his unfairness and anxiety to make out a case.
One is, that in Acts xiv. 23, Beza has translated the words
XetpoTovncravTes Se avroK Trpeo-fivrepow;, " quumque ipsis per
suffragia creassent presbyteros ; " — and this Dr Campbell repre
sents as an unfair translation of the word %eipoToveco, in order to
sanction the doctrine of the popular election of ministers. That
Beza believed in the doctrine of the right of the Christian people
to the substantial choice of their pastors, and that he regarded this
passage as a proof of it, is certain; and no man of good sense and
sound judgment, who has deliberately and impartially examined
his writings, can entertain any doubt of this.* But the unfairness
of the version cannot be established ; for Beza certainly thought,
whether rightly or wrongly, and many other competent judges
have agreed with him, that he gave here the most literal and exact
rendering of the word ^eipoToveto, and that any other version would
have come short of bringing out the whole meaning of what was
implied in it. On several occasions Beza has translated travre';
avdpcoTroi, not by omnes homines, but by quivis homines, — that is,
men of all sorts and in all varieties of circumstances, without dis
tinction or exception ; and Dr Campbell represents every instance

* We are aware that the accuracy
of this view of Beza's sentiments upon
this subject was disputed by some of
the early defenders of the Church of
England, — by some of the champions
of patronage and moderatism about
the period of the secession from the

Church of Scotland in last century, —
and more recently, with much less
knowledge of the subject, by Sir
William Hamilton ; but we do not
regard any of these facts as requiring
any modification of the statement
made in the text.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 355
of this sort as an unfair perversion of Scripture to serve Calvinistic
purposes. Beza, of course, honestly believed that quivis brought
out more accurately the real mind of the inspired writer in these
passages than omnes did, as it would have been generally under
stood ; and in this we have no doubt that he was right. It would
have been more accordant, however, with correct views of the
precise functions of a translator, to have retained the word omnes,
and explained its sense in the notes as a commentator. But con
sidering the circumstances formerly adverted to, as to the object
of his translation, and the relation in which it stood to his annota
tions, it is quite unfair to represent this as a violation of integrity.
Perhaps the worst case for Beza which Dr Campbell has adduced
is his translation of Heb. x. 38, and in this he has been followed
by the authors of our authorized version. In this passage Beza
has, without warrant from the original, inserted the word quis, —
in our version any man, — to prevent the text from appearing to
discountenance the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
This was certainly an unwarrantable deviation from the proper
functions of a translator ; though it ought to be mentioned, in
justice to Beza and our translators, that Grotius (in loc), who did
not believe in the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance, agreed with
Beza in thinking that some countenance is given to the insertion
by the passage in Habakkuk, here quoted by the apostle ; and that
— as is noticed by Dean Trench, in his admirable work " On the
Authorized Version of the New Testament, in connection with
recent Proposals for its Revision"* — the same sense is assigned
to the passage upon purely philological grounds by De Wette
and Winer, who had no Calvinistic predilections.
The most unwarranted and unjust of Dr Campbell's instances
of Beza's alleged unfairness, is that founded on, and suggested
by, his translation of 1 John iii. 9 — 7ra? 6 yeyewn/jLevoi; eic 0eov
afiaprtav ov trotei, which he translated — quisquis natus est ex Deo
peccato non dot operam. Of course Beza's reason for, and object
in, translating the last words of the clause, peccato non dat operam,
— instead of peccatum non facit, as the Vulgate has it, — was, as he
states explicitly, to avoid the appearance of the passage teaching
the doctrine of the sinless perfection of regenerate persons in this
life, and thus contradicting many explicit declarations of Scripture.

* 2d Edition, p. 199.

356 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
So far this instance is exactly similar to those already adverted
to, in which the proper functions of the translator and the com
mentator are not kept sufficiently distinct. But Dr Campbell
farther makes Beza's translation of this passage, combined with
his annotations or commentary on two other passages, — Matt. v.
20 and vii. 23, — the foundation of a more general and more serious
charge against his character and teaching. He distinctly accuses
him of having for his object in these passages, " kindly to favour
sinners, not exorbitantly profligate, so far as to dispel all fear
about their admission into the kingdom of heaven,"* and of endea
vouring with this view to elude the force of our Lord's declaration^
and " reconcile it to his own licentious maxims." He supports
this very heavy charge by perverting Beza's statements in these
passages, in order to extract from them the sentiment, that men
need have no doubt of getting to heaven unless they were, and
continued to be, gross and heinous sinners. Now, this is really, in
plain terms, a misrepresentation and a calumny. The passages
adduced manifestly afford no ground whatever for the allegation,
that Beza intended to teach the doctrine ascribed to him ; and we
can scarcely persuade ourselves that Dr Campbell himself believed
that the proof , which he adduced was sufficient to establish his
charge. It is perfectly plain that Beza, in the passages quoted
or referred to, intended to teach and did teach this doctrine, and
no other, viz. that the fact that men are still sinners in God's
sight — sinning every day in thought, word, and deed — was not of
itself a sufficient reason why they should conclude, that they had
not been united to Christ by faith, and why they might not enjoy
good hope through grace ; while he has never said anything fitted,
and much less intended, as is alleged, to lead men to remain at
ease in their sins, because sure of heaven, if only they are " not
exorbitantly profligate." Dr Campbell quotes in the original Latin,
a sentence from the middle of Beza's note on 1 John iii. 4, where
this matter is most fully explained, and does so for the purpose
of showing that Beza acknowledged, that his object in giving the
translation peccato non dat operam instead of peccatum non facit,
was to shut out the appearance of this statement countenancing
the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life. But in the sentence
almost immediately preceding that which he quotes for this purpose,

* Diss. x. p. v. s. 12. f Matt. v. 20.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 357
Beza expressly describes the kind of person to whom his statement
applies, -whom he regards as unregenerate, and therefore inad
missible into heaven, and shut out from the present hope of it, —
not as one who is merely " not exorbitantly profligate," but as one
" who does not strive after holiness, that is, in whom sin reigns," —
qui sanctitati non studet, id est, in quo regnat peccatum, — referring,
of course, to the apostle's description of the distinction between
the regenerate and the unregenerate, sin reigning in the latter, and
still present and very manifest at least to themselves, though not
reigning, in the former. And what makes the matter much worse
is, that in the words immediately succeeding the extract quoted by
Dr Campbell, Beza has expressly and solemnly protested against
this very misinterpretation of his meaning, in the following scrip
tural and most striking and edifying statement : —
" Why do we say this ? Is it to discountenance the earnest pursuit of
holiness ? is it to show that men should not every day be growing in grace ?
By no means ; for we teach that a perpetual progress in holiness is the certain
and perpetual effect of faith. Why then do we say this ? It is lest Satan
should deprive us of our comfort. For if we can conclude that we are in
Christ, only when we shall no longer need to offer the prayer, ' Forgive us our
debts,' who does not see, who does not feel, who does not experience a thousand
times every day, that it is quite in vain that this consolatidn is offered to us ? "
Dr Campbell had no right to distort and pervert the plain
meaning of Beza's statements, and to ascribe to him " licentious
maxims," which he had not only never countenanced, but had
expressly and solemnly disclaimed. Dr Campbell, it is to be
feared, disliked Beza's Calvinistic doctrine, and probably disliked
still more his strict Calvinistic morality and experimental godli
ness ; and the whole of his remarks upon Beza's translation of the
New Testament are characterized by uncandid misrepresentation.
It is quite unwarranted to represent Beza's general character as a
controversialist, as marked by a want of fairness and candour.
There are some controversialists who — from strong prejudice and
impetuosity, from rashness and recklessness, or from something
like a sort of natural obliquity of understanding and a deficiency
of sense and judgment — manage their disputes in such a way, that
we find some difficulty in determining whether a want of fairness
and candour is the worst charge that can be justly adduced against
them, and whether we are not warranted in accusing them of a
positive want of integrity. But men who are acquainted with

358

CALVIN AND BEZA.

[Essay VII.

Beza's writings, and who can judge of them with anything like
impartiality, will have no such difficulty in forming their estimate
of his character. They will not only reject the suspicion which
Dr Campbell has laboured to raise against his general integrity,
but they will be convinced that, though he sometimes indulged
most unwarrantably in the severity of invective against opponents,
which was then so common, he showed no disposition to take
unfair advantages, or to practise the mere artifices of controversy,
but manifested habitually no ordinary measure of impartiality
and candour; in short, they will probably conclude, that Beza
possessed a much larger amount of integrity and fairness than Dr
Campbell did, though he did not make so ostentatious a parade of
these qualities.*
The chief points, as we have mentioned, on which it has been
alleged that Calvin and Beza differed in their theological senti
ments, and that Beza was more Calvinistic than Calvin, are the
order of the divine decrees in their bearing upon the fall as contro
verted between the Sublapsarians and the Supralapsarians, — the
imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, — the extent of the
atonement, — and the nature and import of justification ; and to
each of these four points we now propose to advert in succession,
contemplating them chiefly in their historical aspects.
I. The controversy been the Sublapsarians and the Supra
lapsarians is one of no great intrinsic importance, though it has

* As this is a grave matter, we give
Beza's note in full, putting in italics
the sentence which Dr Campbell quotes
from it, and quotes in the original
Latin. We are entitled to assume
that he had read the whole of what we
are about to quote.
' ' Quisquis operam dat peccato — tr«j
o -ttoiuv tti" (zftxpTia.li (1 John iii. 4).
Dare operam peccato, et purificare se,
opponuntur. Itaque s-oku xfiaprixu
difiert hoc loco ab upapTuvtiv simpli-
citer accepto. Sed de eo demum dici-
tur qui sanctitati non studet, id est,
in quo regnat peccatum. Idque ita
esse non modo liquet ex antithesi, sed
etiam ex eo quod supra commemoravit
(c. i. ver. 8, et c. ii. ver. 1), ex tota
denique Scriptura et rei experientia
perpetua. Itaque non homines sed
immstra hominum sunt Pelagiani, Ca-

thari, Cselestiani, Donatistse, Anabap-
tistss, Libertini, qui ex hoc loco perfec-
tionem illam somniant, a qua absunl
ipsi omnium hominum longissime. Quor-
su m autem hoc ? An ut studium sanc-
timonise damnemus ? An ut homines
doceamus quotidie non ' progredi V
Miniine profecto, quum perpetuum
sanctificationis progressum doceamus
certum ac perpetuum esse fidei effec-
tum. Quorsum ergo? Nempe ne
Satan nobis hanc consolationem nos
tram eripiat. Nam si turn demum
nos in Christo esse colligemus, quum
non amplius indigebimus ilia preca-
tione, et remitte nobis debita nostra,
quis non videt, quis non sentit, quis
non millies quotidie experitur, frustra
nobis hanc consolationem proponi ? " —
Theodori Bezsi Annotationes Majores
in Nov. Test. 1594, p. 609.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 359
occasionally been discussed with considerable keenness. In
modern times, indeed, it is much more frequently and fully dwelt
upon by Arminians than by Calvinists. They usually labour to
give prominence to this matter, as if it were a topic of great im
portance, about which Calvinists were at irreconcilable variance
among themselves; insinuating at the same time that Supralap-
sarianism — which is more likely to appear harsh and offensive to
man's natural feelings — is the truest and most consistent Cal
vinism, though in point of fact it has been held by comparatively
few Calvinistic theologians. This artifice seems to have been first
tried by Baro, the Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge,
who was compelled by the academical authorities to resign his
office because of his anti-Calvinistic notions. It was adopted by
Arminius himself ; and he has been followed in this by most of
those who have been called after his name, including even, though
in a less offensive form, Richard Watson, whose "Theological
Institutes " is the leading text-book of the evangelical Arminian
ism of the Wesleyan Methodists.
We do not intend to dwell at length upon the topics usually
introduced into this controversy, because they scarcely lie within
the line of legitimate discussion, and because to give them much
prominence is really to countenance the unfair use which the
Arminians have commonly made of this subject. It is usually
discussed in the works of the great systematic divines of the seven
teenth century, under the heads of " The Object of Predestina
tion," and " The Order of the Divine Decrees." The question is
usually put in. this form, whether the object of the decree of' pre
destination, electing some men to eternal life and leaving others
to perish, be man unfallen or man fallen; or, in other words,
whether we should conceive of God as in the act of electing some
men to life and passing by the rest, contemplating men, or having
them present to His mind, simply as rational and responsible beings
whom He was to create, or as regarding them as fallen into a state
of sin and misery, from which He resolved to save some of them,
and to abstain from saving the rest. Those who go above and
beyond the fall, and regard the object of the decree of predestina
tion as man or the human race, viewed as not yet created and
fallen but simply as to be created, are called Supralapsarians; while
those who stop as it were before the fall, and regard the object of
the decree of predestination as man or the human race, viewed as

360 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
already fallen into a state of sin and misery, are called Sublapsa
rians. It is evident that this question virtually resolves into that
of the order of the divine decrees, — or the investigation of this
topic, how we should conceive of the relation in point of time be
tween the different decrees, or departments of the one decree, of
God in regard to the human race. The fundamental Supralapsa-
rian position, as above stated, is virtually identical with this one,
— that we ought to conceive of God as first decreeing to manifest
His character in saving some men and in consigning the rest to
misery ; then, in sequence and subordination to this decree, resolv
ing to create man, and to permit him to fall into a state of sin ;
while the fundamental Sublapsarian position is, that we ought to
conceive of God as first decreeing to create man and to permit
him to fall, and then as resolving to save some men out of this
fallen and corrupt mass, and to leave the rest to perish. The
whole history of the discussion which has taken place between
Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians shows, that this really em
bodies the true state of the question ; and this again shows, that
the question runs up into topics which lie beyond the reach of our
faculties, and which are not made known to us in Scripture. And
this general position is confirmed by the fact, that both parties
admit that there is not any real succession of time in the divine
mind, and that the whole of the decree or decrees of God with
respect to the human race are in truth one simple undivided act
of the divine intelligence, exercised in accordance with all the
perfections of the divine nature.
The views which most naturally and obviously £ccur in sur
veying the discussions which have taken place on this subject, are
such as these. It seems plainly enough to have been made the
principal design of the revelation which God has put into our
hands, to inform us of the fall of man from the estate in which he
was created into an estate of sin and misery ; and especially of the
great and glorious scheme which God has devised and executed
for saving some men from this condition of guilt, depravity, and
wretchedness, and bringing them into an estate of salvation by a
Redeemer. Accordingly Scripture tells us little or nothing that
does not bear more or less directly upon these objects. It tells us
very little of God's plans and purposes, except what we see actually
being executed or carried into effect, in the process by which some
men are saved from the death in sins and trespasses in which all

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 361
men lie, and are prepared for everlasting blessedness. This is the
substance of what God is now doing with the race of man, and
this is the substance of what He has represented himself in His
word, as from eternity decreeing or purposing to do. In the absence
of any definite scriptural information, we have no satisfactory
materials for ascertaining more than this concerning the divine
counsels and plans, and we should carefully abstain from preca
rious and conjectural speculations upon topics which lie so far
beyond the reach of our capacities. We can scarcely frame a con
ception of any plans or purposes which God could have formed
concerning the eternal salvation of men, which did not assume or
imply, that they were regarded or contemplated as having all
fallen into a state of sin and misery, from which some of them
were to be rescued. And thus it appears that, practically, any
conception we can form of God's act in predestinating some men
to life and in passing by the rest, must proceed substantially upon
Sublapsarian principles. The Supralapsarian theory is founded
rather upon abstract reasonings, by which we follow out the con
nection of doctrines in the way of speculation, than upon any direct
information that is given us in Scripture. And however plausible,
or even conclusive, some of these reasonings may appear to be, we
can scarcely fail to feel that in prosecuting them we are involved in
matters which are too high for us, and with respect to which it is
impossible for us to attain to anything like firm and certain footing.
It may be said that all Calvinists agree in everything which
almost any Calvinist regards as taught upon this subject in Scrip
ture with clearness and certainty. They all believe that God,
according to the eternal counsel of His own will, hath unchange
ably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass ; and they include the
fall of Adam in God's eternal purpose, and in His sovereign exe
cution of that purpose in providence. And this of course is the
great difficulty, from which Sublapsarians cannot indeed escape,
but which seems to be somewhat aggravated upon the Supralap
sarian theory. For by that theory, God appears to be represented
as more directly and positively decreeing and appointing the fall, —
as a mean necessary for carrying into effect a purpose, — conceived
of as already formed, of saving some men, and leaving others to
perish. Although all Calvinists believe and admit that God fore
ordained the fall of Adam, and that He decreed to exercise, and
did exercise, the same providence or agency in regard to that event,

362

CALVIN AND BEZA.

[Essay VII.

as in regard to the other subsequent sinful actions of men, —
" having purposed to order it to His own glory,"* — yet most Cal
vinists have thought it more in accordance with the general repre
sentations of Scripture, and with the caution and reverence with
which we ought to contemplate the counsels and actings of Him
who is incomprehensible, but of whom we know certainly that He
is not the author of sin, to conceive of Him as regarding men as
already fallen into a state of sin and misery, when He formed the
purpose of saving some men and of leaving others to perish.
The difference, then, between Calvinists upon this subject is
not of any material importance. It does not affect the substance
of the doctrine which all Calvinists maintain in opposition to. the
Arminians. It is a point rather of abstract speculation upon the
logical consequences of doctrines, than a matter of direct revela
tion ; and it is one on which many judicious Calvinists, in modern
times, have thought it unnecessary, if not unwarrantable, to give
any formal or explicit deliverance, while they have usually adhered
to the ordinary representations of Scripture upon the subject,
which are at least practically Sublapsarian. Sublapsarians all
admit that God unchangeably foreordained the fall of Adam, as
well as every other event that has come to pass ; while they deny
that this doctrine can be proved necessarily to involve the conclu
sion, that, to use the word of our Confession of Faith, " God is
the author of sin," or " that violence is offered to the will of the
creatures," or that "the liberty or contingency of second causes
is taken away." f And Supralapsarians all admit that God's eter
nal purposes were formed in the exercise of all His perfections,
and upon a full and certain knowledge of all things possible as
well as actual, — that is, certainly future ; and more especially that
a respect to sin does come into consideration in predestination, or,
as Turretine expresses it, in setting forth the true state of the
question upon that point, " in prsedestinatione rationem peccatiin
considerationem venire, ut nemo damnetur nisi propter peccatum,
et nemo salvetur nisi qui miser fuerit et perditus." $ Even when

* Westminster Confession, c. vi. s. 1.
t C. iii. s. 1.
X Loc. iv. Q. ix. s. 7.— The Sub
lapsarians, while maintaining ' ' lapsu m
hominem esse proprium subjectum
turn electionis turn reprobationis,"
conceded to the Supralapsarians "lap-

sum hominis non esse causam repro
bationis," and held that theforesight of
the fall was present to the divine mind
in predestination, " non sub ratione
causse sed sub ratione connexaa con-
ditionis, quam intuitus est in omnibus,
sive electis sive reprobatis." — (Dave-

Essay VII.]

CALVIN AND BEZA.

363

this question used to be discussed among Calvinists, both parties,
though occasionally betrayed into strong statements in the excite
ment of controversy, admitted that the difference involved nothing
of material importance, and did not really affect the substance of
any doctrine revealed in Scripture. The Supralapsarians have
always been a small minority among Calvinistic divines, and have
had to defend their views against the great body of their brethren.
They have usually been men of high talent, with a great capacity
and inclination for abstract speculation, and considerable confi
dence in their own powers. In these circumstances, it is quite in
accordance with the well-known principles of human nature, that
they should have been specially disposed to overrate the importance
of their peculiar notions. And yet we find that they generally
concurred with the Sublapsarians in representing the difference as
one of no great moment. There never was a more able or more
zealous Supralapsarian than Dr William Twisse, the prolocutor of
the Westminster Assembly. No one has written in support of
Supralapsarian views at greater length or with greater keenness,
and yet he, to his honour, has made the following candid admis
sion as to the great importance of the points in which the opposite
parties agreed, and the small importance of the one point in which
they differed : —
" It is true there is no cause of breach either of unity or amity between
our divines upon this difference, as I showed in my digressions (De Prsedestina-
tione, Digress. 1), seeing neither of them derogates either from the prerogative
of God's grace, or of His sovereignty over His creatures to give grace to whom
He will, and to deny it to whom He will ; and consequently to make whom
He will vessels of mercy, and whom He will vessels of wrath ; but equally they
stand for the divine prerogative in each. And as for the ordering of God's
decrees of creation, permission of the fall of Adam, giving grace of faith and
repentance unto some and denying it to others, and finally saving some and
damning others, whereupon only arise the different opinions as touching the
object of predestination and reprobation, it is merely apex logicus, a point of
logic. And were it not a mere madness to make a breach of unity or charity
in the church of God merely upon a point of logic?"*
On this unnecessary and now obsolete subject of controversy,
it has been alleged that Calvin and Beza took opposite sides, —

nant Determinationes, Qu. xxvi. pp.
122-3, and De Prsedestinatione, p.
116.)

* The Riches of God's Love unto
the Vessels of Mercy, etc., in answer
to Hoard, p. 35.

364 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
that the former was a Sublapsarian, and the latter a Supralapsarian.
There is no doubt that Beza, in defending the doctrine of predes
tination, was led to assert Supralapsarian views ; though he was
not, as has been sometimes alleged, the first who broached them,
for they had been held by some of the more orthodox schoolmen,
as has been shown by Twisse and Davenant.* But, while Beza's
opinion is clear enough, it is not by any means certain on which
side Calvin is to be ranked, and this question — viz. whether
Calvin is to be regarded as a Sublapsarian or a Supralapsarian —
has been made the subject of formal and elaborate controversy.
The Sublapsarians have endeavoured to show that they are entitled
to claim Calvin's authority in support of their views, while Supra
lapsarians and Arminians have generally denied this, — the former
of these two classes, that they might claim his testimony in their
own favour, and the latter, that they might excite odium against
him, by giving prominence to all the strongest and harshest state
ments that ever dropped from him on the subject of predestina
tion. A specimen of the way in which this question, as to what
Calvin's views were, has been handled by Sublapsarians, will be
found in Turretine.f The case of the Supralapsarians is elabo
rately pleaded by Twisse, in his "Vindicias Gratise, potestatis,
ac providentise Dei;"$ while the Arminian view is brought out
by Curcellasus, in reply to Amyraldus, in his treatise "De jure
Dei in creaturas innocentes." §
All this, of course, implies that there is real ground for doubt
and for difference of opinion as to what Calvin's sentiments upon
this subject were ; and the cause of this is, that the question was
not discussed in his time, — that it does not seem to have been ever
distinctly present to his thoughts as a point to be investigated, — and
that, in consequence, he has not been led to give a formal and ex
plicit deliverance regarding it. This is the cause of the difficulty
of ascertaining what Calvin's opinion upon this point was ; and if
it be indeed true that this precise question he was never led
formally and deliberately to consider and decide, it is scarcely
worth while to spend time in examining the exact meaning of
statements which bear upon it only indirectly and incidentally.
At the same time, we are of opinion that the preponderance of

* Davenant, Determinationes,^. 121. I X Lib. i. Digress, viii. c. 2.
t Loc. iv. Q. ix. s. 30. \ § C. x. Opera, p. 762.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 365
evidence here is in favour of the Sublapsarians, — that is, we think
that, on taking a fair and impartial view of Calvin's general cha
racter and principles, and of all that he has written connected with
this matter, it appears more probable that, if the question had been
directly and formally proposed to him, and he had been called
upon to give an explicit deliverance regarding it, he would have
decided in favour of Sublapsarian views. But as matters stand,
we do not think that either party is entitled to claim him as an
actual adherent. There is a remarkable passage in Calvin's
"Tractatus de .ZEterna Dei Prsedestinatione," — which is pub
lished in Niemeyer's " Collectio Confessionum," under the title of
" Consensus Genevensis," — containing perhaps about as near an
approximation as anything he has written to a deliverance upon
this question. It cannot be reconciled with the Supralapsarian
view ; while at the same time that view, or something very like
it, is set aside rather as unwarrantable and presumptuous, than
as positively erroneous. We think it worth while to quote this
passage, not only because of its bearing upon the matter under
consideration, but also because it furnishes a good illustration of
the injustice often done to Calvin by men who have never read
his writings, and a specimen of the abundant evidence that might
be adduced of his genuine moderation, his thorough good sense, his
mature wisdom, and of the profound reverence and caution with
which he usually conducted his investigations into divine things.
Having occasion to refer to the difference between the two topics
of the bearing of God's foreordination and providence upon the
fall of Adam on the one hand, and the bearing of foreordination
and providence upon the election and reprobation, the salvation
and final misery, of fallen men individually on the other, — and this
virtually involves the point controverted between the Supralap
sarians and the Sublapsarians, — he expresses himself in the follow
ing words : — " Ceterum qusestionem hanc (i.e. the bearing of divine
foreordination and providence upon Adam's fall) non ideo tantum
parcius attingere convenit, quod abstrusa est ac in penitiore sanc-
tuarii Dei adyto recondita, sed quia otoisa curiositas alenda non
est, cujus ilia nimis alta speculatio alumna est simul ac nutrix.
Quamquam interim quae Augustinus Libro de Genesi ad literam
undecimo disserit, quum ad Dei timorem et reverentiam omnia
temperet, minime improbo. Altera autem pars (i.e. the bearing
of divine foreordination and providence upon the fate and destiny

366 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
of fallen men individually), " quod ex damnata Adae sobole Deus
quos visum est eligit, quos vult reprobat, sicuti ad fidem exercen-
dam longe aptior est, ita majore fructu tractatur. In hac igitur
doctrina, quse humanse naturas et corruptionem et reatum in se
continet, libentius insisto, sicuti non solum ad pietatem propius
conducit sed magis mihi videtur theologica (i.e. more inti
mately connected with a full exposition of the scheme of Christian
theology). Meminerimus tamen in ea quoque sobrie modesteque
philosophandum, ne alterius progredi tentemus quam Dominus
nos verbo suo deducit." * In this noble passage Calvin virtually
puts aside Supralapsarian speculations, and insists only on that
great doctrine of predestination, in the maintenance of which all
Calvinists are agreed. Beza, then, in his explicit advocacy of
Supralapsarianism, went beyond his master. We do not regard
this among the services which he rendered to scriptural truth;
especially as we are bound in candour to admit that there is some
ground to believe that his high views upon this subject exerted a
repelling influence upon the mind of Arminius, who studied under
him for a time at Geneva.
We may add some historical notices of the subsequent discus
sions connected with this subject, especially as the references we
have made to Dr Twisse will naturally suggest the inquiry, how
this matter was dealt with by the Westminster Assembly. In
addition to Beza, the most eminent men who defended Supralap
sarian views in the sixteenth century were Whittaker and Per
kins. These were the greatest divines in the Church of England
during the latter part of Queen Elizabeth's reign, — men quite
entitled to rank with Jewel and Hooker in point of ability and
learning, and superior to them in knowledge of the sacred Scrip
tures, and in acquaintance with the system of doctrinal theology.
But in the next generation the Sublapsarian view was advocated
by Dr Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, brother of Archbishop
Abbot, a very able divine and a thorough Calvinist. His opinion
upon this point was adopted by Bishop Davenant, and the other
English delegates to the Synod of Dort ; and Supralapsarianism
has not again been advocated by any very eminent theologian in
England except Twisse. The eminent men who most elaborately
and zealously defended Supralapsarianism in the seventeenth cen-

Niemeyer, p. 269.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 367
tury were Gomarus, Twisse, and Voetius, — all of them perhaps
more distinguished by their erudition, subtlety, and pugnacity,
than by their comprehensive ability, judgment, and discretion ;
though they have all rendered very important services to theo
logical literature. Gomar, who, when a young man, had visited
England and studied theology under Whittaker at Cambridge,
was the zealous opponent of the views which his colleague Arminius
laboured, at first secretly, and afterwards more publicly, to intro
duce into the university of Leyden. He resigned his chair when
Vorstius was chosen as his colleague upon the death of Arminius ;
and after officiating for a few years at Saumur, he was settled
at Groningen, and laboured there as professor of theology and
Hebrew during the remainder of his life. He was a member of
the Synod of Dort as one of the Belgic professors, and there he
openly and strenuously maintained his Supralapsarian views ; and
though he stood almost alone, he gave a great deal of annoyance
to the Synod by his vehemence and pertinacity. There were five
Belgic, theological professors members of the Synod, and they
formed one collegium. Three of them — Polyander, Thysius, and
Walaeus — entirely concurred in their Judicia on all the five points
on which the Synod gave a deliverance. The fourth — Sibrandus
Lubbertus, who, from Dr Balcanquhall's Letters, appears to have
exhibited a good deal of the temper and spirit of Gomar — gave in
a separate Judicium of his own, but subscribed also that of his
three colleagues. Gomar gave in a separate Judicium, differing
from those of his colleagues and of the great body of the members
of the Synod, in the one point of asserting the Supralapsarian
theory as to the object of predestination.
But the great question is, whether the Synod of Dort gave any
deliverance upon this point, and if so, what that deliverance was.
The Synod of Dort, representing as it did almost all the Reformed
churches, and containing a great proportion of theologians of the
highest talents, learning, and character, is entitled to a larger
measure of respect and deference than any other council recorded
in the history of the church. That the great body of the members
of the Synod were Sublapsarians is certain. This appears clearly
from the Judicia of the different colleges, as they were called, of
the divines who composed it. The collection of these Judicia
forms the second part of the important work, entitled, "Acta
Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti habitse," and constitutes the most

368 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
interesting and valuable discussion that exists of all the leading
points involved in the controversy between Calvinists and Armi
nians. These Judicia all take, more or less explicitly, Sublapsa
rian ground ; except that of Gomar, and that of the divines of
South Holland, who leaned to the Supralapsarian side, but thought
that it was not necessary for the Synod to decide this question, as
the difference was not very important in itself, and admitted of
being reconciled by explanations. The Synod seems to have
adopted this suggestion, and to have abstained from giving a
formal or explicit deliverance upon the point in dispute, though in
the general scope and substance of its canons it certainly takes
Sublapsarian ground. It has been contended, however, that the
Synod condemned Supralapsarian views; and this question gave rise
to a very keen controversy, which was carried on for a long time
by Gomar and Voet on the one side, and on the other by Maresius
or Des Marets, who succeeded Gomar as professor of theology
at Groningen. Voet, then a young man, was a member of the
Synod, indeed one of the delegates from South Holland. He lived
to a great age, surviving all the other members of the Synod, and
having been for many years professor of theology at Utrecht.
He became a man of prodigious learning, published many valuable
works, and was well known beyond the bounds of theological
literature by the controversies he carried on with Des Cartes.
Gomar and Voet, who had subscribed the canons of the Synod,
held their Supralapsarian views to the last ; and while they did
not deny that the great majority of the members of the Synod
were Sublapsarians, they maintained that the Synod, in its public
collective capacity, had done nothing to condemn the opposite
theory, while Maresius and others asserted that it had. We are
satisfied that on this point Gomar and Voet have the superiority
in the argument, and have succeeded in proving that the Synod
did not intend to frame, and did not frame, their canons so as to
make it impossible for Supralapsarians honestly and intelligently
to subscribe them, — that they did not intend to make, and did not
make, any definite opinion upon this point a term of communion,
or a ground of exclusion. The ground taken in the canons of the
Synod is indeed practically and substantially Sublapsarian ; but
the matter is not put in such a form as necessarily to exclude
Supralapsarians, who, without straining, can assent to all that is
in the canons as being true so far as it goes, though they do not

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 369
regard it as containing a full statement of the whole truth upon
the subject.*
The course pursued by the Synod of Dort upon this question \
was just that followed by the Westminster Assembly in the Con
fession of Faith which they prepared ; and the mode of dealing
with this matter adopted by these two most authoritative repre
sentatives of Calvinistic theology was, we are persuaded, marked
by great Christian wisdom. Dr Twisse, the prolocutor or president
of the Westminster Assembly, died before they had done much,
if anything, in the way of preparing their Confession. But there
can be little doubt that his writings must have exerted a consider
able influence upon the minds of many, in regard to a point which
he had elaborated so zealously. Baillie tells us that they had some
tough debates in the Assembly upon the subject of election, but
that this matter was at length harmoniously adjusted. As the
members were all decided Calvinists, these debates must have
turned only upon such minute and unimportant points as those
involved in the controversy between the Supralapsarians and the
Sublapsarians about the object of the decree of predestination ; and
the adjustment was effected, as the result proves, by the omission
in the Confession of any statement that might be fairly held to
contain or to imply a denial of Supralapsarianism. There are
two or three expressions in the canons of the Synod of Dort, which
Supralapsarians may require to explain, if not to qualify. But
there is nothing in the Westminster Confession to which they
would object, while it is also true that there is nothing in it that
sanctions their peculiar position ; and while it is equally true of it
as of the canons of Dort, that in developing the scheme of salva
tion, it adopts practically and substantially Sublapsarian ground.
We have no doubt that, as in the case of the Synod of Dort, the
great majority of the members of the Westminster Assembly were
Sublapsarians in their own convictions ; while, at the same time,
they intended to leave this an open question, and framed their

* The discussions on this subject
will be found in a Disputatio et Apo
logia, subjoined to the collected edi
tion of the works of Gomar ; in Voet's
" Disputationes Selectse," torn. i. p.
357, and torn. v. p. 602 ; and in Ma-
resius's "Theologus Paradoxus," pp.
97-108. Turretine's assertion, torn. i.

p. 377, that the Synod of Dort sanc
tioned the Sublapsarian doctrine as
being the more true, and better fitted
for quieting consciences, and for neu
tralizing the objections of adversaries,
is stronger than a fair view of the
whole facts of the case, as brought
out by Gomar and Voet, warrants.

