^WOFPR/WC?^ 
 
 BX 9422 .M85 1856 
 Munro, Alexander. 
 Calvinism in its relations 
 to Scripture and reason 
 
CALVINISM 
 
 RELATIONS 
 
 SCEIPTTJEE AND REASON. 
 
^rj 
 
 JUW 3 1966 
 
 CALVINISM 
 
 EELATIONS 
 
 SCEIPTURE AND EEASON, 
 
 AN EXAMINATION INTO THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF CALYINISTIC 
 
 PRINCirLES, AS THEY ARE UID DOWN IN THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN STANDARDS. 
 
 REV. ALEXANDER MUNRO, 
 
 rROFESSiR IX THE SCOTCH COLLEGE, V.VLLADuLID. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 HUGH MAEGEY, 14 GREAT CLYDE STKEET. 
 
 1856. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 Slnce the Reformation, Em-ope has been deluged with trea- 
 tises against " Popery." Protestant writers have come to 
 consider that the sole function of the Catholic, in religious 
 controversy, is defence ; while, for themselves, they claim an 
 exckisive and inalienable right of attack. To this may be 
 attributed that security in which Protestants seem to live, as 
 if their religion needed no apology and dreaded no assault. 
 Their ideas have, by their long immunity, been inverted, and 
 they have come to consider the defensive language of the 
 Catholic an aggression. Statements of their doctrines are, 
 indeed, to be met with ; but formal attempts to establish, as 
 theological theses, the pecidiar tenets of Protestantism, are 
 rarely, if at all, to be found. An "Exposure of Popery," or 
 a " Refutation of Romanism," has been held sufficient proof 
 that Protestantism is the true and unquestionable reproduction 
 of primitive Christianity. 
 
 Yet it is difficult to conceive how a Protestant can rest 
 satisfied without a thorough examination into the grovmds 
 and doctrines of his religion. His fundamental principle is, 
 that every man is bound to search, examine, and judge for 
 himself. This examination he can neglect only by the 
 
VI PKEFACE. 
 
 abandonment of liis Protestantism or a culpable deficiency in 
 liis creed. He sacrifices consistency, and retains entire tbe 
 Confession of Faith. The Protestant is, from his infancy, 
 taught to believe that a certain system of doctrine is the 
 religion of Christ. The theory indeed says — Take up the 
 Bible ; read, meditate, compare, and judge, and the Spirit of 
 God will teach you all saving truths ; but the practice makes 
 him receive from his parents or teachers the Catechism agreed 
 upon by the divines of their Church, and learn from it what 
 are the doctrines which he will be permitted to believe to 
 have been revealed by the Holy Ghost in the word. He takes 
 the book, he listens to his teachers, and grows up in the 
 religion of his parents. When able, he reads the Bible, finds 
 there only the Presbyterianism of the Church of Scotland or 
 Free Kirk, as the case may be, and wonders at the strange 
 blindness of the Episcopalians, Unitarians, Baptists, Mormons, 
 &c., who have found in the sacred volume the doctrines of 
 tlieir catechisms and teachers. As he has heard so much 
 about the duty and privilege of examination — been told so 
 frequently that his religion is the result and support of private 
 judgment, he really believes that he has examined and judged. 
 But he has in truth been taufjld. He has been ever proclaim- 
 ing liberty, although the grounds of his reasonings and his 
 conclusions themselves are only the teachings of authority. 
 
 However unwaiTanted and inconsistent the confidence of 
 Protestants and their uniformly offensive attitude may be, 
 it has not been without a marked influence upon Catholics 
 and their literature. Our writings have taken the form of 
 apology, or deprecation, or explanation. We have ventured 
 only to hint that Protestantism was false. So closely have 
 we been occupied in rebutting calumnies, clearing up mis- 
 conceptions, or stating and defending our doctrines, that 
 Catholics would be scarcely less surprised than Protestants at 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 the novelty, if one of themselves were to assume the offensive, 
 and call on Protestants to give a reason for the hope that is 
 in them, or warn them that their defences are crumbling 
 around them, and the ground quaking beneath their feet. 
 The consequence has been, that the Catholic finds his library- 
 deficient. While he can readily procure books of instruction 
 and defensive controversy, he finds himself without assistance 
 should he wish to convince of error those who so confidently 
 assail his faith. It is principally to supply, to some small 
 extent, this deficiency that the present work has been written. 
 
 Some acquaintance with the religious systems of those by 
 whom he is surrounded, with whom he must daily come in 
 contact, cannot but prove of advantage to the Catholic, not 
 only by pointing out to him the weakness of their principles, 
 and the objections to which they are liable, but also by con- 
 firming him more and more in his devotion to his cherished 
 faith. For, when he sees that the labours of the most learned 
 and subtle men, when directed to the formation of a religion, 
 result only in folly and contradiction, his own ancient Church 
 seems to grow, if possible, stronger and more venerable by the 
 contrast, and he clings to her as the special manifestation of 
 God's wisdom, the depository of his graces, the preseiwer and 
 guarantee to men of his word — " the pillar and the ground of 
 truth." 
 
 Protestants, also, who wish to be consistent, will by no 
 means regret to have their principles and opinions thrown 
 into the crucible. The truth must come forth from trial more 
 resplendent than ever, while error cannot be too soon ex- 
 ploded. They say that, as St. John directs us to " try the 
 spirits," so men are bound to try their doctrines, " whether 
 they be of God." But, to undertake a trial that shall really 
 be such, and not a mere pretext to justify a foregone conclu- 
 sion, it is as necessary to learn, and weigh, and solve the 
 
vlii PREFACE. 
 
 objections to tlie doctrine, as to know tlie reasons in its 
 favour, A faith professing to be gronndetl upon tlie exami- 
 nation of the intrinsic and extrinsic credibility of dogmas, yet 
 refusing to weigh whatever can be urged against them, must 
 be pronounced a deception. To the sincere Protestant, there- 
 fore, whose principles necessarily engage him in a constant 
 search after truth, every discussion that serves to extend 
 the circle of his ideas, although by shaking his confidence in 
 admitted dogmas, or inducing him to question the soundness 
 of previous opinions, will, if conducted in the spirit of Chris- 
 tian charity, be welcomed as throwing a friendly light upon 
 his solitary path. It is, then, in the hope of benefiting both 
 Protestants and Catholics that this volume is offered to the 
 public. 
 
 Its object may now be briefly explained. AVe propose to 
 test the strength and consistency of the system of Protestant- 
 ism most generally professed in Scotland. To leave no room 
 for cavil as to our statements of its doctrine, they shall, in 
 every case, be made exclusively in the words of its own author- 
 ized and received Confessions of Faith. To discuss, however, 
 even in a cursory manner, the entire contents of those Con- 
 fessions, in as far as they are at variance with the teaching 
 of the Catholic Church, would require, on the part of the 
 writer, leisure and opportunities which few Catholics could 
 command ; while, on that of the reader, it would suppose a 
 favour for folios which, it is more than probable, has long 
 since disappeared. Our attention will, therefore, be confined 
 to a few points. But they shall be the most momentous of 
 the controversy, and such as will carry with them, in their 
 decision, all the remaining difterences. First in order is 
 the doctrine on the sacred Scriptures — their nature, authority, 
 and use. As the Scriptures are considered by Protestants to 
 be the sole source of our knowledge of revealed truth, this is 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 riglitly the first, as It is in reality the most important article 
 of all. Protestantism mnst stand or fall by its doctrine on 
 this one point. Secondly, we shall consider the doctrine of 
 the Westminster Confession on God, in his relations to man, 
 both justified and in the state of sin. Thirdly, its doctrine 
 on Man, what he is by nature, and what he becomes by grace. 
 We have not made it a special object to follow up the prin- 
 ciples of Protestantism to their ulterior results ; but enough 
 will appear, in the course of the following pages, to show that 
 the tendency of the ideas introduced by the Eeformation is 
 towards revolution and anarchy in the state, to endless 
 divisions in religion, and finally, to infidelity. It must not, 
 however, be inferred from this, that we maintain Protestants 
 to be impugners of revealed religion, or even likely to become 
 such. In this respect, we thank Heaven for the inconsistency 
 of the great body of Protestants ! What we maintain is, that 
 the rigorous logical development of their princix^les, as laid 
 down in their published standards, is through an inevitable 
 course of doubt, to infidelity and scepticism. 
 
