.

distant, is given of this. Calvin is no more considered in the Article, than if he had never existed; much less is there any reference made to his works. The same doctrine is indisputably spoken of from the beginning to the end of the article.— What is this sentence of God's predestination? It cannot be the sentence of predestination, ' which we have been considering, by which God 'purposed and decreed to save all, who shall 'believe and obey the gospel. Certainly it cannot be the doctrine of his Lordship's comment: but it can be, and undoubtedly is the doctrine stated in the preceding part of the Article. His Lordship having, in fact, substituted another Article in the place of the seventeenth, by his comments on it, reasons from his own Article, as if it were that of the church; and, as far as his comment is concerned, he reasons plausibly, if not conclusively.—This merciful and consolatory 'doctrine cannot be the suggestion of the great

enemy of mankind.' Does the article then affirm, that the doctrine of predestination, that any doctrine of which it speaks, or to which it alludes, is 'the suggestion of the great enemy of mankind?' It only affirms that for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually 'before their eyes the sentence of God's predes'tination, is a most dangerous downfal, by which 'the Devil doth thrust them, &c.:' and this is in the same sentence in which the godly con'sideration of predestination' is declared to be 'full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort 'to godly persons, such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, &c.' No inti

mation is given of a different doctrine being intended than in the former part of the sentence : the different uses made of the same doctrine by differently disposed minds, the godly' and the 'carnal,' are alone declared. It is true, the great enemy of mankind knows well how to suggest false, but plausible inferences from the doctrines of revelation in general, and from this in particular, but the doctrines themselves are not his suggestions. "Even as our beloved brother Paul " also, according to the wisdom given unto him, "hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are

66

some things hard to be understood, which they "that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they "do the other scriptures, to their own destruc"tion." The doctrine may be scriptural, wholesome, nutrimental, nay, essential : yet an unstable and uninstructed mind, either with, or even without the devil's suggestions, "may wrest it" to the man's own destruction. The mischief arises not from the doctrine, but from the state of men's hearts, as the Article has most clearly stated. There is no doctrine, however consolatory or practical, that the proud, carnal, ungodly heart will not thus pervert: so that nothing can possibly be admitted, on this ground, against the indisputable certainty, that this latter part of the Article speaks of the same predestination as the former part does.-How far the compilers of our Articles would have objected to the quotation from Calvin, (of which I have given his Lordship's translation,) is another question; and cer

! 2 Pet iii. 15, 16.

distant, is given of this. Calvin is no more considered in the Article, than if he had never existed; much less is there any reference made to his works. The same doctrine is indisputably spoken of from the beginning to the end of the article.— What is this sentence of God's predestination? 'It cannot be the sentence of predestination, ' which we have been considering, by which God 'purposed and decreed to save all, who shall 'believe and obey the gospel. Certainly it cannot be the doctrine of his Lordship's comment : but it can be, and undoubtedly is the doctrine stated in the preceding part of the Article. His Lordship having, in fact, substituted another Article in the place of the seventeenth, by his comments on it, reasons from his own Article, as if it were that of the church; and, as far as his comment is concerned, he reasons plausibly, if not conclusively. This merciful and consolatory 'doctrine cannot be the suggestion of the great enemy of mankind.' Does the article then affirm, that the doctrine of predestination, that any doctrine of which it speaks, or to which it alludes, is 'the suggestion of the great enemy of mankind?' It only affirms that for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predes

tination, is a most dangerous downfal, by which 'the Devil doth thrust them, &c.:' and this is in the same sentence in which the godly con'sideration of predestination' is declared to be 'full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort 'to godly persons, such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, &c. No inti

mation is given of a different doctrine being intended than in the former part of the sentence: the different uses made of the same doctrine by differently disposed minds, the godly' and the 'carnal,' are alone declared. It is true, the great enemy of mankind knows well how to suggest false, but plausible inferences from the doctrines of revelation in general, and from this in particular, but the doctrines themselves are not his suggestions. "Even as our beloved brother Paul “also, according to the wisdom given unto him, "hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are

some things hard to be understood, which they "that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they "do the other scriptures, to their own destruc"tion." The doctrine may be scriptural, wholesome, nutrimental, nay, essential: yet an unstable and uninstructed mind, either with, or even without the devil's suggestions, "may wrest it" to the man's own destruction. The mischief arises not from the doctrine, but from the state of men's hearts, as the Article has most clearly stated. There is no doctrine, however consolatory or. practical, that the proud, carnal, ungodly heart will not thus pervert: so that nothing can possibly be admitted, on this ground, against the indisputable certainty, that this latter part of the Article speaks of the same predestination as the former part does.-How far the compilers of our Articles would have objected to the quotation from Calvin, (of which I have given his Lordship's translation,) is another question; and cer! 2 Pet iii. 15, 16.

1

tainly it is here adduced as one of the most exceptionable passages in his writings. But they could not intend, in drawing up Articles for the church of England, to combat and condemn this, or any other passage, in Calvin's works, without making even the smallest allusion to them.-In what follows, as a comment on the quotation from Calvin, it is said, to consign others to eternal 'misery, without any regard to their merit or ' demerit.' But, whatever Calvin believed, or did not believe, our Article has nothing at all to do with his creed. If the compilers of our Articles intended to oppose Calvin's doctrine, why did they not say so? And why did they leave their doctrine so obscure, that for much above two hundred years no one, either Calvinist or Anticalvinist, ever thought of their real meaning? They evidently shew, (what all who have had enlarged opportunity of making observations must know,) that the doctrine in question, though scriptural, and very useful to humble, pious Christians, is capable of being perverted by the carnal heart, and the devil's temptations, to the most perilous and mischievous purposes of dire desperation, or licentious presumption. And thus the gospel itself, as preached by St. Paul, was "a savour of "death unto death" to some, as well as "a savour "of life unto life" to others.-The words 'from

a persuasion that they belong to the chosen few,' are a comment on Calvin's doctrine, which he would most decidedly have protested against: for he would have explicitly declared, that every such persuasion, unattended by holy obedierce, was an 12 Cor. i. 15—17.