VOL. I. 24

370

CALVIN AND BEZA.

[Essay VII.

statements in such a way as to exclude neither party. And this,
we have no doubt, was the course of true Christian wisdom; because,
whild, on the one hand, Supralapsarians can adduce in support of
their theory processes of argumentation which do not perhaps easily
admit of being directly answered, so that some men of speculative
capacities and tendencies would shrink from meeting the leading
Supralapsarian position with a direct negation ; yet, on the other
hand, it is plain that Scripture, in the ordinary current and com
plexion of its representations, assumes the fall of man, starts as it
were from that point, and is chiefly directed to the object of unfold
ing the provision made for remedying the effects of the fall, and the
way in which this provision is brought into full practical operation.
There has been no discussion upon this subject of any great
importance since the controversy which was carried on so long
and so angrily between Voet and Des Marets, about the middle of
the seventeenth century. The " Formula Consensus Helvetica,"
adopted as a test of orthodoxy by the Swiss churches in 1675,
the chief authors of which — Heidegger and Turretine — were de
cided Sublapsarians, contains a formal and explicit repudiation of
Supralapsarianism, thus contrasting unfavourably in point of wis
dom and good sense with the canons of the Synod of Dort and the
Confession of the Westminster Assembly. This injudicious pro
cedure was the more inexcusable, because those Calvinistic divines
who would have been most likely to shrink from a formal repu
diation of Supralapsarianism, would have been the most strenuous
opponents of the loose views of the Saumur divines about the im
putation of Adam's sin to his posterity and the extent of Christ's
atonement, against which principally the " Formula Consensus "
was directed.* Some attention was called to this subject by a dis
sertation of Mosheim published in 1724, " De Auctoritate Concilii
Dordraceni paci sacra? noxia," in which he adduced it as a serious
charge against the Synod that they had not condemned Supralap-

* This important document fur
nishes another and a worse instance of
the want of wisdom and foresight
which has been too often exhibited in
connection with the preparation and
imposition of symbolical books. Ca-
pellus was the colleague of Placssus
and Amyraldus at Saumur, and in
condemning the views of Placaeus

about imputation, and of Amyraldus
about the extent of the atonement,
they introduced into the Formula, and
thereby made a term of communion,
an explicit repudiation of the views of
Capellus, now almost universally re
ceived, about the origin and authority
of the Hebrew vowel points.

Essay VII.]

CALVIN AND BEZA.

371

sarian views. An elaborate answer to this dissertation was pub
lished in 1726 by Stephanus Vitus, professor in the German
Reformed Church at Cassel, entitled, "Apologia pro Synodo
Dordracena," and containing a great deal of curious matter. The
most important thing, however, in Vitus's " Apologia " is a proof
— the most full and elaborate with which we are acquainted — that
Luther, of whom Mosheim professed to be a follower, held as
high Calvinistic doctrine as the Supralapsarians ; that his fol
lowers, in renouncing his Calvinism, had sunk very much to the
level occupied by Erasmus in his controversy with their master ;
and that all the attempts which have been made by Lutheran
writers to disprove these positions have utterly failed. The ques
tion that had been agitated about the object of the decree of
predestination continued to be discussed in systems of theology,
though rather as a matter connected with the history of the past,
than as a living, subsisting, subject of controversy; and for. more
than a century and a half it may be regarded as having become
practically obsolete.*

II. The second topic to which we proposed to advert, is the
doctrine of the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity.
It has been alleged that, while Beza's views upon this subject
were distinct and explicit, in full accordance with the higher
and stricter tenets which have been generally held by Calvinistic
divines, Calvin's were much more vague and indefinite. It has
been contended that Calvin's views upon this doctrine were in
substance the same as those which were put forth by Placseus or
La Place at Saumur, and condemned by the National Synod of
the Reformed Church of France in 1644-45, and which have
been generally regarded by Calvinistic divines as amounting to a
virtual denial of imputation in the fair and legitimate sense of the
word. Almost all professing Christians, Romanists and Arminians

* Those who wish to examine this
subject upon its merits, will find very
able expositions of it, and conclusive
defences of Sublapsarianism, in Turre-
tine, loc. iv. qu. ix., and in De Moor's
Commentarius in Marckii Compen
dium, c. vii. sects. 17, 18, torn. ii.
pp. 63-72. The great storehouse of
materials on the Supralapsarian side
is Twisse's Vindici» Gratise, a folio

volume of 800 pages of close printed
Latin. Bishop Sanderson tells us that,
having a great admiration for Twisse,
and having begun to entertain doubts
of the truth of the Calvinistic theology,
in which he had been trained, he read
this book through to a syllable. We
think it somewhat doubtful whether
any other man ever performed this
feat.

372 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
as well as Calvinists, admit what may in some sense or other be
called the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, — that is, they
all admit that mankind, the human race, suffer on account of
Adam's sin, or are placed in a worse position, both with respect to
character and circumstances, as the result or consequence of that
sin, and of the relation in which they stand to him who committed
it. But there have been great differences of opinion among those
who professed to believe in divine revelation, both with respect to
the nature and amount of the deterioration that has taken place
in men's moral character and spiritual capacities through the fall;
and with respect to the nature of the relation subsisting between
Adam and his posterity, with which this deterioration is admitted
to be in some way connected. As we have at present to do only
with differences among men who are substantially Calvinists, we
may assume upon the first of these points — the nature and amount
of the deterioration — the truth of the doctrine which is held by
all Calvinists, and even by the more evangelical Arminians,
viz. that all men bring with them into the world a thoroughly
depraved moral nature, — a universal and pervading proneness or
tendency to sin, — which certainly leads, in the case of every in
dividual, to many actual violations of the divine law, which can
not be subdued or taken away by any human or created power,
and which, but for some special extraordinary divine interposi
tion, must issue in consigning men to everlasting destruction from
God's presence. This is the great fundamental doctrine in that
department of theological science which is now commonly called
anthropology, or the investigation of what man is. This doctrine
is just the assertion of a fact with respect to the moral character
of human nature, or the moral qualities, capacities, and tendencies
of men as they come into the world. Its truth or falsehood ought
to be investigated as a matter of fact, by the examination of all
the evidence, from any quarter, that legitimately bears upon it.
This great doctrine or fact is clearly revealed to us in the sacred
Scriptures, but it is not a matter of pure revelation. Something
may be learned concerning it from an examination of man's con
stitution, and from a survey of the doings of men collectively and
individually; and all that can be learned from these sources —
from psychology and history, from observation and experience —
fully accords with, and decidedly confirms, the information given
us upon the subject in Scripture. Jonathan Edwards' work on

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 373
" Original Sin" is devoted to the investigation of this great doc
trine or fact ; and it certainly establishes its truth or reality, by
evidence from Scripture, observation, and experience, which never
has been, and never can be, successfully assailed.
Now this great doctrine as to what man is, or as to the actual
moral character of human nature, is evidently, from the nature
of the case, the fundamental and most important truth upon the
whole subject to which it relates. It is plainly the most important
thing that can be known in regard to the natural condition of man,
the most important both theoretically and practically, in itself,
in its relation to the general scheme of Christian doctrine, and in
its bearing upon the duties which men are called upon to discharge.
All the other questions which have been agitated with respect to
the natural state and condition of man, may be said to be in some
sense subordinate and inferior to this one. They respect chiefly
the origin and cause, the explanation or rationale, of the great fact
which this doctrine asserts; and therefore they cannot rise in point
of intrinsic importance to the level of the question as to the reality
of the fact itself. The matter of fact, when once established by
its own appropriate evidence, must be admitted to be true, and
must be dealt with and applied as a reality, even though we knew
nothing, and had no means of knowing anything, about its origin
or cause ; and though we were unable to give any explanation or
solution of difficulties that might be started upon the subject,
viewed either in its relation to the moral government of God, or
to the responsibility of man. Upon all these grounds it is of the
last importance that men — especially those who are called upon
to instruct others in the way of salvation — should be thoroughly
established in the assured belief, that we all bring with us into
the world a thoroughly depraved moral nature, which infallibly
involves us in violations of the divine law, and subjects us -to the
divine wrath and curse ; and familiar with the whole evidence by
which the reality of this great fact can be established.
All Calvinists, many Arminians, and, indeed, we may say
almost all of whatever name or denomination, who have given
good evidence that they had honestly submitted their understand
ings to the authority of Scripture, and had cordially embraced the
truth as it is in Jesus, have admitted the truth of this humbling
and alarming doctrine with respect to the actual moral condition
of mankind. There have been considerable differences, indeed, as

374 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
to what was the most accurate way of stating and applying it.
But among Calvinists at least — and with them only we have at
present to do — the differences which have given rise to controversy
have turned, not upon the nature, import, and evidence of this
great fact as to what man by nature is, but upon the explanations
or theories which have been propounded as to its cause, ground,
or origin ; and especially as to the relation subsisting between
the first sin of Adam, and the moral character and condition of
his posterity. All who believe in the moral depravity of human
nature as an actual feature of character, universally attaching to
the race, admit, upon the authority of Scripture, that the origin
of this is to be traced to Adam's sin, and to the connection sub
sisting between him and his posterity; and the leading contro
versies upon the subject may be said to resolve into these two
questions : Have we any materials in Scripture that enable us to
draw out this general idea, of some connection subsisting between
the sin of Adam and the moral character of his posterity, into
more distinct and definite positions? and if so, What are the
precise positions to which the fair application of these materials
points ? All the discussions which have taken place among Cal
vinists about the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity may
be ranked under these general heads. The doctrine which has
been held upon this subject by the great body of Calvinistic
divines is this, that in virtue of a federal headship or representa
tive identity, established by God between Adam and all descend
ing from him by ordinary generation, his first sin is imputed to
them, or put down to their account ; and they are regarded and
treated by God as if they had all committed it in their own person,
to the effect of their being subjected to its legal penal conse
quences,— so that, in this sense, they may be truly said to have
sinned in him and fallen with him in his first transgression. Upon
this theory, the direct and immediate imputation of Adam's first
sin to his posterity, or the holding them as involved in the guilt or
reatus of that offence, is regarded as prior in the order of nature
and causality to the transmission and universal prevalence among
men of a depraved moral nature, and as being to some extent the
cause or ground — the rationale or explanation — of the fearful
fact that man is morally what he is, — a thoroughly ungodly and
depraved being. The great body of Calvinistic theologians have
believed that Scripture sufficiently warrants this definite doctrine

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 375
about the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or about the
true character of the relation subsisting between him and them,
and the bearing of the results of this relation upon their condi
tion ; and in this belief we are persuaded they are right. But
there have been some men who have held Calvinistic views in
regard to the actual depravity of human nature, and in regard to
the other departments of Christian truth, who have not been able
to find in Scripture a sufficient warrant for this doctrine, who
have in consequence rejected it, and have contented themselves
with very vague and indefinite views, or with no views at all,
upon this branch of the subject. And these men have generally
contended that Calvin himself was of their mind upon this ques
tion, and differed from the great body of those who, following
Beza in this matter, have been generally classed under the name
of Calvinists. It must be admitted that there is some plausible
ground for this allegation, though we believe that it cannot be
substantiated. Before proceeding to consider how the case stands upon this
point, it may be proper to explain somewhat the grounds usually
taken by those Calvinists who have not concurred with the ordi
nary Calvinistic doctrine. In surveying the history of the dis
cussions which have taken place upon this subject, we find even
among the minority of Calvinists who have rejected the generally
received doctrine of the direct and proper imputation of Adam's
sin, as the cause or explanation, pro tanto, of the universal pre
valence of a depraved moral nature among his posterity, three
pretty well marked divisions : — 1st, Some simply refuse to receive
the ordinary Calvinistic doctrine, on the ground that they see no
sufficient warrant for it in Scripture ; abstain from all further
discussion ; and profess to receive the fact of universal moral
depravity, as fully established by its appropriate evidence, with
out attempting anything in ihe way of accounting for it. 2d,
There are others who, wishing to adhere to the common ortho
dox phraseology, profess to admit imputation^ but evacuate it or
explain it away, by distinguishing between an immediate or
antecedent, and a mediate or consequent, imputation, — rejecting
the former, which is what Calvinists in general contend for, and
admitting only the latter, which is not imputation in any true and
proper sense. 3d, There are some who admit the substance of
the ordinary orthodox doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin,

376 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
but who abstain or shrink from the use of the phraseology in
which orthodox divines have been accustomed to express or em
body it. There is no good ground for alleging that Calvin is to
be ranked with either of the two first of these classes ; but it may
be contended, with some plausibility, that he might be ranked with
the third. And, indeed, we are disposed to admit that this is not
far from the truth, provided the admission be taken with these
qualifications, — that there is no ground to believe that he denied
or rejected any part of the doctrine which has been generally
held by Calvinists on this subject ; and that his not employing
very fully the phraseology commonly used by later Calvinists
when treating of this matter, is not to be ascribed (as it is in the
case of some of those whose writings have suggested to us this
third head in our classification) to his having considered this
phraseology, and having disliked or disapproved of it, but simply
to its having never been present to his mind.
Beza brought out this doctrine of the imputation of Adam's
sin to his posterity more fully and precisely than it had been
before. He expounded and developed it more fully than any
preceding theologian, — both as directly and in itself an element
in the guilt or reatus of the condition into which the human race
fell through Adam's transgression, and as the cause, ground, or
explanation of the actual moral depravity attaching to all men as
they come into the world. These more precise and definite views
had not occurred to Calvin, and do not seem to have ever been
distinctly present to his thoughts. The course which the discus
sion of this whole subject took in his time, not only did not tend
to lead his thoughts in that direction, but tended powerfully to
lead them in what may be called an opposite one. This is the
true and full explanation of the want of definiteness and precision
which, it must be admitted, characterize many of Calvin's state
ments about the imputation of Adam's sin viewed as a distinct
topic of discussion, as compared with the fulness and exactness
with which it was brought out afterwards ; while there is really
no reason to doubt that he held the whole substance of the doc
trine which has since been generally maintained by Calvinistic
divines. It may be worth while to give some account of the way in
which this subject was usually discussed in Calvin's time ; as this
will not only furnish an explanation of the reason why he did not

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 377
usually give so much prominence as might have been expected
to the doctrine of imputation, and why he did not always treat
it with great exactness and precision, but will also expose the
inaccuracy of a notion which seems to prevail, that this doctrine
of imputation is a mere Calvinistic peculiarity, — nay, even that
it is the most extreme, objectionable, and mysterious dogma of
ultra-Calvinism. The doctrine of the fall of the whole human race in Adam was,
from the beginning, a part of the creed of the universal church ;
and, from Augustine's time, this had been generally spoken of
under the designation of the imputation of Adam's sin to his pos
terity. Most of the schoolmen continued to use this language,
though in their hands the doctrine of Augustine was obscured
and corrupted. The whole subject of original sin was discussed
at length in the Council of Trent, in the year 1546 ; and, through
the respect generally professed and entertained for Augustine,
the deliverance of the Council regarding it was in the main true
and sound so far as it went, — containing little of positive error, —
though chargeable with vagueness, obscurity, and much imperfec
tion. But the discussion brought out some of the errors which
had been broached by the schoolmen, and still prevailed exten
sively in the Church of Rome. Albertus Pighius, who was one
of the leading opponents of Calvin, and against whom Calvin's
two most important controversial treatises — the one on Free-will
and the other on Predestination — were principally directed, and
Ambrosius Catharinus, another eminent divine of that period,
attended the Council of Trent, and took a prominent part in its*
discussions. In the debates on original sin, these two theologians
zealously maintained the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity ;
and Catharinus delivered a long address, the substance of which
is given, by Father Paul in his History of the Council,* and in
which he laboured to establish this doctrine from the testimony of
Scripture and the authority of Augustine. But then these men
also maintained that the guilt of Adam's first sin imputed, consti
tuted the vjhole of the sinfulness of the estate into which man fell,
and they denied the transriiission of an actually corrupt or de
praved moral nature from Adam to his descendants ; and as they
also held a doctrine which had been generally adopted by Romish

* Lib. ii. s. 65.

378 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
theologians, and has been formally sanctioned by the Council of
Trent, — viz. that this imputation of Adam's sin was wholly done
away in Christ, and that an actual deliverance from it, and all its
consequences, is communicated to all men in baptism, — they thus
practically reduced the sinfulness of man's natural condition to
little or nothing, and deprived it of any great power to impress the
minds of men. Father Paul tells us that the doctrine of Pighius
and Catharinus was very well received by many of the bishops ; but
that, as the authority of most of the theologians was opposed to it,
they did not venture to adopt and sanction it. The theologians,
however, who opposed it, did not deny the imputation of Adam's
sin to his posterity; this was universally admitted ; they maintained
that this imputation did not constitute the whole of original sin,
but that there was also, in conjunction and in connection with
this, the transmission from Adam" to his descendants of a deterio
rated moral nature. And this view, which certainly could be just
as conclusively established by testimonies both from the Bible
and Augustine, prevailed in the Council. Cardinal Bellarmine,
accordingly,* says, that the doctrine of Pighius and Catharinus
is partly true and partly false, — true, in so far as it admits the
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, — and false, in so far as
it maintained that this imputation was the whole of original sin,
and that there was no transmission of a corrupted nature ; and "
then he proceeds to show that this negative portion of their doc
trine was a heresy, as being opposed to the decrees of the Council
of Trent. This doctrine of Pighius and Catharinus, which prevailed
widely in the Church of Rome even after the deliverance of the
Council, was dealt with by Calvin and the other Reformers very-
much in the same way as by Bellarmine. Since the doctrine of
the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity was not denied by
the Church of Rome, and was not rejected but sanctioned, though
not defined and developed, by the Council of Trent ; and since,
on the contrary, some of those who were most zealous in main
taining it, employed it practically to soften and explain away the
most important features of the sin and misery of men's natural
condition, — Calvin was naturally led to give more prominence, in
, his expositions and discussions of this subject, to the transmission

* De Amissione Gratiae et Statu peccati, lib. v. c. 16.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 379
and the actual universal prevalence of a depraved moral nature
than to the imputation of Adam's sin, which was not then a sub
ject of controversy. This was the true cause or explanation why
Calvin was led to make occasionally statements upon this subject,
which have induced some men to allege that he did not hold the
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, but believed the sinful
ness of men's natural condition to consist only in the want of
original righteousness, and in the possession of a depraved moral
nature, certainly and invariably producing actual transgressions.
The truth as to Calvin's sentiments upon this subject is in
substance this : that he has never, directly or by implication,
denied the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his posterity,
and that he has, on a variety of occasions, plainly enough asserted
it ; though he has not, from the cause above stated, given it the
prominence to which, if true, it is entitled, in a systematic exposi
tion of the scheme of divine truth, — has not always introduced it
where, perhaps, we might have expected it to be introduced, and
has not stated it with so much fulness and precision — especially
in the aspect of its being regarded as producing, and to some
extent explaining, the universal prevalence of a depraved moral
nature — as was done by later Calvinists after this whole matter
was subjected to a fuller controversial discussion. There is, we
think, sufficient evidence that this is really the true state of the
case to be found in the extracts from Calvin, quoted and referred
to by Turretine ; * and there would be no difficulty in producing
other passages quite as explicit, and some perhaps still more so,
from his two treatises on Free-will and Predestination. There is'
no reason, then, to fear that, in maintaining the higher and more
precise views upon the subject of the imputation of Adam's sin,
which have been held by the great majority of the ablest and
most accurate theologians, we may expose ourselves to the risk of
having the venerable authority of Calvin adduced against us.
The question as to what were Calvin's views upon the subject
of the imputation of Adam's sin was first brought into prominence
by Placseus, who broached sentiments upon this point differing
from those which had been generally held by Calvinistic divines,
and claimed Calvin himself as an authority upon his side. As the
discussion raised by Placseus forms the most important era in the.

Loc. ix. q. ix. s. 41.

380 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
history of this subject, and as his peculiar opinions have received
some countenance in influential quarters in the present day, it
may be proper to give some notice of it. Placseus or La Place,
Amyraldus or Amyraut, and Cappellus or Cappel, were all settled
in the year 1633 as theological professors in the Protestant Uni
versity of Saumur. They were all men of great learning and
ability, of great industry and activity, and though they did not
renounce the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system of
theology, they exerted an extensive influence in diffusing loose and
unsound opinions upon some important doctrinal questions, not
only in France, but over the Reformed churches. Placseus, in a
Disputation published in the " Theses Salmurienses," — " De statu
hominis lapsi ante gratiam," — put forth some views on the imputa
tion of Adam's sin, which were regarded by many as contradicting
the doctrine which had been generally professed in the Reformed
churches. Accordingly, the National Synod held at Charenton in
December 1644 and January 1645, condemned his book, though
without mentioning his name, and prohibited the publication of
the doctrines it advocated. This decree of the Synod led to a
good deal of controversial discussion. Garisolles, the moderator
of the Synod, defended it, and answered Placseus's " Disputatio"
in a work which we have never seen, but which is highly praised
by Turretine. Andrew Rivet, perhaps the most eminent divine
of the period, published a defence of the Synod, consisting chiefly
of extracts from the Reformed confessions, and from all the most
eminent divines, both of the Reformed and Lutheran churches.
Most of these extracts were translated and published in the first
series of the " Princeton Essays." They are a very valuable body
of testimonies, but there are some of them which can scarcely be
regarded as sufficiently precise and definite to contradict Placseus's
position. Placseus defended himself in a very elaborate treatise,
published in 1665, "De imputatione primi peccati Adami." In
this work he laboured to show, that his opinion was not inconsistent
with the generally received doctrine of the Reformed churches ;
for that they merely asserted the imputation of Adam's sin to his
posterity, and that he had not denied this, but held it in a certain
sense. In this work he developed fully the distinction, on which
.chiefly he based his defence, between immediate or antecedent,
and mediate or consequent, imputation. He rejected the former
and maintained the latter, and contended that Calvin and other

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 381
eminent divines concurred in the substance of his doctrine, though
they had not expressed it in this particular definite form. His
doctrine is in substance this, that the guilt or reatus of Adam's
first sin is not imputed to his posterity directly and immediately,
as a distinct step in the process, — a separate and independent
element in the sinfulness of the estate into which man fell, —
having its own proper basis or warrant in the federal relation sub
sisting between Adam and his posterity, and affording, by' its ante
cedence in the order of nature, a basis or explanation for the moral
depravity which came upon men as a consequence, in the way of
penal infliction through the withdrawal of divine grace. This is
the doctrine which has been generally held by Calvinistic divines ;
but this doctrine Placseus openly and earnestly repudiated. He
contended that the imputation of Adam's sin is simply a conse
quence or result of the moral depravity which is admitted to attach
to men, in consequence somehow of their connection with Adam,
but of the existence and transmission of which no explanation is
given or attempted ; and that all that is meant by the imputation
of Adam's sin is this, that God — contemplating men as actually
and already, in virtue of their connection with Adam, subject to
moral depravity, and involved thereby in actual transgressions of
His law — resolves, upon this ground, to regard and treat them in
the same way as Adam by his sin had deserved to be treated.
God's act in regarding and treating men in the way in which
Adam deserved to be treated, is thus based upon the medium of
the previous existence of moral depravity as already an actual
feature of men's condition, and is a consequence of its universal
prevalence ; instead of being viewed as an antecedent of this
depravity in the order of nature, and the ground, and in some
measure the explanation or rationale, of it. And hence the name
of mediate and consequent, as distinguished from immediate and
antecedent, imputation, by which this notion has since Placseus's
time been commonly designated.
Independently of the question, which of these doctrines has
the sanction of Scripture % — though that of course is the only
question of vital importance, — it is surely very manifest that it is
a mere abuse of language to call this notion of Placseus by the
name of imputation ; that it is not imputation in any real honest
meaning of the word ; and that he never would have thought of
calling this imputation, unless he had been tied up by ecclesiastical

382 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
authority and his own voluntary engagements, to maintain that
in some sense or other Adam's first sin was imputed to his pos
terity. It is also very manifest that this doctrine does not give,
or attempt or profess to give, any account of the origin, or any
explanation of the cause, of the moral depravity of man, and the
universality of actual transgression proceeding from it. Nay, it
precludes any attempt to explain it, however partially, except
this, that God in mere sovereignty established a constitution, in
virtue of which it was provided, and did actually result, that all
men should have transmitted to them the same depraved moral
nature which Adam brought upon himself by his first sin. And
there certainly can be nothing which more directly and imme
diately than this resolves at once the sin and misery of the human
race into the purpose and the agency of God. Placseus, more
over, brings out very plainly in this work the true character and
tendency of his peculiar doctrine, and its palpable inconsistency
with the views which have been generally held by Calvinistic
divines, by explicitly denying that God made any covenant with
Adam, or that any federal relation subsisted between him and his
posterity ; and makes it manifest that his doctrine of imputation,
falsely so called, at once results from and produces — at once
flows from and leads to — an entire rejection of the principle of
Adam's federal or representative headship.*
This doctrine of Placseus was not adopted by almost any
divines of eminence who really believed in inherent depravity
as an actual feature of man's moral nature. It was explicitly
condemned by the churches and divines of Switzerland in the
" Formula Consenus." It has been made a question among the
Presbyterians of the United States, though we do not remember
that the point has been mooted in this country, whether the West
minster Confession condemns the view of Placseus; and the general
opinion there seems to be, that there is nothing in the Confession
so precise and definite as to make it unwarrantable for one who
believes only in mediate and consequent imputation to subscribe
it. The leading statement upon the subject is thist — "They (our
first parents) being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin
was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature con
veyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary gene-

* Pp. 18, 22, 27, 170-2, 245, and 253. f C. v. s. 3.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 383
ration." Now this statement, read in the light of the discussions
which Placosus occasioned, is certainly vague and indefinite, and
resembles much more closely the deliverances given on this sub
ject in the Confession of the sixteenth century than that embodied
in the Consensus of 1675. The Confession was completed about
the end of 1646, not quite two years after the National Synod of
Oharenton. It is probable that the members of the Assembly
were not yet much acquainted with the discussions which had
being going on in France, and were in consequence not impressed
with the necessity of being minute and precise in their deliverance
upon this subject. It is a curious circumstance, that both in the
Larger and the Shorter Catechisms, there are statements upon
this point more full and explicit, and more distinctly exclusive of
the views of Placseus. The Larger Catechism* says, " The cove
nant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for himself
only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by
ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him, in that first
transgression ;" and both Catechisms, more distinctly than the Con
fession, represent the guilt of Adam's first sin as the first, and in
some sense the leading, element in the sinfulness of man's natural
condition. More than a year elapsed between the completion of
the Confession and that of the Catechisms ; and we think it by no
means unlikely — though we are not aware of any actual historical
evidence bearing upon the point — that during this interval the
members of the Assembly may have got fuller information con
cerning the bearing of the discussions going on in France, and
that this may have led them to bring out somewhat more fully
and explicitly in the Catechisms the views which, in common with
the great body of Calvinistic divines, they undoubtedly enter
tained about the imputation of Adam's sin. Every one who has
read Placseus's book will see, that he would, without hesitation,
have subscribed the statement in the Confession, but that he
would have had extreme difficulty in devising any plausible pre
tence for concurring in what has been quoted from the Larger
Catechism. In the seventeenth century this doctrine of Placaaus received
some countenance from Vitringa and Venema. It was adopted
by Stapfer in his "Theologia Polemica," who, however, when
* Q. 22.

384

CALVIN AND BEZA.

[Essay VII.

accused of error on this account, endeavoured to defend himself,
by maintaining that both views of imputation were sound, — a posi
tion which, though in a certain sense it can be defended, was in
the circumstances a mere evasion of the charge.* From Stapfer
it was adopted by Jonathan Edwards in his great work on Original
Sin. Edwards' views, however, upon this point do not seem to
have been clear or consistent, as he sometimes makes statements
which manifestly imply or assume the common Calvinistic doc
trine, -f- It is, indeed, plain enough that Edwards had never sub
jected this particular topic of imputation to a careful investigation,
— his work on Original Sin being devoted to the object of estab
lishing the doctrine or fact of man's inherent native depravity, an
object which he has thoroughly and conclusively accomplished.
Dr Chalmers, in the first volume of his lectures upon the Epistle
to the Romans, gives some indications that he had adopted this
doctrine, though he does not bring it out with anything like fulness
and explicitness. He had evidently, when he published that
volume, not examined this subject with much care and attention,
and was probably altogether unacquainted with the discussions
which had previously taken place among theologians concerning
it, — which, in all likelihood, was the case also with Edwards. It
is most gratifying to notice that Dr Chalmers, upon a more careful
and deliberate study of this subject, renounced the defective and
erroneous view which he had imbibed from Edwards ; and that in
his great work, the " Institutes of Theology," he, with the candour
and magnanimity of a great mind, retracted his error, and sup
ported the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin as it has been
generally held by Calvinistic divines.!
This doctrine of mediate or consequent imputation — which
admits imputation only in this sense, that, on account of our
inherent, moral depravity, as an actual feature of our condition,
we are regarded and treated by God in the same way as Adam
had deserved to be treated, in the same way as if we had com
mitted Adam's sin — has also been maintained by one of the most
powerful, brilliant, and valuable writers of the present day, Mr
Henry Rogers, in a very interesting Essay on the " Genius and

* Tom. i. p. 236, torn. iv. pp.
513-14, pp. 561-6.
t " Princeton Essays," 1st Series,
p. 151.

X " Institutes," vol. i. pp. 454-9,
465-9.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 385
Writings of Jonathan Edwards," prefixed to an edition of his
works published at London, in two volumes, in 1840. His views
are brought out in the following passages : —
"We dislike the second term, ' imputation of Adam's sin,' because the word
imputation is apt to suggest the idea of an arbitrary transfer of the guilt and
consequent punishment of one moral agent to another moral agent, whose
moral condition is essentially different. But this is not what is meant by it.
If we could suppose one of the descendants of Adam born without this depraved
bias, and actually, when master of his own actions, persevering in unbroken
obedience to the law of God, then the imputation of Adam's guilt would be
considered by Calvinists quite as absurd and as unjust as our opponents pro
fess now to consider it. All that is meant by the ' imputation of Adam's sin,'
is that, as in the original constitution of things, Adam and his posterity were
linked together by an inseparable union, as the root of a tree and its branches ;
and as the moral state of the latter (as well as their state in every other
respect) was affected by that of the former, so it was reasonable that Adam
should be treated as the federal head of his race. They are so far one as to
warrant similarity of treatment. In this hypothesis the moral state of his
descendants is not the consequence of the imputation of Adam's sin, but pre
supposed as the reason of such imputation, and as prior to it in the order of
nature. They are treated as he is because they are presupposed to be, and are
really, morally like him. Thus, the great, and we may say the sole difficulty,
is to reconcile it with justice, that the destinies of our race should be linked
in a chain of mutual dependence with those of our first father ; that not only
our physical condition (a fact universally admitted), but that our moral con
dition should take its complexion from his own ; that as he was, we should be ;
that if he fell, and as a consequence became mortal, we should fall with him,
and become mortal too. Such a constitution, however, of course, presupposes
the state of Adam's descendants to correspond with his own ; and the imputa
tion of Adam's sin means nothing more than that they are treated as Adam was,
simply because they are virtually in the same condition with him. According
to this doctrine, therefore, the real difficulty is not to reconcile the imputation
of sin and guilt where there is no sin and guilt at all (for that is not the case
supposed), but to vindicate the reasonableness of a constitution by which one
being becomes depraved by his dependence on another who is so, or by which
the moral condition of one being is remotely determined by the moral condi
tion of another. Such is the doctrine when freed from all theological techni
calities ; and the more we consider it, the more we shall perceive that the sole
difficulty is the one we have mentioned.
" Such is the explication of the doctrine of Original Sin, which, it will be
seen, does not, as is so often represented, imply the arbitrary imputation of the
guilt of one moral agent to another in no sense guilty ; and then an equally
arbitrary infliction of punishment. But, presupposing the moral state of
Adam's descendants to resemble his own, and to necessitate, therefore, the
same treatment, it represents it as just to deal with us as in our great pro-
VOL. I. ' 25

386 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VH.
genitor, as virtually one with him, as grafted on his stock, as bound up in his
destinies. "It will be seen by the defence we have just made, that we should not
choose to attempt to vindicate, by direct argument, that constitution by which
the moral destinies of one being are, in fact, entrusted to the keeping of
another. This is one of the mysteries about which, in our present state, it is
in vain to reason. The difficulty is to be met simply by appeahng, in the first
instance, to the facts which prove such a constitution, and then by showing
that the very same difficulty presses on any hypothesis that can be adopted
on this subject, and, indeed, may be objected to all the proceedings of God
towards this lower universe — consequently can never be conclusive against the
Calvinistic doctrine of Original Sin."*
Mr Rogers is rather stating his doctrine than expounding and
defending it ; and for this, as well as for other reasons, it would
be out of place to enter here upon a full discussion of it. But
there are some obvious reflections suggested by these extracts,
which we may state, without enlarging upon them. It is a some
what peculiar procedure on the part of Mr Rogers, virtually to
give his definition or description of the imputation of Adam's sin,
as if it were the only true and sound one, and that which was
generally adopted by Calvinistic divines. Mr Rogers adopts the
mediate and consequent imputation of Placseus, — a view which is
neither accordant with the natural ordinary meaning of the word,
nor with the doctrine that has been held by the generality of ortho
dox theologians. His whole statement is plainly fitted to convey the
impression that this, and this alone, is, and should be, recognised
as the true Calvinistic doctrine, — any other notion which the word
imputation might suggest, and which may have been put forth in
some quarters, being merely an unwarranted misrepresentation,
repudiated by the judicious friends of the doctrine itself. Now,
this is certainly a very erroneous impression concerning the actual
facts of the case ; for it can scarcely be disputed, that the doctrine
of immediate and antecedent imputation, which he brings in as if
it were merely a misrepresentation of opponents, and which he
himself misrepresents, especially by the application of the word
" arbitrary,"— an epithet which Arminians are so much in the
habit of brandishing against all the doctrines of Calvinism, — has
been explicitly maintained by the great body of the ablest Cal
vinistic divines who have flourished since Placseus's time.