INTEODUCTIOK 
 
 The religious system of the Westminster Confession differs 
 materially from tliat of any one of the first reformed hodies. 
 It is not, however, a new or independent system ; but has 
 heen borrowed partly from Luther and Melancthon, partly 
 from Calvin, Beza, and Zwinglius. Our Scottish Reformers, 
 destitute of originality, or boldness, or leisure, did not, like so 
 many of their continental contemporaries, strike out a new 
 path for themselves. They were content to receive, in frag- 
 ments as it came, now a hint from Wittemberg, and anon an- 
 other from Geneva or Zurich. Lutheranism had the privilege 
 of being first received. A nobleman named Patrick Hamilton, 
 having, by some channel now unknown, imbibed the ideas 
 already prevalent in Germany, left Scotland about the year 
 1526, and attached himself to Luther and his colleagues in 
 Wittemberg. On his return to Scotland he preached the new 
 religion, as far as it had been till that time developed, and 
 succeeded, to some extent, in drawing attention to his novelties. 
 They seem to have been agitated principally in the University 
 of St. Andrews, where the admirers of Hamilton failed not to 
 use the influence, which by their position as teachers of 
 Catholicity they possessed, to propagate them by stealth, and 
 
Xll INTRODUCTION. 
 
 to pervert from tlieir religion the voutli intrusted to their 
 care. ^ 
 
 Although Hamilton is reckoned among the martyrs of the 
 Scottish Reformation, no sect of the present day would ac- 
 knowledge him as a member, unless he wxre prepared to 
 subscribe a much more extensive Confession of Faith than 
 the Eeformation had in his day discovered. His abilities and 
 acquirements, notwithstanding Knox's testimony to his "singu- 
 lar erudition and godly knowledge," were not of a high order, 
 nor were his ideas of the new doctrines, in all cases, very well 
 defined. Yet, in his confused and pedantic treatise on the 
 " Law," the germs of several doctrines now embodied in the 
 AVestminster Confession are to be found. He maintained 
 that man is justified by faith alone ; that the man who has 
 faith cannot fall into sin ;2 that God requires man to keep all 
 tlie commandments, although their observance be impossible.^ 
 This, however, is of little consequence to the righteous, for 
 tliey are to be saved without any regard to their works ; and 
 it is of still less to the reprobate, as they are assured that sin 
 will not be the cause of any man's condemnation.* 
 
 From the disciples whom Hamilton had left in the Uni- 
 
 ^ " Gavin Logie, rector of St. Leonard's College, was successful in instilling them 
 (the new doctrines) into the minds of the students. . . . Under the connivance of 
 John Winram, the sub-prior, they also secretly spread among the novitiates (sic) 
 of the abbey." — 3J'Crie\t Life of Knox, vol. i. p. 30. 
 
 2 " All that is done in faith pleaseth God. . . . Thou wilt then say that theft, 
 murder, adultery, and all vices please God. No, verily ; /or they cannot be done in 
 
 faith.'''' — Ilamiltoiis Treatise on the Lnio ; apud Knox's History of the Reformation, 
 p. G8. 
 
 3 " The law biddeth us do that which is impossible for us ; for it bids us keep all 
 the commandments of God ; and yet it is not in our power to keep any of them ; 
 ergo, it biddeth us do that which is impossible for us." — Id. ibid. 
 
 * " No works make us unrighteous ; for, if any works make us unrighteous 
 then the contrary works would make us righteous ; but it is proved that no works 
 can make us righteous ; ergo, no work either saveth us or condcmneth us." — Id. ibid. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XUl 
 
 versity of St, Andrews, John Knox received the first glimpses 
 of the reformed doctrines. He afterwards exercised an un- 
 honnded inflnence over the minds of his co-religionists, in 
 both civil and religions matters, and stamped npon the Scottish 
 Reformation the rugged features of his own stern character. 
 During his different sojourns in Geneva, he studied the various 
 systems of the Swiss Reformers ; and the effect of his studies 
 is evident in the preponderance which the opinions of Calvin 
 obtained in Scotland over those of Luther since the year 
 1559 — the date of Knox's final return to his native land. In 
 the year 1560, he was appointed, along with several others of 
 the ministers, to draw up a statement of doctrine which should 
 be the standard of the Kirk of Scotland. The result of their 
 labours, under the title of " the Confession of Faith, as pro- 
 fessed and believed by the Protestants within the realm of 
 Scotland," was ratified and adopted both by the Parliament 
 and General Assembly. This document seems to have held 
 its place as the standard of orthodoxy to the Presbyterian body, 
 until the adoption of the more extended and better defined 
 Avork of the Westminster divines. The discrepancies betAveen 
 the two Confessions are no less remarkable than important. 
 Thus, Avhen we consider the influence of Knox, whose extreme 
 opinions and intemperance of language are Avell known, it 
 becomes difficult to account either for the temperate doctrine 
 on election, expressed in the most guarded language, which 
 we find in Article viii. of the first Confession, or for its sub- 
 sequent removal in favour of the fearful doctrine of Calvin 
 in its unmitigated severity. 
 
 After the publication of Knox's Confession of Faith, the 
 first document we meet with, illustrative of the progress of the 
 reformed opinions in Scotland, is the " National Covenant." 
 This Covenant, so peculiarly characteristic of Scotch Presby- 
 terianism, Avas, betAveen the years 1580 and 1640, six several 
 
XIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 times ratified, both by the General Assembly and Parliament, 
 and ordered to be received and subscribed ^' by all ranks of 
 people in the land." As a doctrinal record, the National 
 Covenant is of a negative character. It enmiierates the 
 doctrines and practices which are to be rejected ; and its 
 anathemas and repudiations of " Popery " in all its branches 
 are of the most energetic description. In its political bearing- 
 it is sufficiently positive, and explains, beyond the possibility 
 of misconception, the Presbyterian theory on the questions of 
 religious liberty, and the "right of private judgment." The 
 National Covenant gives a list of the persecuting statutes 
 which had been framed by the Scottish Parliament against 
 the persons and property of Catholics, and binds the sub- 
 scribers to put those statutes into rigorous execution. 
 
 Until the year 1643, no additional formulary of belief seems 
 to have been called for in Scotland. But, from the com- 
 mencement of the seventeenth century, the necessity of a 
 closer union between the Presbyterians of Scotland and 
 England had been becoming more and more evident to the 
 respective leaders of the parties in both kingdoms. They had 
 a common object in view, which both long pursued with 
 indomitable perseverance. They wished first to resist aud 
 restrain a government which sought to regulate the form of 
 their worship ; and afterwards, stimulated to bolder projects 
 by a consciousness of increasing strength, they pursued with 
 equal ardour and success, designs which were finally fatal to 
 the life of the king and subversive of the monarchy. To 
 bring about such a union as would secure a triumph, the 
 English Parliament, entirely ruled by Presbyterian influence, 
 summoned, in June, 1643, an assembly of divines to meet at 
 Westminster. They were instructed to draw up such a state- 
 ment of doctrine as might express their own opinions, and, at 
 the same time, by its approximation to the old Scotch Con- 
 
INTEODUCTIOX. XV 
 
 essioii, be accepted by their nortlicrn brethren. Meanwhile 
 +rhe Scottish Assembly gave a commission to a number of its 
 ministers to repair to Westminster, "to propose, consult, treat, 
 and conclude with that Assembly, or any commissioners de- 
 puted by them, or any committees or commissioners deputed hy 
 the houses of Parliament^ in all matters which may further the 
 union of this island in one form of kirk government, one Con- 
 fession of Faith, one Catechism, one Directory for the worship 
 of God according to the instructions which they have received 
 from the Assembly, or shall receive from time to time here- 
 after from the commissioners of the Assembly deputed to that 
 effect," ^ The Confession of Faith, with the Larger and 
 Shorter Catechisms then drawn up, were accepted by the 
 Kirk of Scotland, and since then have been the authorized 
 summary of her doctrines. They may be considered the 
 correct exponents of the entire body of Scotch Presbyterians. 
 They have been adopted, with some explanations on the sub- 
 ject of the civil magistrate, by the Free Kirk ; and the cate- 
 chisms in use among all the Protestants of this country who 
 adliere to the Presbyterian form of church government, are 
 those drawn up by the Westminster divines, and are simply 
 a digest of the Confession of Faith. 
 
 1 Act of General Assembly of Kirk of Scotland, August 19, 16-43. 
 
CALVINISM 
 
 RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE AND REASON. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE SCRIPTUEES. 
 
 Had it been possible for man to discover, unaided, bis rela- 
 tions to God, the end of his being, and the means by which 
 it was to be attained, this knowledge would have been pos- 
 sessed, in its fulness, by the sages of antiquity. But all of 
 them groped in darkness. The sparks which, from time to 
 time, break into sight during the long night of pagan horrors, 
 seem rather to indicate the smouldering embers of a primitive 
 tradition, than the natural and independent powers of the 
 human mind. Christianity is essentially a revelation. Its 
 truths are supernatural; and therefore mere natural reason 
 could no more attain to their knowledge than man could change 
 his own natm-e. Christianity declares to us the designs of 
 God in the creation of man. It tells us for what we were made, 
 and how we shall attain the end of oiu- being. It even raises 
 the veil to some extent, and vouchsafes us a glimpse within the 
 temple of the Divinity — it speaks of the natm-e, and attributes, 
 and will of God. But God's will, designs, and nature can be 
 known only to himself. The doctrines of Christianity could 
 therefore have been made known to man only by a revelation 
 from God. 
 
