plete copy of Holy Scripture, the labour of reference (absolutely essential to a comprehensive view,) in the examination of rolls of manuscript, must have been almost incalculable; and, though Calvin may not have been involved in this difficulty, he was very far from possessing the facilities of modern times; and he had, besides, the example of those before him, in dealing rather with the hypotheses of some immediate opponent, than in passing by the wisdom of this world in a calm examination of the wisdom which is from above. From his "Christian Institutes," published in 1535, it would seem, on the most charitable supposition, as if it were a point of piety with him, coloured perhaps by the infirmity of an intolerant and haughty disposition (as grievously shown in burning Servetus) to make the honor and glory of God to consist in supreme and irreversible decrees: as if, while having truly the right to do as He wills with His own, God had not pleased to enlighten us as to the manner in which it delights Him to exercise that will. Calvin maintained, that so far from the Christian covenant being open to all believers, Christ died only for the elect; using the word elect in a limited and arbitrary sense, which implies the causeless and inexplicable selection of a few sinful men out of the human race, who, without "seeking,” or will of their own, are, by the operation of "irresistible grace," made the "predestined" recipients of the inestimable benefit of our Saviour's atonement, and are so preserved, equally without volition, or ability to fall; while that world at large which God so loved," is

doomed to hopeless "reprobation," that is, eternal destruction. Lest I should appear to be over-stating these opinions, and to be Calvinior Calvino, I give the following extracts from the work referred to.

66

Prædestinationem vocamus æternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet; non enim pari conditione creantur omnes, sed aliis vita æterna, aliis damnatio æterna, præordinatur." Thus rendered in the English edition :---

Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, whereby He had it determined within himself what He willed to become of every man; for all are not created to like estate, but to some eternal life, and to some eternal damnation is foreappointed.”—Christn. Inst. 3rd B. Ch. 21.

"It is not meet to assign the preparing unto destruction to any other thing than to the secret counsel of God."-Ch. 23.

"God not only foresaw or suffered, but also by His own will disposed the fall of the first man.”—Ibid.

"It is certain that the doctrine of salvation is wrongfully set open in common to all men to profit effectually." -Ch. 22.

By outward preaching all men are called to repentance and faith; and yet not to all men is given the spirit of repentance."—Ibid.

I refrain from pursuing, in detail, the sophistries he sought to establish. They have rung their own knell at

B

Geneva, within these late years, in a manner too painful to enlarge upon; affording proof, it might almost seem, that the fearful and inevitable tendency of the Calvinistic doctrine of supreme and irreversible decrees, as there carried out, is to merge into Unitarianism.

Such being the Calvinistic doctrine of Election and Predestination: Is the Church of England Calvinistic? Let us, for answer, refer to commentators of the Church on this matter. In Bishop Mant's prayer book, and in his bible, published, alike, under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, we find, among other names quoted as authority, Bishops Tomline, Burnet, Pearson, Beveridge, and Sherlock; Doctors Waterland, Hammond, Bennett, Whitby, Parkhurst, Claggett, Wells; Archdeacon Welchman, Archbishop Tillotson, &c.; and the conclusion logically to be drawn, I conceive, is, that as the remarks of these commentators, so admitted and quoted, are uniformly opposed to Calvinistic interpretation, the Church, in selecting such opinions, sanctions them. These writers, in the notes referred to, distinctly avow the "abstruse nature of the doctrine as the fruitful source of controversy." They state, that if understood in a strict and rigid sense, it carries with it a shocking reflection on the goodness of God. That men, in conse quence of their free agency, have it in their power to accept or reject the salvation offered; while God, by His prescience, foresaw who would accept and who would

1

reject it." That we "cannot conceive that a being of infinite justice and mercy would arbitrarily select out of His rational creatures a determinate number on whom He would bestow the blessing of eternal happiness, while He consigned the rest to eternal punishment;" and that "such an idea of election ought surely to be rejected."

Strong in this preliminary ground work, let us now proceed to Scripture itself. That enquiry cannot be idle which has the honor and glory of God for its object. First, I would observe, that whosoever consults the Bible with only a partial examination of detached portions, is in danger of misleading himself, however innocently and unintentionally. Lest the understanding should be hurried away by insulated passages, it is needful that our conceptions should be disciplined and corrected by a comprehensive reference to Revelation as a whole, and careful recollection of the peculiar circumstances and objects for which portions were written.

With regard to Election and Predestination, we should remember, for instance, that St. Paul had a difficult, but distinct task before him, and it is a forgetfulness of the nature of this task which has led to error, and miscon ception of his teaching.* Peculiarly and especially

The Rev. Hartwell Horne, in his admirable work "An Introduction to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures," published by him when a layman, advises that at least the first eleven chapters of the Epistle to the Romans should be read consecutively, that St. Paul's arguments may be duly embraced.

B 2

appointed the Apostle to the Gentiles, he had to unfold a divine truth as new to them as it was repugnant to the Jews. His high commission was to make known to "all the world," that God's ancient covenant with Abraham, "in thy seed [our Blessed Saviour] shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," was accomplished. He was to preach the "glad tidings which shall be unto all people," which had been heralded by an Heavenly Host, which "filled the Jews with envy,"--but which 'the Gentiles heard and were glad." (Acts 13.) He had to explain, that little understood as the predestined election of other nations to equal favor with the Jews might have been, and indeed was, even to the Apostles, as appears from the instructive vision of St. Peter with reference to Cornelius the Gentile (Acts 10. 34), it was no new nor unforeseen purpose of the Divine Mind, but that "before the foundations of the world were laid," God had elected 'all the nations of the earth" to like privileges, of His own abounding goodness, and for the sake of His Son, our Saviour. In the words of the article,

God had constantly decreed by His counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He had chosen in Christ out of mankind"-not chosen out of mankind arbitrarily nor causelessly, but chosen “in Christ", that is to say, as believing and trusting in Him who was to be "the way and the life." Thus was the Kingdom of Heaven "opened to all believers" as declared in our Liturgy. And we are said to be "chosen," not as selected partially nor individually, but in contradistinction