* Essay xl.-xlii.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 387
The doctrine concerning the imputation of Adam's sin is not
to be settled, as Mr Rogers seems to assume, by laying down an
arbitrary definition, warranted neither by the natural proper mean
ing of the words, nor by the prevailing usus loquendi among
theologians. It can be determined only by an examination of
Scripture, by ascertaining what it is that Scripture asserts or indi
cates concerning the actual relation subsisting between Adam and
his descendants, — the real bearing of his first sin upon the moral
condition of his posterity. Placseus, the great champion, if not
the inventor, of Mr Rogers's notion of imputation, undertook to
show that there was nothing in Scripture to warrant any other
idea of what might be called the imputation of Adam's sin to his
posterity, except this, " that because of the sin inherent in us from
our origin, we are deserving of being treated in the same way as
if we had committed that offence." * But most Calvinistic divines
have maintained that this position, though true so far as it goes,
does not embody the whole truth ; that Scripture gives us some
what fuller and more definite information upon the subject, and
warrants us to believe that Adam was constituted the covenant-
head, or federal representative, of his posterity, — God having
resolved to make the trial or probation of Adam the trial or pro
bation of the human race ; that thus they sinned in him, and fell
with him in his first transgression ; and that thus the sin and
misery of their natural condition assumes the character of a penal
infliction, to which they are subjected because involved in the guilt
of Adam's first sin imputed to them, or put down to their account.
Whether Scripture does warrant and require us to believe this, is
a question on which there is room for a difference of opinion. If
it does not, then we must fall back upon the mediate or consequent
imputation of Placseus and Mr Rogers. But if we were satisfied
that this is the true state of the case, we would scarcely be con
tented with " disliking," as Mr Rogers confesses he does, " the
term, imputation of Adam's sin ;" nor would we attempt to explain
it away by an arbitrary and unwarranted definition : we would
reject it altogether as improper and unsuitable, fitted only to
convey an erroneous impression.
Mr Rogers has not entered into any examination of the scrip
tural grounds by which this question should be determined, and

* " Theses Salmur." P. i. p. 206.

388 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
neither can we at present advert to them. We can only assert
that, for above two hundred years past, the generality of the most
eminent Calvinistic divines have contended, that the doctrine of
immediate and antecedent imputation is taught in the natural and
obvious meaning of the apostle's statements in the fifth chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, and is only confirmed by the most
thorough, searching, critical investigation of their import ; while
it is also in. full accordance with the whole history of God's
dealings with the human race, and with the principles by which
they have been regulated, — and especially with the great prin
ciple of covenant-headship and federal representation, so plainly
exhibited in God's arrangements with respect to the recovery as
well as the ruin of mankind. We have admitted that the great
doctrine or fact of the transmission from Adam, and the actual
prevalence among all his descendants, of a depraved moral nature,
is of more intrinsic and fundamental importance, in itself and its
consequences, viewed both theoretically and practically, than any
particular tenet as to the cause, or ground, or rationale of this
state of things can be. But this does not in the least affect our
obligation to ascertain and to proclaim all that Scripture makes
known to us on the subject. We admit, also, that the evidence
of this great. fact from Scripture, confirmed as it is by the testi
mony of observation and experience, is more varied, abundant,
and conclusive than can be adduced in support of the doctrine
of the imputation of Adam's sin, as it has been usually held by
Calvinists. But the evidence for this doctrine is, we believe,
sufficient and satisfactory ; and if so, men are bound to receive
it. It certainly cannot be legitimately set aside by anything but
a disproof of the scriptural evidence on which it is professedly
based ; and this, we are persuaded, has not been and cannot be
produced. Mr Rogers represents it as a great advantage of his virtual
denial of imputation, by resolving it into what is only mediate and
consequent upon the existence of depravity as an actual feature of
human nature, that it leaves only one difficulty unsolved, — viz.
" to vindicate the reasonableness of a constitution by which one
being becomes depraved by his dependence on another;" and he
plainly insinuates that any other doctrine upon the subject must
be attended with additional and more formidable difficulties.
The substance of the only answer he attempts to this difficulty

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 389
is, that the matter of fact as to man's natural condition is conclu
sively established by its appropriate evidence, and must therefore
be received as true, and, of course, consistent with God's attri
butes and moral government, however great may be the difficulties
attaching to it. This answer we admit to be quite sufficient and
satisfactory ; but we contend that the doctrine of imputation, in
the only true and fair sense of the word, — the doctrine of imme
diate and antecedent imputation, — does not introduce any addi
tional difficulty into the investigation of this subject, and upon
the whole rather tends to diminish or alleviate the admitted
difficulty, than to strengthen or aggravate it. It is a principle
of the greatest value and importance in the consideration of the
difficulties attaching to speculations on religious subjects, and
especially in dealing with the objections commonly directed against
Calvinism, that the difficulties or objections really apply, not to
particular doctrines or representations, but to actual facts or results,
which are admitted, or can be proved, to exist or to take place
under God's moral government. This principle applies equally
to the views generally held amongst us with respect to the fall
of mankind in Adam, and their salvation through Christ. The
great, the only difficulty, in the one case is, that all men come
into the world with morally depraved natures, which certainly and
invariably involve them in actual violations of the divine law, and
thus subject them to punishment ; and in the other case, that of
the whole human race thus involved in sin and misery, some only
are saved from this condition and the rest perish," while this
difference in the result cannot be fully explained by anything in
men themselves, or by anything they have done or can do, but
must be referred ultimately to the good pleasure of God. These
are actual facts or results which can be conclusively proved, and
must therefore be admitted to be true. It is with the fall alone
we have at present to do ; and here the great, the only real
difficulty is, the universality of depravity, with its certain and
invariable consequences. This we undertake to prove to be an
actual matter of fact. If its truth be denied, we must stop, and
before proceeding further we must establish it, for it is the great
fundamental position with respect to the moral condition of man
kind. But it is admitted by all Calvinists, and we have to do at
present only with differences subsisting among them, — differences
which we are persuaded do not and cannot seriously affect, either

390 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
in the way of alleviation or aggravation, the difficulties attaching
to the admitted fact.
Some Calvinists — agreeing in this with those more evangelical
Arminians who admit the great fact of the universal native de
pravity of mankind — contend that, beyond establishing the reality
of the fact, Scripture gives us no further information on the
subject, except this, that this depravity was transmitted by Adam
to all his posterity, and that it is in some way or other to be traced
to the relation subsisting between him and his descendants. They
stop here, because they think that Scripture goes no further, and
because they have a vague notion — which Mr Rogers appears to
sanction — that to go any further would involve them in new and
additional difficulties ; though' there really can be no greater diffi
culty than what stands out palpably on the face of the fact itself.
They usually allege, that Scripture makes known to us no other
relation as subsisting between Adam and the human race, except
that they are all his natural descendants ; while in connection with
this they admit, that God had established a constitution or arrange
ment, in virtue of which all Adam's descendants were in point of
fact to have the same moral character into which he fell by his
first sin. This constitution or arrangement of God, in virtue of
which Adam transmitted to all his descendants the same depravity
of moral nature which he brought upon himself, is of course
admitted by all who, upon the authority of revelation, believe in the
depravity of the human race. But it manifestly does not furnish,
or appear or profess to furnish, any explanation or solution of the
one great difficulty; which consists essentially in this, that God
appears to be represented as the author or cause of the sin and
misery of mankind. The admission of this divine constitution is
really nothing more in substance than an assertion of the matter
of fact, as a matter of fact ; and then tracing the fearful result,
directly and immediately, to a purpose and appointment of God.
The view held by a certain section of Calvinists, from Placseus to
Mr Rogers, — denying the imputation of Adam's sin in any fair and
legitimate sense of the expression, and reducing it to a mere name
or nonentity, — implies that Scripture makes known to us no other
relation, no other kind of unity or identity, as subsisting between
Adam and the human race, except that of progenitor and posterity
— the unity or identity of a father with his descendants ; and this
is simply asserting, in another form, the mere fact of the actual

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 391
transmission of a depraved nature, as the result of a constitution
or arrangement which God has established. This view of the
matter leaves the difficulty just where it found it. It interposes
nothing whatever between the result and the exercise of the
divine sovereignty ; it does nothing whatever towards explaining
or vindicating that divine constitution or arrangement under
which the result has taken place. At the same time, it is to be
remembered that it is universally admitted that this relation of
progenitor and posterity, this species of oneness or identity, does
subsist between Adam and his descendants, — that it is in no way
inconsistent with the more strict and definite views of imputation
which have been held by the generality of Calvinists, — and that
in so far as it can be made available or useful in the exposition of
this subject, this advantage belongs equally to those who believe,
and to those who deny, the generally received doctrine of im
putation ; while those who deny it have nothing else whatever to
adduce in explanation or defence of their position.
If Scripture gives us no further information upon this subject,
then we must stop here, and — in dealing with the objections of
opponents — take our stand upon the position, that the fact of the
fall and the depravity of the human race has been conclusively
proved, and must therefore be received as true. This ground is
common to all who admit depravity, and it is sufficient to dispose
of the difficulty. But Calvinists in general have contended, that
Scripture does give us some additional information upon this
subject ; and that this additional information — while certainly
not furnishing a solution of the difficulty, which all admit to be
insoluble — introduces no additional difficulty, and not only does
not aggravate the difficulty admitted to exist, but rather tends to
alleviate it. The peculiarity of the doctrine of imputation, — im
mediate and antecedent imputation, — as held by the generality of
Calvinists, consists in this, that it brings in another relation besides
that of mere natural descent as subsisting between Adam and his
posterity — another species of oneness or identity between them,
viz. that of covenant-headship or federal representation. Their
doctrine is, that God made a covenant with Adam, and that in
this covenant Adam represented his posterity, the covenant being
made not only for him but for them, — including them as well as
him in its provisions. The proper result of this was, that, while
there was no -actual transfer to them of the moral culpability or

392 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
blameworthiness of his sin, they became, in consequence of his
failure to fulfil his covenant engagements, rei, — or incurred reatus,
or guilt in the sense of legal answerableness, — to this effect, that
God, on the ground of the covenant, regarded and treated them
as if they themselves had been guilty of the sin whereby the
covenant was broken, and that in this way they became legally
involved in all the natural and penal consequences which Adam
brought upon himself by his first sin. Now this doctrine — view
ing it merely as a hypothesis, and independently of the actual
support it receives from Scripture — neither introduces any new
difficulty into the investigation, nor aggravates the difficulty which
all admit to exist. It does not in any respect make more sinful
or miserable the actual condition of the human race as a reality
or matter of fact, and it does not ascribe anything to God which
appears more liable to objection or more incapable of explanation,
by bringing His agency more closely into contact with the actual
result of the sin and misery of mankind. On the contrary, it
rather tends to alleviate the difficulty, and to throw some light
upon this mysterious transaction, by bringing it somewhat into
the line of the analogy of transactions which we can comprehend
and estimate, and illustrating its accordance with great general
principles, which are exhibited, not only in God's ordinary provi
dence, but specially and emphatically in the scheme of salvation
by a Redeemer.
The great difficulty of course is to explain how, consistently
with God's attributes and man's responsibility, the human race
could come to be placed in a condition of sin and misery, without
any apparent adequate ground in justice for their being so treated.
And we think it by no means unlikely, that to a man reflecting
upon this state of things as an ascertained reality, — even while he
knew nothing of the information given as concerning it in Scrip
ture, — the idea might occur, that the best and most satisfactory
way of getting to anything like an explanation of it would be, if
it could be shown to be of the nature of a penal infliction upon the
human race — an evil that had come upon them as a punishment
of actual sin committed. There is no great difficulty in believing,
that the moral depravity of Adam's own nature was a penal in
fliction upon him, through the withdrawal of the Divine Spirit —
a punishment to which he was justly subjected on account of
his first sin ; and we cannot but feel, that if this idea of legal

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 393
responsibility could in any way be introduced, and could in any
measure be applied to the human race as a whole in connection
with Adam, it would tend somewhat to alleviate or lighten the
difficulty attaching to this mysterious and incomprehensible sub
ject. Now, this is precisely what Scripture, according to the
views of the defenders of the ordinary Calvinistic doctrine of im
putation, does in the matter ; this is the very service it renders, by
leading us to believe, that God resolved to make the trial or pro
bation of Adam the trial or probation of the human race, — that
the covenant which He made with Adam comprehended all his
posterity, — and that it laid a foundation for a legal or federal one
ness or identity between him and them. The doctrine that Adam
was the federal head or representative of his posterity in the cove
nant, lays a foundation for the imputation — the immediate and
antecedent imputation — to them of the guilt or reatus of his first
sin ; and this imputation furnishes a ground for dealing with them
as if they had committed that sin themselves, and thus involving
them in the penal results which Adam brought upon himself by
his own sin. There are thus interposed several steps between the
actual moral character and condition of mankind and the mere
sovereign purpose and agency of God ; and these steps interposed,
while they do not solve the difficulty, do not introduce into it any
additional darkness or perplexity. On the contrary, being in
accordance with analogies furnished by God's ordinary providence
and by human jurisprudence, as well as by the arrangements of
the scheme of redemption, they tend somewhat to relieve and
satisfy the mind in the contemplation of this great mystery.
There are many persons — and Mr Rogers is evidently one of
them — who have a strong prejudice against this doctrine of the
imputation of the guilt or reatus of Adam's first sin to his pos
terity, as if it brought in some new and additional, difficulties into
the investigation of this subject, — as if it were the most myste
rious and incomprehensible dogma of ultra-Calvinism, one which
all moderate and reasonable Calvinists must repudiate. But if
the considerations we have hinted at were duly weighed, this
unfounded prejudice might possibly be removed ; and it might be
expected, that all men who admit the total depravity of human
nature as an actual feature of man's condition, of which they can
give us no account or explanation whatever, would be more likely
to yield to the weight of the evidence — quite sufficient, we think,

394

CALVIN AND BEZA.

[Essay VII.

though not overwhelming — which Scripture furnishes in proof of
the doctrine, that "the covenant being made with Adam, as a
public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all man
kind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him,
fell with him in his first transgression."
Among the three different classes or sections into which we
divided those divines who, while admitting the universal de
pravity of the human race, declined to admit the orthodox doc
trine of imputation, one consisted of those who rejected the
ordinary orthodox phraseology, yet so far deferred to the authority
of Scripture as to receive, though in a confused and inconsistent
way, some part of the doctrine which they professed to reject.
This has appeared most prominently and palpably among the
New England Congregationalists and some of the New School
Presbyterians in the United States ; though there have been fre
quent indications of it among men who were fond of deviating
from the old beaten paths, and aspired to be thought reasonable,
moderate, and liberal. This is a curious and important feature
of the controversy, and furnishes some interesting materials in
confirmation of the old orthodox faith. An admirable specimen
of what can be done in this department will be found in a
crushing exposure, by Dr Hodge, of Princeton, of the inconsis
tency and confusion exhibited by Professor Moses Stuart, of
Andover, in his commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans.*
We have dwelt so long upon these two subjects, that we must
be very brief upon the remaining two'; and, indeed, must confine
ourselves to a mere statement as to what Calvin's sentiments upon

* Hodge's Essays and Reviews, p.
49. On this subject of imputation, as
well as on the former one of the con
troversy between the Supralapsarians
and the Sublapsarians, the best ex
position of the whole matter, and the
best defence of the generally received
orthodox doctrine, in a compendious
form, and in books easily" accessible,
will be found in Turretine and De
•Moor. Turretine, Loc. ix. and Qu.
ix., and De Moor, c. xv. s. 32, torn.
iii. pp. 260-287. De Moor, as usual,
gives numerous references to authori
ties. He gives also a very choice and
valuable collection of extracts from

standard divines in exposition and de
fence of the orthodox doctrine. There
is a great deal of important matter,
both argumentative and historical, on
various departments of this contro
versy, in a very valuable series of ar
ticles on original sin and the doctrine
of imputation contained in. the first
series of the " Princeton Essays." Al
most everything that can be said in
defence of mediate and consequent im
putation and in opposition to imputa
tion, in the only fair and legitimate
sense of it as generally held by Calvin
istic divines, will be found in Placseus's
treatise already referred to.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 395
these two topics really were, without digressing into the more
general history of the controversies concerning them.
III. It has been contended very frequently, and very confi
dently, that Calvin did not sanction the views which have been
generally held by Calvinistic divines, in regard to the extent of
the atonement, — that he did not believe in the doctrine of par
ticular redemption, that is, that Christ did not die for all men,
but only for the elect, for those who are actually saved, — but that,
on the contrary, he asserted a universal, unlimited, or indefinite
atonement. Amyraut, in defending his doctrine of universal
atonement in combination with Calvinistic views upon other points,
appealed confidently to the authority of Calvin ; and, indeed, he
wrote a treatise entitled, " Eschantillon de la Doctrine de Calvin
touchant la Prsedestination," chiefly for the purpose of showing
that Calvin supported his views about the extent of the atonement,
and was in all respects a very moderate Calvinist. Daillee, in his
" Apologia pro duabus Synodis," which is a very elaborate defence,
in reply to Spanheim, of Amyraut's views about universal grace
and universal atonement, fills above forty pages with extracts from
Calvin as testimonies in his favour. Indeed, the whole of the last
portion of this work of Daillee, consisting of nearly five hundred
pages, is occupied with extracts, produced as testimonies in favour
of universal grace and universal atonement, from almost every
eminent writer, from Clemens Romanus clown to the middle of
the seventeenth century ; and we doubt if the whole history of
theological controversy furnishes a stronger case of the adduction
of irrelevant and inconclusive materials. It was chiefly the survey
of this vast collection of testimonies that suggested to us the ob
servations which we have laid before our readers in our discussion
of the views of Melancthon.*
It is certain that Beza held the doctrine of particular redemp
tion, or of a limited atonement, as it has since been held by most
Calvinists, and brought it out fully in his controversies with the
Lutherans on the subject of predestination ; though he was not,
as has sometimes been asserted, the first who maintained it. It
has been confidently alleged that Calvin did not concur in this
view, but held the opposite doctrine of universal redemption and

' Supra, p. 205.

396 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
unlimited atonement. Now it is true that we do not find in
Calvin's writings explicit statements as to any limitation in the
object of the atonement, or in the number of those for whom
Christ died; and no Calvinist, not even Dr Twisse, the great
champion of high Supralapsarianism, has ever denied that there is
a sense in which it may be affirmed that Christ died for all men.
But we think it is likewise true, that no sufficient evidence has
been produced that Calvin believed in a universal or unlimited
atonement. Of all the passages in Calvin's writings, bearing
more or less directly upon this subject, which we remember to
have read or have seen produced on either side, there is only one
which, with anything like confidence, can be regarded as formally
and explicitly denying an unlimited atonement ; and notwithstand
ing all the pains that have been taken to bring out the views of
Calvin upon this question, we do not recollect to have seen it
adverted to except by a single Popish writer. It occurs in his
treatise "De vera participatione Christi in cosna," in reply to
Heshusius, a violent Lutheran defender of the corporal presence
of Christ in the Eucharist. The passage is this : — " Scire velim
quomodo Christi carnem edant impii pro quibus non est crucifixa,
et quomodo sanguinem bibant qui expiandis eorum peccatis non
est effusus."* This is a very explicit denial of the universality
of the atonement. But it stands alone — so far as we know — in
Calvin's writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon
it ; though at the same time we must observe, that it is not easy to
understand how, if Calvin really believed in a universal atonement
for the human race, such a statement could ever have dropped
from him. We admit, however, that he has not usually given any
- distinct indication that he believed in any limitation as to the
objects of the atonement ; and that, upon a survey of all that has
been produced from his writings, there is fair ground for a
difference of opinion as to what his doctrine upon this point really
was. The truth is, that no satisfactory evidence has been or can
be derived from his writings, that the precise question upon the
extent of the atonement which has been mooted in more modern
times, in the only sense in which it can become a question among
men who concur in holding the doctrine of unconditional personal
election to everlasting life, ever exercised Calvin's mind, or was

* Tractatus Theologici. Opera, torn. ix. p. 731.

Essay VII.]

CALVIN AND BEZA.

397

made by him the subject of any formal or explicit deliverance.
The topic was not then formally discussed as a distinct subject
of controversy ; and Calvin does hot seem to have been ever led,
in discussing cognate questions, to take up this one and to give
a deliverance regarding it. We believe that no sufficient evidence
has been brought forward that Calvin held that Christ died for
all men, or for the whole world, in any such sense as to warrant
Calvinistic universalists — -thstt is, men who, though holding Cal
vinistic doctrines upon other points, yet believe in a universal
or unlimited atonement- — in asserting that he sanctioned their
peculiar principles.
It is true that Calvin has intimated more than once his con
viction, that the position laid down by some of the schoolmen, viz.
that Christ died " sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis,"
is sound and orthodox in some sense. But then he has never, so far
as we remember or have seen proved, explained precisely in what
sense he held it, and there is a sense in which the advocates of
particular redemption can consistently admit and adopt it.* It
is true also, that Calvin has often declared, that the offers and
invitations of the gospel are addressed by God, and should be
addressed by us, indiscriminately to all men, without distinction or
exception ; and that the principal and proximate cause why men
to whom the gospel is preached finally perish, is their own sin and
unbelief in putting away from them the word of life. But these
are principles which the advocates of particular redemption believe
to be true, and to be vitally important; and which they never
hesitate to apply and to act upon. It is quite fair to attempt to
deduce an argument in favour of the doctrine of a universal atone
ment from the alleged impossibility of reconciling the doctrine
of an atonement, limited as to its objects or destination in God's
purpose or intention, with the universal or unlimited offers and
invitations of the gospel, or with the ascription of men's final

* When the subject of the extent
of the atonement came to be more
fully and exactly discussed, orthodox
Calvinists generally objected to adopt
this scholastic position, on the ground
that it seemed to imply an ascription
to Christ of a purpose or intention of
dying in some sense for all men. For
this reason they usually declined to
adopt it as it stood, or they proposed

to alter it into this form, — Christ's
death was sufficient for all, efficacious
for the elect. By this change in the
position, the question was made to ,
turn, not on what Christ did, but on
what His death was ; and thus the
appearance of ascribing to Him per
sonally a purpose or intention of
dying, in some sense, for all men,
was removed.

398 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
condemnation to their own sin and unbelief. But as the generality
of the advocates of a limited atonement deny that the inconsis
tency of these two things, or the impossibility of reconciling them,
can be proved, and profess to hold both, it is quite unwarrantable
to infer, in regard to any particular individual, that because he
held the one, he must be presumed to have rejected the other.
And there is certainly nothing in Calvin's general character and
principles, or in anything he has w'ritten, which affords ground
for the conclusion, that the alleged impossibility of reconciling
these two things would, had he been led to investigate the matter
formally, have perplexed him much, or have tempted him to
embrace the doctrine of universal atonement, which is certainly
somewhat alien, to say the least, in its general spirit and com
plexion, to the leading features of his theological system. And
this consideration is entitled to the more weight for this reason,
that this difficulty is not greater than some others with which he
did grapple, and which he disposed of in a different and more
scriptural way, — or rather, is just the very same difficulty, put in
a different form, and placed in a somewhat different position.
There is not, then, we are persuaded, satisfactory evidence that
Calvin held the doctrine of a universal, unlimited, or indefinite
atonement. And, moreover, we consider ourselves warranted in
asserting, that there is sufficient evidence that he did not hold this
doctrine ; though on the grounds formerly explained, and with
the one exception already adverted to, it is not evidence which
bears directly and immediately upon this precise point. The
evidence of this position is derived chiefly from the two following
considerations : —
1st, Calvin consistently, unhesitatingly, and explicitly denied
the doctrine of God's universal grace and love to all men, — that is,
omnibus et singulis, to each and every man, — as implying in some
sense a desire or purpose or intention to save them all ; and with
this universal grace or love to all men the doctrine of a universal
or unlimited atonement, in the nature of the case, and in the
convictions and admissions of all its supporters, stands inseparably
connected. That Calvin denied the doctrine of God's universal
grace or love to all men, as implying some desire or intention
of saving them all, and some provision directed to that object, is
too evident to any one who has read his writings, to admit of
doubt or to require proof. We are not aware that the doctrine

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 399
of a universal atonement ever has been maintained, even by men
who were in other respects Calvinistic, except in conjunction and
in connection with an assertion of God's universal grace or love
to all men. And it is manifestly impossible that it should be
otherwise. If Christ died for all men, — pro omnibus et singulis,
— this must have been in some sense an expression or indication
of a desire or intention on the part of God, and of a provision
made by Hhn, directed to the object of saving them all, though
frustrated in its effect, by their refusal to embrace the provision
made for and offered to them. A universal atonement, or the
death of Christ for all men, — that is, for each and every man, —
necessarily implies this, and would be an anomaly in the divine
government without it. No doubt it may be said that the doctrine
of a universal atonement necessitates, in logical consistency, a
denial of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, as much as it neces
sitates an admission of God's universal grace or love to all men ;
and we believe this to be true. But still, when we find that, in
point of fact, none has ever held the doctrine of universal atone
ment without holding also the doctrine of universal grace, — while
it is certain that some men of distinguished ability and learning,
such as Amyraut and Daillee, Davenant and Baxter, have held
both these doctrines of universal atonement and universal grace,
and at the same time have held the Calvinistic doctrine of elec
tion, — we are surely called upon in fairness and modesty to admit,
that the logical connection cannot be quite so direct and certain
in the one case as in the other. And then this conclusion warrants
us in maintaining, that the fact of Calvin so explicitly denying the
doctrine of God's universal grace or love to all men, affords a more
direct and certain ground for the inference, that he did not hold
the doctrine of universal atonement, than could be legitimately
deduced from the mere fact, that he held the doctrine of uncondi
tional personal election to everlasting life. The invalidity of the
inferential process in the one case is not sufficient to establish its
invalidity in the other ; and therefore our argument holds good.
2d, The other consideration to which we referred, as affording
gome positive evidence, though not direct and explicit, that Calvin
did not hold the doctrine of a universal atonement, is this, — that
me has interpreted some of the principal texts on which the advo
cates of that doctrine rest it, in such a way as to deprive them of
All capacity of serving the purpose to which its supporters com-

400 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
monly apply them. If this position can be established, it will
furnish something more than a presumption, and will almost
amount to a proof, that he did not hold the doctrine in question.
As this point is curious and interesting, we may adduce an in
stance or two in support of our allegation. In commenting upon
1 Tim. ii. 4, " Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to
the knowledge of the truth," Calvin says: "Apostolus simpliciter
intelligit nullum mundi vel populum vel ordinem a salute excludi,
quia omnibus sine exceptione evangelium proponi Deus velit. Est
autem evangelii prsedicatio vivifica, merito itaque colligit Deum
omnes pariter salutis participatione dignare. At de hominum
generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est ; nihil enim aliud in-
tendit quam principes et extraneos populos in hoc numero inclu-
dere." Again, in commenting upon 1 John ii. 2, " And He is the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins
of the whole world," he says : " Qui hanc absurditatem (universal
salvation) volebant effugere, dixerunt sufficientur pro toto mundo
passum esse Christum, sed pro electis tantum efficaciter. Vulgo
hsec solutio in scholis obtinuit. Ego quanquam verum esse illud
dictum fateor, nego tamen prsesenti loco quadrare. Neque enim
aliud fuit consilium Joannis quam toti ecclesise commune facere
hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed
eos designat qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi
plagas dispersi erant." He gives the very same explanation of
these two passages in his treatise on " Predestination." * Now
this is in substance just the interpretation commonly given of
these and similar texts by the advocates of the doctrine of parti
cular redemption; and it seems scarcely possible that it should
have been adopted by one who did not hold that doctrine, or who
believed in the truth of the opposite one.
Let it be observed, that our object is not to show that we are
warranted in adducing the authority of the great name of Calvin
as a positive testimony in favour of the doctrine of particular re
demption, — of a limited atonement, — as it has been generally held
by Calvinistic divines; but rather to show that there is no adequate
ground for adducing him, as has been done so frequently and seu
confidently, on the other side. To adduce Calvin as maintaining %
the doctrine of particular redemption, could scarcely, upon a ful si

* Niemeyer, pp. 259 and 286.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 401
and impartial survey of the whole circumstances of the case, be
regarded as warrantable. It is evident that he had never been
led to examine this precise question, in the form which it after
wards assumed in controversial discussion, and to give an explicit
deliverance upon it. He seems to have attached little or no im
portance to any definite doctrine about the extent of the atone
ment. In his "Antidote" to the earlier sessions of the Council
of Trent, he passes by without comment or animadversion the
fourth chapter of the sixth session, although it contains an ex
plicit declaration that Christ died for all men ; and he does this
not tacitly, as if per incuriam, but with the explicit statement,
"tertium et quartum caput non attingo," — as if he found nothing
there to object to. He was in no way sensitive or cautious about
using language, concerning the universality of the offers and in
vitations, or — in the phraseology which then generally prevailed —
the promises of the gospel, and concerning the provisions and
arrangements of the scheme of redemption, which might have the
appearance of being inconsistent with any limitation in the objects
or destination of the atonement. And it is chiefly because the
great body of those who have been called after his name — even
those of them who have held the doctrine of a definite or limited
atonement — have followed his example in this respect, believing
it to have the full sanction of Scripture, that Daillee and others
have got up such a mass of testimonies from their writings, in
which they seem to give some countenance to the tenet of uni
versal redemption, even at the expense of consistency. But this
is no reason why Calvinists should hesitate to follow the course,
which Scripture so plainly sanctions and requires, of proclaiming
the glad tidings of salvation to all men indiscriminately without
any distinction or exception, setting forth, without hesitation or
qualification, the fulness and freeness of the gospel offers and
invitations, — of inviting, encouraging, and requiring every de
scendant of Adam with whom they come into contact, to come
to Christ and lay hold of Him, with the assurance that those
who come to Him He will in no wise reject. The doctrine of
particular redemption, or of an atonement limited, not as to its
sufficiency, but as to its object, purpose, or destination, does not,
either in reality or in appearance, throw any greater obstacle in
the way of preaching the gospel to every creature, than the doc
trines which all Calvinists hold, of the absolute unconditional elec-
VOL. I. 26

402 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay vn.
tion of some men to eternal life, and of the indispensable necessity
and determining influence of the special agency of the Holy Spirit
in producing faith and conversion. The difficulty of this whole
subject lies in a department which belongs to God's province, and
not to ours. He has imposed upon us the duty of making Christ
known to our fellow-men, not only as able, but as willing and
ready, to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by Him;
and this duty we are bound by the most solemn obligations to
discharge, without let or hindrance, without doubt or hesitation ;
assured that God, while exercising His own sovereignty in dealing
with His creatures, will, in His own time and way, fully vindicate
the consistency and the honour of all that He has done Himself,
and of all that He has required us to do in His name.
IV. The only other topic to which we referred, — as one in re
gard to which it has been made matter of discussion what Calvin's
views were, and whether he did not come short of the accuracy
and precision exhibited by Beza, and the generality of later Cal
vinists, — is the doctrine of justification. Some Arminians have
gone so far as to allege, that Calvin held their fundamental dis
tinguishing principle upon this subject, — that, viz., of the imputa
tion of faith as a substitute for, or in the room and stead of, a
perfect personal righteousness, as the ground of a sinner's for
giveness ; in distinction from, and in opposition to, the doctrine
of the imputation of Christ's righteousness through the instru
mentality of faith. But no evidence has been produced from his
writings in support of this allegation, sufficient to entitle it to
examination. It has also, however, been alleged, and with much
greater plausibility, that he held justification to consist solely in
pardon or remission of sin, without including in it, as the gene
rality of Calvinists have done, the distinct additional idea of the
acceptance of men as righteous ; and that, as a natural conse
quence, he did not admit the distinction — which has also been held
by most of his followers — between the passive righteousness of
Christ, or His vicarious sufferings, as more immediately the ground
of our pardon, and His active righteousness, or perfect obedience
to the law, as more immediately the ground of our acceptance and
title to heaven. With respect to the first of these points, — viz. his
making justification to consist solely in pardon or remission, — it is
undeniable that he has repeatedly made statements in which this is

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 403
asserted in terminis. But the meaning and bearing of these state
ments have been somewhat misconceived, from not attending to the
leading object which he had in view in making them, and to the im
port of the tenet against which he was arguing. His chief object in
laying down this position, was to deny and exclude the Popish doc
trine of justification, which makes it comprehend not only remission,
but also regeneration. And the sum and substance of what he
meant to inculcate, in laying down the position that justification con
sisted only in remission, was just this, that it did not comprehend, as
the Papists maintained, a change of character, but merely a change
of state in relation to God and to His law. That he did not mean
to deny, and that he really believed, that justification included
acceptance as a distinct element from forgiveness, — separable from
it in thought, though always united with it in fact, — and that
he based the one as well as the other solely upon the righteousness
of Christ imputed through faith, can be clearly established from
his writings. Indeed, this may be said to be put beyond all doubt
by the following very explicit commentary upon the apostle's state
ment,* that " Christ is made unto us righteousness," or justifica
tion : "quo intelligit (apostolus) nos ejus nomine acceptos esse Deo,
quia morte sua peccata nostra expiaverit, et ejus obedientia nobis
in justitiam imputetur. Nam quum fidei justitia in peccatorum
remissione et gratuita acceptione consistat, utrumque per Chris
tum consequimur." This statement is far too precise and explicit
to admit of being explained away, and it is quite conclusive as to
what were Calvin's views upon the point now under consideration.
It may be worth while to advert to another expression which
Calvin sometimes used when treating of this subject, — an expres
sion which confirms the accuracy of the account we have given of
his sentiments, but which in itself is not strictly correct, as was
indeed brought out in the course of the subsequent controversies.
Calvin repeatedly speaks of justification as consisting in the re
mission of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
There can be no reasonable doubt that, when he used this form
of expression, he meant by the imputation of Christ's righteous
ness just acceptance, or positive admission into the enjoyment of
God's favour, — the bestowal of a right or title to eternal life, as
distinguished from and going beyond mere forgiveness. In any

* 1 Cor. i. 30.