 The Westminster Confession of Faith, assimiing, with all 
 Protestantism, that certain books of Scripture contain tlie 
 complete and sole record of the Divine revelation, naturally 
 
2 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 devotes its opening chapter to tlie subject of "The Holy Scrip- 
 tures." The object of the chapter is to establish the inspiration, 
 the canon, and the object of the Scriptures. We shall examine 
 in succession its doctrine upon each of these questions ; and 
 first of — 
 
 Section I. — The Inspiration of Scripture. 
 
 Here we maintain that the doctrine of the Westminster 
 Confession renders belief in the inspiration of Scripture impos- 
 sible to the great majority of men; and thep-oo/of it impossible 
 to all. 
 
 I. We begin with the second member. There are two 
 articles devoted to the Inspiration of Scripture, The first is 
 as follows : — " The authority of the holy Scripture, for which 
 it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the 
 testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who 
 is truth itself) the author thereof, and therefore it is to be 
 received because it is tlie word of God."^ The involved 
 and doubling langiiage of this article, does not evidence clear 
 and strong convictions on the part of its authors. It is rather 
 the lang-uage of men anxious to provide the means of escape 
 from anticipated difficulties, than of theologians giving a 
 scientific expression to their belief. The article will bear a 
 double interpretation. It may refer to belief of the fact, that 
 the Scripture is the word of God — pointing out the ground of 
 belief in the inspiration of Scripture ; or to helief in the word 
 of Ood already proved to he such — declaring the formal gi-ound 
 on which inspired writings are authoritative. Taken in the 
 first sense, the passage would mean, that we are to believe the 
 Scriptures to be the word of God, because they are the word of 
 God; and it would be more reprehensible for its solemn trifling 
 with a sacred subject, than for its silly tautology. In the 
 second acceptation, it tells us that the word of God, when 
 proved to be such, is to be believed because its author is truth 
 itself. This intei-pretation brings, indeed, the article into 
 harmony with reason ; but if such were the meaning of the 
 Westminster divines, upon Avhat authority do they charge any 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, chap. i. 4. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTURE. 6 
 
 man or cliurch with pretending to give authority to the word 
 of God? If, instead of trusting to their own prejudices, they 
 had studied the doctrines of other churches in their proper 
 formularies, they would scarcely have ventured to throw out 
 so pointless an insinuation. 
 
 There is, however, one church, and only one, which professes 
 to bear testimony to the fact that the Scriptures are the word 
 of God. She claims to be more ancient than themselves — to 
 have seen their writers, nay, to have held them in her embrace 
 — to have seen those sacred treasures written, and to have 
 received them from the hands of the penmen — to have watched 
 over them with a jealous love, and preserved them through 
 innumerable dangers at the cost of the blood of her most 
 venerated children. The Catholic Church claims this ; and 
 more, she makes good her claim. But the Westminster di- 
 vines say she may err, and has erred — has even erred on this very 
 subject of the Scripture. It is not, therefore, on her testimony 
 that they can create or justify belief in the inspiration of the 
 sacred volume. What, then, is the nature of the testimony to 
 which they refer their adherents for this all-important evidence? 
 Article V. furnishes the answer to this inquiry : — " We may 
 be moved," it says, " and induced by the testimony of the 
 Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy Scripture, 
 and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, 
 the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope 
 of the whole ; the full discovery it makes of the only way of 
 man's salvation ; the many other incomparable excellencies, 
 and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it 
 doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God ; yet 
 notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the 
 infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward 
 work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word 
 in our hearts." ^ It will be seen that the Church's testimony 
 is here rejected as insufficient, and the " heavenliness of the 
 matter," &c., are substituted as proofs which " abundantly 
 evidence" the inspiration of Scripture. But we maintain 
 that, whether singly or collectively taken, those reasons are 
 
 1 Confession o/FuUli, chap, v. 
 
4 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 insufficient ; and that, if Protestants will reject tlie Cliurcli, 
 they cannot possibly have the Scripture ; for — 
 
 1. Whatever force those various reasons possess, is derived 
 from the ideas of heavenly matters, inspired style, and special 
 excellencies of inspired composition, which man is supposed to 
 possess antecedently to his examination of the proofs for Scrip- 
 ture inspiration. It is assumed that the Protestant, when he takes 
 up the Bible to verify its claims to be the word of God, has 
 within himself a criterion which enables him to decide whether 
 a doctrine be truly a revelation from God or not — wliich tells 
 liim when the consistency of a wi'iting proves inspiration, and 
 when it simply indicates truth — which shows him when the 
 style indicates a composition to have been written at the 
 dictation of the Holy Spirit, and when merely a command of 
 language or a lofty intellect. This supposed faculty can not 
 only discover the proof of inspiration in the widely-differing 
 styles of the Scripture writers, but even enables its possessor 
 to say which of all the means which the power and wisdom of 
 God might have employed to save the human race, is that 
 actually adopted, and to pronounce the book in which that 
 means is spoken of to be inspired. The Confession of Faith 
 does not inform us whence fallen man has obtained those 
 standard ideas, nor how they come to possess such authority. 
 Are they innate in our nature ; have they been acquired by 
 the efforts of unassisted reason ; or have they been made 
 known to our race by a supernatural revelation? One or other 
 of these ways it must be ; for, besides revelation and our 
 natural faculties, there is no other source of ideas. If they 
 were derived from revelation, then, since Protestants acknow- 
 ledge no revelation but that which has been made knoAvn by 
 the Bible, they are the teachings of the Bible itself; and the 
 reasoning of the Westminster Confession amounts to this, that 
 what a man now finds in the Bible corresponds with what he 
 was taught fi'om it in former years. From his earliest child- 
 hood, the Protestant has been receiving certain principles and 
 ideas of virtue, holiness, and truth. These, he is told, are the 
 dictates of the Spirit of God, and a portion of his word. The 
 impressions deepen by repetition, until those ideas become a 
 
r.ELATlOXS TO SCRIPTURE. O 
 
 part of the man's moral being. He forgets that they were 
 acquired at all, and simply assumes them as his universal 
 standard. When he enters upon his examination of the proofs 
 for Scripture inspiration, he brings with him, as the criterion 
 of holiness, the very ideas and principles he had already 
 acquired from the Scriptures. This is evidently a fallacious 
 process, and yields but a sophism in proof of the inspira- 
 tion. * If it be said that the ideas in question are derived 
 from natural reason, then, since natural reason has not within 
 itself either an antitype or counterpart of heavenly matters, it 
 can afford no reliable criterion of their authenticity. Of all 
 men, Presbyterians can with least consistency exalt the powers 
 of nature. Their doctrine of original sin represents all the 
 powers of natm-e by which man might reach the knowledge 
 of the supernatural as utterly destroyed. Naturally, then, 
 Protestants have no standard — no grounds of comparison; 
 unless, indeed, in spite of the Confession of Faith, conscious- 
 ness, and Scripture, they make human nature pei-fect, holy, 
 and infallible. In either case, therefore, they fail, by their 
 ideas of heavenly matters, style, &c., to prove the inspiration 
 of Scripture. 
 
 2. Fai-ther, inspiration, by its very nature, is mysterious 
 and secret. You see the writer; but his appearance differs 
 not from that of another man. You follow the movements of 
 his pen, as it fixes, in imperishable characters, the dictates of 
 his mind. But that the Spirit of God is meanwhile illumi- 
 nating his miderstanding and guiding his hand, is a fact that 
 can be known directly only to the favoured individual. He 
 alone, then, in the first instance, is a competent witness to the 
 fact of his inspiration. But his testimony, by itself, extends 
 only to the fact of his own consciousness, that is, to the sub- 
 jective truth of his inspiration. To prove its objective truth, 
 that is, to make evident to others the fact that the inspiration 
 
 * It is worthy of notice, that Protestants, who are so clear-sighted in discovering 
 imaginary circles in the reasoning of Catholics, should not have perceived here a 
 real circle in their own. If they do not choose the second horn of the above dilemma, 
 then they prove the heaveuliness of the matter by the Bible, and the Bible by the 
 heavenliness of the matter. 
 