404 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
other sense, and, indeed, in the strict and proper meaning of the
expression, the statement is inaccurate. The imputation of
Christ's righteousness, correctly understood, is to be regarded as,
in the order of nature, preceding both remission and acceptance,
and as being the ground or basis, or the meritorious or impulsive
cause of these two results — that to which God has a respect when
in any instance He pardons and accepts a sinner.
As to the distinction between the passive and the active right
eousness of Christ, — the first regarded as more immediately the
ground of our pardon, and the second of our acceptance, — this
does not appear to be formally brought out in the writings of
Calvin. It is to be traced rather to the more minute and subtle
speculations to which the doctrine of justification was afterwards
subjected ; and though the distinction is quite in accordance with
the analogy of faith, and may be of use in aiding the formation
of distinct and definite conceptions, it is not of any great prac
tical importance, and need not be much pressed or insisted on,
if men heartily and intelligently ascribe their forgiveness and
acceptance wholly to what Christ has done and suffered in their
room and stead. There is no ground in anything Calvin has
written for asserting, that he would have denied or rejected this
distinction, if it had been presented to him. But it was perhaps
more in accordance with the cautious and reverential spirit in
which he usually conducted his investigations into divine things,
to abstain from any minute and definite statements regarding it.
Much prominence came to be given to these distinctions between
forgiveness and acceptance, and between Christ's passive and
active righteousness, in the Lutheran Church ; and it is interest
ing to notice, that down till about the middle of last century, —
when everything like sound doctrine and true religion were swept
away by the prevalence of rationalism,— not only these distinc
tions, but the whole of the scriptural doctrine on the subject of
justification, were strenuously maintained by the Lutheran theo
logians. Very few Calvinistic divines have rejected the distinction
between forgiveness and acceptance, though many have been dis
posed to pass over or omit the distinction between Christ's passive
and active righteousness. The most eminent Calvinistic divines,
who have maintained that justification consists only in remission
of sins, — thus denying or ignoring the generally received dis
tinction between forgiveness and acceptance, and rejecting the

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 405
imputation of Christ's active righteousness, — were Piscator and
Wendelinus, who both belonged to the German Reformed Church,
the former of whom flourished near the beginning, and the latter
about the middle of the seventeenth century. The general reason
ings on which these men based their peculiar views are of no force,
except upon the assumption of principles which would overturn
altogether the Scripture doctrines of substitution and imputation.
The question resolves into this — Whether we have sufficient evi
dence in Scripture for these distinctions 1 And in the discussion
of this question it has, we think, been shown that the scriptural
evidence is sufficient ; and that those who deny this, demand an
amount of evidence, both in point of quantity and of directness
and explicitness, which is unreasonable.
But many eminent divines have been of opinion that the con
troversies which have been carried on upon this subject, have led
some of the defenders of the truth to press these distinctions —
especially that between Christ's passive and active righteousness —
beyond what Scripture warrants, and in a way that is scarcely in
keeping with the general scope and spirit of its statements. There
is no trace of this excess, however, in the admirably cautious and
accurate declarations upon this subject in the Westminster Con
fession ; where, while pardon and acceptance are expressly distin
guished as separate elements in the justification of a sinner, they
are both ascribed, equally and alike, to the obedience and death of
Christ, without any specification of the distinct places or functions
which His passive and active righteousness hold in the matter.
" 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 evangehcal obedience to them as their
righteousness, 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."*
This statement contains a beautifully precise and exact repu
diation of Popish and Arminian errors, and assertion of the oppo
site truths, upon the subject of justification ; but it wisely abstains
from giving any deliverance, directly or by implication, upon those
more minute points which are less clearly indicated in Scripture,
* C. xi. s. 1.

406 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
and have been made subjects of controversial discussion among
Calvinists. The same wisdom and caution are exhibited in deal
ing with this topic in the corresponding portions of the catechisms.
In the Larger Catechism, pardon and acceptance are both based,
equally and alike, upon " the perfect obedience and full satisfac
tion of Christ;" and in the Shorter Catechism, while they are
still distinguished from each other, they are both declared to be
based upon " the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us and re
ceived by faith alone." The danger of yielding to any excess, or
undue minuteness, of exposition upon this subject, and at the same
time the necessity and importance of maintaining the whole truth
regarding it, as sanctioned by Scripture, are very clearly and judi
ciously enforced by Turretine, with his usual masterly ability.*
The general subject which we have been surveying might
suggest some reflections fitted to be useful in the study of theo
logy and of theological literature, bearing especially upon the two
topics — of the use and application of testimonies from eminent
writers as authorities upon controverted questions, and the value
and importance of definite and precise statements in the exposition
of the doctrines of Christian theology.
In almost all theological controversies, much space has been
occupied by the discussion of extracts from books and documents,
adduced as authorities in support of the opinions maintained ; and
there is certainly no department of theological literature in which
so much ability and learning, so much time and strength, have
been uselessly wasted, or in which so much of controversial un
fairness has been exhibited. Controversialists in general have
shown an intense and irresistible desire to prove, that their pecu
liar opinions were supported by the Fathers, or by the Reformers,
or by the great divines of their own church ; and have often
exhibited a great want both of wisdom and of candour in the
efforts they have made to effect this object. It is indeed very
important to ascertain, as far as possible, the doctrinal views which
have prevailed in every country where theology has been studied,
and in each successive generation since the canon of Scripture
was completed. And it is a gratifying feature in the condition of
the church, that so much attention has been given in modern
times — especially on the Continent — to the full and scientific

* Loc. xiv. Q. xiii. s. 11, 12.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 407
treatment of the history of doctrines. The history of opinion can
always be turned, by competent persons, to good account in the
investigation of truth. It is important also to ascertain fully the
views held even by individuals, who have exerted an important
influence on their own and subsequent ages, — epoch-making men
as they have been called, — such as Origen, Augustine, Abelard,
Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Socinus. Some defe
rence is due to the opinions of men who have brought distinguished
gifts and graces to bear on the study of theology. But no defe
rence that may be shown to the opinions of men, should ever
be transmuted into submission to authority, properly so called;
as if. it ever could be of essential importance, or of determining
influence, to ascertain what other men believed on matters which
are revealed to us in God's word. No document has ever been
prepared by uninspired men, which did not exhibit some traces of
human imperfection, — not indeed always in actual positive error,
yet in something about it defective or exaggerated, disproportion
ate or unsuitable, — exhibited either in the document itself, or in its
relation to the purpose it was intended to serve. There is no man
who has written much upon important and difficult subjects, and
has not fallen occasionally into error, confusion, obscurity, and. in
consistency ; and there is certainly no body of men that have ever
been appealed to as authorities, in whose writings a larger measure
of these qualities is to be found than in those of the Fathers of the
Christian church. We have never read anything more wearisome
and useless than the discussions which have been carried on be
tween Romanists and Protestants, especially divines of the Church
of England, concerning the opinions of the Fathers of the early
ages. Never have ability and learning been more -thoroughly
wasted, than in those endless debates, in which so much pains
have been taken to bring out the meaning of passages in the
Fathers, which really have no meaning, or no meaning that
can be ascertained, — which in many cases their authors, if they
could be called up and examined, would be unable to explain
intelligibly; and to harmonize the confusion and reconcile the
inconsistencies which abound in their works. It was right and
important indeed to show conclusively and once for all, that the
Romanists are not warranted to appeal to the early church, in
support of their leading peculiar opinions ; and the conclusive evi
dence which has been produced in proof of this position, it may

408

CALVIN AND BEZA.

[Essay VII.

be necessary occasionally to refer to. But beyond this, elaborate
discussions of the meaning of particular passages in the Fathers,
should in general be now regarded as nothing better than learned
lumber. Occasions indeed do sometimes occur in theological
literature where something of this kind may be called for. And
we think that there was a dignus vindice nodus, and that an im
portant service was rendered to the cause of truth, when Dr
Goode, the Dean of Ripon, undertook and endured the labor im-
probus of proving — as he has done unanswerably, in his "Divine
Rule of Faith and Practice" — that the Tractarian appeal to the
authority of the Fathers, and also of the great Anglican divines,
was characterized by the same incompetency and unfairness which
have usually marked the conduct of Romish controversialists.*
In adducing extracts from eminent writers in support of their
opinions, controversialists usually overlook or forget the obvious
consideration, that it is only the mature and deliberate conviction
of a competent judge upon the precise point under consideration
that should be held as entitled to any deference. When men
have never, or scarcely ever, had present to their thoughts the
precise question that may have afterwards become matter of dis
pute, — when they have never deliberately examined it, or given a
formal and explicit deliverance regarding it, — it will usually f ollow;
1st, That it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain what they
thought about it, — to collect this from incidental statements, or mere
allusions, dropped when they were treating of other topics ; and
2d, That their opinion about it, if it could be ascertained, would
be of no weight or value. A large portion of the materials which
have been collected by controversialists as testimonies in favour of
their opinions from eminent writers, is at once swept away as use
less and irrelevant, by the application of this principle. The truth
of this principle is so obvious, that it has passed into a sort of
proverb, — " auctoris aliud agentis parva est auctoritas." And yet
controversialists in general have continued habitually to disregard
it, and to waste their time in trying to bring the authority of

* It is but right, however, to remem
ber that unfairness in this matter has
been sometimes exhibited also by the
friends of truth. It is a very humbling
and mortifying exposure which has
been made by Mr Isaac Taylor, in the

Supplement to his Ancient Christi
anity, of inaccuracy in dealing with
quotations from the Fathers, exhibited
in the authorized Homilies of the
Church of England.

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 409
eminent writers to bear upon questions which they had never ex
amined ; and have not scrupled, in many cases, to have recourse
to garbling and mutilation, in order either to silence testimonies or
to make them speak more plainly. The opinion even of Calvin,
upon a point which he had never carefully examined, and on
which he has given no formal deliverance, is of no weight or
value, and would scarcely be worth examining ; were it not that so
much has been written upon this subject, and that his views upon
many points have been, and still are, so much misrepresented.
In dealing with authorities, then, it is necessary to ascertain
whether the authors referred to and quoted have really formed
and expressed an opinion upon the point in regard to which their
.testimony is adduced. It is necessary further to collect together,
and to examine carefully and deliberately, the whole of what they
have written upon the subject under consideration, that we may
understand fully and accurately what their whole mind regarding
it really was, instead of trying to educe it from a hasty glance at
partial and incidental statements. And in order to conduct this
process of estimating and applying testimonies in a satisfactory
and successful way, it is also necessary that we be familiar with
the whole import and bearing of the discussion on both sides, as
it was present to the mind of the author whose statements we are
investigating. Without this knowledge, we shall be very apt to
misapprehend the true meaning and significance of what he has
said, and to make it the ground of unwarranted and erroneous
inferences. We have seen how necessary it is, in order to under
stand and construe aright Calvin's statements about imputation
and justification, to know in what way these subjects were dis
cussed at the time among Romanists as well as among Protestants ;
and many other illustrations of the necessity of a thorough ac
quaintance with the whole question in all its aspects, and of the
errors arising from the want of it, might easily be adduced from
this department of theological controversy. To manage aright
this matter of the adduction and application of testimonies or
authorities, requires an extent of knowledge, a patience and caution
in comparing and estimating materials, and an amount of candour
and tact, which few controversialists possess, and in which many
of them are deplorably deficient. This is not indeed a depart
ment of investigation which can be regarded as possessed of any
great intrinsic importance, with a view to the establishment of

410 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
truth. But it has always occupied, and it is likely to continue to
occupy, a prominent place in theological literature ; and it is there
fore of some consequence that it should be conducted judiciously,
accurately, and honourably.
Much more important than this subject of authorities and
testimonies, is the other topic suggested by the survey in which
we have been engaged, viz. the increasing fulness, exactness, and
precision of deliverances on doctrinal matters, as the result of con
troversial discussion. The great lessons suggested by the investi
gation in which we have been engaged, and suggested indeed by
the whole history of the discussion of all such questions, are, 1st,
The obligation to improve the controversies which have sprung
up in the church, for aiding in the formation of clear and ac
curate, precise and definite, opinions upon all topics of doctrinal
theology, up to the full extent which Scripture, correctly inter
preted and reasonably and judiciously applied, may be fairly held
to sanction ; 2d, The danger and mischief of laying down ex
plicit deliverances, and indulging in elaborate controversies, about
minuter matters which are not revealed to us, and which Scrip
ture really furnishes no materials for determining ; and 3d, The
necessity of great caution and much wisdom in introducing into
symbolical books, and thereby imposing as articles of faith or
terms of communion, even true positions of a minute and definite
description, which may possess no great intrinsic importance as
connected with the development of the scheme of salvation, or
which may derive their importance from temporary or local dis
cussions. These, of course, are just truisms admitted by every
one. Everything depends upon the right application of them to
particular cases and topics ; and this requires thorough and com
prehensive knowledge, great soundness and discrimination of in
tellect, and much careful and deliberate investigation,— qualities
which are very rare, and which especially are very seldom found
in combination with each other.
In regard to each of these three positions, there are tempta
tions and dangers on both sides, — great risks both of defect and
of excess ; and one chief means fitted, with the divine blessing, to
guard against error in these matters, both on the right hand and
on the left, is a comprehensive survey of the history of past dis
cussions, and a sincere and impartial determination to turn it to
the best account, with a view to the ascertaining of truth and the

Essay VII.] CALVIN AND BEZA. 411
determining of the church's duty. It is an imperative obligation,
attaching to every man, according to his means and opportunities,
to acquire as accurate and complete a knowledge of the contents
of divine revelation as he can. And next to the diligent and
prayerful study of the word of God itself, in the unwearied and
impartial application of all legitimate apparatus and auxiliaries, a
comprehensive and discriminating investigation of past discussions,
conducted by competent parties, affords the best means of dis
charging this duty and securing this result. Wherever men of
ability, learning, and integrity, have brought their minds to bear
upon the investigation of divine truth, — and especially when, by the
collision of men of this stamp, the sifting analytic process of con
troversial discussions has been brought to bear upon the subjects
examined, — materials are provided, which, by men who have not
themselves been involved in the controversies, may be turned to
the best account, in forming an accurate estimate, first, of the
truth, and then, secondly and separately, of the importance, of
the points involved. . Men are bound to improve to the uttermost
all their opportunities of acquiring the most clear, accurate, and
exact knowledge of all the truths revealed in the sacred Scrip
tures ; and some men, in seeking to discharge this duty, have been
honoured by the Head of- the church to contribute largely to dif
fuse among their fellow-men more correct, definite, and compre
hensive views of Christian doctrine than had prevailed before, and
to show that these views were indeed sanctioned by the word of God.
The men who have been most highly honoured in this impor
tant department of work, were Augustine in the fifth century, —
the Reformers of the sixteenth century, and especially Calvin, the
greatest of them all, — and lastly, the great Calvinistic systematic
divines of the seventeenth century. The works of this last class of
writers — such men as Francis Turretine, John Henry Heidegger,
Herman Witsius, and Peter Van Mastricht — are based wholly
upon the theology of the Reformation ; but they carry it out to
its completion, and may be said to form the crown and the cope-
stone of theological science, viewed as an accurate, comprehensive,
and systematic exposition and defence of the doctrines revealed
in the word of God. We believe that these men have given an
exposition of the doctrines which are made known to us in the
sacred Scriptures, and which all men are bound to understand and
believe, because God has revealed them, such as in point of clear-

412 CALVIN AND BEZA. [Essay VII.
ness and fulness, accuracy and comprehensiveness, was never
before equalled, and has never since been surpassed. In the
writings of these men, and of others of the same class and period,
we find that almost every discussion raised for the last century
and a half about the substance of theology— that is, about the
doctrines actually taught in Scripture concerning all matters of
universal and permanent importance, concerning God and man,
Christ and the way of salvation, the church and the sacraments —
is dealt with and disposed of,— is practically exhausted and con
clusively determined. But it does not by any means follow from
this, that the precise and definite statements, on doctrinal sub
jects, which the writings of these men present — although true in
themselves and warranted by Scripture, as in general we believe
them to be — should be embodied in symbolical books, and be
thereby made terms of communion with a view to ordination to
the ministry, and grounds of separation among churches. The
duty of a church in settling her symbols, or arranging her terms
of communion, is to be regulated by different principles from those
which determine the duty of individuals, who are simply bound to
acquire and to profess as much of accurate and distinct knowledge
of truth as they can attain to, on all matters, whether important
or not. When a church is arranging her terms of communion,
other considerations, in addition to that of the mere truth of the
statements, must be brought to bear upon the question, of what it
is right, necessary, and expedient to do, or of what amount of
unity in matters of opinion ought to be required. The principles
applicable to this branch of the church's duty have never been
subjected to a thorough discussion by competent parties, though
they are very important in their bearings ; and the right applica
tion of them is attended with great difficulty. Calvin would pro
bably have made a difficulty about adopting precise and definite
deliverances on some points, concerning the truth of which the
great Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth century had no hesi
tation. But it will probably be admitted that he was qualified
for the office of a minister in a Calvinistic church, even in this
advanced nineteenth century.
The great general objects to be aimed at in this matter, though
the application is, of course, the difficulty, are embodied in the
famous maxim, which Witsius adopted as his favourite motto — " In
necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in omnibus caritas."

CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM.*

It has often been alleged that Calvinists are very pugnacious, —
ever ready to fight in defence of their peculiar opinions. But a
survey of the theological literature of this country for the last
half century gives no countenance to this impression. Much
more has been published in defence of Arminianism than of Cal
vinism. Calvinists have scarcely shown the zeal and activity
that might have been reasonably expected of themf either in re
pelling attacks that were made upon them, or in improving ad
vantages that were placed within their reach. In the early part
of the century, indeed, the " Refutation of Calvinism," by Bishop
Tomline, was thoroughly refuted by Scott, the commentator, in
his " Remarks" upon it, and by Dr Edward Williams, in his
"Defence of Modern Calvinism." But since that time, Cople-
ston, Whately, Stanley Faber, and Richard Watson — men of

* British and Foreign Evangelical
Review. July 1858.
Essays on some of the Difficulties in
the Writings of the Apostle Paul, and
in other parts of the New Testament.
Essay iii. — On Election. By Richard
Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dub
lin. 7th Edit, enlarged. London, 1854.
The Primitive Doctrine of Election ;
or, An Historical Inquiry into the
Ideality and Causation of Scriptural
Election, as received and maintained
in the Primitive Church of Christ. By
George Stanley Faber, B.D., Master
of Sherburn Hospital, and Canon of
Salisbury. .2d Edition. London, 1842.

A Treatise on the Augustinian Doc
trine of Predestination. By J. B.
Mozley, B.D., Fellow of Magdalen
College, Oxford. London, 1855.
The Absence of Precision in the For
mularies of the Church of England,
Scriptural and suitable to a state of
Probation. Bampton Lectures for
1855. By John Ernest Bode, M.A.,
Rector of Westwell.
An Exposition of the Thirty-nine
Articles, Historical and Doctrinal. By
E. Harold Browne, B.D., Norrisian
Professor of Divinity in the University
of Cambridge, and Canon of Exeter.
Fourth Edition. London, 1858.

414 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
deservedly high reputation — have all written against Calvinism,
and some of them very elaborately, while no answer to any of
them has been produced by its defenders. Whately and Richard
Watson — the first from his sagacity and candour, exercised both
upon matters of abstract reasoning and of philological investiga
tion, and the second from the general soundness of his views upon
original sin and regeneration, so different from the Pelagianism
of the school of Whitby and Tomline — have made concessions,
and thereby have afforded advantages, to Calvinists, of which they
have hitherto failed, so far as we have noticed, to make any public
use. The concessions of Watson are nothing but what every one
who holds scriptural views of the moral state of human nature,
and of the work of the Holy Spirit in changing it, must make ;
and such accordingly as have been made by all the more evangeli
cal and anti-Pelagian Arminians from Arminius downwards. But
his attack upon Calvinism — forming the concluding portion of
the second part of his " Theological Institutes," and published also
in a small volume separately, as well as in the collected edition of
his works — is, both from its great ability and from the large
amount of scriptural anti-Pelagian truth which it embodies, de
serving of special attention. It has been thirty years before the
world, and it has not, so far as we know, been answered.
Dr Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in his Essay upon Elec
tion, — the third in the volume entitled " Essays on some of the
Difficulties in the Writings of the Apostle Paul," — has made
some important concessions to Calvinists, both in regard to mat
ters of abstract reasoning and philological exposition, which are
eminently creditable to his sagacity and candour, but which they
do not seem as yet to have turned to much account. There is
really more of interest, and, in a sense, of something like novelty,
in these concessions of Dr Whately, than in almost anything that
has been produced upon the subject of this great controversy in
the present day. There is indeed nothing like novelty in the
statements themselves to which we now refer. They express views
which have been always laid down and insisted on by the de
fenders of Calvinism. The importance and the novelty are to be
found only in the circumstance of their being brought forward
by one who is not a Calvinist. Dr Whately, in the essay referred
to, has admitted, in substance, that the arguments commonly ad
duced against the Calvinistic doctrine of election, derived from

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 415
the moral attributes of God, apply as much to actual results
occurring under God's providential government, — in other words,
apply equally to the facts of the introduction and permanent
existence of moral evil ; and that the term election, as- used in
Scripture, relates, in most instances, to " an arbitrary, irrespective,
unconditional decree." These are positions which have been
always asserted, and have been often conclusively proved, by
Calvinists ; but they have not usually been admitted by their
opponents. And it may seem, at first sight, difficult to understand
how any one could admit them, and yet continue to reject the
doctrines of Calvinism.
We once had occasion* to refer to these positions of Dr
Whately; and, regarding him as an Arminian, we ventured to
apply that designation to him, and to represent these positions
as the concessions of an opponent. Dr Whately, it seems,
does not believe or admit that he is an Arminian, and took
offence at being so designated. In the last edition of the volume
above referred to, he adverts to this matter in the following
terms : —
" So widely spread are these two schemes of interpretation, that I have
known a reviewer, very recently, allude to a certain author as 'an Ar
minian,' though he had written and published his dissent from the Armi
nian theory, and his reasons for it. The reviewer, on having this blunder
pointed out, apologized by saying that he had merely concluded him to be an
Arminian, because he was. not Calvinist, and he had supposed that every one
must be either the one or the other ! It is remarkable that, by a converse
error, the very same author had been, some years before, denounced as Cal
vinistic, on the ground that he was not Arminian." f
Dr Whately has acted from misinformation or misappre
hension in saying that the reviewer to whom he refers apolo
gized for the blunder of representing him as an Arminian.
The reviewer has never seen that there was any blunder in the
matter, and is prepared to assert and to prove, that, accord
ing to the ordinary acknowledged rules applicable to such ques
tions, Dr Whately may be fairly called an Arminian, whether he
perceives and admits that he is so or not ; and that it is absurd
to pretend, as he does, to be neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.

* North British Review, vol. xvii. I f Essay iii., On Election, sec. 2,
p. 482, Aug. 1852. • - | note p. 68, 7th Edit.

416 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
There is no doubt a sense in which on this, as well as on most
of the leading questions in Christian theology, there is a three
fold course open to men. They may adopt Socinian as well as
Arminian or Calvinistic views on the subject of election, just as
on other great doctrines of the Christian system ; but Socinianism
upon this point is not much brought forward now-a-days, and was
therefore scarcely worth adverting to in an incidental and popular
allusion to existing differences. Arminians and Socinians oppose,
with equal strenuousness, and upon substantially the same grounds,
the whole doctrines of Calvinists upon this subject. They agree
with each other in all the main conclusions they hold in regard to
foreordination and election; so that all parties may really be ranked
under the two heads of Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. The main
difference here between the Arminians and the Socinians is, that
the former admit, while the latter deny, the divine foreknowledge
of future events. This is not a difference bearing directly upon
what is actually maintained under the head of predestination ;
though it enters into, and has been largely discussed in connec
tion with, the arguments in support of the one and the other side
of that question. Indeed, some of the bolder and more candid of
the old Socinians acknowledge, that they denied the doctrine of
divine foreknowledge, chiefly because they were unable to see
how, if this were admitted, they could refuse to concede the Cal
vinistic doctrine of foreordination ; while, at the same time, some
of the bolder and more candid of the old Arminians have made it
manifest, that they would gladly have rejected the doctrine of the
divine foreknowledge, if they could have devised any plausible
evasion of the scriptural evidence in support of it. The admission
or denial of the divine foreknowledge — though in itself a difference
of very great importance — thus affects rather the mode of con
ducting the argument, so far as foreordination is concerned, than
the actual positions maintained by the opposite parties ; though it
has often been brought into some of the more popular but less
accurate forms of stating the point in dispute. Arminians and
Socinians concur in denying all the leading positions held by
Calvinists on the subject of the divine decrees or purposes, — the
foreordination of all events, — and the absolute election of some
men to eternal life ; and, practically, the great question is, — Is
the Calvinistic affirmation or the anti-Calvinistic negation of
these things true? This being so, it is not strictly correct to

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 417
say, that the only antagonistic alternative to the Calvinistic doc
trine of predestination is the Arminian one ; because the funda
mental Calvinistic position is denied equally by Arminians and
Socinians; and the real question in dispute may be, and should
be, stated in such a way as to omit any reference to the point of
difference between the Arminians and the Socinians, — viz. the
divine foreknowledge, — and to apply equally and alike to both
sections of anti-Calvinists.
But while on this ground it must be admitted, that the anta
gonistic position to the Calvinistic doctrine is somewhat wider and
more comprehensive than the Arminian one, as commonly stated
by Arminians themselves ; yet the Socinian denial of the divine
foreknowledge is now so little brought under our notice, that
there was really no call to take it into account in an incidental
reference to the subject ; — and there is no material inaccuracy in
Calvinism and Arminianism being spoken of as the only really
antagonistic positions.
It is not upon the ground which has now been adverted to,
that Dr Whately objects to being called an Arminian, and tries
to throw ridicule upon the idea that a man must be either an
Arminian or a Calvinist. He is not a Socinian on this point ;
for he admits the divine foreknowledge of all events. He denies
that he is an Arminian, — he denies that he is a Calvinist ; and he
denies that a man, though holding the divine foreknowledge of all
events, and therefore not a Socinian, must be either a Calvinist
or an Arminian on the subject of foreordination. He thus
plainly gives us to understand that he holds a doctrine on this
subject which is materially and substantially different both from
Calvinism and Arminianism, — though he has not suggested any
name by which to designate it. Now we take the liberty of
dissenting: from all this ; and we do not hesitate to affirm that Dr
Whately is an Arminian : and further, that every man who has
formed an intelligent and definite opinion upon this important
controversy, and who repudiates the Socinian denial of the divine
foreknowledge, must be either an Arminian or a Calvinist, — or
rather must be an Arminian, if he refuses to admit the truth of
Calvinism. It may seem somewhat ungracious to refuse Dr Whately's
own statement about his views, and to continue to maintain that
he is an Arminian, when he himself repudiates the name. Most
VOL. I. 27

418 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
certainly nothing ungracious is intended ; the somewhat uncour-
teous form of the statement is the result of what was purely
accidental ; and there are some important considerations, bearing
upon the interests of truth, which seem to render it expedient
that the ground taken should be maintained. The allegation
that the Archbishop is an Arminian was introduced in the most
incidental way, and evidently under the influence of a feeling that
this was a position of notorious and undeniable certainty, — a
position which no one could dispute, and of which no one would
complain. We are neither convinced nor frightened by the some
what angry allusion made to this matter in the note above quoted
from him ; and we think it may be fitted to throw light upon an
important subject, not well understood, if we attempt to establish
the truth of the allegation. We have, of course, no doubt of the
integrity and sincerity of Dr Whately in abjuring the name of
an Arminian. We differ from him in opinion as to what is or
is not Arminianism, and as to what are the grounds and circum
stances which warrant the application of this name ; and these
are matters on which a difference of opinion may be expressed
without any want of personal respect being indicated. We think
we can prove that Dr Whately's views upon the subject of
election are — notwithstanding his important concessions to Cal
vinism, above referred to — so accordant in substance with those
which have been generally known in the history of the church
as Arminian, and so different from those indicated by any other
recognised ecclesiastical designation, that it is perfectly warrant
able to describe them as Arminianism.
We would scarcely have thought of taking the trouble of
attempting to prove this, had we not been persuaded that de
fective and erroneous views on these matters are very pre
valent, especially among the clergy of the Church of England ;
and that there is not a little in the present aspect of theolo
gical literature, fitted to show the importance of trying to
diffuse accurate and definite views of the true status qumstionis
in regard to the topics involved in our controversy with the
Arminians. Dr Whately is not the only eminent writer of the present day.
who has advocated Arminianism, without being aware of this, and
even while repudiating it. The late Mr Stanley Faber — who has
rendered important services in several departments of ecclesiastical

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 419
literature, and who was greatly superior to Dr Whately in theo
logical erudition, though much inferior to him in sagacity and
penetration of intellect — published an elaborate work " On the
Primitive Doctrine of Election," the second edition of which
appeared in 1842. In this work he expounds three different
theories on the subject of Election — viz. Calvinism, Arminianism,
and what he calls Nationalism, or the system advocated by Locke
and Dr John Taylor. He labours to prove that all these three
theories are erroneous, — opposed equally to the testimony of
Scripture, primitive antiquity, and the symbolical books of the
Church of England. He then brings forward a fourth theory,
different from all these — one which is neither Calvinism, nor
Arminianism, nor Nationalism. This he calls Ecclesiastical In
dividualism, — meaning thereby an election of individuals to the
privileges of the visible church — to the enjoyment of the means
of grace. This fourth theory — as distinguished from and opposed
to the other three — he labours to establish as true, by an applica
tion of the three standards just mentioned. While Calvinism,
Arminianism, and Nationalism, are all unfounded and erroneous,
Arminianism is, in Faber' s judgment, the farthest removed from
the truth ; or, as he expresses it,* — " Of the three systems, Armi
nianism has the most widely departed from aboriginal Christian
antiquity" (including Scripture and the early fathers), "for,
in truth, it has altogether forsaken it." Now, we are firmly
persuaded, and think we can prove, that both the Nationalism
which he rejects, and the Individualism which he upholds, are
just in substance the very Arminianism which he denounces and
abjures; that his Arminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical
Individualism, are really just one and the same system or doctrine,
exhibited under slightly different aspects, and constituting the one
only really antagonistic theory to Calvinism. Faber, we think,
has utterly failed to distinguish between the essentials and the
accidentals of the different systems which he has investigated.
He has not penetrated beneath the surface. He has been entirely
carried away by slight and superficial differences, while he has
wholly failed to perceive intrinsic and substantial resemblances.
The consequence is, that his " Primitive Doctrine of Election" —
though containing much interesting matter, which admits of being
* P. 292.

420 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
usefully applied — is practically a mass of confusion ; and can
produce only error and misapprehension in the minds of those
who are unacquainted with some of the more thorough and
searching expositions of these important and difficult subjects.
If there be any truth in these statements, — if there be any
fair ground for believing that Whately and Faber, the former
most favourably representing the ability, and the latter the erudi
tion of the Episcopal Church of this country, are really Armi
nians, though they are not aware of it,- — if these men are truly in
substance teaching Arminianism, while they sincerely denounce
and abjure it,- — there must be some great misapprehension or
confusion prevalent, which distorts and perverts men's views upon
these subjects ; and if any such state of things exist, it must be
important, with a view to the interests of truth, that it should be
pointed out and exposed.
The statements of Whately and Faber — to which we have
referred — seem to be received as true, without any doubt or mis
giving, in the great ecclesiastical denomination to which these
authors belong ; and we are not by any means confident that the
generality of Scotch Calvinists now-a-days have sufficient know
ledge of doctrinal theology to be able to detect the fallacy. The
discussion of this subject extends greatly beyond what is personal
to individuals, as affecting the accuracy of their statements. It
really involves the whole question of the right settlement of the
true status quosstionis in the great controversy about predestina
tion. The settlement of the status quosstionis is always a point of
fundamental importance in great doctrinal controversies. It is
especially important in this one, where — unless the state of the
question is clearly settled and carefully and constantly attended
to — men are very apt to fight at random, to be dealing blows in
the dark, and running some risk of wounding their friends. A
right estimate of the accuracy of the statements of Whately and
Faber, condemning and repudiating Arminianism, must be based
upon an investigation of these two questions — 1st, What is the
real essential point of difference between Calvinists and Arminians
on the subject of election ? and 2d, Is there any real, definite,
and important subject of controversial discussion involved in the
exposition of election, and not disposed of by the determination
of the fundamental question controverted between Calvinists and
Arminians % It is only by settling and applying the first of these

Essay VIII.]' CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 421
questions, that we can satisfactorily determine whether Whately
and Faber, and men holding such opinions, may be justly desig
nated as Arminians ; and if, by a further application of the results
of the same inquiry, we can settle the second of these two questions
in the negative, we thus establish the wider and more important
conclusion, that men who intelligently investigate the subject of
election, and form anything like a clear and definite opinion
regarding it, must be substantially either Calvinists or Arminians,
whether they perceive and admit this or not.
The consideration of these points, however, has a wider bearing
than has yet been indicated. It is fitted to bring out some defects
of considerable importance in the way in which this great class of
theological topics have been usually discussed by divines of the
Church of England. Doctrinal and systematic theology has not
ordinarily been studied with much care by the clergy of that
church ; and the consequence of this has been, not only that crude,
confused, and erroneous views upon doctrinal subjects abound in
the writings of many of them, but also that the warrantableness
and desirableness of vague and indefinite views upon these matters
have found in them open and avowed defenders. The clergy of
the Church of England at the period of the Reformation were
generally, like most of the other Reformers, Calvinists, and con
tinued to be so during the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth and
the greater part of that of James VI. Since about the earlier
part of the reign of Charles I., the great majority of them have
ceased to be Calvinists, though many of these have refused,
like Dr Whately, to be called Arminians, and some — though
not Calvinists — have even declined to be called anti-Calvinists.
These changes in the actual opinions of the clergy of the Church
of England have taken place, w,hile their symbolical books have
continued unaltered upon doctrinal questions. Since the great
body of the clergy have thus been at one time Calvinistic, and
at another Arminian ; and since probably at all times, at least
for two centuries and a half, there have been both Calvinists
and Arminians among them, this has tended in many ways to
produce great laxity and confusion of doctrinal views, and has
not only tended to produce this laxity and confusion in point of
fact, but to lead men to justify its prevalence as a sound and
wholesome condition of things. Calvinists and Arminians had
equally to show that their views were accordant with the Thirty-

422 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
nine Articles; and this almost unavoidably led, not only to a
straining and tampering with the language of the Articles, but
even with the full expression of their own personal convictions.
Some have contended that the Articles admitted only of a Cal
vinistic, others only of an Arminian sense; while others have
thought it more accordant with the facts of the case, and with
the honour of their church, to maintain that they do not decide
in favour of either doctrine, but may be honestly adopted by
both parties. The position that the Articles are neither Calvin
istic nor Arminian, distinctively, does not differ very materially
from the one that they are both. Some have preferred to put
it in this latter form ; and this again has just tended the more
to deepen the confusion which has been introduced into the
discussion. We may give a specimen or two of what is a common mode of
speaking among the divines of the Church of England upon this
subject. Bishop Tomline concludes his " Refutation of Calvinism"
in these words : — " Our church is not Lutheran, it is not Cal
vinistic, it is not Arminian ; it is scriptural, it is built upon the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone."
Dr Magee, the late Archbishop of Dublin, — whom we regard as
a far superior man to Tomline, — puts the point under consideration
in this way, in one of his charges : —
" If any proof were wanting that our Articles are, as they profess to be,
of a comprehensive character, it would be found in this, that, of the contend
ing parties into which our church is unhappily divided, each claims them as
its own. By those who hold the creed of Arminius, they are pronounced to
be Arminian ; and by those who hold the creed of Calvin, they are pronounced
to be Calvinistic. The natural inference of the impartial reasoner would be,
that they are neither, whilst they contain within them what may be traced to
some of the leading principles of both. -'And this is the truth. They are not
enslaved to the dogmas of any party in religion. They are not Arminian.
They are not Calvinistic. They are scriptural. They are Christian."*
In a note on this passage, f he asserts " that the doctrines of
the Church of England are not the doctrines of Calvinism, and
that the informed and intelligent clergy of that church are not
the followers of Arminius." This has been a favourite mode of
statement with very many Episcopalian divines, whom we believe

* Works, vol. ii. p. 428. t P- ±28.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 423
to have been substantially Arminians, perhaps without their being
aware of it. Some Episcopalians — whose doctrinal views were
sounder — have, as we have hinted, been disposed rather to take
the ground, that, without contradicting either Scripture or the
English Articles, men might be both Calvinists and Arminians,
or partly the one and partly the other. Statements to this effect,
or something like it, have been produced from " Cecil's Remains"
and from "Simeon's Memoir;" and they have been employed by
Professor Park of Andover, to countenance his ingenious attempt
to involve important doctrinal differences in inextricable confu
sion, by distinguishing between the theology of intellect and the
theology of feeling.*
There is, indeed, a distinction to be made between men's own
personal convictions and their views as to the meaning and im
port of a symbolical document of public authority. It is quite
possible to produce a deliverance upon the subject of election,
which is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, — that is, which is so
general, vague, and indefinite, as to contain no decision of any of
the points really controverted between the opposite parties. A
church may think such an indefinite and indecisive statement the
most suitable for a symbolical book, — may deliberately intend to
include both parties within her pale, — and may so regulate her
deliverances as not to make a definite opinion on the one side or the
other a term of communion, or what is virtually the same thing,
a ground of separation. Very many of the clergy of the Church
of England contend that this is realized in the Thirty-nine
Articles. And it is quite possible that they may hold this to be
an actual feature of these Articles, and approve of it as a right
state of things for a church to exhibit in her symbols ; while yet
they themselves, in their own personal convictions, may have
decided the question in favour of the one side or the other. Tom
line and Magee were Arminians as much as Whately and Faber,
while maintaining that the Articles are neither Arminian nor
Calvinistic ; and they might have taken this view of the Articles
although they themselves had been Calvinists. But although the
Episcopalian clergy may consistently maintain that the Articles
are neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, — even while they them
selves, in their own personal convictions, may have decidedly

* Bibliotheca Sacra, 1852, No. v. pp. 209, 210.

424 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
adopted the one view or the other, — yet there can be no doubt
that the peculiar character of the Articles, and the kind of discus
sion which this has suggested or required, has tended largely to
keep many Episcopalian divines in a state of great uncertainty
and confusion in regard to this whole class of subjects. There
being some plausible grounds for believing that subscription to
the Articles did not require them to have their minds made up on
the one side or on the other, very many have not thought them
selves called upon to give the time and research necessary for
forming a judgment on these difficult and arduous topics; and
have preferred to exercise their talents rather in the way of
trying to show that it was not only unnecessary, but very difficult,
and highly inexpedient and dangerous, to be forming a decided
opinion, and to be giving an explicit deliverance, upon such
matters. The title of the "Bampton Lectures" for 1855, by
the Rev. John E. Bode, — and they form a very respectable
work, — is this, "The Absence of Precision in the Formularies
of the Church of England scriptural and suitable to a state of
Probation." And this "absence of precision," which they regard
as attaching to the public formularies, they too often extend to
their own private personal convictions. This influence of the
one upon the other has, no doubt, operated powerfully on the
general state of thought and sentiment in the Church of Eng
land. But it ought not to have done so. There may be very
good grounds why precise deliverances upon some doctrinal con
troversies should not be embodied in symbolical books ; while
yet it may be the duty of ministers to have formed for them
selves a decided opinion regarding them. The reasons that satisfy
many of the warrantableness and expediency of the " absence
of precision in the public formularies," do not necessarily sanction
the same quality as attaching to men's own personal convictions ;
though we fear that some notion of this sort is very prevalent
among the clergy of the Church of England. Many have pre
served and cherished the " absence of precision" in their own
personal convictions; and in defending the propriety and ex
pediency of this, they have introduced a vast deal of vagueness
and confusion into the whole discussion.
This course has been adopted, and this tendency has been ex
hibited, chiefly by Arminians ; and Arminianism certainly has got
the benefit of it. Indeed, ignorance and confusion upon this sub-

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 425
ject always tend to the benefit of Arminianism. Truth is promoted
by a thorough knowledge and a careful study of the subject in
hand, and by the clear and definite conceptions which are the
results of intelligence and investigation ; while any shortcoming
or deficiency in these respects tends to promote the prevalence of
error. This holds true generally of all the ordinary subjects of
speculative inquiry. It holds true pre-eminently of the leading
points involved in the controversy between Calvinists and Armi
nians. There are vague, general, and indefinite positions about
the divine purposes and plans, and about the divine providence
and agency, in which both Calvinists and Arminians concur.
Calvinism may be said to involve, and to be based upon, a con
version of these vague and indefinite positions into precise and
definite doctrines. These doctrines the Arminians refuse to admit,
— alleging that no sufficient evidence can be produced in support
of them, and that formidable objections can be adduced against
them. They refuse to advance to the more profound and definite
positions, which may be said to constitute the distinctive features
of Calvinism ; and they insist that men should be satisfied with
those more superficial and indefinite views in which they and their
opponents agree. We are not professing to give this as the for
mal status qumstionis in the controversy. But this is an account
of the difference which is correct, so far as it goes ; and it illustrates
our present position, that imperfect and confused views upon these
subjects tend to injure truth and to advance error, — to damage
Calvinism and to favour Arminianism ; and this, too, even when
men's views may be so pervaded by ignorance and confusion, that
they do not themselves perceive this tendency, or do not really
mean to advance the object to which it leads.
It is one of the leading features or results of this vagueness
and confusion of thought upon these subjects, that there has com
monly been a great tendency to multiply and exaggerate the dif
ferences of opinion which have been expressed regarding them ; as
if to convey the impression that there was a considerable variety
of views, out of which men were very much at liberty to make
a choice as they might be disposed. As Arminianism is at the
bottom of all this confusion, and as it is promoted chiefly for
Arminian objects, it has been common for divines of the Church
of England to magnify differences subsisting among Calvinists,
and to represent each modification of sentiment that may have

426 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
been brought out, as constituting a distinct and different doctrine.
This process tends to increase the general mass of confusion
attaching to the whole subject, and to excite a special prejudice
against Calvinism, as if its supporters were divided among them
selves on points of fundamental importance, and had not any
uniform and well-settled position to occupy. We may refer to
some historical illustrations of this feature of the controversy.
The first person of any consequence who openly taught Armi
nianism in the Church of England (not then known by that name)
was Peter Baro, a Frenchman, who had held the office of Margaret
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge for about twenty years. It
was his teaching Arminianism, in opposition to the general doctrine.
of the Reformers, that occasioned the preparation of the famous
Lambeth Articles in 1595, — a transaction, the history of which
affords conclusive evidence of the general prevalence of Calvinism
in the Church of England till the end of the sixteenth century.
In 1596 he had to resign his office in the university because of
his doctrinal views ; and on that occasion he prepared a short
exposition of his case, under the designation of " Summa Trium
de Prsedestinatione Sententiarum," — the three doctrines being,
1st, Supralapsarian Calvinism; 2d, Sublapsarian Calvinism; and
3d, his own Arminianism, which he describes as the doctrine
held by the Fathers who preceded Augustine, and by Melancthon
and a few other Protestant divines ; just as if the first and second
differed from each other as much as they both differed from the
third. Arminius himself made large use of the same unfair mode of
representation. In his Arnica Collatio with Junius, his predeces
sor in the chair of theology at Leyden, he brings forward three
leading doctrines upon the subject of predestination as prevailing
among Protestants, and attempts to refute them in order to make
way for his own. The three doctrines are — Supralapsarianism,
which he ascribes, unwarrantably, to Calvin ; Sublapsarianism,
which he ascribes to Augustine ; and a theory intermediate be
tween them, — a sort of modification of Supralapsarianism, — which
he ascribes to Thomas Aquinas.* In his famous "Declaratio
Sententise," published in 1608, the year before his death, he brings
forward again the same three opinions as contrasting with his

Opera, p. 159.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM.

427

own, though without associating them historically with the names
of individuals. He puts first and most prominently the highest
Supralapsarianism, and dwells upon it at the greatest length.
He admits, indeed, at last, that there is not any very material
difference among these three doctrines, — all held by Calvinists.
But he has taken care, in the first place, to have the controversial
advantage of having conveyed the impression, that there is great
diversity of sentiment among his opponents ; and of having held
up first and most prominently, in his account of their opinions,
the highest Supralapsarianism, — the view against which it is easy
to excite the strongest prejudice, while it has really been pro
fessed by comparatively few Calvinists. It is worth while to
mention, as a curious specimen of elaborate controversial unfair
ness, that of the whole space occupied by the declaration of his
judgment concerning predestination, Arminius devotes four-fifths
to an exposure of high Supralapsarianism, leaving only the last
fifth for the statement of the other two forms of Calvinism, and
of his own anti-Calvinistic doctrine.
But we mean to confine ourselves for the present to our own
country. The first elaborate Arminian work produced in England,
after Laud's patronage had done something to encourage opposi
tion to Calvinism, and after Bishop Montague had fairly broken
the ice, was " An Appeal to the Gospel for the true doctrine of
Divine predestination, concorded with the orthodox doctrine of
God's free grace and man's free will, by John Plaifere, B.D." He
held a living in the Church of England for a period very nearly
corresponding to the reign of Janjes VI. in that country, and is
not to be confounded with Thomas Playfere, a Calvinist, who
succeeded to the Margaret divinity professorship in Cambridge,
when Baro lost it in consequence of his Arminianism.* John
Plaifere begins his " Appeal" with a full and elaborate statement
of five different doctrines upon the subject of predestination.
The first, of course, is Supralapsarian Calvinism ; the second is
Sublapsarian Calvinism ; the third is a sort of intermediate system

*Mr Goode, in his very valuable
work, Ihe Doctrine of the Church of
England as to the Effects of Baptism
in the case of Lnfants, has proved that
all the theological professors, both
Eegius and Margaret, both at Oxford

and Cambridge, for a period of at least
fifty years from the accession of Queen
Elizabeth, who have left any record
of their opinions, were Calvinists,
with the single dubious exception of
Bishop Overall.— Goode, c. iii.

428 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
between Calvinism and Arminianism, propounded by Bishop Over
all, and very similar to what was afterwards called Baxterianism ;
the fourth he represents as the doctrine held by Melancthon, by
the Lutherans, and the Arminians ; and the fifth and last is the
opinion of Arminius himself, of the Jesuit defenders of scientia
media, and, as he alleges, of all the Fathers before Augustine.
The first four he regards as erroneous, though in different degrees,
while he admits that in all of them there are " some parts and
pieces of truth, but obscure and mingled with defects." The fifth
he adopts as his own, and defends it as true ; though he has failed
to point out any intelligible difference between this and the fourth.
The substantial identity indeed of the fourth and fifth opinions is
so obvious, that it is admitted, and the representation given is
attempted to be accounted for, in the Preface to the republication
of this work, in a " Collection of tracts concerning predestination.
and providence," at Cambridge in 1719.
The example set by Plaifere, in this the earliest formal and
elaborate defence of Arminianism in the Church of England, has
been largely followed down to the present day, especially in the
point of multiplying and magnifying differences, in order to excite
a prejudice against Calvinism, and to shelter Arminianism in the
confusion and obscurity. Bishop Burnet, in his Exposition of the
Thirty-nine Articles, has manifested a good deal of candour and
fairness. He was an Arminian, or, as he himself expresses it in
his preface, — " I follow the doctrine of the Greek Church, from
which St Austin departed and formed a new system." But he
has distinctly admitted, in expounding the 17th Article, that " it
is not to be denied that the Article seems to be framed according
to St Austin's doctrine ;" that " it is very probable that those who
penned it meant that the decree was absolute;" and that "the
Calvinists have less occasion for scruple" in subscribing than the
Arminians, " since the Article does seem more plainly to favour
them." But what alone we have at present to do with is, that he
follows the common Arminian course, by giving a distinct and
separate head to Supralapsarianism. According to Burnet, there
are four leading opinions on the subject of God's decrees or
purposes, viz.: — 1st, Supralapsarianism; 2d, Sublapsarianism ;
3d, " That of those who are called Remonstrants, Arminians,
or Universalists ; " and 4th, u That of the Socinians, who deny
the certain prescience of future contingencies."

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 429
Without further multiplying proofs of this, we come down to
the present day. We have already stated Faber's classification
of the leading doctrines upon this subject under the four heads
of Calvinism, Arminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Indi
vidualism, — the first three being, in his judgment, false, and
Arminianism the worst, — while we maintain that three of them,
including the fourth, which he defends as true, are just Armi
nianism, and nothing else.
There is a book which seems to be in great repute in England
in the present day, which also illustrates the point we are now
explaining. It is, " An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles,
historical and doctrinal," by E. Harold Browne, B.D., Norrisian
Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. The third
edition of it was published in 1856, and a fourth has already
appeared, though it is a bulky octavo of about 900 pages. We
have done little more than dip into it ; but we are satisfied that it is
a highly respectable and useful book, embodying a large amount
of information, and exhibiting a fair and candid spirit, though cer
tainly not free from errors and inaccuracies. The Norrisian Pro
fessor begins his exposition of the 17th Article by an enumeration
and brief statement of the leading theories which have been held
upon the subject of predestination. According to this author,
they are no fewer than six, viz. 1. Calvinism ; 2. Arminianism ;
3. Nationalism ; 4. Ecclesiastical Election. Thus far he has fully
followed Faber, — ecclesiastical election being just the election of
individuals to outward privileges, — the elect being just virtually
the baptized, and the election the visible church. The fifth
theory he mentions is a somewhat unintelligible piece of com
plication, to which no designation is given; and the sixth is
Baxterianism. This seems to be now, as indeed it has always
been in substance, a favourite mode of representing the matter
among the divines of the Church of England. Professor Browne's
own opinions are not very explicitly brought out. He seems to
think that the Articles were expressed intentionally in such inde
finite and general phraseology as to take in the adherents of several
of the different theories. His own views seem to be very much
the same as Faber's, while, at the same time, he concedes that
there are some scriptural statements which do not easily admit of
any other sense than a Calvinistic one.
Mozley's " Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predesti-

430 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
nation," is one of a different class, and of a higher order, both in
point of ability and general orthodoxy ; while at the same time it
affords another specimen of that predilection for the " absence of
precision" on doctrinal questions, which has so generally charac
terized the clergy of the Church of England. It is a work of
very superior learning and ability, and is really a valuable contri
bution to our theological literature. This treatise is substantially
an exposition and defence of the Augustinian or Calvinistic view
of predestination ; while at the same time the author seems deter
mined, for some reason or other, to stop short of committing
himself to a full and open assertion of the doctrine which he seems
to believe. He appears to be always on the point of coming out
with an explicit and unqualified assertion of Calvinism, when he
finds some excuse for stopping short, and leaving the subject still
involved to some extent in obscurity and confusion. It would
almost seem as if Mr Mozley had some secret and inexplicable
reason for refusing to come out with an explicit profession of the
Calvinism to which all his convictions tend to lead him ; and the
excuses or pretences he assigns for stopping short on the verge
of a full and open proclamation of this system, are of a very
peculiar and unreasonable kind. We refer to this very superior
and remarkable book as another specimen, though in a somewhat
peculiar form, of the tendency of Church of England divines to
exhibit and to defend " the absence of precision," in discussing the
points controverted between the Calvinists and the Arminians ;
and thereby to involve the statement and exposition of this impor
tant subject in obscurity and confusion, — qualities which always
tend powerfully to promote the prevalence of Arminian error.
We have brought forward these historical notices to illustrate
the magnitude and the prevalence of what we believe to involve a
serious injury to doctrinal truth; and to show the importance of
attempting to settle, as precisely and definitely as possible, the
true state of the question — the real meaning and import of the
main points controverted on the subject of predestination. This
is important, not so much in reference to the topic which has
more immediately suggested to us this investigation of it, — viz.
determining the accuracy of the application of certain historical
designations, — but chiefly in reference to the far higher object of
forming accurate and definite conceptions on the whole subject,
in so far as we have materials for doing so. We believe that it

Essay VHI.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 431
can be proved, that men who admit the divine foreknowledge of
all events, and who have formed a distinct and definite opinion on
the subject of predestination, must be either Calvinistic or Armi
nian, whether they perceive and admit this or not ; and that
Whately and Faber may be fairly designated as Arminians, not
withstanding their honest repudiation of the name, inasmuch as
they accord with the views commonly known as Arminian in
every point of real importance, and differ from them only, if at
all, on topics that are really insignificant. The determination of
these questions must, from the nature of the case, depend upon
the true status qucestionis between the contending parties ; and
there is no great difficulty in settling this, — although it is true that
men, notwithstanding its paramount importance, often allow their
minds to remain in a condition of great uncertainty and confusion
regarding it.
In proceeding to consider this subject, we would begin with
observing, that it tends to introduce obscurity and confusion into
the whole matter, that men in surveying it are apt, especially in
modern times, to confine their attention too much to election, —
that is, to the decrees or purposes and agency of God with refer
ence to the eternal destinies of men, without taking in predestina
tion or foreordination in general, — that is, the decrees or purposes
and agency of God with reference to the whole government of the
world and all the actions of His creatures. The fundamental prin
ciple of Calvinism, as stated in the " Westminster Confession," *
is, " that 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." If this great doctrine be true, and be validly
established by its appropriate evidence, it includes and compre
hends, — it carries with it and disposes of, — all questions about the
purposes of God with respect to the eternal destinies of the human
race. If it be true that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes
to pass, He must have predetermined the whole history and the
ultimate fate of all His intelligent creatures. If it be true that
God hath eternally and unchangeably ordained whatsoever cometh
to pass, it must also be true, — as being comprehended in this posi
tion, — that, as the "Confession" goes on to say, " By the decree of
God for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are

* C. iii. sec. 1.

432 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to
everlasting death." It serves some useful and important purposes
bearing upon the apprehension and establishment of sound doc
trine, to have regard to the import and evidence of the funda
mental and comprehensive doctrine of predestination, or of God's
decrees in general ; instead of confining our attention to the more
limited topics usually understood to be indicated by the words
election and reprobation. The decrees of God are usually under
stood as describing in general the purposes or resolutions which He
has formed, and in accordance with which He regulates His own
procedure, or does whatever He does in the government of the
world. That God has, and must have, formed purposes or resolu
tions for the regulation of His own procedure in creating and
governing the world, must be admitted by all who regard Him as
possessed of intelligence and wisdom ; and therefore the dis
putes which have been raised upon this subject appear to respect,
not so much the existence of the divine decrees, but rather the
foundation on which they rest, the properties which attach to
them, and the objects which they embrace. The main questions
which have been usually discussed among divines concerning the
divine decrees in general, or predestination in its widest sense,
have been these, — 1. Are the divine decrees or purposes in regard
to all the events which constitute the history of the world condi
tional or not"? and 2. Are they unchangeable or not? Calvinists
hold that God's decrees or purposes in regard to everything that
was to come to pass are unconditional and unchangeable, while
Arminians or anti-Calvinists deny this, and maintain that they
are conditional and changeable. But while this is the form which
the general question has commonly assumed in the hands of theo
logians, the real point in dispute comes practically to this : Has
God really formed decrees or purposes, in any proper sense, with
respect to the whole government of the world 1 It seems plain
— so at least Calvinists believe — that it is unwarrantable to
ascribe to a Being of infinite perfection and absolute supremacy
any purposes or resolutions for regulating the administration
of the universe, that should be left dependent for their taking
effect, or being fully realized, upon the volitions of creatures ;
and liable to be changed according to the nature and results of
these volitions. And this brings us back again to the simple
but infinitely important and comprehensive question, Has God

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 433
eternally and unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to
pass? There is no difficulty in understanding the meaning of
this question. The foreordination of every event implies, that
God from eternity had resolved that it should come to pass, and
had made certain provision for this result. And the real subject
of controversy is just this, Has God foreordained, in this the
only proper sense of the word, whatsoever comes to pass ? All
Calvinists say that He has; and all anti-Calvinists say that He has
not. Arminians and Socinians equally deny this divine foreordi
nation of all events ; while Socinians also deny, but Arminians
admit, that God foreknew or foresaw them all. The divine fore
ordination of all events must either be affirmed or denied, — all
who affirm it are Calvinists, and all who deny it are anti-Calvin
ists ; and if, while denying foreordination, they admit foreknow
ledge, then they may be fairly and justly described as Arminians,
because this is the designation by which, for nearly two centuries
and a half, the actual doctrinal position they occupy upon this
fundamental and all-comprehensive subject has been commonly
indicated. Whately and Faber deny the divine foreordination, while they
admit the divine foreknowledge, of all events ; and therefore,
according to the acknowledged rules and the ordinary practice
by which this matter is regulated, they may, without any trans
gression of accuracy, or justice, or courtesy, be designated as
Arminians. But it was not this great doctrine of the foreordination of all
events which Whately and Faber discussed, or seem to have had
in their view. It comprehends indeed and disposes of the subject
they discussed ; and it is an act of ignorance or inconsideration,
tending to involve the whole matter in confusion, that they did
not take it into account. If they had been familiar with the whole
subject in this its highest and widest aspect, and if they had seen
that the settlement of the question of foreordination, as com
monly discussed, disposes of the question of election, they would
scarcely have ventured to deny that they were Arminians. But
we must see what was their position in regard to the subject which
they had under consideration, viz. election, or the doctrine of the
purposes and procedure of God in regard to the ultimate destinies
of the human race. What is Calvinism, and what is Arminianism,
on this subject % The Calvinistic doctrine is this, that God from
VOL. I. 28

434 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
eternity chose or elected some men, certain definite individuals of
the human race, to everlasting life, — that He determined certainly
and infallibly to bring these persons to salvation by a Eedeemer,
— that in making this selection of some men, and in resolving to
save them, He was not influenced by anything existing in them,
or foreseen in them, by which they were distinguished from other
men, or by any reason known to or comprehensible by us, but
only by His own sovereign good pleasure, by the counsel of His
own will, — and that this eternal decree or purpose He certainly
and infallibly executes in time in regard to each and every one
included under it. This is the Calvinistic doctrine of election ;
every Calvinist believes this, and every one who believes this is a
Calvinist. The meaning of this doctrine, solemn and mysterious
as it is, is easily understood ; and men are Calvinists or anti-
Calvinists according as they affirm or deny it. The grand ques
tion is, — Is this election — such a choice of men to eternal life, on
the ground of the good pleasure of God — a reality, established by
scriptural authority, or is it not ? From the nature of the case
it is manifest, that everything of real importance hinges upon the
reality of such an election as has now been described ; and that
the controversy, so far as it involves anything vital or funda
mental, is exhausted, whenever it is settled, — that is, practically,
whenever a man has conclusively made up his mind, either that
such an election is or is not revealed in Scripture. All men who
are not Calvinists deny the reality of any such election on the
part of God; and if, while denying this, they admit that God
foresaw from eternity the whole of the actual history of each
individual of the human race, then they are Arminians, — and
nothing but ignorance will lead them to object to this designation.
The fundamental principles of the Arminian doctrine upon
the subject of election — the leading features of the theory which
has been always historically associated with that name — may be
accurately exhibited in the two following positions. 1st, That
God made no decree — formed no purpose — bearing immediately
and infallibly upon the final salvation of men, except this general
one, that He would save or admit to heaven all men who should in
fact believe in Jesus Christ and persevere till death in faith and
holiness, and that He would condemn and consign to punishment
all who should continue impenitent and unbelieving. And 2d,
That if there be any act of God, bearing upon the ultimate sal-

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 435
vation of particular men considered individually, which may be
called in any sense an election, or decree, or purpose, it can only
be founded on, and must be determined by, a foresight of their
actual faith and perseverance.
The first of these is the true proper anti-Calvinistic position,
held equally and alike by Arminians and Socinians; and con
stituting manifestly the main substance of what must be held by
every intelligent man who has not embraced Calvinism. It implies
that God did not make an election of particular persons to eternal
life, and resolve to bestow upon them faith, holiness, and perse
verance, in order to secure the end of this election ; but that He
merely made choice of certain qualities or features of character,
and resolved to treat them according to their proper nature, in
whatever individuals they might turn out at last to be found.
Having formed this general purpose to save those who might
believe and persevere, and to condemn and punish those who
might be impenitent and unbelieving, God virtually left it to men
themselves to comply or not with the terms or conditions He had
prescribed ; — having no purpose to exercise, and, of course, not in
fact exercising, any determining influence upon the result in any
case, whatever amount of assistance or co-operation He may render
in bringing it about. This must be in substance the ground taken
by every one intelligently acquainted with the subject, who is not
a Calvinist. We could easily prove that this ground was taken by
Arminius and his followers, and really formed the main feature
of the discussion about the time of the Synod of Dort. The
Synod of Dort, in their deliverance upon the controversy raised by
Arminians and his followers in opposition to the Calvinism of the
Eeformers, not only gave an exposition of the positive scriptural
truth upon each of the five points, but also subjoined to these a
rejection of the errors (rejectio errorum) which had been broached
by Arminians ; and upon the first of the Articles, that on predes
tination, the very first of the Arminian errors which the Synod
rejected and condemned was this, that " the will of God concerning
the saving of those who shall believe and persevere in faith and
the obedience of faith, is the whole and entire decree of election unto
salvation, and that there is nothing else whatever concerning this
decree revealed in the word of God." * Arminianism was f unda-

* Acta Synodi, p. 78. Hanov. 1620.