6 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 is true, or, in other words, that the influence of which he is 
 conscious is truly the inspiration of God, and not a delusion, 
 proof of another order is necessary; for the fact is supernatural. 
 God alone can give certainty as to the operations of his own 
 Spirit. He may do so immediately by a special revelation to 
 every man, or immediately by miracles and the testimony of 
 witnesses whose veracity he guarantees. The Catholic Church 
 is the witness to the miracles of the sacred writers, and 
 their claims to inspiration ; and God has pledged his own 
 veracity for the truth of her testimony. But the Protestant 
 does not admit a witness ; for he denies some of those books 
 to whose inspiration she bears testimony, nor does he admit 
 any other external authority on earth in matters of faith. Nor 
 does he claim to have received a special revelation from the 
 Holy Spirit in favour of this fact. But, when the testimony 
 of the Catholic Church has been rejected, as well as all claim to 
 private revelation, the proof for the miracles and claims to inspi- 
 ration on the part of the sacred writers is thrown upon the ordi- 
 nary evidence for an external event — the testimony of merely 
 human witnesses. But no individual, nobody exists on earth, 
 save the Catholic Church, who even pretends to have existed 
 in the days of the sacred writers, and heard their claims to 
 inspiration. Besides her, then, there is no other witness 
 possible. When, therefore, we consider that the facts which 
 take place beyond ourselves and beyond our personal observa- 
 tion, can be made credible to us only by the testimony of 
 others ; that the inspiration of the sacred writers is such a 
 fact; and that the testimony of the Catholic Chm-ch, the only 
 icitness possible, is formally rejected by the Westminster 
 Confession, we must conclude that Presbyterianism renders 
 the proof of the inspiration of Scripture impossible to all. 
 
 3. Subversive as Protestant reasoning is of the very founda- 
 tions of Christianity, where shall Protestants find refuge from 
 the inevitable consequences of their principles ? To what 
 subterfuges will they fly ? Will private judgment or private 
 interpretation enable them to maintain a hold upon revelation? 
 Let us see. To the formation of a judgment, the comparison 
 of at least two ideas is essential. Can you, by any comparison 
 
IIELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 7 
 
 you may institute, conclude the inspiration of the Bible ? 
 With what, then, will you compare the sacred volume ; with 
 uninspired books ? But a comparison of dissimilar things 
 authorizes only a negative judgment — points only to the 
 conclusion, that the thing compared differs from that with 
 which it is compared, but gives no ground for positive conclu- 
 sions as to its natm-e. Will you compare one book of the 
 Bible with another? But which book do you make the 
 standard of comparison, with what was it compared, or by 
 what proofs had you previously established its inspiration ? 
 The Bible with any other inspired book ? But there is no 
 other. It is unique. It is alone of its kind among the works 
 of God. Thus, then, you are and will be for ever destitute of 
 any means even of instituting a comparison — the very founda- 
 tion of a judgment. 
 
 4. The proof, that the first principles of Presbyterianism 
 destroy the credibility of Scripture, amounting, as it does, to 
 demonstration, is certainly calculated to excite surprise in the 
 minds of men accustomed to the sayings and doings of Presby- 
 terians in relation to the Bible. Their surprise must be still 
 greater when they see this same Presbyterianism admitting 
 the insufficiency of the proofs itself had substituted for the 
 Church, and making itself responsible for the awful impiety 
 that the inspiration of Scripture is incapable of proof. Let 
 Presbyterians mark and ponder well the concludnig words of 
 the above article — '^ Yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion 
 and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority 
 thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit." The 
 framers of the Presbyterian religion must, indeed, have been 
 reduced to grievous straits, when they gave to the world an 
 article thus indicative of doubt or imbecility of judgment. 
 They deny, in the outset, that the Church is infallible, and set 
 aside her testimony to the inspiration of Scripture, as insuf- 
 ficient to produce the certainty required for this truth ; they 
 then carefully enumerate the motives of credibility which are 
 to produce that conviction which, they say, the Church's, 
 authority is insufficient to justify ; and wind up by estab- 
 lishing the incompetence of the proofs they have just substi- 
 
» CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 tilted in her stead. For they say, that " the full persuasion 
 of their authority is" [not the proofs they indicated, and with 
 the grossest inconsistency declared to be abundant evidence, 
 but] "the inward work of the Holy Spirit." Now, anything 
 short of certainty cannot be a i\A\ persuasion. AVherever there 
 is not certainty, there is doubt. Whatever is doubtful, has 
 not been proved. But all the motives of credibility which 
 address themselves to reason, are pronounced by the West- 
 minster Confession insufficient to produce certainty; for full 
 belief, it asserts, can only be from the immediate work of God's 
 Spirit. Thus, therefore, proof is acknowledged to be impos- 
 sible, and the means of conviction are removed from the domain 
 of reason and testimony to that of a particular revelation in 
 favour of each individual. The consequences of this acknow- 
 ledgment would certainly be fatal to Christianity, if Presby- 
 terianism were the revelation of God. For the Confession of 
 Faith makes the Bible the sole record of revealed truth — the 
 only source lolience man can draw his knowledge of the dogmas 
 of Christianity. Now, if the inspiration of the record cannot 
 be proved, the truth and divinity of its contents cannot be 
 proved ; for the authority of Scripture is derived from its in- 
 spiration — " it is to be received and obeyed because it is the word 
 of Godr By the teaching, then, of the Westminster Confes- 
 sion, proof capable of producing certainty (full persuasion) is 
 impossible for one and all of its dogmas. This portentous 
 conclusion, which no reasoning nor ingenuity can invalidate 
 or evade, shows a system differing in all its characteristics from 
 the religion of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour convinces men of 
 the divinity of his mission by the external proof of miracles. 
 His immediate disciples, by his command, preached the gospel, 
 and appealed for the truth of their teaching, and the divine 
 authority of their commission to teach mankind till the end of 
 time, to the resurrection, ascension, and miracles of their Master, 
 as well as to the wonders which they themselves wrought, as 
 to proofs which should leave the infidel without excuse. Their 
 successors appealed to the same evidence. And justly ; for a 
 miracle once wrought is an everlasting testimony to the truth, 
 as it is the sanction of God, the eternal truth. Their entire 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 9 
 
 conduct, then, supposes that Christianity can be proved to 
 reason, and that its rejection is a sin against reason ; hence, 
 that unbelief is sin, and the unbeliever inexcusable. For all 
 teaching supposes that the doctrines taught can be made 
 acceptable to reason, either by direct proof, or by the demon- 
 stration of the teacher's authority. A teacher who cannot 
 establish his own authority as a sufficient ground for admitting 
 the truth of his teaching, nor give direct proof that his doctrines 
 are true, is an impostor. In the religious world he is an enemy 
 to revelation, for his teaching serves only to confound the 
 evidences of truth. The Westminster doctrine, that the in- 
 spiration of Scripture, and, as a consequence of this, tlie 
 dogmas of Christianity, cannot be evidenced to reason so as to 
 produce certainty, but that grace is necessary to supply the 
 deficiency of proof, renders infidelity excusable ; for no man 
 can be blamed for his unbelief, where belief is impossible. 
 The religion which holds such principles may be acceptable 
 in this age, bent as it is upon unbridled licence, and rather 
 eager for pretexts to colour the rejection of every restraint of 
 faith, morality, and hiw, than anxious to find solid gi-ound on 
 which to rest belief, but, certainly, it is in direct and striking- 
 contrast with the religion of Christ. 
 
 II. There is, however, a hypothesis on which belief in the 
 inspiration of Scripture is defended by those who deny that it 
 can be proved. The Spirit of God may, by direct revelation or 
 illumination, give to the individual the certainty required. It 
 is, indeed, as we have seen, adopted by the Westminster divines. 
 Yet, that this is the appointed means of persuasion, can be 
 maintained by Scotch Presbyterians only at the sacrifice of 
 every claim to consistency, and in utter disregard of the fatal 
 consequences. Undoubtedly, God, who can " do all that he 
 pleases and as he pleases," whose will is the measm-e of his 
 power, can produce such conviction. But the question is 
 not, what can God do ; but what, in his providence, has he 
 done — what has he appointed as the ordinary means by which 
 man is to arrive at belief in his truth? Before, however, 
 exposing the inconveniences and inconsistency of the West- 
 minster hypothesis, with the essential characteristics of Pres- 
 
10 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 byterianism, we shall give a short but conclusive argument in 
 support of the second member of our proposition, that the 
 Westminster Confession renders belief in the inspiration of 
 Scripture impossible to the great majority of men. 
 
 The illumination or inspiration said to be necessary to pro- 
 duce persuasion in the inspiration of Scripture, must be a free 
 gift on the part of God ; for if it were due to man, the whole 
 human race would have certain belief in the divinity of the 
 sacred books, because the justice of God could not refuse to 
 any man what was his due. But a free gift of God is grace. 
 Belief, therefore, in the inspiration of Scripture, is impossible, 
 according to the Confession of Faith, without a special grace. 
 The grace, moreover, which enables a man to believe this 
 truth, is denominated " saving faith." ^ An essential quality 
 of this grace is said to be inamissibility — he who has once 
 received it, can never lose it, but must persevere to the end, 
 and be saved.^ Therefore, those only who shall be saved 
 can believe in the doctrine in question. But the Confession 
 of Faith has decided that none shall or can be saved but the 
 elect alone, since for them only, it says, has Christ died, and 
 they alone, therefore, can receive grace.^ We conclude, then, 
 from the formal teaching of the Westminster Confession, 
 that, as faith is the exclusive gift of the elect, belief in the in- 
 spiration of the Scriptm-e is impossible for all, save the elect. 
 