436 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
mentally and essentially a rejection of the Calvinism taught by
the great body of those whom God raised up and qualified as the
instruments of the Reformation. Its leading positions thus came
to be a denial of the scriptural warrant for such a decree of elec
tion as Calvinists usually advocate, and an assertion that the whole
of what is said in Scripture about a decree of election bearing
immediately upon the final salvation of men, is exhausted by the
doctrine, — which, of course, all admit to be true, — viz. that God
has determined to save all who shall believe in Jesus Christ
and persevere to the end in faith and holiness, and to consign
to punishment all who continue impenitent and unbelieving.
The second position above laid down, states accurately the true
place and standing of the subject of the foreknowledge or fore
sight of faith and perseverance, about which so much is said in
the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. We believe
that it is chiefly from want of clear and accurate conceptions of
the true logical position and relations of this matter of foreknow
ledge or foresight, that so many men are Arminians without being
aware of it ; or rather that so many honestly but ignorantly repu
diate Arminianism while they really hold it. The fallacy which
leads many astray upon this point is the notion, that the doctrine
that the divine decree of election, or the divine purpose to save
certain men, is based or founded only upon the foreknowledge
that these men will in fact believe and persevere, is an essential,
necessary part of the Arminian system of theology.; and affords
a precise test for determining, both negatively and positively,
whether or not men are Arminians. This, though a very common
notion, and one not unnaturally suggested by some of the aspects
which this controversy has assumed, is erroneous. This matter
of foreknowledge does not intrinsically and logically occupy so
prominent and important a place in the controversy — or at least in
that branch of it which concerns the settlement of the state of the
question — as is often imagined. Its real place in this department
of the controversy is collateral and subordinate ; and the practical
result of a correct view of its position is, that while the founding
of election upon foreknowledge proves that a man is an Arminian,
the rejection of this idea is no proof that he is not. The funda
mental position of Arminius and his followers was in direct oppo
sition to the Calvinistic doctrine of the absolute election of some
men to everlasting life, based only upon the sovereign good plea-

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 437
sure of God. They held that this doctrine is opposed to the
testimony of Scripture, and to right views of the divine character
and government. But Arminians, while denying that God abso
lutely chooses some men to life in the exercise of His sovereign
good pleasure, admit that He does infallibly foresee everything
that comes to pass, — that thus the history and fate of each indi
vidual of the human race were from eternity present to His mind,
and of course became in some sense the objects of His actings
and purposes ; — and that, on this ground and in this sense, He
might be said to have resolved from eternity to save each indivi
dual who is saved. The notion of an election to life originating in
and founded upon the foresight of men's character and conduct,
is thus no necessary or fundamental part of the actual position
which the Arminians occupy. It is merely a certain mode of
expression into which they can, without inconsistency, throw their
leading doctrine ; and the use of which involves something of an
accommodation or approximation to the language of Scripture,
and of their Calvinistic opponents. Arminians virtually say to
their Opponents, — " We wholly deny your doctrine of election to
life on the ground of God's sovereign good pleasure foreordaining
and securing this result ; and the only sense in which we could,
consistently with this denial, admit of anything like an election
of individuals to life, is God's foreseeing and recognising this
result as a thing determined in each case by men's actual cha
racter. An election to life in this sense and upon this ground is
undoubtedly a reality, a process which actually takes place ; and
we are quite ready to admit it, especially as it seems to accord
with and to explain those scriptural statements about election on
which you base your doctrine. In short, if you will insist upon
something that may be called an election, at least in a loose and
improper sense, we have no objection to allow an election founded
on foresight, but we can concede nothing else of that sort." This
is the true state of matters, and it brings out clearly, the subor
dinate and collateral place held by the subject of foreknowledge
in the investigation of the state of the question.
Some Arminians are willing so far to accommodate themselves
to the scriptural and Calvinistic usage of language, as to admit
that, in the sense now explained, God had from eternity His own
fixed and unchangeable purposes in regard to the admission of
men individually into heaven ; while others think it more manly

438 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
and candid to avoid ,the use of such language, when their funda
mental principle requires them so thoroughly to explain it away.
All that is implied in the election of any individual to eternal life,
in the only sense in which any one not a Calvinist can admit it, is,
that God foresees that that individual will in fact believe and per
severe ; and that on this ground— this being " the cause or condi
tion moving him thereto" — He decrees or purposes to admit that
man to heaven, and to give him everlasting life. The result is
thus determined by the man himself, — God's decree (falsely so
called) with respect to his salvation being nothing but a mere
recognition of him as one who, without His efficacious determining
interposition, would certainly, in point of fact, comply with the
conditions announced to him. A decree or purpose based solely
upon the foreknowledge or foresight of the faith and perseverance
of individuals, is of course practically the same thing as the entire
want or non-existence of any decree or purpose in regard to them.
It determines nothing concerning them, it bestows nothing upon
them, it secures nothing to them. It is a mere word or name, the
use of which only tends to involve the subject in obscurity and
confusion. Whereas, upon Calvinistic principles, God's electing
decree in choosing some men to life is the effectual source or
determining cause of the faith and holiness which are ultimately
wrought in them, and of the eternal happiness to which they at
last attain. God elects certain men to life, not because He fore
sees that they will repent and believe and persevere in faith and
holiness, but for reasons no doubt fully accordant with His wisdom
and justice, though wholly unknown to us, and certainly not based
upon anything foreseen in them as distinguished from other men ;
and then further decrees to give to these men, in due time, every
thing necessary in order to their being admitted to the enjoyment
of eternal life, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme
which His wisdom has devised for savins sinners.
But we are in danger of travelling beyond the consideration
of the state of the question, and trenching upon the proper argu
ment of the case. Our object at present is simply to show, that
although the idea of the foresight of men's faith and perseverance
is commonly brought into the ordinary popular mode of stating
the difference between Calvinists and Arminians, yet it does not
really touch the substance of the point controverted, so as to be,
out and out, a discriminating-test of men's true doctrinal position.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 439
It is rather a certain mode of speaking, by which Arminians en
deavour to evade a difficulty, and to approximate to scriptural lan
guage without admitting scriptural truth. When men say, as many
Arminians do, that the divine decree of election is based upon the
foresight of faith and perseverance, they are virtually saying that
there is no decree of election, in any proper sense of the word ;
or, what is practically the same thing, that the whole and entire
decree of election is God's eternal purpose to save all who shall, in
point of fact, believe and persevere. Foreknowledge thus does not
really affect the proper status quwstionis, — the real substance of
what is maintained on either side, or made matter of actual con
troversy ; though it does enter fundamentally into the argument
or proof, — the Arminian admission of divine foreknowledge afford
ing to the Calvinists an argument in favour of foreordination
which has never been successfully answered.
It is on such grounds as these that we contend that, while the
basing of election upon foreknowledge is a proof that men may be
justly described as Arminians, the declining or refusing to embrace
this idea is no proof that they may not be justly so designated.
We believe that erroneous and defective conceptions, on this point,
are one main cause why men are not aware that they are Armi
nians, and unwarrantably repudiate the designation. There are
various reasons that lead men, who are really Arminians, to reject
this idea of an election founded on foresight. Some think it more
manly and straightforward to declare openly that there is no such
thing as an election to eternal life, instead of grasping at what has
the appearance of being an election, but is not. Others rather
wish to leave divine foreknowledge altogether in the background,
and to say as little about it as they can, either in the statement or
in the argument of the question. Many, while admitting fore
knowledge and denying foreordination, see the difficulties and
inconveniences of attempting to connect them in this way. The
attempt to found an election on foreknowledge brings out, in a
peculiarly palpable light, the fundamental objection of Calvinists
against the system of their opponents,— viz. that it leaves every
thing bearing upon the character and eternal condition of all the
individuals of our race undetermined, and indeed uninfluenced, by
their Creator and Governor, and virtually beyond His control ;
and degrades Him to the condition of a mere spectator, who only
sees what is going on among His creatures, or foresees what is to

440 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
take place, without himself determining it, or exerting any real
efficiency in the production of it, — and who must be guided by
what He thus sees or foresees in all His dealings with them. All
this, indeed, can be proved to be involved necessarily in the denial
of Calvinism; but it comes out very plainly and palpably when Ar
minianism is put in the form of maintaining an election founded
on foresight, and on this account many Arminians shrink from
that mode of representation. For these reasons, many who zeal
ously maintain what is really the essential characteristic feature of
Arminianism, dislike and avoid the basing of election upon fore
sight ; and as this mode of putting the matter is popularly re
garded as the distinctive mark of Arminianism, those who avoid
and reject it are very apt, when their acquaintance with these
subjects is imperfect and superficial, to regard themselves as
warranted in repudiating the designation of Arminians.
Faber has made it quite manifest that it was chiefly by some
confusion upon this point that he was induced to abjure Armi
nianism, while he really believed it ; and we suspect that this has
operated as an element, though perhaps not the principal one, in
producing the same result in the case of Archbishop Whately.
Faber has developed his views upon these points much more fully
than Whately, and it may tend to throw light upon the matter
under consideration, if we advert to his mode of representing it.
Faber entitles his work, " An Historical Inquiry into the Ideality
and Causation of Scriptural Election." By the ideality of elec
tion, he means the investigation of the question as to what it is to
which men are said to be elected or chosen ; and by the causation
of election he means the investigation of the question as to what
is the cause, or ground, or reason of God's act in so electing or
choosing them. It is plain enough, from the nature of the case,
that there can be only two distinct questions of fundamental im
portance in regard to the idea of election, — viz. 1st, Did God
choose men only to what is external and temporal? or 2d, Did He
also choose them to what is internal and everlasting ? In other
words, Did God choose men only to external privileges and oppor
tunities, not determining by any act of His, but leaving it to be
determined by themselves, in the exercise of their own free will,
whether or not they shall improve these means of grace, and
consequently whether or not they shall be saved? or, Did He
choose them also to faith, and holiness, and heaven, to grace and

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 441
glory, resolving absolutely to save those whom He had chosen, and
to give them everything needful to prepare them for salvation,
in accordance with the provisions of the scheme which He had
devised and proclaimed? The cause of election must, in like
manner, be resolved either into something in men, existing or fore
seen, or into something in God himself ; and if everything in
men themselves be excluded from any causal influence upon God's
act in election, this is evidently the same thing as tracing election
to God's sovereign good pleasure — to the counsel of His own will.
It is by the application of these two pairs of differences that
Faber discriminates his four different doctrines on election, viz.
Calvinism, Arminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Indivi
dualism, — taking some assistance also from another distinction
of much inferior importance, — viz. that between an election of
nations or masses of men collectively, and an election of indivi
duals. Calvinism he represents as teaching, that the idea of
election is God's choosing absolutely some men individually to
eternal life, and that the cause of election is not anything in these
men themselves, but only the sovereign good pleasure of God. As
Calvinists, we have no objection to make to this representation.
Faber rejects the Calvinistic idea of election, but approves of our
view of its cause. Arminians, according to him, agree with the
Calvinists in representing the idea of election to be a choosing
of men individually to eternal life, but differ from them in repre
senting the cause of this election to be the foreknowledge of men's
character and conduct, or their faith and perseverance foreseen.
And here we see the fallacy which involves the views of Faber,
and many others, upon this whole matter in confusion, and which
we have already in substance exposed. It is only a great ignor
ance of the whole bearing and relations of the notion of basing
election upon foresight, that could lead any man to assert, as
Faber does, that Arminians agree with Calvinists in maintaining
that the idea of election is that God chooses some men to eternal
life. Beyond all question, the fundamental principle of Armi
nianism is just a denial of the Calvinistic doctrine, that God
really, in the proper sense of the word, chooses some men to
eternal life — a denial that such an election is sanctioned by Scrip
ture ; while the idea of representing foreknowledge as the ground
of election, is merely a collateral subordinate notion, having some
thing of the character of an afterthought, and forming no part of

442 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
the real substance or essential features of the actual position
maintained. Arminians deny out-and-out that Scripture reveals
any real election by God of some men to eternal life ; while they
often add to this denial a statement to this effect, that if there be
anything in Scripture which seems to indicate an election of some
men to eternal life, — anything resembling or approximating to the
Calvinistic idea of election, — it can be only an election based upon
a foresight of men's character, which is manifestly, as intelligent
and candid Arminians admit, no election at all. But, after the
explanations formerly given, we need not dwell longer upon this
point. Arminians then are, according to Faber, unsound, both in
regard to the idea of election, in which, it seems, they agree with
Calvinists ; and in regard to the cause of it, in which they differ
from them.
Let us attend now to what he says about the two other
schemes, which are different from both of these. The third is
what he calls Nationalism, — a doctrine taught by John Locke, Dr
John Taylor of Norwich, and Dr Sumner, the present Archbishop
of Canterbury, in his book on Apostolical Preaching. It is this,
that the election spoken of in Scripture is merely a choice made
by God of nations or masses of men to form His visible church,
and to enjoy the outward means of grace ; and that the cause of
this election is the sovereign good pleasure of God, who gives to
different ages and countries the enjoyment of the means of grace,
or withholds them, according to the counsel of His own will.
Here Faber thinks the causation right; it being resolved, as in the
case of Calvinism, into the good pleasure of God. He thinks the
ideality partly right and partly wrong : right in so far as it re
presents election as being only a choice to outward privileges and
means of grace, and not, as Calvinists and Arminians concur in
holding, a choice to salvation and eternal life; and wrong, in so far
as it implies that election has for its object, not individuals, but
nations or communities. The fourth theory which he expounds,
and which he labours to prove to be altogether, both in ideality
and causation, accordant with the sacred Scriptures, with primi
tive antiquity, and with the symbolical books of the Church of
England, he calls by the name of Ecclesiastical Individualism.
In point of causation, it agrees with Calvinism and Nationalism,
in resolving the cause of election into the good pleasure of God.
In regard to ideality, it agrees with Nationalism in the funda-

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 443
mental point of representing election as a choice of men only to
the communion of the visible church and to the enjoyment of the
means of grace, and not to anything implying or securing salva
tion ; while it differs from it only in the insignificant point of
making the objects of election individuals instead of nations.
It thus appears why it is that Faber represents Arminianism
as the most erroneous of the three erroneous doctrines. Armi
nianism is erroneous both in point of ideality and of causation ;
whereas Calvinism and Nationalism are both right in point of
causation, and Nationalism is only partially and slightly wrong in
, point of ideality. It must also be very plain, we think, from the
explanation which has been given, that Faber — while condemn
ing and abjuring Arminianism, with, we have no doubt, perfect
sincerity — is himself an Arminian, and nothing else. The funda
mental principle of Calvinists is, that God has absolutely chosen
some men to salvation, resolving to give them eternal life, and of
course infallibly executing this purpose. The fundamental prin
ciple of Arminians, and of all who are not Calvinists, is and must
be, that God has made no such decree, — formed no such purpose ;
that He has not chosen any men to eternal life, or to anything
which implies or secures it, but only to that which is in itself
externa] and temporary, though, if rightly improved, it avails to
men's salvation, — viz. the communion of the visible church and the
enjoyment of the means of grace. Faber repudiates the funda
mental principles of Calvinism ; he strenuously contends for the
fundamental principle of Arminianism ; and therefore he may be
justly called an Arminian.
The subject may also be illustrated in this way. Election/ is
frequently spoken of in Scripture, and ascribed to God. Men are
bound to understand the Scriptures, and they should investigate
and ascertain what is there meant by election. Calvinists admit
that election and cognate words are used in Scripture in a variety
of senses. They admit that God-, in fact, chooses nations and
chooses men individually to the enjoyment of the means of grace ;
and that this choice of nations and individuals to external privi
leges is described in Scripture by the name of election, and is
ascribed to the good pleasure of God. Thus far all parties are
agreed. The distinctive principle of Calvinism is, that while
election is used in Scripture in these senses, — to describe these
processes, — it is also used in a higher and more important sense,

444 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
to describe a process in which God, out of His own good pleasure,
chooses some men to eternal life, and to the certain improvement
as well as the outward enjoyment of the means of grace ; and by
which, therefore, He secures their salvation. God determines the
outward privileges enjoyed by nations and individuals, — it is ad
mitted that whatever He does in time He resolved from eternity to
do, — and therefore He may be said to have chosen from eternity
nations and individuals to the outward privileges which they come
in time to enjoy. Nationalism and Ecclesiastical Individualism
are thus both true so far as they go. No Calvinist denies either
the one or the other. They both describe realities, — processes
which actually take place under God's moral government, — which
He resolved from eternity to carry through, and which are some
times indicated in Scripture by election and cognate words. This
is certainly true. The question is, Is it the whole truth? Is
there, or is there not, another and higher sense in which the word
election is used in Scripture, as descriptive of an act of God
bearing directly and conclusively upon the salvation of men ?
Calvinists maintain that there is ; Arminians and all other anti-
Calvinists maintain that there is not ; and this is indeed the one
essential point of difference between them. Nationalism and Eccle
siastical Individualism, — or the choice of nations and individuals
to the means of grace, — though true so far as they go, viewed
as descriptive of actual realities, are yet, when represented as
embodying the whole truth, or as exhausting the senses in which
election is used in Scripture, just a denial of the fundamental
principle of Calvinism, and an assertion of the fundamental
principle of Arminianism ; and therefore both Nationalists and
Individualists are equally and alike, at least when they admit
foreknowledge, Arminians, and nothing else.
In the exposition of the scriptural meaning of election, the
ground taken by Calvinists is this, that whatever other acts of God,
bearing in any way upon the salvation of men, are or may be
described by this name, there is an election spoken of in Scripture,
of which the three following positions can be established : — 1st,
That it is not founded upon anything in men (foreseen or exist
ing) as the cause or reason why they are chosen, but only on
God's own sovereign good pleasure. 2d, That it is a choosing of
individuals, and not merely of nations, or masses of men col
lectively. And 3d, That it is directed immediately not to any-

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 445
thing merely external and temporary, but to character and final
destiny ; that it is a choosing of men to eternal salvation, and does
certainly and infallibly issue in that result in the case of all who
are included in it. Calvinists believe that there is an election
spoken of in Scripture, of which these three positions can be
established; and it is the maintenance of all this that makes
them Calvinists. But the question with which at present we are
chiefly concerned is, — What is the Arminian mode of dealing
with these three positions ? and what mode of dealing with them
entitles us to call men Arminians ?
With regard to the first of these positions, the more candid
and intelligent Arminians admit, that there is an election spoken
of in Scripture which is founded not on anything in men, but
only on the good pleasure of God. Some Arminians have denied
this, notwithstanding the clearest scriptural evidence. But these
have not been the most reputable and formidable advocates of
Arminianism. There is nothing in their Arminianism that should
prevent them from admitting this ; and it is only the misapprehen
sion and confusion which we have already exposed about the bear
ing and relations of the idea of foreknowledge or foresight, that
could lead any one to suppose that this admission involved them
in inconsistency, or afforded any presumption that they were not
Arminians. Arminians, indeed, must repudiate — in order to pre
serve anything like consistency — an election to eternal life, founded
only on the good pleasure of God, and not on anything in men
themselves. If there were any such election as this, it could be
founded only upon a foresight of faith, holiness, and perseverance.
But rejecting any proper election to eternal life, there is nothing
to prevent them from admitting an election of men to what is
external and temporary, founded only on the good pleasure of God.
Whately and Faber both admit what is sometimes called arbitrary
or irrespective election ; but as it is only an election to outward
privileges, — which men may improve or not as they choose, — the
admission does not afford even a presumption that they are not
Arminians, although they seem to think it does.
The second position — viz. that there is an election spoken of
in Scripture, the object of which is not nations or masses of men
collectively, but men individually — does not of itself determine
anything of much importance. Calvinists admit that there is an
election of nations spoken of in Scripture ; and many Arminians

446 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
admit that there is also brought before us in the Bible an election
of individuals as distinguished from masses. If the only election
spoken of in Scripture be an election of masses or communities, —
and this, of course, is the distinctive tenet of those who are called
Nationalists, — it follows that the election could be only to what
was external and temporary, that is, to outward privileges. And
it is this plainly which has commended the notion to a certain
class of Arminians. Finding it conceded that there are instances
in Scripture in which the election spoken of is applied to nations,
they have bethought themselves of employing this notion for the
purpose of shutting out Calvinism altogether, by showing that
there is no other election- — no election of individuals — spoken of
in Scripture; and consequently that scriptural election is only
to outward privileges. Nationalism, then, so far from being a
different doctrine from Arminianism, is merely a form or aspect
in which Arminianism may be embodied, with something like a
show of an argument in support of it. The maintenance of
Nationalism proves that men are Arminians ; while the denial of
it — in other words, the admission that Scripture speaks also of an
election of individuals — is no proof that they are not.
The truth is, that the hinge of the whole question turns upon
the third position above stated as maintained by Calvinists in
regard to the meaning of- election, — viz. that Scripture does tell
us of an absolute and unchangeable election of some men to eternal
life, an election which infallibly secures to these men grace and
glory. The only conclusive proof that a man is not an Arminian,
is the proof that he holds this fundamental principle of Calvinism.
If men do not admit this great distinctive principle of Calvinism,
they must maintain that the election spoken of in Scripture is
only an election to what is external and temporary, — that is, to
privileges or opportunities which men may improve or not as they
please. It is impossible to examine an Arminian commentary
upon the scriptural statements concerning election, without seeing
that the one grand object aimed at is just to establish, that there
are none of them which prove a real election to grace and glory, and
that they may be all explained so as to imply nothing more than
an election to outward privileges. All the leading Arminian
divines have taken — and from the nature of the case could not
avoid taking — this ground, in dealing with the scriptural argument
on the subject of election ; and every one who takes this ground is

fc>

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 447
thereby conclusively proved to be an Arminian. They may
concede to Calvinists the first two of the positions we have laid
down in regard to the scriptural meaning of election, — that is, they
may admit that there is an election spoken of in Scripture which
is founded only on the sovereign good pleasure of God, and which
has respect to men individually, and not merely to nations or
masses. They are quite consistent in their Arminianism, and have
quite a sufficient basis on which to rest it, so long as they deny the
third position, and maintain the converse of it ; and by occupying
this ground they prove themselves to be Arminians. This is pre
cisely the case with Faber and Whately. They both deny that
Scripture gives any sanction to a real election of some men to faith
and holiness, to grace and glory ; and therefore they are not Cal
vinists. They both maintain that the only election spoken of in
Scripture is an election to outward privileges and opportunities,
which men may improve or not, according to their own good
pleasure ; and therefore (since at the same time they admit fore
knowledge) they may be most warrantably held to be Arminians.
From the explanation which has been given, it must, we think,
be very evident, that Nationalism and Individualism as explained
by Faber, instead of being, as he represents the matter, two distinct
doctrines on the subject of election, different both from Calvinism
and Arminianism, are just two devices for evading the scriptural
evidence in support of the former, and for assisting to furnish a
scriptural argument in favour of the latter. There is very little
real intrinsic difference between these two Arminian devices for
answering the Calvinistic argument and evading the testimony of
Scripture ; for, on the one hand, an election of nations must be
an election only to outward privileges ; and, on the other hand,
outward privileges are usually — in the ordinary course of God's
moral administration — bestowed rather upon nations or communi
ties than upon individuals. Some Arminians prefer the one and
some the other of these two modes of disposing of the Scripture
testimony in favour of Calvinism ; while others again think it best
to employ both methods, according to the exigencies of the occa
sion. The two together form the great staple of the scriptural
argument of the whole body of Arminian divines ; and it has been
no uncommon practice among men to employ the one or the other
mode of evasion, according as one or the other seemed to afford
the more plausible materials for turning aside the argument in

448

CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.

favour of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, derived from the
particular passage which they happened to be examining at the
time. Dr Whately takes the ground, directly and at once, that
the election ascribed to God in Scripture is not an election to faith
and salvation, but only to outward privileges or means of grace,
which men may improve or not as they choose ; while Dr Sumner,
the present Archbishop of Canterbury, takes the other ground,
and maintains that scriptural election is a choice not of individuals
but of nations; and thus, of course, comes round to the same
inevitable Arminian position, by a slightly different and somewhat
more circuitous process.*
We are almost ashamed to have dwelt so long, and with such
reiteration, upon these matters. But when we find it gravely put
forth by such a writer as Faber, that Calvinism, Arminianism,
Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Individualism, indicate four dif
ferent theories upon the subject of election, — Arminianism being
at once more erroneous in itself, and yet nearer to Calvinism, than
either of the other two ; when we find the same views of the
general import of these alleged theories brought out by one at

* Dr Whately has adverted to and |
explained the difference between him
self and Dr Sumner in the Introduc
tion to his Essays ; and as the passage
establishes the accuracy of the repre
sentation we have given of the views
of both parties, we shall quote it : "I
have been informed that some of the
hearers of the discourse, of which the
third Essay contains the substance,
understood the argument in s. 2 to be
merely a repetition of Archbishop Sum
ner's in his valuable work ou ' Aposto
lical Preaching.' Such a misappre
hension is, I trust, less likely to take
place in the closet ; but to guard against
the possibility of it, it may be worth
while here to remark, that though I
coincide with Archbishop Sumner in his
conclusion, the arguments by which we
respectively arrive at it are different.
The distinction which he dwells on, is
that between national and individual
election ; that on which I have in
sisted is, the distinction between elec
tion to certain privileges and to final
reward ; he, in short, considers prin
cipally the parties chosen, whether

bodies of men or particular persons :
I, the things to which they are chosen;
whether to a blessing, absolutely, or to
the offer of one conditionally." (Intro
duction, p. xix.) And in a footnote
to the third section of the Essay itself,
he again adverts to the difference in
this way (p. 75): "The view here
taken of election some have hastily
supposed to be at variance with that
of Archbishop Sumner in his ' Apos
tolical Preaching,' whileothers have no
less erroneously supposed them iden
tical." The views of the two Most
Reverend Primates on the subject of
the scriptural meaning of election are
certainly neither at variance nor iden
tical. But the difference between them
is very small ; and they are both most
thoroughly accordant with the funda
mental principle of the Arminian doc
trine upon this subject. Indeed, the
two together form the most ordinary
and familiar commonplace of the
general current of Arminian writers
in dealing with the scriptural evi
dence.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 449
present holding the office of a professor of divinity in the Univer
sity of Cambridge, in a work which seems to be in great repute,
having gone through four editions in the course of the last seven
or eight years ; and when we reflect upon the various indications
presented, that these views of Faber and Professor Browne pass
current as undoubted truths among many of the clergy of the
Church of England, we cannot but believe that ignorance, mis
apprehension, and confusion are widely prevalent upon these
subjects, and that there is an imperative call to attempt to dispel
this thick darkness, while at the same time we cannot but feel
that it may probably not be easy to effect this. We have surely
said enough to prove — 1st, That there are just two really dis
tinct theories upon this subject which, with substantial historical
accuracy, may be called Calvinism and Arminianism, — that the
great point which forms the proper subject of controversy between
Calvinists and Arminians is the existence or the non-existence,
the affirmation or the negation, of a real decree, or an absolute
purpose of God, formed from eternity, originating in His sovereign
good pleasure, choosing some men to eternal life, and effectually
securing that these men shall have grace and glory ; 2d, That it
is a thorough fallacy to represent Arminianism— as is done by
Faber and Professor Browne — as countenancing any proper decree
or purpose of God really bearing upon the salvation of men, — a
fallacy arising from the want of a right perception of the true
bearing and relations of the idea of foreknowledge or foresight, as
it has been brought into the discussion of this subject ; and 3d,
That Nationalism and Individualism, instead of being theories
differing from Arminianism, are just 'forms or aspects of it, — or
rather, perhaps, attempts at arguments in support of it. All who
believe that Scripture establishes the existence of such an election
as is described in the first of these positions, are Calvinists ; and
all who deny this, provided they at the same time admit the
divine foreknowledge, are Arminians. When tried by this, — the
only really sound and searching test, — Faber and Whately are
undoubtedly Arminians ; and there is no violation of historical
accuracy or of substantial justice in applying to them that desig
nation, notwithstanding that they through misapprehension dis
claim it.
Dr Whately, in his latest work, "The Scripture Doctrine
concerning the Sacraments," has a remark which bears upon this
VOL. I. 29

450 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
matter, and may require to be adverted to. He says there,* "It
is utterly improper that any should be called either by themselves
or by others ' Calvinists,' who dissent from any part of what
Calvin himself insists upon as a necessary portion of his theory;"
and upon this principle he would probably contend that it is
" utterly improper to call him an Arminian," since he dissents from
11 some part of what Arminius insists upon as a necessary portion
of his theory." Personally we have no objection to the principle
of the rule indicated by Dr Whately. We could not, even if so
disposed, escape from the imputation of being Calvinists, by
alleging that we dissent from any part of what Calvin insisted
upon as a necessary portion of his theory, though we do dissent
from some of his opinions. But in regard to the application of Dr
Whately's remark to his own case, we venture to affirm, 1st, That
the rule which he lays down about the application of such desig
nations is unnecessarily and unwarrantably stringent; ana 2d,
That even conceding the soundness of this stringent rule, we are
perfectly warranted in calling him an Arminian.
1st, The rule is unduly stringent. This matter must be settled
— for there is no other standard applicable to the point — by
considering the practice of the generality of divines of different
denominations. Now, there . can be no doubt that it is a common
and usual thing for divines to apply such designations as those
under consideration in a wider and more indefinite way than
Dr Whately's rule would sanction. Calvinism, Arminianism, and
similar names, are generally employed to indicate, not so much
the actual views held by Calvin, Arminius, and others, but rather
the general system of doctrine which these men did much to bring
out and to commend, even though it may have been considerably
modified in some of its features by the discussioia to which it has
been subsequently subjected. Controversy conducted by compe
tent persons usually leads — though it may be after an interval,
and even after the removal of the original combatants — to clear '
up and modify men's views upon both sides ; and yet, for the sake
of convenience, the same compendious designations may still be
retained. The general practice of divines sanctions this use of
these names, though it is manifest that they must often be em
ployed in a somewhat vague and ambiguous way, — there being no

' Note, p. 13.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 451
precise or definite standard to which reference can be made, in
order to determine their proper meaning and import. This un
avoidable vagueness and uncertainty in the use and application
of those words, leaves much room for carping and quibbling when
men are disposed to evade or escape from a difficulty. But even
with this drawback, there is much convenience in the use of such
designations ; the general usage of theologians sanctions it ; and it
is trifling to make an outcry about any matter of this sort, unless
in a case of gross and deliberate unfairness. Calvin and Arminius
must not be held responsible for any opinions which they have not
themselves expressed. Still there is no great difficulty in distin
guishing between their personal opinions and the leading features
of the systems of theology to which their names have been attached,
as these seem to be logically related to each other, and as they have
been commonly set forth by the most eminent divines of either
denomination. Arminius never positively and decidedly renounced
the Calvinistic doctrine of the certain perseverance of believers ;
but no one has ever had any hesitation about calling the denial
of this doctrine Arminianism, upon these grounds— ls^, That
logically it forms a natural, necessary part of the Arminian sys
tem of theology, although Arminius himself did not perceive this,
and did not insist upon it as a necessary portion of his theory ;
and 2d, That historically, the doctrine of perseverance has been
denied by the great body of those divines who, ever since Ar
minius' s time, have been called after his name. It is true, on the
one hand, that men of sense do not suppose that these designa
tions — even when applied in a way which general usage warrants
— afford of themselves anything like a proof either of the truth or
the falsehood of the doctrines to which they are attached ; and it
is also true on the other, that men of sense will not raise an outcry
about the application of one of these designations to themselves, if
their views agree in the main with the general system of doctrine
to which this designation has been usually applied. We would
not object to be called Calvinists, though we differed much more
widely from Calvin's own views than we do, nay, even though we
dissented from some point which " Calvin himself insisted upon
as a necessary portion of his theory," so long as we held the
fundamental distinguishing principles of that scheme of theology
with which his name is usually associated.
But 2d, Though Dr Whately's rule is unduly stringent, still

452

CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.

its fair application does not prove the unwarrantableness of calling
him an Arminian. Not only does he hold all the fundamental
distinguishing principles of the system of theology which has been
generally known in the history of the Church under the name of
Arminianism, as expounded by the generality of the most eminent
divines who have accepted that name for themselves, but he
does not dissent from any part of what Arminius himself insisted
upon as a necessary portion of his theory ; nay, he does not dissent
from Arminius, or from the general body of Arminian divines, in
any doctrine of real importance. Arminius was very unwilling
to bring out, honestly and explicitly, his peculiar opinions. It
was only in 1608, the year before his death, that he was induced
to come out with a profession of his doctrines ; and even then his
conduct was not very manly and straightforward. We have four
different statements, more or less explicit, prepared by him in
that year, of bis sentiments upon predestination. They are to
be found in his works.* We are unable to perceive any material
difference between the views of Arminius — as there stated — and
those of Dr Whately ; and we are confident that no such difference
can be established. Dr Whately, in asserting that he is neither
a Calvinist nor an Arminian, must be understood as intending
to affirm that he differs in some points of real importance, not so
much from the opinions of Calvin and Arminius, as from the
leading views on the subject of election that have commonly been
held by Calvinistic and Arminian divines. He probably also in
tended, in making this statement, to convey the idea that his views
lay somewhere between the one system and the other ; or, in other
words, that he neither went so far in one direction as the Calvinists,
nor so far in the opposite direction as the Arminians. If this
was his intention — as it seems to have been — the fact would only
show how imperfect is his knowledge of these matters. For it is
evident that in so far as anything like a material difference from
Arminius could be pointed out, it is to be found principally in this
direction, that Arminius retained more of the doctrines generally
held by Calvinists than Dr Whately has done. But whatever
there be in this, it is certain that he holds the whole substance

* His works in Latin (Leyden edi
tion of 1629), at pp. 1 19, 138-45, 943,
and 951 ; or in Nichol's Translation of

the Works of Arminius, vol. i. pp.
529, 681-699, and vol. ii. pp. 698 and
718.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 453
of what has been well known in the history of the Protestant
church for the last two centuries as Arminianism, as opposed
to Calvinism, and differing somewhat from Socinianism, on this
subject ; and that therefore we are fully warranted, by the ordi
nary, reasonable, and convenient practice of theologians, to call
him an Arminian. We must be careful, indeed, to ascribe to
him no opinions which he has not professed or acknowledged.
But he has no right to demand that, because he has a dislike to
the designation Arminian, we must have recourse to circumlocu
tion in indicating his theological position, when he is utterly
unable to prove that calling him an Arminian involves inaccuracy
or injustice, or implies any deviation from the mode of dealing
with such topics which is sanctioned by the ordinary practice of
theologians. .
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. Whately has
referred to this matter only incidentally, and has not gone into
any formal or elaborate exposition of the different theories 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, "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of His Son ; " and of 1 Pet. 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 Whately concurred

* Faber, pp. 232 and 344-5 ; Whately, p. 67, Ed. Seventh.

454 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
with Faber in rejecting altogether the idea of basing election upon
foresight ; and in imagining that, in rejecting this idea, he was
abjuring 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
eminently creditable to him, especially as we could not but view
them as the concessions of an opponent. It is probably on these
differences that he founds his warrant and right to deny that he
is an Arminian. We think it proper to advert to these points of
difference, not merely for the purpose of showing that they afford
no ground for his abjuring the designation, but for the more
important object of bringing out the valuable concessions -thus
made to Calvinism by one whom we must still take the liberty of
calling an Arminian.
The first point of this nature which we would notice we have
already adverted to. It is one which 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, " 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
position they have assumed.* There are some Arminians who are
so afraid of admitting anything that might be 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.

Pp. 78-80. Edition Seventh.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 455
And, as we have fully explained, the fundamental, distinctive
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 be 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 opportunities,
and thus to attain or not to eternal life. Any such thing as an
election to salvation could, upon anti-Calvinistic principles, be
based only upon a foresight of what men individually would
actually be and do ; and in fairness and reason this could not
properly be called an election. But an election to outward privileges
or means of grace might be based upon the sovereign good pleasure
of God, as it exerts no efficacious determining influence upon men's
eternal destiny. Dr Whately denies the existence of any real
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 or indivi
duals, to outward privileges, is "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,
inasmuch as they do not affect the state of the question, or the
real meaning and import of the actual positions held on either
side and controverted between the two parties, but only the force
and value of some of the arguments employed in conducting the
contest. 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

456 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
grand difficulty of this whole subject applies to every system, inas
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,"
but 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 "Bampton Lectures." He has fully adopted, as had been
previously done by his friend Bishop Copleston, in his " 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 pro
cedure from the divine power and knowledge, or from the divine
justice and holiness, as we would from the same qualities in
men. There is as much truth in this general principle, as to
lay a good ground for condemning much presumptuous and ill-
founded 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 knowledge
of God's attributes is wholly analogical, and does not warrant
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
conclusions as to God's procedure, derived from the contemplation
of His attributes. King developed the leading principle of his
Discourse 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-

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM.

457

ledge, and wisdom, which are often spoken of as His natural
attributes.* Dr Whately, 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
Whately 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 Whately. 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,
derived 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

* 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 " Vin-
dicise Analogiese." 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.
make him less anti-Calvinistic, so neither can it afford any evidence
that he is not an Arminian. We must therefore continue to
regard 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
ordinary Arminian ground of the invalidity of the argument in
favour of Calvinism, derived from God's natural attributes. Cal
vinists 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 precarious and uncertain character of the argument against
Calvinism, from its alleged inconsistency with God's moral attri
butes ; without at the same time needing to renounce the argu
ment in favour of Calvinism and against Arminianism, derived
from the consideration of His 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 actually does in determining 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

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 459
existence of moral evil under God's administration ; and as this is
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 far 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 Cal
vinistic scheme — those drawn from the conclusions of what is called Natural
religion, respecting the moral attributes of the Deity ; which, it is contended,
rendered the reprobation of a large portion of mankind an absolute impossi
bility. 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 super
stitious 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
suffered to grow up, He foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or
revealed, 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 ahke, whether of revealed or of

460 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
natural religion, it is better in point of prudence as well as of fairness 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 any one 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, wanto'nly to provoke such objections
as they have no power to answer."f
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 prac
tical application. It has always been a favourite allegation of
Arminians, 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 ARMINIANISM. 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
operation of their own proper nature, constitution, and laws,
but preserves and secures them in the possession of all these. It
thus, when viewed as a whole, establishes most firmly the actual,
invariable connection between the means and the end ; and in
its legitimate application, is at least as well fitted as any other
doctrine 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 practical .
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, we 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 hfe 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 all 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 abandon
ment 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 answer
ing Dr Whately's allegation, — that, by the very same process of
explanation by which Calvinism escapes from the positive objec
tion 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 argu
ment, of the whole of what Calvinists are accustomed to advance
in explaining the practical application of their doctrine, but con
fines 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

* Essays, pp. 85-87.

Essay VIII.] CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 463
to show that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when explained
by its more intelligent advocates in such a way as to escape from
the imputation of having an injurious tendency, is deprived of all
practical effect or 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
meaning 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. He 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 prac
tical tendency. We regard these concessions as eminently credi
table 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. We so highly admire the ability
and candour Dr Whately has 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 anything 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

464 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
application to Dr Whately, — 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
Whately, or any man, may or may not be 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 status quwstionis 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 Faber 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
Whately 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 arid 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
honourable to him, and very valuable concessions to us — imply
no disbelief 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
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 thinking 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." t
" 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 " 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, vacillation, and inconsistency. It would almost seem

* Pp. 84, 85. X P- 96-
t Pp. 90, 91. § P- 13-
VOL. I. 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 shrank 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 be men who, while
rejecting Calvinism, should have felt greater difficulty in dispos
ing 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, be 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 : — 1st, 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. 2d, That we should familiarize 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 estab
lished, and the error refuted. 3d, That we should take some pains
to understand the general principles at least applicable to the
solution, or rather the disposal (for they cannot be solved), of the
difficulties by which the doctrine we have embraced as true may
be assailed. And 4th, 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
unprofitable speculations in regard to its deeper mysteries or more
intricate 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
evidence that bears upon the determination of the main question
on which the controv.ersy 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 Arminian
ism lies, not in the direct and positive evidence that can be pro
duced 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 evidence by which Calvinism can be established, that we
may rest on this as an impregnable foundation. But it shows also

468 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
the importance 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 Cal
vinistic doctrine ; 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
appear 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 argu
ment 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 in
capacity. " Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against
God ? 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 comprehension 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 VHL] 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. We do not pretend to be 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 to 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 rea
son why we should reject one or other of the doctrines, provided
each separately can be established upon competent and satisfactory
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.
Indeed, 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 ex
position of the way and manner in which God and men concur
(for 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
present 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 ex
plain. 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 expedients, it continues as real and as formidable as ever.
Unless men renounce altogether, theoretically or practically, the
moral government of God, the prevalence of moral evil, and its
eternal punishment, they must, in their explanations and specu
lations, come at length to the sovereignty of God, and prostrate

470 CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. [Essay VIII.
their 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 ? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are
all things ; to whom be glory for ever. Amen." *

* Rom. xi. 33-36.

CALVINISM

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 : —
"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 Calvinistic Church of
Scotland. For it has been here promulgated, as the dogma of this church
(though in the face of its Confession as in the face of the Bible), 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 ;
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 inust humbly though
solemnly protest, as (to speak mildly) not only false in philosophy, but hereti
cal, ignorant, suicidal in theology."t
This strange passage was intended as a deadly assault upon
Dr Chalmers, and upon the views which he had promulgated
upon 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

* 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.
necessity ; and though many will regard what is here said as very
unjust and unfair, if viewed as applied to that subject, there
is manifestly no other to which these statements can have any
appearance 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,
professing like him to receive the Westminster Confession, have
concurred 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," " pantheism," " 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
doctrines as have in all ages been brought against Calvinism,
resolved the whole matter into the inscrutable sovereignty of God
and the ignorance and helplessness of man, instead of directly and
formally grappling with the objection. Sir William Hamilton's

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 473
own views upon the subject are of a kind fitted to discourage, if
not to preclude, discussion ; especially discussion conducted in the
way of bringing the opposite doctrines face to face, and trying
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 immediate 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
ceive an absolute commencement ; we cannot therefore conceive a free voli
tion. A determination by motives cannot, to our understanding, escape from
necessitation."f " How therefore, I repeat, moral liberty is possible in man or God, we are
utterly unable speculatively to understand. But practically, the fact, 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." X
" 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 specu
lation to the present hour, with unabated zeal, but always with undecided
success. "§
It appears from these statements that Sir William, 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.
Our present purpose does not lead us to advert to the 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

* Reid's Works, p. 599, note. I X " Discussions," p. 630.
f "Discussions," p. 624. • | § "Discussions," pp. 631, 632.

474 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX.
meantime, 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
position indicated in the remarkable and often quoted passage of
Locke : " 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
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 voli
tions, 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
injudicious friends ; and he gives something like evidence both of
intelligence and integrity in dealing with this subject, by laying
down the important position, that " the great articles of divine
foreknowledge 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 hfe
thought it impracticable to decide between the opposite opinions,
he at other times expresses a decided preference for the Liber
tarian view; and in the passage under consideration he denounces,
in no measured terms, the doctrine which is the contradictory cor
relative of it. The liberty or freedom for which Locke contended,
was nothing more than actual moral responsibility for our actions;

* Locke, vol. iii. p. 487, folio edition, 1751. t " Discussions," p. 627.

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 475
which he did not admit to be precluded, either by the doctrine of
God's omniscience and omnipotence, or by the doctrine of philo
sophical necessity, though he was unable to explain how it could
be reconciled with these doctrines. Sir William, on the other
hand, was 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-necessi
tarian view of the laws that regulate man's mental operations,
which has been supposed 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 exami
nation of the statements we have quoted from him, that he, like
Locke, practically identifies liberty with actual moral responsi
bility, and virtually admits, that the only thing which is really
established by the testimony of consciousness, and which is to be
maintained at all hazards, is our moral accountability, or the obli
gation "of an uncompromising law of duty." Most necessitarians
— including, of course, all the theologians whom Sir William de
nounces — assert man's moral responsibility as fully and readily as
their opponents ; and if it be merely the fact of moral accounta
bility which man's consciousness establishes, as Sir William virtu
ally admits, then the whole matter still resolves itself into the old
and very perplexing question, as to what kinds or degrees of liberty
are necessary to moral responsibility, and what kinds and degrees of
necessity are inconsistent with 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." Necessitarians admit this, and undertake to prove that
there is nothing in the doctrine of philosophical necessity which
can be shown to preclude 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 testimony of consciousness applies; and he has
not entered anywhere, so far as we remember, into a deliberate
and formal investigation of the nature and grounds of the liberty
* P. 624.

476 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX.
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 he so
intended it or not, virtually declared in favour of what has been
commonly called the liberty of indifference, and the self-deter
mining power of the will ; for whatever he might say about the
inconceivableness both of liberty and necessity, be would 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 unworthy of a philo
sopher, and wholly undeserving of notice as a call to enter upon
a discussion of the general subject. " It has been here promul
gated," he assures us, " 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 1
Those who are cognizant 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
sity implied all this, or led to it by logical sequence ; and upon
this ground he thought himself warranted in proclaiming to the

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 477
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 " the theological scheme of the abso
lute decrees implies fatalism, pantheism, the negation of a moral
governor as of a moral world." He admits, indeed, that " 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 William plainly did not intend to bring 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 " 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
intended, 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
necessity 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
of Scotland have recently been teaching that man has no will,
agency, moral personality of his own, God being the only real

478 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX.
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 circumstances, 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
attempting 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 discus
sion 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
still admitted to be responsible, — without seeing that there are

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 479

profound mysteries connected with this matter which cannot be
settled, as many seem to suppose, merely by laying it down that
hberty 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 necessary 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
respectively 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
right and a safe rule for beings of our limited mental powers,
and of our very inadequate capacity of tracing consequences, that

* "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.
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
inferences or consequences. The reasonableness of this general
principle 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 " of an
uncompromising 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- I here expressed of Sir William's mode
porting the strong disapprobation | of procedure, by the authority of the

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE 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
understand 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 every
Calvinist does, that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to
pass, and he sees nothing in this doctrine that tends to over
throw 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 predetermined 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

t 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
restraint on free inquiry, the employ-
VOL. I.

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 iu
human nature to be shaken by
every veering breath of metaphysical
theory." — Edinburgh Review, vol.
xxxvi. p. 255. 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 Wil
liam 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 dis
proves the doctrine of philosophical necessity. We have never seen
any satisfactory evidence that it tends to immorality and atheism.
There is, however, another statement made by Sir William in
the passage on which we are animadverting, which — though re
lating 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
corruption of pure Calvinism, — and more specifically, is " in the
face of the Confession of Faith" of "our Calvinistic Church of
Scotland." 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
subscribed. This is a serious charge, and a favourite one with Sir
William. He repeated it somewhat more calmly, though still
not without plain indications of unphilosophical vehemence, in
a note to the sixth volume of the collected edition of Professor
Dugald Stewart's 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 hberty of man. 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 ; and yet we have seen the scheme of absolute necessity urged by
imposing authority, and even apparently received with general aquiescence,
as that exclusively conformable to the recognised tenets of our ecclesiastical
establishment." *
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 collected
works. Stewart's statement upon the subject, which is written
with the calmness of a philosopher, and conveys no personal
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. Yet so as thereby
neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the crea
tures, nor is the hberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
estabhshed.' 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
establishing his position. Such a charge, brought forward in such
circumstances, 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
Calvinistic 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 estab
lishing 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 the Westminster Confession. By estab
lishing the second, we vindicate Calvinism from the servitude
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'adiQcates 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 th^em, 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
indifference, whereby, irrespective or in disregard of any motives
that may be presented to it, it may remain in equilibrio; 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 the point in dispute is surely fitted to suggest at
once the improbability of the necessitarian view telling so power
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 precluded 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. Professor
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 William has asserted
that " 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
position, though he would have had no difficulty in producing
extracts 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 will, 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.
what 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, " 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 or 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. An
other statement of Augustine's, which Calvin repeatedly quotes
with approbation, and which was applied by them both to re
newed and unrenewed men, is, " Jubet Deus qua? 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 extract
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 ? 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 for
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
external, 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

* Calvini Opera, torn. ix. p. 141 ;
Amstel, 1667. He touches upon the
same topic also in the Institutes, B.

ii. C. ii. s. 8 and 9
and 14.
j- Art. xviii.

and c. iii. s. 13

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 second chapter of the second 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 out
ward 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 philo
sophical 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
regulate 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 some
thing 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 doctrine. 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 " 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 third and
the other from the ninth chapter, in support of this position. He
evidently 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 general 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
declaimed 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 sixth volume
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," — " 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
important 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
adherence 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
Confession — 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 impossible 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 fifth chapter upon Providence,
and of the statements which assert or imply, that our first parents
were left to the freedom 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 third chapter ; it is as f ol-

* 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 cannot
say that I think that the Presbyterian
government of the Church of Scotland
is so perfect, that it cannot in some
respects be mended." (P. 163, Me
moir 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 creatures, nor is the
hberty 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
whatsoever comes to pass, this certainly implies that liberty, in
some sense, as predicated even of men's volitions and actions, is
excluded; 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 : —
" 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 anything 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 be 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 be 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
Confession 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 view generally
taken upon this point by Calvinists in the words of John Knox,
in his masterly treatise on predestination, which having been
republished 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. " I affirm that God worketh
all in all things according to the purpose of the same His good
will, and yet that He useth 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 willeth
one thing, and yet by force, by tyranny, or by a greater power, it is
compelled to do the things which it would not." *

* Pp. 143, 144.

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE 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. " 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
fifth chapter on Providence, sec. 2 : " 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 exercising over all His creatures and all their
actions Against the doctrine of foreordination, 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 everything 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 neces
sity 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, Calvinists maintain that God,

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 495
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 attach
ing 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 their 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 responsi
bility. 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
irrational animals. Although ever infallibly executing His de
crees, He leaves them in the full possession of the rationality,
responsibility, 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
proper 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 the portion of the Confession which has most the
appearance of something like hostility to the doctrine of philoso
phical necessity, is that which Stewart quotes from the beginning
of the ninth chapter, which treats of " free-will." The statement
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 en
abling 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,
" 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
expound 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 determina
tions of the will; and though libertarians may allege that the doc
trine 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 dis
cussions 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 ever
VOL. I. 32

498 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX.
be maintained on all sides. Indeed, the controversy between
libertarians and necessitarians has 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:* " 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 : " 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), " 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. t 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 " absolute necessity of
nature," — the phrase used in the Confession, — seems to describe
something 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 wsws 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 things 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 " 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
wsevio rationis judicio : Ut hie necessario duo conjungenda veniant ad earn
oonstituendam. 1. to wpoxipsrixoi/, ut quod fit, non fiat caxo impetu, et bruto
tHiodam instinctu sed ix. irpoatpicta;, et prsevio rationis lumine, et intellectus
practici judicio. 2. to exow/o», ut quod fit sponte et libenter fiat et sine coactione.

500 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX.
" Hanc autem esse rationem formalem liberi arbitrii, ex eo non obscure
colMgitur, quod omni, soli, et semper conveniat. Ita ut nullum sit agens
hberum, vel creatum, vel increatum, in quo duo isti characteres non deprehen-
dantur : nee ad tempus tantum, sed semper, ut posita. lubentia ista rationali
ponatur libertas, et sublata tollatur. Unde sequitur adjunctum esse insepara-
bile agentis rationahs, quod illud in quovis statu comitatur, ut non possit esse
rationale, quin eo ipso sit hberum, nee 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 kinds 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. k vpoKipttrig, ut quod fit, prsevio rationis judicio fiat,
2. to ixoiaiou, 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 bruta, Altera necessitas coactionis ; ilia
¦xpoalptaiv tollit, ista verb exoiatou. Nam quae fiunt ex necessitate physica ab
agentibus naturahbus, ad unum natura et sine ratione determinatis, non pos-
sunt censeri fieri libere, id est prsevio rationis lumine ; et quse fiunt per vim
et coacte, non possunt dici sponte fieri. Et de his nulla inter Nos et Adversaries
est controversia. Hoc tantum obiter monendum Bellarminumf et alios ex Pon-
tificiis Nostros calumniari, dum illis imponunt, quod sentiant libertatem a co
actione sufficere ad constitutionem liberi arbitrii ; Quia prseter illam requirunt
etiam immunitatem a necessitate physica ; Et si quando dicunt hominem a
coactione, non a necessitate liberum esse ; necessitatis voce non intelligunt earn
quse dicitur physica, de qua nulla erat controversia, et quse satis per se exclu-
ditur, turn conditione subjecti, quod est rationale, turn ex actibus judicandi et
volendi^ qui cum ea sunt davararoi ; sed necessitatem dependentise, servitutis,
et rationalem. " Sed si duse istse necessitatis species, a nobis commemoratse, cum hbero
arbitrio pugnant ; non eadem est ratio aliarum, quse cum eo subsistere possunt,
et quibus non tarn destraitur, quam conservatur et perficitur, quod sigillatim
quoad quatuor necessitatis species ante notatas ostendi potest." J
* Loc. x. Qu. iii. s. 10 and 11. | { Qu. ii. s. 5 and 6.
f Lib. 3 De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. c. 4. |

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."
He says further, in explanation of the same views : —
"Unde Tertio sequitur, Cum Providentia son concurrat cum voluntate
humana, vel per coactionem, cogendo voluntatem invitam, vel determinando
physice, ut rem brutam et csecam absque ullo judicio, sed rationaliter, flectendo
voluntatem modo ipsi convenienti, ut seipsam determinet, 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, quse libertatem perimunt, et cum
ea sunt d.aiara.roi, necessitas naturalis, et coactionis ; Cseterse, quse oriuntur,
vel a decreto Dei, et causse primse motione, vel ab objecto et judicio ultimo
intellectus practici, tantum abest ut libertatem evertant, uteam magis tueantur,
quia flectunt voluntatem, non cogunt, et faciunt 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 menlem et voluntatem efficaciter movente [which is
just philosophical necessity] sive a causa prima decernente et concurrente
[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 have 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 main
tenance of the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Libertarians
may still assert that they regard the doctrine of philosophical
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
personal 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 first section of
the ninth 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 con
tinued unchanged ; that nothing had ever taken place, either of an
external 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 spontaneous
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
philosophical 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
extracts 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 " outward coaction"
and " 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
responsibility, to exclude these two species of necessity, and to
retain the deliberation and spontaneity which are inconsistent
with them. They are taken from his " Display of Arminianism ;
being a discovery 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 world ; 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. We grant
him to be free in his choice, from all outward coaction or inward natural
necessity, to work according to election and deliberation, spontaneously em
bracing 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 Calvinistic
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 what
ever 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
he might fall from it." This is a very important feature of the
theology of the Keformers 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 pro
vidence 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 over
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, or 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 liberty and estab
lished 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 doctrine of
philosophical necessity.
For this 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 from the
Confession by Mr Stewart to prove his position, that the freedom
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
statements which merely bear directly upon freedom or liberty in

506 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX.
some sense or other. Of Sir William's bolder and more explicit
assertions, 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 counte
nance 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 which 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 divine
foreordination of all events can possibly think the doctrine 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 harmonizes 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 or can be
produced ; but the allegation of heresy as implying, in all fair
ness, 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 Calvinistic
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 psycho
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. Sir
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 : " 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 predesti
nation. The doctrine of necessity, held in combination with the
doctrine 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. 509
been made for bringing it about. But it does not indicate any
thing as to what must be the nature of this provision in regard 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 volitions of
rational and responsible beings, and made effectual provision for
accomplishing His purposes in this most important department of
His government, without having established the system of neces
sity, — 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 predesti
narian 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 harmonize with and fit into each other.
Sir William's insinuation that necessity is a corruption of pure
Calvinism 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
directly, 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 their volitions. In order to settle it, we
must look within ourselves, and survey our own mental operations.
The materials that legitimately bear 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 con
sciousness furnishes, and may thus pertain to the department of
metaphysics as well as psychology. The Bible does not tell us
anything 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 necessi
tarian theory. It leaves all such questions to be determined by
an investigation of the evidence naturally and appropriately appli
cable to them, — that is, by an examination of man himself, of
his mental constitution 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 constitution, grounds for adopting certain views
concerning the liberty or bondage of the will, which would pre
clude or shut out the scriptural doctrines, that God has foreseen
and foreordained whatsoever 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 salvation, — it would be needful and not difficult to
expose the unsoundness of these views, or the falsehood of the
inferences deduced 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, wdien they have been led to attend to
this particular subject, have adopted necessitarian views, as har
monizing most fully and obviously with their theological con
victions. But this has not been universally the case. Some
Calvinists 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.
necessity. But it cannot be proved that either the certainty or
immutability 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 anything 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
investigation 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 be answered.
We have never seen this done, and we scarcely think that it can
be done. We have read lately the ablest and most elaborate
answer that has been given to Edwards, viz. " 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 convic
tion that Edwards cannot be answered. But the only point with
which we have to do at present is this, that we do not hold our
selves 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 " 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, t
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 " 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 de
pravity 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 being
engrossed, when they contemplated man's natural condition, by
the idea of a necessity of a different kind, but of far inferior
importance 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
embraced and promulgated by the whole body of the Keformers,
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 ninth 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 Eome 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 atten
tion, instead 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
" Freedom of the Will," there is no reference to this distinction
I 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

516 CALVINISM AND THE [Essay IX.
depravity. 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 but regard
as a serious defect; while at the same time it is important to
observe, 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. " 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
Confession, or afforded any plausible ground for stamping upon
them the brand of heresy. But they have certainly, in their
engrossment 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 pro
minence, 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 the 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 ninth chapter of the
Westminster Confession on free-will. 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 determina
tion 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, been 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,
inasmuch as it describes the only necessity which the Scripture
represents 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 : — " 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 bis 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 1 and, more

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 519
especially, that he is unable to will to turn from sin unto God, or to
prepare himself for so turning ? 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 inclinations
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 anything good ; because the will or power of
volition must be determined and characterized 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 anything 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 natural
fallen condition to will or to do anything 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 service 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 " 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 " Original Sin," notwithstanding
some measure of obscurity and confusion on the subject of impu
tation, 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 different periods (and this is the light in which the
matter is really represented to us in Scripture), is thus described
in the Confession :* "When God converts a sinner, and translates
him into the state of grace, He freeth him from bis 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
remaining 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 regene
ration 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
conversion, to a large extent removed, and an opposite tendency
is implanted. Thus the will is set free or emancipated from the
bondage 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 ever rules and
governs all His creatures and all their actions. It is not set free
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 from
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 characterized
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 will
only evil 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, " to be made per
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 "the
conditioned " harmonizes with the general spirit of divine reve
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 believing, 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 anything
which is not in substance to be found in the writings of theo
logians, 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 common 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 state
ments, 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
accordingly 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
frequently, 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 be found" — and
indeed they constitute a perfectly familiar commonplace — among
orthodox theologians. The alleged greater explicitness of Catho
lics than Protestants in stating these principles, is a mere gratis
dictum, which has no foundation in the realities of the case. This
statement seems to have been hazarded for the mere purpose of
ushering 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 embar
rassed by the self-same difficulties) and human free-will." Sir
William describes the passage as " wholly overlooked," notwith-

* Discussions, p. 627.

Essay IX.] DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 523
standing its superlative merits. Now it so happens that we
remember two instances — 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 " persons of ordi
nary information." Gisbertus Voetius, one of the best known
names in the theology of the seventeenth century, — a man who
was at least as thoroughly versant in the literature of theology
as Sir William was in that of philosophy, and who knew as much
of the literature of philosophy as Sir William did of that of theo
logy, — has quoted with approbation a part of this passage from
Cajetan, in a " Dissertatio Epistolica de Termino Vitse," * originally
published in 1634, and republished at Utrecht in 1669, in the
Appendix to the fifth volume of his " Selectse Disputationes."
The passage in Bayle is to be found in the second part of his
"Response aux Questions d'un Provincial," t where the extract
from Cajetan is given as quoted with approbation by an emi
nent Dominican theologian, Alvarez, in a " Treatise de Auxiliis
Divinse Gratias." Sir William, then, was mistaken in represent
ing this passage in Cajetan as " wholly overlooked." We do not
suppose, indeed, that it was suggested to him by Voet or Bayle,
for we rather suspect, especially as the passage after all contains
nothing very extraordinary, that it was produced and paraded iii
the honest belief that no one knew anything about it but himself.
It may be worth while to" mention, that the discussion in con
nection with which this passage is introduced by Bayle, is very
similar to that in which Sir William brings it in. Bayle was
doing on that occasion just what Sir William did in the imme
diately following part of his Appendix,— viz. collecting what he
calls " testimonies to the limitation of our knowledge from the
limitation 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 com
prehend. But this, coming from Bayle, was suspected of being
intended to undermine the foundations of a rational faith ; and to
amount in substance very much to the same thing as Hume's
well-known sneer about our holy religion being founded not on
reason but on faith. Bayle defended himself against these

* p. 107. t Chap. 161, (Euvres, vol. iii. p- 837.

524 CALVINISM AND PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. [Essay IX.
charges in the second and third of the " Eclaircissemens," sub
joined to his Dictionary; and more formally and elaborately
in the second part of his "Response aux Questions d'un Pro
vincial." 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. Different grounds were taken by the
different combatants in opposing Bayle ; and then some interest
ing 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.
We cannot dwell upon it ; and can only remark, that Bayle had
no difficulty in producing from many eminent men, both theolo
gians 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 " testi
monies to the limitation of our knowledge from the limitation of
our faculties."

CALVINISM

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 extent,
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 infallible 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 doctrines revealed
to us in the Bible ; and are anxious to escape from any apparent
obligation to believe them. The most obvious and effectual way
of accomplishing this, is to deny the divine origin and authority

* 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.
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 indirect 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 revela
tion 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 " expressly set down in Scripture," but also what, " 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 precarious, while they were, of course, quite willing to
subscribe to the ipsissima verba of Scripture. But the progress
of the discussion soon showed that these were hypocritical pre
tences ; and that the men who employed them had deliberately
adopted opinions in regard to the Father, the Son, and the Holy

* Westminster Confession, c. i. s. 6.

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 527
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
definite views on doctrinal subjects, were directed chiefly against
the doctrine of the Trinity. In the present day these views and
tendencies are directed chiefly against the doctrine of a real
vicarious atonement for the sins of men, and against the peculiar
doctrines of the Calvinistic system of theology. Not that the true
scriptural 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 embodying the substance of what Scripture teaches
upon this subject. The doctrine of the atonement stands in this
somewhat peculiar predicament 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 satisfactory evidence
that it was held in substance 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 accu
rate 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 adhering to the ipsissima verba of revelation.
The leading presumption, so far as mere human authority is con-

528 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
cerned, in opposition to these latitudinarian tendencies, is this, —
that they virtually resolve into a defence of Socinianism; and
that Socinus and his followers have been always regarded, both
by the Church of Rome and by the great body of the Protestant
churches, as deniers and opposers of the great fundamental prin
ciples 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,
indeed, only in the Calvinistic system of theology, that the doc
trines 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 unavoid
able 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 bearing 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 comes into full and direct collision with all
the strongest tendencies and prepossessions of ungodly and unre
newed 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. 3i

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
upon 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 imme
diately 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 statements,
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
notions 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 ob-

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 531
jections against them. The leading objections against Calvinism,
though based principally upon inferences or deductions 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. " 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 the 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
injury 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.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 533
tion and reprobation as two divisions of the subject, falling under
the 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 pur
poses in regard to those men who finally perish. It is admitted
by Arminians as well as Calvinists that God decreed or 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 morally
responsible beings,- — of which God is not the author or cause.
These things, Arminians allege, God does not do or effect ; and
consequently He did not from eternity resolve to do or effect
them. But whatever God really does or effects in time, — whatever
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 re
garded 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 lower
class of Arminian writers to talk as if there was some special and
peculiar difficulty in the eternity of the divine decrees or purposes,
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 from
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 anything 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

* Confession, c. iii. s. 1.

534 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
resolved" from 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
distinguished 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. Whatever 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 salvation 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 conclusion, which is just the fundamental principle
of the Calvinistic system of theology. But this by the way, — for
we are not at present attempting a general discussion of pre
destination. 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 designa
tions, either of what God purposed from eternity to do, or of
what He does in time, in relation to the saved and the lost respec
tively ; 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 their
sins ; and we are assured that those to whom this information is
communicated, and who fail to improve it for their own salvation,
are themselves responsible for the fearful result. This informa
tion is of the last importance, and it is fully furnished to us in
Scripture. But beyond this there is little told us in regard to
those who perish, — very little, especially, in regard to any purposes
or actings of God bearing upon thei^ 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
depravity ; 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
personal holiness ; and of the execution of this decree— the
accomplishment of this purpose — by giving to these persons, or
effecting in them, faith and regeneration, with all their appro
priate results, by watching over them with special care after
these great changes have been effected, by upholding and preserv
ing 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 ascer
tain 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
principles, 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 way. 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 confirmed
by the more vague and imperfect information given us in Scripture,
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 sympathize with
the feeling which leads men to shrink from giving prominence to
this awful and mysterious subject, and even withthe 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 from
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; and have usually conducted the dis
cussion under the influence of a sense of the imperative 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 be so, Cal
vinists are entitled to insist, that men who profess to be 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, were 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 coining 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 vir
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 proof
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 Dort, 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 Hoard,

* The work entitled Apello Evan-
gelium ; or, An Appeal to the Gospel,
by John Plaifere (who must not be
confounded with Thomas Playfere,
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
diversity of whose views upon some points, while they agreed in
the main, gave, perhaps, to the discussion as a whole, additional
interest and value. Davenant's answer to Hoard was published in
1641, and is entitled, " Animadversions written by the Right Rev.
Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a Treatise
entitled, < God's Love to Mankind.'" Amyraut's answer to Hoard
was also published in 1641, and is entitled, " Doctrinas J. Calvini
de Absoluto Reprobationis 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 Riches of God's Love unto the Ves
sels of Mercy consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation
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.] PRACTICALi 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
apprehend 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 sohcit 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
doctrine of Scripture upon the subject of election has been inves
tigated and ascertained, proceeding to apply this, in connection
with the fewer and obscurer intimations given us directly con
cerning reprobation, 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 extent of the atonement — we consider one of the
greatest divines the Church of England has ever produced. He
thus points out the unfairness 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 corresponding 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 asserting the Calvinistic
doctrine of election, makes no direct mention 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, beheve or not believe, persevere

542 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
or not persevere ; 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
infallible 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, he 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
certain 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
intended and mercifully bestowed in the other. Would 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.
" 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 reduceth 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-
cerneth election and predestination, and thrust themselves, without borrowing
any hght 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 mors willing and
desirous to set down expressly the doctrine of absolute predestination, I mean
of predestination causing faith and perseverance, than it was of absolute
negative reprobation, I mean of such reprobation as inrplieth 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
negative 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,
* Pp. 4-7.