 Grace, moreover, is by the same authority made irresistible. 
 Man has it not in his power either to refuse or reject it.^ 
 
 1 Chap. xiv. " Of Saving Faith." " By this faith a Christian believetli to be 
 true whatsoever is revealed in the Word." 
 
 2 " This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong ; may be often and many 
 ways assailed, but gets the victory." — Confession of Faith., chap. xiv. 3. Also, 
 " They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by 
 liis Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall 
 certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved." — Id. chap. xvii. 1. 
 
 3 " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, 
 sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." — Id. chap. iii. G. 
 
 * " All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only he is pleased, 
 in his accepted time, effectually to call ... to grace and salvation . . , 
 by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually draw- 
 ing them to Jesus Christ ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by 
 his grace." — Confession of Faith, chap. x. 1. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 11 
 
 For God's decree to confer grace is declared to be absolute, 
 and made without regard to the will, dispositions, or acts of 
 the recipient. ^ Since, then, the conferring of grace is in no 
 way conditional on the will or correspondence of man, if it 
 were possible for man to refuse it, it would be possible for him 
 to change the immutable pm-pose of God. He cannot, there- 
 fore, refuse grace, nor can he reject it once it has been received, 
 for perseverance in gi-ace " depends not upon their own fi-ee will, 
 but upon the immutability of the decree of election."^ Thus, 
 in the highest affair which can demand the attention of man — 
 his belief in revelation — he is reduced to the state of a mere 
 unresisting, unreasoning, irresponsible agent. Such is the idea 
 given by Presby terianism of the Christian's dignity. It is true, 
 the Westminster divines saw the consequences of their doctrine, 
 and, willing to evade their force, inserted the words, " yet so 
 as they come most freely, being made willing by his gi-ace." 
 But this important attempt to deprecate an inevitable conse- 
 quence, serves only to aggravate their difficulties and their guilt; 
 for this language shows that they saw the depth of the abyss 
 towards which they were leading their simple followers, and 
 that the means they proposed for escape were a mere deception. 
 They say that man, in admitting the grace which God had, 
 without regard to his will, " immediately determined him" to 
 receive, is yet free ; and their proof of his freedom is, that he 
 receives the grace " willingly." Man is thus told : You can- 
 not, indeed, resist grace, but you must not imagine that you 
 are compelled to admit it ; on the contrary, you are quite free 
 to resist it, and because you are " made" to admit it willingly, 
 your freedom is demonstrated. Your willingness itself had 
 been unchangeably decreed, and can as little be resisted by 
 you as the g-race it welcomes ; but, however, it too is evidently 
 free, since you cannot be willing and miwilling at the same 
 
 1 " Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation 
 of the world was laid, according to his eternal and inmmtahh purpose, and the 
 secret council and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting 
 glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good 
 works or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as condi- 
 tions or causes moving him thereunto." — Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 5. 
 
 2 Id. chap. xvii. 2. 
 
12 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 time. It is impossible that men who had studied the first ele- 
 ments of philosophy, could have been ignorant of the essential 
 difference there is between freedom and willingness. The 
 latter, they must be aware, is not a proof of freedom. For 
 freedom or liberty is opposed to necessity or dependence, while 
 willingness is opposed to neither the one nor the other. Thus, 
 man has not freedom in his pursuit of happiness. A law of 
 his nature necessitates him to a constant search. Yet he seeks 
 it willingly. He is not free in experiencing sensations of 
 pleasure or pain ; yet any of them he may experience willingly. 
 In heaven, the blessed are not free in abstaining from sin, but 
 they most willingly abstain from it. The Confession of Faith 
 will admit that the devils and wicked spirits are not free to do 
 good ; will it deny that they abstain from it willingly ? will 
 it give them credit for righteous thoughts or pious acts of the 
 will in their place of torment, when it denies the possibility 
 of a good thought finding admission into the minds of the 
 reprobate on earth ? We trust that Presbyterians will learn 
 to distinguish between things so very different in their nature 
 as freedom and willingness, and to perceive that the presence 
 of the one neither proves nor requires the presence of the other. 
 By the system, therefore, of the Westminster Confession, it is 
 impossible for all but the elect to believe in the inspiration of 
 the Scriptures, and they can believe that dogma of the Christian 
 faith only hy ceasing to he free agents. But as the power to 
 resist and reject grace is a fact of which all men have innate 
 consciousness, such as they have of their own existence, the 
 same certainty which all men have of their existence, they 
 have of the falsity of that system. 
 
 The hy]iothesis we are examining is not, however, more 
 directly in contradiction Avith reason, than with the constitution 
 of Presbyterianism. The essence of Presbyterianism, in as far 
 as it is distinguished from the other offshoots of Lutheranism, 
 Calvinism, &c., consists in its form of church government. 
 To this, an outward ministry of presbyters and elders is 
 necessary, whose duty is to teach and administer the sacra- 
 ments. Now, such a ministry is incompatible with the theory 
 of individual illumination, and therefore inadmissible save by 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTURE. 13 
 
 the annihilation of Presbyterianisni. An outward ministry 
 either cannot exist at all, or can exist only as an impostnie 
 without an outward sanction. Whoever claims to be an 
 " ambassador of Christ," must have credentials to show to 
 those among whom he is sent. The Presbyterian ministry 
 professes to draw its sanction from the Word of God, as such. 
 It produces the books of Scripture as its only credentials, rest- 
 ing- upon them alone, its right even to existence. If, then, it 
 cannot prove the divine authority of its credentials, it must 
 abandon all claim to an outward sanction. It would be in the 
 condition of an unknown negotiator, who presents, as his cre- 
 dentials, letters whose authority he ingeniously confesses him- 
 self unable to establish. But the theory of individual illu- 
 mination supposes, and the Confession of Faith asserts, as we 
 have seen, the impossibility of producing an outward sanction 
 for the word of God, and, consequently, the impossibility of 
 finding a sanction for an outward ministry. Presbyterianisni, 
 however, essentially requiring, as it does, an outward ministry, 
 is necessitated, as a condition of its existence, to reject this 
 theory of individual illumination, to which its very essence is 
 in direct antagonism. By abandoning it, however, Presby- 
 terians fall into a difficulty not less disastrous. They remain 
 not only without proof for the inspiration of Scripture, but 
 even without any possibility of helief in that primary dogma. 
 This affords us the key to the causes of many of those amazing- 
 contradictions with which the pages of the Westminster Con- 
 fession are filled. The compilers of the book, not daring, on 
 the one hand, to deny the reasonableness of Christianity, nor, 
 on the other, to admit the infallibility of the Church, were 
 compelled to seek a sanction for the Bible which should render 
 them independent of the Church's testimony. Their under- 
 taking was arduous. It was to give to the world a theory, by 
 which the fundamental principles of Protestantism might be 
 held without unsettling the basis of the Christian revelation. 
 We have seen the residt of their labours. It amounts to a 
 proof, by its authors themselves pronounced insufficient, which 
 has, as its complement, an evidence which renders Presby- 
 terianisni an imposture. The Quakers, and still more, tlie 
 
14 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 TranscencTentalists of America, have been more consistent in 
 this matter of individual illumination. The former have 
 retained neither ministry nor sacraments ; the latter have 
 neither ministry, sacraments, law, nor symbol. Every man 
 has within himself the Spirit, who is at once his minister, law- 
 giver, and teacher. 
 
 Is there, then, no ground, absolutely none, upon whicli 
 Protestants can establish the first requisite to the formation of 
 their religious system — the divine authority of the Bible? 
 Must they, of necessity, abandon the fundamental principles 
 of the Reformation ere they can admit this divine truth '? We 
 have already shown that they cannot, by external proof or 
 testimony, apart from the authority of the Church, have cer- 
 tainty that the Bible is inspired. The internal proof to which 
 they resort, we have seen to be untenable by Presbyterians. 
 There remains, then, but one other shift to which they have, 
 or as Protestants can have, recourse. Can they not adduce the 
 authority of the Bible itself? May they not collect those texts 
 which speak of the excellences, the uses, the inspiration of 
 Scripture ? Does not David say, " the law of the Lord is 
 perfect?" Has not St. Paul wi'itten to Timothy, that the 
 Scriptures "are able to make thee wise unto salvation?" 
 Does he not also say, " all Scripture is given by inspiration 
 of God?"^ Will not these and other texts which might be 
 
 1 The Protestant translators have falsified this text, in order to get at any rate 
 one passage to sound to their purjiose. Their unwarranted insertion of the verb (is) 
 can, however, avail them nothing, for of the two meanings which the passage, in its 
 corrupted state, will bear, the one is false, the other a vain tautology. The words 
 
 of St. Paul are, Uxinx, ■y^x.(pri B-iOfrnurros, xxi o^lXif^Oi (T^o? 'bi'Sairxot.Xia.v, a^oi iXiyxo't x.r.X. 
 