544 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X,
nor alike profitable to be debated upon : yet for the truth of absolute repro
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 massa
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
applied unto the eternal and immanent acts or decrees of the divine predesti
nation. 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,
repenting, 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
intending 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 mihi placuerit.' And that
which the apostle attributeth unto God.*
"Fourthly, this non-predestinatio, 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." t
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. xxxiii. 19 ; Rom. ix. 15, 16, 17, 18. t Pp- 126, 130.
VOL. I. 35

546 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
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
reprobation, which he describes as " that millstone which hangs
about the neck of your whole hypothesis," t 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 ' 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. tP-255. J P. 22. §P. 211.

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 547
have done, this election to be 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, Pie 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 corre
sponding reprobation ; but we really believe nothing more upon
the subject of reprobation than what the election plainly taught
in 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 believe
both upon the testimony of God. We do not consider ourselves
at hberty 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 unreason
ableness 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
imposed 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
communication 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

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 549
suggest itself, — viz. that final impenitence, or unbelief foreseen
might be the ground or cause, not only of the positive or judicial
act of foreordination to punishment and misery, but also of the
negative act of preterition, — this Calvinists hold to be 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
pleasure 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 procedure, 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 anything 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
between 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 character
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 His 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 distin
guished from preterition, is founded upon the foresight of men's
continuance in sin. God, in the purpose and act of preterition,
took from them nothing which they had, withheld from them
nothing to which they had a claim, exerted upon them no influ
ence 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 fiot resolving to inflict
upon them anything 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 a»d reprobation, than
is to be found in the " 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 babet 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.]

PRACTICAL 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 of
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 theo
retical speculations which have been brought to bear upon the inves
tigation of this subject. We propose to consider only some of the
misapprehensions that have been put forth, and some of the difficul
ties 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 eorum quse causae
rationem habent 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 the best of the
great systematic divines of the seven
teenth century, has very closely fol

lowed, or rather has copied, in his
discussion of this subject, these state
ments 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 Marck, Comp. c. vii.
sect. 29, torn. ii. p. 96 ; Gill's Cause
of God and Truth, part iii. c. i. ii. ;
Jonathan Edwards' Remarks 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 assumed
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 entirely
disappears. The doctrine of the Westminster Confession upon this point is
this, — that by God's decree ordaining from eternity whatsoever
cometh to pass, the liberty or contingency of second causes is not
taken away but rather established ; * and that " 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
constitution 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
unto 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 soheme 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 be fitted, in their own nature or by God'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 certain 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 profess
to believe ; and in like manner it is only from the same defective
and erroneous views of the true nature and the full import 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 order
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 ? They
commonly just shut their eyes to the answer, or disregard or evade
it, and continue to repeat the objection, as if it 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
equallv 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 Richard Watson, perhaps the ablest and most
accomplished theologian that important and useful body has vet
produced. Wesley, certainly, was not a great theologian, and in that
character is not entitled to much deference. His treatise on
" 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 characterized 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—" 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.] PRACTICAL 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 consideration,
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 result of things,
certainly forms no part of Calvinism. There is nothing to pre
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 salva
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 prin
ciples according to which the result is regulated and brought
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, or that
yet awaits, the generations of their fellow-men, Calvinists intro
duce no other principle, and apply no other standard, than just
the will of God 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 arise
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 very
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 requiring
or implying a more unfavourable view than Arminianism exhibits,
of the ultimate destiny of those of the human race who die in
infancy, without having given any palpable manifestation of moral
character. Calvinists believe that no one of the descendants of

556

CALVINISM AND ITS

[Essay X.

Adam is saved, unless he has 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 " 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
1 nineteen in twenty are reprobated.'
In February 1771, we were charged
withholding 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 from him in
introducing this topic " is a fair state of the case, this consequence
does naturally and necessarily follow from the doctrine of absolute
predestination." His defence of himself just consists of a proof,
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 " the
whole consequence follows clear as the noonday sun," t — 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 " 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 others,
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 nature
of the subject, — viz. man as he is, with all his capacities and in
capacities 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 fairly applied, not only does not admit of
it, but positively and infallibly precludes it, — that is, demonstrates
and 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. t 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 per
severe in faith and holiness, — of whatever kind these obligations
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 in
formation given us in Scripture is much less full and explicit ;
considerations 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 offen
sively. We have already explained that Calvinists repudiate the
representation which Wesley here gives of their doctrine of re
probation, 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 neces
sarily to involve 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
siuuus admodum solliciti nisi quatenus
consequitur ex electione. Positiva

autem 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. 37.)

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 necessary
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 be 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 be 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 tljat 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 be
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 " the elect shall be
saved, do what they will, and the reprobate shall be damned, do
what they can," giving "a fair state of the case," it is evident that_
we can maintain, in full consistency with all our peculiar prin
ciples, that no man shall be saved unless he repent and believe,
and persevere to the end in faith and holiness ; and that every
man who does so shall certainly be admitted to the enjoyment 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 bearing
upon the -eternal destinies of man, but 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 bv Dr Chalmers, published originally under the title

560 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,
" 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 application 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 intermediate 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 " 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, — " Except ye repent, ye shall perish ; " "Whosoever be*
lievefh shall be saved." These statements are virtually hypo
thetical 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. vii. p. 246.
VOL. I. 36

562 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
and it might also be regarded as a prediction, for a prediction is
just 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 de facto
between them. This is all that is necessarily implied in this hypo
thetical statement, " 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 being thus established and secured
between them. But they deny that the one was a condition of
the other, in the strict and proper sense of that word. To re
present 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 when the
word "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
conditionally, 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 interdependence 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 Arminian objection about the 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 realize 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,—" 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 this point, is so clear and conclusive, that the wonder
is not that Whately should have admitted it to be satisfactory,
but 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 who fully and openly made this im
portant concession. If we could have believed that Whately's
example, 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 neutralized 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
injurious 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. His views upon this point are brought
out in this way : " 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." " The doctrine is,
if rightly viewed, of a purely speculative character, not ' 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 his 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 be 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 anibiguous, 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 or other,
" revelation is not designed to impart to us mere speculative know
ledge," then we should draw from this the inference, that the
doctrine which we have ascertained to be revealed is not merely
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 bearing and
tendency of the whole system of revealed doctrine is to tell prac
tically upon character and conduct, it does not follow that every
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 hav
ing by themselves any direct and immediate practical bearing.
* Essays, Second Series. Essay III., on Election, s. v. pp. 85-91, 7th Ed.

568 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
Such doctrines might with some plausibility be ranked under
the head of what Whately calls "mere speculative knowledge;"
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 indicated
there. To set up our notions or impressions upon the ques
tion, 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 sufficiency
of its scriptural evidence, is nothing better than presumptuous
rationalism, and is fitted to undermine the supreme authority
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 : * " I 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
absolute 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 de
termined upon its-own proper grounds. If the Scripture sanctions
the Calvinistic 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
confirmation 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. f P- 96.

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 569
testimony of revelation. It would almost seem (for this is really
the only supposition which can give anything like clearness or
consistency to his statement) that he had a sort 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 probably
he will not venture openly to assume ; and, therefore, we must
continue to adhere to the conviction, that his statements upon this
subject are characterized by obscurity and confusion.
We have thought it proper to animadvert upon the fallacious
and dangerous notions which seem to be involved in Dr Whately'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 in 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 utterly 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

570 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
fallen 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
profitable 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 own personal practical application of the doctrines we profess
to believe. This is quite sufficient for all merely controversial purposes. But
it is due to Dr Whately, who has shown so much candour and fair
ness in admitting the insufficiency of several arguments generally
employed by the Arminians, to advert somewhat 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 "it is impossible to show any one point in
which a person is called upon either to act or to feel in anv
respect 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
objection. They admit that it is not fitted or intended to exert
so comprehensive and so direct an influence upon character and
conduct, 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. But 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 Scripture, —
important steps which men must take in order to the salvation
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 are
peculiar to it, and which cannot be derived from any other source.
In doing so, we shall restrict our attention, as Whately does, to
the subject of predestination in its bearing upon the eternal des
tinies of men, without including the more comprehensive subject
of the foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass ; and shall of
course now assume that the Calvinistic doctrine is true, 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
practical application of their doctrine, and confines his observation
to some of the features of the subject, and these not the most
important and peculiar.
The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination casts important light
upon the character and moral government of God, a knowledge
of which may be said to be the foundation of all religion. God

572 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
makes himself known to us by all that 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,
inconsistent 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 reasoning
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 regarded
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 irre
mediably, 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 ; but 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 realize 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 be enabled
to glorify Him, by cherishing and expressing emotions, corre
sponding in every respect to all the perfections which He possesses,
and to all the principles which actually regulate His dealings with
His creatures.
Dr Whately might probably call this " 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,— Is*, 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 but 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 bound 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 bearing
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— the 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 sins— is taught in
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 invi
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 has
elected some and passed by others, — which is the whole of the
doctrine of predestination as taught in Scripture, — does not furnish
any materials whatever for practically influencing their conduct'in
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, in 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 in the
circumstances is manifestly irrational, as resting upon no actual
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 the
gospel, so it is in no way legitimately responsible for this result in
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 predestina
tion 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 in 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 deter
mining one particular question concerning themselves individually ;
and thus did not afford any materials for deciding upon the one
point of how they should deal with the commands 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 per
sonal practical application whatever.
For 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
certainly 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 earth can ever, without a special revelation, be
warranted in drawing the conclusion that he himself, or that any
one of his fellow-men, has not been elected ; and that conse
quently no 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,
consequently, if they were to die now, they would inevitably be
consigned 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
depravity. If men, indeed, did or could know that they had been
guilty 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 refuse
to comply with the offers and invitations of the gospel.
VOL. I. 37

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 doctrine1 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
materials must be furnished and applied, before any man is
warranted to cherish this conviction. Some change must be
effected in him, which is a necessary or invariable accompaniment
or consequence of eternal election, and which may thus test and
establish its reality in reference to him. It is a part of our doc
trine, 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,
unless 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
conclusion, 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
effectually called, and who are assured of this by a right applica
tion of the scriptural materials bearing upon the point, are bound,

* Chap. iii. s. 8.

Essay X.] ' PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 579
in 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 bearings.
The materials by which men may attain to certainty as to their
effectual vocation are to be found partly in Scripture, and partly
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-
grounded conviction upon this point ; and thus arrive at decided
conclusions, both with respect to God's eternal purposes in regard
to them, and with respect to their own everlasting destiny. If
they have fallen into error in the application of these materials, 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
influence. 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 application, 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 Scrip
ture, 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 saved.
And what is the natural and appropriate result of this state of
mind, — 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 nlanifest 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, will
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 X.]

PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

581

tion, this suggests and inculcates views of God and of themselves
— of what He has purposed and done for them, and of the relation
in which they stand to Him — of their past history, present condi- ,
tion, and future prospects — which cannot be derived, at least in
the same measure and degree, or of so definite and effective a
character, from any other form or aspect in which these subjects
can be presented ; views fitted to cherish in the heart all those
feelings, desires, and motives that constitute or produce true piety
and genuine godliness, and thus to assimilate men's character and
conduct on earth to the life of heaven.*
In a note subjoined to his " Essay on Election,"! Dr Whately
makes an ingenious attempt to,get some countenance to his notion,
that the Calvinistic doctrine of election has no practical effect or
bearing, from the 17th Article of the Church of England; while
at the same time he tries to undermine the testimony in favour of
Calvinism, which has been derived from that Article ; and it may
tend to throw further light upon the subject we have been con
sidering, if we briefly examine his statements upon this point. He
begins with quoting from one of his previous works some ob
servations upon the principles which have often regulated the
composition, and should therefore regulate the interpretation, of
, public ecclesiastical documents or symbolical books. He dwells
especially upon the idea that these documents have been often
the results of a compromise among men who differed somewhat
from each other in their opinions, and illustrates the bearing of
this consideration upon the right mode of explaining and applying
them. His general views upon this subject are very sound and
judicious, and may be most usefully applied in the explanation of
many important ecclesiastical documents ; but we think he utterly
fails in the attempt he makes to apply them to the 17th Article of
his own church. We quote the whole of his statement upon this
point, and we request our readers to give it their special attention: —
" Our 17th Article is a striking exemplification of what has been said ;
for it contains modifications and hmitations in one part of what is laid down
in another, such as go near to neutralize the one by the other.
" It begins by stating the doctrine of predestination in a form which cer
tainly may be, and we 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.

c. ii, : — " Eternal Election, a cause of
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 (generahter) 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 he 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 : — Is*, 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, either 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
Calvinists, and of course intended to teach Calvinism ; or at least
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 statement con
tained in the Article to which any reasonable and intelligent Cal
vinist ever has objected, or ever could have thought of objecting.
How honest and intelligent men who are not Calvinists can satisfy
or pacify their consciences in subscribing it, is a mystery which
we never have been able to solve. But with this we are not at
present concerned. It is certain that there is nothing in the
17th Article — not a thought or idea — but what is found in other
confessions undeniably Calvinistic, and in the writings of Calvin
himself, and of all the ablest and most eminent Calvinistic divines.
The framers of the English Articles were no doubt moderate
Calvinists, who were not disposed to give countenance to the
more extreme and minute expositions of the subject in which some
Calvinists have indulged ; and who were anxious to guard against
the practical abuses into which some unintelligent and injudicious
persons have fallen in the application of the doctrine, and to which
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's
assertion, that " the Article is manifestly the result of a compro
mise between conflicting views ; " and the conclusive proof of this
is, that there is nothing in it which would not naturally and at
once suggest itself as a matter of course to any intelligent Cal
vinist, who wished to give a temperate and careful statement of
his opinions. His statements about "modifications and limita
tions," " limitations and cautions," which one party insisted upon
in order to neutralize something else ; and about this party con
senting to admit the leading and general position, which it is
admitted has a very Calvinistic aspect, " only on the condition
of the insertion" of these limitations and cautions to modify it,
are a pure fiction, utterly unsupported by anything either in the
history 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 " 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
anything 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 " conflicting views," he just meant the opposite
opinions of Calvinists and Arminians. If his statement about
" 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. 585
trine which Whately says " may be, and we know often has been,
understood in the Calvinistic sense;" and which all Calvinists
regard as a clear and accurate description of the whole process
by which sinners are saved, in full accordance with the distinc
tive features of their system of theology. The second division
sets forth the practical application of this Calvinistic doctrine
under two heads, — the first declaring the "sweet and pleasant"
use that may be made of it " by godly persons," " as well because
it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salva
tion to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently
kindle their love towards God;" and the second warning against
an abuse to which it may be perverted by " curious and carnal
persons lacking (in the Latin destituti) the spirit of Christ," who,
if they " have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's
predestination," may be led thereby into despair and profligacy.
The third and last division consists of two positions, which do
not, indeed, quite so clearly and certainly suggest or imply the
Calvinistic doctrine, as do the use and abuse under the second
division, but which are at least perfectly consistent with it. They
may, indeed, be called "limitations and cautions;" since, in exact
accordance with the principles we have already explained, they
limit the sphere of the practical application of the doctrine, and
caution against applying it to matters on which it has no proper
or legitimate bearing. These two limitations or cautions are, —
first, " we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be
generally set forth to us in Scripture;" and second, "in our
doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly
declared to us in the word of God."
It will be observed that Whately, in the quotation we have
given from him, postpones the consideration of the first head
under the second division, about the use or application that is
and should be made of this doctrine by godly persons ; proceeds
at once to the abuse of the doctrine condemned in the second head
of the second division, and to the two limitations or cautions set
forth in the third ; and having endeavoured to extort from these
three topics some support for his main allegation, he then returns
to the explicit declaration of the Article about the right use or
practical application of the doctrine, and tries to dispose of it.
The whole process is very curious, as a specimen of careful and
elaborate sophistry, though it is certainly not very successful.

586 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
The 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 be some such persons in any congregation, he
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 be
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 be " seldom if ever publicly set forth," but
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
perversion of it carefully guarded against. To ascribe to the com
pilers of this Article a notion of so peculiar a kind, as that a
doctrine which they had set forth as a great scriptural truth should
seldom if ever be publicly taught, when they had not said this,
or anything like it, and to do this upon a ground so palpably
inadequate, 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 what-
ever takes place must have been decreed by Him, but to consider
conformity to His will as consisting in obedience to His injunc
tions." These positions are true in themselves ; they are plainly
implied in the concluding division of the Article ; and they cer
tainly 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.

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 587
He then goes on to give the summing up of the preceding
argument in this way : " If, then, some may say" (he evidently
wishes it to be believed that men may say all this truly and
justly), " 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?" The
conclusion here indefinitely and modestly indicated in the shape
of a question, is evidently intended as equivalent to an assertion
of his favourite position, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election,
even if admitted to be 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 Articles,
and it plainly involves a serious charge against them for teaching
this doctrine, when, in Whately's estimation, there was no need
to mention it. Their answer to this charge would undoubtedly
have been, that there was need to mention it — Is*, because it
was a portion of God's revealed truth ; and 2d, because it had an
important practical use or application in the case of godly persons,
as they had fully set forth in the first head of the second division
of the Article. But let us advert to the three points in which he
has summed up his argument, and which he represents as all
sanctioned by the statements of the Article on which he had been
commenting. The first is, that " this doctrine is not to be publicly
set forth." This he had previously put in the modified form, that
"it is seldom if ever to be publicly set forth;" but now, when
he is summing up his argument, and endeavouring to found upon
this consideration a presumption (for he could scarcely regard it
as a proof) in support of his conclusion, he drops the qualification,
and makes the assertion absolute, — "the doctrine is not to be
publicly set forth." We have already shown that there is no
ground for this assertion in anything contained in the Article.
The statement that the doctrine is liable to be abused by a certain
class of persons, affords no ground whatever for the inference which
Whately deduces from it, even in its qualified form. It furnishes
good ground, indeed, for the declaration of the Westminster
Confession, that the " doctrine of this high mystery of predesti
nation is to be handled with special prudence and care," but for
nothing more ; and with this, we have no doubt, the compilers of
the Thirty-nine Articles would have been perfectly satisfied, as
embodying all that they meant to teach upon this point.

588 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
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
definitely, 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 conceal it, by putting these two points in the most indefinite
and comprehensive 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 comes 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
dispute — 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 the statement is this,
— " As for the comfort enjoyed from the ' godly consideration' of
it by those who ' feel 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 be equally enjoyed by those who do not hold predes
tinarian views, but who not the less fully trust in and love their
Redeemer, and keep His saying." Now, upon this we have to
remark, Is*, That the Article does most expressly ascribe a specific
use — a definite practical application — to the godly consideration
of this doctrine by truly religious persons ; and 2d, That there is
nothing unreasonable in ascribing to it this use and application.
The Article expressly asserts, that "the godly consideration of
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 Whately's position, which no
sophistry or shuffling, and no accumulation of probabilities or pre
sumptions, can evade or dispose of. The Article further specifies
the process by which the consideration of this doctrine produces
this result of " unspeakable comfort to godly persons ; " — viz. " as
well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith
of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it
doth fervently kindle their love to God." To allege that the
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 what 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
the way, that the manifest and exact accordance between the view
given in the 17th 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 have
already explained and illustrated, furnishes a proof of the identity
of the system of doctrine taught in these two symbols.
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 surely self-evident,
that this doctrine, when intelligently and rationally applied by
persons who have good grounds for believing that they have

590 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
been elected to eternal life, must produce practical results upon
their 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 bear 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 bear 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
" 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 leadeth to heaven,
by embracing Christ as He 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 " certainty of their effectual voca
tion," and therefore could not be rationally "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 some
what beneath their privileges, — failed, to some extent, in walking
worthily of their high and holy calling, — and came short, more

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 591
or less, in fully adorning their Christian profession, by their
ignorance or unbelief of the information which God has given us
in His word, concerning His sovereign purpose of mercy in Christ
Jesus in regard to all who are saved ; an absolute and unchange
able purpose formed from eternity, 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 17th 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 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."
We have already 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 — con
tain 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 or
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, i We concede to the
Arminians that the word generally, here, is not to be taken in
the sense of usually or ordinarily, but is intended to indicate the
character 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 in
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 be 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.] PRACTICAL 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 in the word of
God." The general import of this position is, that our whole con
duct is to be regulated, in all matters bearing upon our relation to
God and our eternal welfare, by the laws, injunctions, or commands
which are imposed upon us in Scripture ; and not by anything
which we may or can know as to God's purposes or intentions
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 Arminians in
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 "—
vol. i. " 38

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 ex
pression may be 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 prwcepti, voluntas revelata,
voluntas signi, voluntas evapeo-Tta<;. These are just four different
designations for one and the same thing ; presenting it in some
what 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 diffe
rent names, corresponding, but contrasted, with the four applied to
the divine will in the former sense. They call it voluntas decreti,
voluntas arcana, voluntas beneplaciti, voluntas ei/So/oas. 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 indispensably
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 be 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 be 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 be true, then there can be no strict
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 will 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 but 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 con
troversial 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

Essay 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 excess,
and frequently, even when there may not be much of positive
error, leading to onesidedness of conception, in the direction either
of narrowness or exaggeration. Though a man may be well
versant in some departments of theological literature, we can
scarcely regard him as entitled to the character of a theologian,
unless he be familiar with the works of the great systematic
divines of the seventeenth century, both Calvinistic and Arminian.
But an addiction to the study of systematic theology, and to the
perusal of systems, has, unless it be carefully regulated, its
obvious and serious dangers, which ought to be diligently and
assiduously guarded against. No one class of men are to be im
plicitly followed, as if they were in all respects models for our
imitation, with reference to all the objects which we are called
upon to aim at. No uninspired men, or body of men, have ever,
in the formation and expression of their opinions, risen altogether,
and in every respect, above the influences of their position and
circumstances. Controversial discussions have a strong and invariable tendency
to lead those who have been engaged in them, to form an exag
gerated impression of the magnitude of the topics about which
they have exercised their faculties, and spent their time and
strength, and for which they may have contended unto victory.
And it is usually not until another generation has arisen that
men are enabled to gather up fully the fruits of the contest, and
to apply its results to the formation of a sound and judicious
estimate, not only of the truth, but of the importance of the
questions involved in it, and of the best and most effective way of
defending the truth and exposing the error. No intelligent and

598 CALVINISM AND ITS [Essay X.
judicious Calvinist will probably dispute, that the great contro
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 Cal
vinists, 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 seventeenth century. We cannot
dwell upon this point ; but we may refer, as an illustration of
what we mean, to the marked difference, as to the prominence
given to the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, between the Institu
tions of Calvin himself and the theological systems of the great
Calvinistic divines to whom we have referred. We have the
highest sense of the value, for many important purposes, of these
theological systems ; but we cannot doubt that Calvin's Institu
tions is fitted to leave upon the mind a juster and sounder im
pression 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 Cal
vinism 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

Essay X.] PRACTICAL APPLICATION. 599
with what we believe to be true, — viz. that professed Calvinists
are still thoroughly persuaded of the scriptural truth of the
peculiarities of Calvinism, and are resolved to maintain and apply
them, according to their true nature and importance, in their due
proportions, and in their right relations to the whole scheme of
divine truth.
We wish to remind our readers, in conclusion, that we have
not professed or attempted to discuss the general subject of pre
destination, or to deal with its most important and fundamental
departments. A full investigation of the whole subject would
naturally divide itself into four branches, — viz. Is*, The settle
ment 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,
in favour of Calvinism, and in opposition to Arminianism ; 3d,
The objections commonly adduced by Arminians against our real
and admitted doctrines; and 4th, The practical application of
Calvinism. With the second of these branches of the subject —
which is the most important and fundamental — we have not
attempted to deal at all ; and to the third we have referred only
in a very brief and incidental way, without professing to discuss
it. Our observations have been almost wholly restricted to the
first and fourth bf 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 of the practical application, of its
doctrines.

THE REFORMERS

LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY.'

Having 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 which God conferred upon the different Beformers
individually, — bestowing upon one what another wanted, or did
not possess in the same degree ; and thus providing, notwith
standing the infirmities of human nature, for their cordial co
operation, to a large extent, among themselves, in their different
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 abounding
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, Is*, 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.

Essay XL] THE REFORMERS AND THEIR HISTORY. 601
writings and their labours abundantly establish this position.
This was of course no merit of theirs, and affords no ground
whatever why either they or others should boast. Its importance
and value lie only in this, that it is a matter of fact that God
selected, and qualified in other respects, for the work of restoring
His truth and reforming His church, men whom He had gifted
with very superior natural abilities. This was the Lord's doing)
— this was the course which He pursued on that memorable occa
sion, and which He has ordinarily pursued in most important
epochs, connected with the maintenance of His truth and the
advancement of His cause. We are to look upon it as just what
the Lord in His wisdom was pleased to do, — as a thing effected,
and of course intended, by Him in His actual administration of
the affairs of the church and the world. We are to regard it in
this light, as an undoubted reality, intended by Him, like all that
He does, to make himself known, and to unfold and impress the
principles of His moral government ; and, viewing the fact in this
aspect, to consider what are the lessons which it is fitted to teach.
It should lead men, of course, to estimate aright mental power
and vigour as a valuable gift of God, intended by Him to be
used, and often employed by Him, in fact, in the advancement of
His cause. This, however, is not a lesson which it is very neces
sary to inculcate ; for although occasionally fanatical exceptions
do appear, the general and ordinary tendency of men is to over
estimate mere intellectual power, irrespective of the purposes to
which it is applied — the objects to which it is directed. Still it is
right to remember that God, by selecting as instruments for the
restoration of His truth and the reformation of Plis church, men
whom He had gifted with very superior intellectual powers, has
thereby borne testimony to their value and importance, — has indi
cated the responsibility connected with the possession of them, and
the purpose to which they ought to be chiefly applied ; while He
has 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 which He may have conferred, as a distinct
and definite object, in subordination to His glory, and as a means
of fitting Christians more fully for doing something for the ad
vancement of His cause.
The fact that the Reformers were also, in general, men of ex
tensive acquired learning, admits of a more direct and obvious

602 THE REFORMERS AND THE [Essay XL
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, or 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, exten
sively learned in all matters connected with the work in which
they were to be engaged ; while we find, also, that He was graci
ously 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
propriety of attending to and marking the instrumentality em
ployed, as exhibited in the men who were the instruments of bring
ing about the results, and in the various gifts as well as graces
bestowed 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 XL] 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 organiz
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 required,
from his having been led in providence in early life to go through
a course of study in law and jurisprudence in two of the most
eminent French universities. Melancthon and Beza were ac
knowledged as ranking among the most eminent Greek scholars
of the period ; and brought at once that refinement of taste and
elegancy of style which an acquaintance with classical literature
tends to produce, and at the same time great philological learning,
to bear upon the interpretation of Scripture and the defence of
divine truth. Almost all of them were well read in the works of
the principal writers of Greece and Rome, — in the writings of
the Fathers, and the history of the church, — and in the scholastic
philosophers and theologians of the middle ages ; and this compre
hended nearly all the knowledge that was then generally acces
sible. All this knowledge they were enabled to acquire ; they
employed it in the work to which they were called ; and they
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
acquire as much of knowledge and learning as opportunities will
allow, especially of that knowledge and learning which bears
most directly and immediately upon the various departments of
labour in which we may be called upon to engage for the advance
ment of Christ's cause.
In tracing the history of the lives of the leading Reformers,
we find that there is scarcely one of them who had not oppor
tunities afforded them in providence, at some period or other, of
devoting a considerable portion of time to diligent and careful
study. We find they faithfully improved these opportunities, —
that 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 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
employ 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 know
ledge, and the sinfulness of neglecting 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 writers 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 XL] 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 works
of the different Reformers exhibit, of course, in 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 the}'- were none of them retired students, with
leisure to devote their time unbroken to reading, reflection, and
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 in the ordinary
administration of ecclesiastical affairs. They had a great public
cause in hand, in the defence and maintenance of which they
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 and
of personal dealing with men. They did not in 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 per
formed an amount of labour, physical and intellectual, the con
templation 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. Zwingle was cut off at the
age of forty-seven ; and yet, besides doing a great deal of work,
not only as pastor and professor of theology in Zurich, but as
the leading Reformer (of the German portion) of Switzerland,
he has left us four folio volumes of well-digested, well-composed
matter, upon all the great theological topics that then occupied
the public mind. And what a life was Calvin's ! Though 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 before the Lord
brought him to Geneva, and called him to engage in the public
service of His church. But how much was he enabled during
the remainder of his life to do and to effect ! Though engaged
incessantly in the laborious duties of a pastor and professor of
theology, he was called upon to give his counsel and advice,
by personal applications and by written correspondence, upon
almost every important question; speculative or practical, that

606 THE REFORMERS AND THE [Essay XL
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 " 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 obli
gation to husband and improve it ; and constrain all to labour,
with unwearied 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
leading principles which are there unfolded. They were led to
continue ever after to study them with care and diligence ; and
they persevered 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 surveying the history and
the writings of the Reformers, that their strength and success —
both as defenders of divine truth and main tamers of God's cause,
and also as men engaged, 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 inti
mate acquaintance with the word of God, the whole word of God.
They were familiar with the meaning and application of its state
ments, and they were deeply imbued with its spirit. The word of

Essay XL] LESSONS FROM THEIR HISTORY. 607
God dwelt in them richly, in all wisdom and spiritual understand
ing, and thus became " a light unto their feet, and a lamp unto
their path." It is an interesting fact, and is one proof and mani
festation of their deep and careful study of the word of God, that
many of the leading Reformers have left, amid their other volu
minous productions and abundant labours, commentaries upon the
whole, or a large portion of, the sacred Scriptures. We have
eight or nine commentaries 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 accustomed 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 sacred 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 bestow upon them, — and here, as in everything else
connected with the exposition and application of the whole truth
of God, Calvin towers far above them all ; yet, as a whole, they
fullv vindicate what we have said of their talents, learning, and
general character, and fully prove that they were eminently
qualified for discerning 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 perusal
and study of other books connected with theological subjects,
and too little to the study of the inspired volume. We know in
o-eneral but little of the word of God as it ought to be known,
and we are very much disposed to remain in contented ignorance
of what God has written for our instruction. We are dependent

608 THE REFORMERS AND THEIR HISTORY. [Essay XI.
for all true knowledge of the 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 know
ledge, 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.

INDEX.

Arnauld —
Views of, on faith, 137.
Assurance, Doctrine of —
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.
Mis-statement 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 fundamen
tal 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 type
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 controversialist, 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, 119-
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 exegetic.il and sys
tematic theology, 297, 298.
Testimonies to eminence of character
of, 299, 300.
Attacks upon the character of, 301,
302.
Imperfection of character of, SOS-
SOS.
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 presump
tuous speculation in divine things
brought against, 333, et seq.
Substance of the Reformation aimed
at by, 335.
The grand heresy of the mediseval
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 Sublapsarians and Supra
lapsarians, 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 Eather, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, in the salvation of
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 Eaber on, 419, et seq.
Status qucestionis 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 a!s 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, 59 1, et seq.
Distinctions as to the " Wifl 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 organization
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 organization of
the, 29, 30.
Two views generally held by Refor
mers on the organization 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 ont 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 unsatisfactory for
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 Dr
Tulloch, 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 doctrineby 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 op England —
Mis-statement by Sir William Hamil
ton as to doctrine of, on assurance,
128 134.
Doctrinal sense of the Articles of,
164, 167.
Calvinism of the early divines of, 168,
192.

612

INDEX.

Church op 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.
Fallacy 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 op Rome —
Pelagian views in, before the Refor
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 faith,
124, 125.
Dort, Synod op —
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.
Faber's four different doctrines on, 441 .
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 betweenWhately 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, etseq.
Faith —
Views 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 with Lu
ther's consent to the marriage of
the Landgrave 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 views 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 of
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.
Justification —
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.
LUTHEK —
Dr Tulloch'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
Supper, 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.

Melancthon —
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, et
seq.
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 Latitudina
rians, 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,
8.
Theology of, depreciated by Dr Tul
loch, 9.
Account by Dr Tulloch of the theo
logy of, 12-14.
Theology of, substantilly identical
with Calvinism, 14.
Attack by Mr Isaac Taylor on the
theology of, 18.

Reformation, Leaders of —
New theology expected by Dr Tul
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
organization 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-
rance, 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 Supralap
sarians 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 organization
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 Su
pralapsarians, 369, 370.
Views of, on imputation, 382, 383.
Views of, on Calvinism, 431.
The doctrine of philosophical neces
sity not opposed to, 484, et seq.
Teaching of, on free-will, 489 et seq.,
496 et seq.
Jonathan Edwards on, 490.
Explanation of ninth chapter 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 doctrine
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 by, that the
doctrines of Calvinism have no
practical influence, 566, et seq.
Unfounded allegation by, that the

Westminster Confession —
17th Article of the Church of Eng
land denies any practical applica
tion of the doctrine of election in
the svstem 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, etseq.
Explanation of ninth 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 religion, 224, 225.
Opinions of, on the subject of the
sacraments, 225-230.

MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.