 The word y^x^yi (translated Scripture) bears two meanings with the sacred writers — 
 the one general, the other particular, or, more properly, conventional. In its general 
 acceptation, it signifies a tvrit'mg^ a passage, of a hook ; when used in its restricted 
 sense, it means a passage or book of inspired writing. If the Protestant interpret 
 the word here in its general import, he makes St. Paul say that all -nTiting is inspired 
 — an interpretation as extravagant as false. If he take the particular meaning, he 
 arrives at the important conclusion that " all inspired Scripture is inspired Scripture." 
 The first Scottish Reformers, who did not see the sceptical drift of their principles, 
 and little imagined that thej', who made the Bible everything, were receiving the 
 evidence for the Bible, needed not yet to descend to this -Nvretched tampering with 
 the text. In the First Book of Discipline, we find the verse translated with a 
 fidelity which modern Protestantism cannot afford to imitate ; " with the 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 15 
 
 adduced, establish the inspiration of the Bible ? Alas, for the 
 desolation in the midst of which the Protestant must wander, 
 without chart or compass ! Even the word of God itself for 
 him can prove nothing ; for his difficulty is precisely to learn 
 if there be any word of God upon earth, and if so, where and 
 what it is. Unwilling to divert ourselves from the strict line 
 of our argument, we shall here notice, only in passing, that 
 the texts referred to sujjpose the existence of inspired writings, 
 but they neither claim inspiration for themselves, nor assert it 
 of any individual book. The claim to inspiration is put for- 
 ward on behalf of the Bible, by the Catholic Church on the 
 one side, resting on her divine commission, and on the sure 
 promises of perpetual exemption from error made her by the 
 eternal truth ; on the other, by the individual Protestant, rest- 
 ing, as a last resource, on the peculiar meaning he attaches to 
 certain passages in some few of the books whose inspiration 
 he asserts. We do not stop to contest his interpretation. We 
 attack the very form of his argument. It is altogether illogical. 
 When you adduce those texts, in what sense do you use them ? 
 As having divine authority, that is, as inspired ? But the 
 inspiration of those very verses, as part of the book in question, 
 is the point you are called on to prove. To bring forward, as 
 inspired authority^ verses whose inspiration you are attempting, 
 and your opponents say, vainly attempting to prove, is an 
 instance of fruitless sophistry, on which even the very general 
 practice of Protestants fails to confer legitimacy. You cannot 
 select, at pleasure, a few verses of the book, and, supposing 
 them to he inspired^ from their supposed inspiration, conclude 
 the divine authority of the whole. The weakest member of 
 an argument measm-es its strength. Here it is a supposition. 
 Your belief, then, in the inspiration of Scripture, formed by 
 this process, is only a supposition. Do you look upon the 
 verses as merely human writings ? But you admit that no 
 
 ■we affirm that all Scriptui-e inspired of God is profitable." — Knox's History, p. 506. 
 If the word S^eoTvEua-To; were rendered literally (God inspired), the bad faith of the 
 present Protestant translation becomes still more evident. That writings inspired 
 of God are profitable, is indeed a truth, but it is a truth which cannot bridge over for 
 the Protestant the gulf of infidelity. 
 
16 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 merely human autliority is capable of establishing this super- 
 natm-al fact ; and that, in divine matters, the texts of Scripture 
 have authority only as they are inspired. It is, then, the first 
 step in your argument that is >vrong ; or rather, you have no 
 ground even to make the first step towards the formation of 
 an argument. You have no data. An argument without a 
 premiss containing the desired conclusion is an absurdity. 
 Now you are in search of this premiss. The conclusion you 
 seek is, that the book is of divine authority. Your premiss 
 must, therefore, have itself divine authority. But you start with 
 your reason and private judgment alone, for neither of which 
 do you claim inspiration. You can never, therefore, reach the 
 height of an inspired authority. You may climb as high as 
 the human faculties, aided by all human learning, can go, but 
 you find that, after all your efforts, your labour has been in 
 vain. Your entire process was wrong. Sysiphus-like, you 
 must toil upwards again at your hopeless task from the bottom, 
 
 . . . . aXX on fji,iXXoi 
 A/iPov iTiolSaXisiv, tot aToST^i-^aaxi K^arailg, 
 AuTig i'zitra Tidiovdi Ki/Xivdiro Xaag avaidrjg. 
 
 Thus does your whole system dissolve, at the touch of logic, 
 like " the baseless fabric of a vision." The frequent use made 
 by Protestants of this fallacy of proving the same by the same, 
 alone induces us to notice it. Their never-ending panegyrics 
 of reason, their exaggerated ideas of its duties and privileges, 
 and their pretensions to its cultivation and development, are 
 inconsistent in the extreme, with the use even their most 
 renowned champions liave made of that faculty. Who could 
 have expected to find them again detected in the use of so trans- 
 parent a fallacy as the circulating syllogism — proving the book 
 by the verses, and the verses by the book? Why do you 
 believe the Bible to be inspired ? Because these verses prove 
 it. What proves the verses ? They are in the Bible, which 
 is inspired. 
 
 Protestants, who have an ominous dread of coming in contact 
 with their first principles, are never wearied of repeating that, 
 at least against Catholics, they can assume the Bible to be the 
 
r.ELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 17 
 
 word of God. Catholics, they say, already know that the 
 Scriptures are inspired, and do not require to have this truth 
 proved, and ought not to call upon the Protestant for its proof. 
 But we reply, you might very justly eschew, in this manner, 
 the inconvenient proof, and escape from a closer view of your 
 principles, if the Catholic were demanding from you proof to 
 justify his belief. But the objection made to you is, that you 
 cannot justify i/our own — that you can point out no rational 
 ground of belief to those who do not yet admit the Scriptures, 
 and first of all to yourselves. Our belief cannot be of the 
 slightest service to you, so long as you deny the grounds upon 
 which it rests. We know and confess that the Scriptures are 
 the inspired word of God, because the Catholic Church teaches 
 so. Is this, in your opinion, sufficient authority ? If it be, 
 then you must admit her to be the very " pillar and ground of 
 truth." If it be not, then again recurs the question, what can 
 you substitute in her stead ? We ask you not to prove the 
 Bible to us. We need no proof from you, nor could we, as 
 reasonable men, accept of such as you can offer. You call on 
 us, however, to abandon the Catholic Church, telling us that 
 she has erred, and to seek the true religion in the Bible. But 
 if we leave our Church, tell us how we can have the Bible. 
 Shall we take it upon the testimony of the Church you would 
 have us reject? But, if the testimony of the Church is suffi- 
 cient to establish the Scriptures, which you say contain all the 
 doctrines of revelation, is her testimony to those doctrines them- 
 selves inadmissible '? Is a gTcater authority required for the 
 parts than suffices for the whole ? If the Church's testimony 
 cannot be received upon the doctrines of revelation one by one, 
 how can you accept, upon her evidence, the entire collection of 
 those doctrines ? Before, then, you can expect we shall abandon 
 the Church, you must show how we shall be able, without her, 
 to believe in the Bible. Tell us, then, how you have formed 
 your own opinion that the Bible is the word of God, since you 
 have risen up against her authority. How do you tranquillize 
 your conscience? For it is manifest to us, with all the clear- 
 ness of evidence, that your principles drive you inevitably to 
 infidelity ; that by them you cannot justify even belief in 
 
18 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 the word of God, while divine faith is rendered simply im- 
 possible. 
 
 Section II. — The Canon of Scripture, 
 
 Hitherto we have been treating the subject of inspired 
 writing generally. We have confined om-selves to the ques- 
 tions, wliether, by the principles of the Westminster Confession, 
 it can be proved that there are such writings ? and whether, in 
 any case, the inspiration of any writings can be consistently 
 believed by Presbyterians ? The title of this section brings 
 the subject before us in another point of view, not less impor- 
 tant than the former, nor less fatal to Presbyterianism. Let 
 us suppose that Protestants could overcome the difficulties 
 which meet them in the previous question — that, in fact, they 
 had proved inspired writings to exist. The knowledge that 
 there is a written revelation of God's will, is but the first pre- 
 liminary step of the Protestant's progTess towards the formation 
 of his religion. As one of his first principles is, that the written 
 word is to be the only source whence doctrine can be drawn, 
 the only authority upon which faith can be grounded, he must 
 learn what writings contain the revelation, so as to be cer- 
 tain that he neither excludes an inspired, nor adopts an unin- 
 spired book. The authentic collection of inspired books is 
 called the Canon of Scripture. The inspiration of a book con- 
 stitutes its right to a place in the canon ; but it is the recogni- 
 tion and declaration, by competent authority, of its inspiration, 
 that actually gives it the place to which its nature had entitled 
 it. The written word has its internal sanction from the vera- 
 city of God, who cannot deceive, nor be deceived. Its exter- 
 nal sanction is the authority upon which it is made known to 
 be, and thus becomes to man, the word of God. It is self- 
 evident that an inspired writing can be no ground for faith — 
 is in fact not the word of God — to the man who does not 
 believe, or does not know its inspiration. It is, therefore, also 
 evident that the proof afforded even by an inspired writing 
 cannot be stronger to the indioidual^ than the evidences which 
 he has for its inspiration. 
 
 The Westminster divines, after asserting that it had pleased 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 19 
 
 God " to commit his revelation wholly unto writing," proceed 
 to name the books which they consider to be canonical. The 
 rapidity with which they pass over this portion of the chapter 
 on Scripture, is so great as to excite surprise and disappointment 
 in those who have given but a cursory glance at the question 
 of the canon. The canon of Scripture they summarily dispose 
 of in two short sentences. The first is as follows : " Under the 
 name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now 
 contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which 
 are these [liere follows the list of books as found in the Bibles 
 authorised by the English government], all which are given 
 by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. The 
 books commonly called Apocrypha not being of divine inspira- 
 tion, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are 
 of no authority ill the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise 
 approved or made use of than other human writings." The 
 meagreness of this article, which carefully evades all those 
 questions which have occurred and must daily occur among 
 Protestants upon this, to them, all-important subject, renders 
 it necessary for us to enter upon somewhat extended explana- 
 tions, and to seek from other sources the Presbyterian opinions 
 upon the canon of Scripture, which we had the right to expect, 
 but have failed to find in any authoritative fonnulary of the 
 Presbyterian bodies. Those explanations will not, we trust, 
 be destitute of interest for many ; and they will serve to throw 
 light upon the probable causes of that unwonted brevity to 
 which we have referred. 
 
 When our blessed Redeemer had engaged in the work of 
 his public ministry, he appealed to his miracles in proof of his 
 divine commission. ^' For the works themselves which I do, 
 give testimony of me that the Father hath sent me." Disease 
 the most loathsome and inveterate, fled at his word. The 
 blind, the lame, the dumb, the maimed, the deaf, returned from 
 him in the perfect possession of their organs and faculties. 
 The rage of the tempest was stilled at his rebuke. The earth 
 with its productions, the sea with its inhabitants, the grave 
 itself gave testimony, before an astonished world, to the infalli- 
 ble truth of his teaching. The immediate object of this over- 
 
20 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 whelming testimony is not only known by reasoning from the 
 nature of the facts, it was proclaimed on Mount Thabor by the 
 lips of the Eternal Father, " This is my beloved Son, in whom 
 I am well pleased, hear ye Mmy The nature of the truths 
 announced by Jesus Christ required this testimony to his divine 
 mission. They were such as could not be proved by any pro- 
 cess of reasoning, nor by comparisons with anything that comes 
 within the natural range of man's faculties. They were truths 
 which reason by itself could not have acquired — upon which 
 it could not lawfully have sat in judgment. They were super- 
 natural. The only jDroof, therefore, upon which they could 
 have been admitted, was the divine sanction in behalf of him 
 who preached them. Without this divine sanction, manifested 
 externally to men, imbelief would have been excusable. " If 
 I had not done among them the Avorks whi'th no other man 
 hath done, they would not have sin." The work he thus 
 established was to be propagated and continued. After his 
 ascension, we find his disciples claiming to have received 
 authority from him, to teach in his name, as from one to 
 whom had been given all power in heaven and on earth ; as 
 from one who, " though in the form of a man, thought it not 
 robbery to be equal with God." The authority claimed was 
 " to teach all things whatsoever he had commanded them." 
 The object of their teaching was to bring all men who required 
 a Saviour, to the knowledge and service of the Saviour. But 
 as man will, till the end of time, stand in need of a Saviour, 
 their commission must also last till the end of time. " Lo ! 
 I am with you all days, even till the consummation of the world." 
 This command and promise they pleaded as tlieir justification 
 in the iniquitous courts of Judea, and in presence of the cruel 
 magistrates of pagan Rome. In fulfilment of this commission, 
 they offered their bodies to the tortures, to the lions, and to the 
 llames. That the great work might suffer no interruption by 
 the death of our Lord's immediate disciples, they, in the exer- 
 cise of a power necessary for the preservation of the Christian 
 body, appointed men to succeed themselves in the ministry. 
 This power was necessarily supposed in the nature of the work 
 intrusted to the apostles, and expressly contained in their 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 21 
 
 commission. " As my Father hath sent me, so do I send you." 
 In the exercise of this power, we find Titus ordained by St. 
 Paul for the island of Crete, and Timothy appointed bishop of 
 Ephesus. 
 
 The miracles by which the authority of our Saviour was 
 sanctioned to his contemporaries, and the divinely-guaranteed 
 commission of the apostles, are facts agreed upon by all who 
 bear the Christian name, about which there is neither doubt 
 nor discrepancy of opinion. They afford the only and sufficient 
 ground for divine faith, since they engage the veracity of God 
 to the teaching of the apostles, while, at the same time, they 
 render Christianity reasonable in the highest degree. For the 
 works by which God has manifested his sanction are external, 
 and may be made ceitainly known to all men, during all ages, 
 by the usual motives of credibility. They are to be found, not 
 only in the pages of the sacred writers, but also in those of 
 the pagan historians, by whom we know of Csesar Augustus, 
 and of the glories and infancy of the Roman empire. They 
 were acknowledged by the most deadly enemies of Christianity 
 — Julius Celsus, Porphyrins. They are also recorded in the 
 works of the Christian apologists, whose appeals to the pagans 
 themselves, as the witnesses to many of the miracles and facts 
 connected with the foundation of Christianity, were never met 
 by a denial. The graves of the first martyrs have contributed 
 their share to the already abundant proof, and it is still further 
 confirmed by the monuments that still survive of primitive 
 Christian art. The body of men to whose teaching God has 
 pledged his truth. Catholics call the Church. And as that 
 body is to be perpetuated till the end of time, they call it 
 indefectible. Since, in fine, God has pledged himself to pre- 
 serve its teaching pm-e and entire throughout all ages, they 
 call it infallible. 
 
 It is acknowledged by all, that the religion of Christ was 
 established and widely spread ere yet a Christian Avriting, 
 sacred or profane, existed. The revelation of the new law 
 was therefore established by oral teaching, propagated by oral 
 teaching, and provision made for its perpetuation by the same 
 means ; and no document, no tradition, no indication of the 
 
22 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 remotest kind is to be met with in any primitive writing, that 
 the polity of the Christian Chm-ch was to undergo any 
 change, much less such a change as would be involved in the 
 adoption of a written rule of faith, interpreted by each indivi- 
 dual for himself. From the middle of the first century to its 
 close, various Avritings began to circulate in the Church, some 
 of which were composed by the apostles, others by their im- 
 mediate disciples. The object of a portion of these writings 
 was to record the principal events of our Saviom-'s life, the 
 establishment of the Church and her first conquests. Other 
 portions were letters of instruction or comfort or congratulation. 
 Some were addressed to the faithful of particular cities, some 
 to the universal Church, and others to particular individuals. 
 But, in the entire collection of those primitive writings, not 
 one contains a complete statement of the doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity ; not one proposes, as its object, to teach Christians 
 what they are to believe. All suppose that their readers 
 had been already taught. Many of those writings were at 
 once admitted by the churches or individuals to whom they 
 were addressed, as divinely inspired. The miracles of their 
 writers were the divine vouchers for the claim to inspiration. 
 As books of divine authority, they were read in the churches, 
 and collections of them made ; but, for many years, these were 
 necessarily incomplete, and yet without the formal guarantee 
 of the Church's sanction. The authority which such writings 
 obtained, soon prompted men who already sought to introduce 
 novelties among the believers, to compose gospels, epistles, 
 &c., under the names of apostles and other really inspired 
 writers, in order that they might the more effectually spread 
 the power of their errors. Thus, by the middle of the second 
 century, there were upwards of thirty gospels in circulation, 
 and innumerable other writings, many of which were false and 
 pernicious; others, undoubtedly genuine, and breathing the 
 very spirit of the apostles, but yet not inspired ; and, last of 
 all, writings which were both genuine and inspired. Partizans 
 were not wanting to claim inspiration for writings even of the 
 first two classes. To all these must be added the sacred books 
 of the Jews, some of which were held by that people as 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 23 
 
 canonical, wliile others, composed after the formation of the 
 canon by Esdras, although looked upon as sacred by all, and 
 by many held to be inspired, have never yet been declared 
 canonical. The Church, under the guidance of her divine 
 Presei-ver, separates those writings as circumstances demand, 
 condemns the bad, and judges, among the good, on their claims 
 to inspiration. She forms authoritatively and infallibly the 
 .canon of Scripture. To do this, she has only to know herself 
 — ^what she has always held as inspired writings, and to be 
 able outwardly to give true testimony to her consciousness. 
 Thus it was that the churches of Africa (which had received 
 the faith, and with it the Scriptures from Rome), in the 
 councils of Hippo and Carthage, held respectively in the years 
 393 and 396, published the authentic catalogue of the books 
 which they had received as inspired. This same catalogue 
 is given by Pope Gelasius in a decree issued in the year 494, 
 and again published by Pope Eugenius IV., and finally ratified 
 without addition, alteration, or diminution, by the Council of 
 Trent, in the year 1546. Those, on the other hand, who, at 
 the Reformation, rejected the Chm-ch's authority, have placed 
 themselves in a position which they can continue to occupy 
 only by closing their minds against reason and facts. This 
 we shall show in the proof of the following propositions : — 
 
 1. The doctrines of the Westminster Confession render im- 
 possible the formation of the canon ; and, therefore, 
 
 2. The adherents of the doctrines contained in that Confession 
 cannot Icnow^ and in fact do not possess, the canon of Scripture. 
 
 I. We have supposed, but by no means granted, that Pro- 
 testants, without the aid of the Catholic Church, could prove 
 that there exist inspired writings. The farther question now 
 occurs : Can they identify those writings '? They have made 
 it a fundamental principle, that the collection of inspired books 
 is the only rule of faith. As, however, they are considered to 
 be the rule of faith solely because of their inspiration, the 
 Protestant who does not know that they are inspired has no 
 rule of faith ; and, if there be any books or chapters in the 
 collection of whose inpiration he is uncertain, those books or 
 chapters can form no part of his rule. If, moreover, there be 
 
24 CALVINISM IX ITS 
 
 any inspired writing which he has omitted from the collection, 
 his rule is incomplete ; while, if an uninspired composition he 
 admitted, his rule will be uncertain, if not fallacious. Before, 
 therefore, the Protestant can come into possession of his rule 
 of faith, he must have proved — 1°, the inspiration of every 
 book, chapter, and verse of the Bible ; 2°, that he possesses all 
 the inspired writings which the Holy Spirit ever dictated ; 3°, 
 that he has excluded from his collection everything which is 
 not the dictate of inspiration ; and, 4°, that he possesses the 
 books, in their integrity, as they came from the hands of the 
 wiiters. That we have exaggerated in nothing the obligations 
 of the Protestant before he can become possessed of his rule of 
 faith, will be seen by the following exti-act : — '^ In order to 
 establish the canon of Scripture, it is necessary to show that 
 all the books of which it is composed are of divine authority ; 
 that they are entire and incon-upt ; that, having them, it is 
 complete without any addition from any other source ; and 
 that it comprises the whole of those books for which divine 
 authority can be proved. It is obvious, that if any of these 
 four particulars be not true. Scripture cannot be the rule and 
 supreme standard of religious truth and duty."^ In forming 
 the canon of Scripture, the Protestant cannot look upon the 
 Bible as one book ; he must regard it as a collection of 
 writings, differing in date, origin, authorship, and topics. The 
 proofs brought for one portion will, for the most part, have no 
 reference to any other, and can have no effect on its claims. 
 To form the canon, book by book must be examined, and 
 the specific proofs which can be adduced in favour of each, can 
 alone decide its right to a place in the canon. Thus the proof 
 which the Protestant may be able to find for the gospel of St. 
 IMattliew, can have no influence in deciding on the inspiration 
 of the Apocalypse. Nor can a proof of the inspiration of 
 Scripture generally, demonstrate the canonicity of a particular 
 writing. 
 
 In proof of our first pi'oposition, we now say— By the 
 Westminster Confession, divine authority cannot be alleged 
 for any doctrine, unless it be " either expressly set down in 
 
 1 Rev. W. L. Alexander in Cyclopcedia of Biblical Literature: Article, " Cancn." 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 25 
 
 Scripture, or may by good and necessary consequence Le 
 deduced from Scripture."^ But the canon or list of inspired 
 books is nowhere set down in Scripture, nor can it be deduced 
 from Scriptm-e. Therefore, by the teaching of the Westminster 
 Confession, divine authority cannot be alleged for the canon 
 of Scripture. The first member of this argument cannot be 
 questioned by Presbyterians without ceasing to be Protestants, 
 It is their own doctrine expressed in their own words. The 
 second member resolves itself into two parts. The first is a 
 fact which no one who has seen the Bible will question — there 
 is no list of inspired writings set down in any book or books 
 of Scripture. The next, that such a list cannot be deduced 
 by good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures, we 
 proceed to prove. The canonicity of a book cannot be deduced 
 from writings which neither mention the book in question, 
 quote from it, nor in any way make reference to it. But there 
 are many books of the canon, such as Ruth and Canticles in 
 the Old, and Epistle of St. James and record of St. Peter in 
 the New Testament, which are neither mentioned, nor cited, 
 nor refeiTed to, either directly or indirectly, in any of the 
 sacred writings. The inspiration and canonicity of such 
 books cannot, therefore, be deduced from Scripture. We con- 
 clude, therefore, that the canon neither is set down in the 
 sacred writings, nor can be deduced from them. 
 
 It will be seen, that in this argument we have given to 
 Presbyterians every advantage which they have asked. The 
 argument from Scripture for the inspiration of Scripture is at 
 best a begging of the question, and Avould be still a mere 
 fallacy even were the conclusion sought for contained in the 
 premisses. But we have shown that the conclusion is not so 
 contained. Presbyterians suppose the Scripture to be the sole 
 rule of faith. We have shown that, if it be so, they must 
 remain for ever destitute of a rule of faith. But, to go fiu'ther 
 still in our concessions — even if a list, complete and detailed, 
 of the canonical books were contained in the Bible, the in- 
 spiration of the book in which it was contained must be certified 
 ere its testimony could decide the matter. But as the obstacles 
 
 ^ Confession oj" Faith, chap. i. 6. 
 
26 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 to the proof of inspiration wliich must be encountered by those 
 who reject the Church's authority, are of the same nature in 
 the case of one book as in that of all, it would be as impossible 
 for the Protestant to prove the single book as to prove the 
 entire collection. Yet this illogical reasoning is even yet 
 resorted to by Protestants. The Rev. Dr. L. Woods, ^ in 
 an attempt to prove, upon Protestant grounds, the inspiration of 
 Scripture, confines himself exclusively to the proof from the 
 book itself As his reasoning is a fair summary of the com- 
 mon Protestant arguments on this subject, we shall give a 
 short account of it. He introduces his subject thus : — " The 
 more direct and conclusive evidence that the Scriptures were 
 divinely inspired, is found in the testimony of the writers 
 themselves," He then goes on — " The prophets generally 
 professed to s^jeak the word of God. In one way or other 
 they gave clear proof that they were divinely commissioned, 
 and sj)oke in the name of God." This is the sole proof he 
 brings — "from the testimony of the writers themselves," — for 
 the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures. But it 
 has not even the small merit of referring to the subject which 
 was to be proved. The author had to establish, by the testi- 
 mony of the writers themselves, that they were each and all 
 under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in 
 writing the books of the Old Testament. But his proof 
 embraces only some individuals of one of the classes of sacred 
 writers ; and even of them, he shows not that they wrotej but 
 that they generally iwofessed to speak the word of the Lord. 
 But the Old Testament embraces many books which contain 
 no prophecies, whose writers were not prophets, and give no 
 testimony of their inspiration, either as prophets or -writers. 
 The Professor's argument abandons them to their fate. "But," 
 he proceeds, " the strongest and most satisfactory proof of the 
 inspiration and divine authority of the Old Testament writings 
 is found in the testimony of Christ and the apostles." Here 
 it will be observed, that the Professor has, perhaps inadver- 
 tently, slipped from the line of argument which he professed to 
 follow as " the more direct and conclusive." He had under- 
 
 1 Biblical Cyclojxxdia : Article, " Inspiration." 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTURE. 27 
 
 taken to prove the inspiration of the Old Testament from the 
 testimony of its authors ; but he seems to have had some 
 doubts as to the sufficiency of his " direct and conclusive 
 method," and promptly avails himself of another proof, which 
 he complacently styles " the strongest and most satisfactory." 
 The first part of his new argument — " from the testimony of 
 Christ" — we quote entire : — "Everyone who carefully attends 
 to the four gospels, will find that Christ everywhere spoke of 
 that collection of writings called the Scripture as the word of 
 God; that he regarded the whole in this light; that he treated 
 the Scripture, and every part of it, as infallibly true, and 
 clothed with divine authority." The Professor's argument is 
 worthless. He has fallen into the usual Protestant blunder of 
 assuming what he had undertaken to prove. He professes to 
 prove, on inspired testimony, the canonicity of the Old Testa- 
 ment. If he adduce the passages of the New Testament as 
 inspired, he has assumed their inspiration ; if he urges them 
 as uninspired, then they are not sufficient ; nor do they corre- 
 spond to his professions. But let us pass that over ; for we 
 cannot expect to find Protestantism and logic in the same 
 argument. As to the matter of his proof, we remark — 1°. Here 
 again the testimony adduced bears upon a subject quite 
 distinct from that for which proof was required. The texts 
 referred to do not assert the inspiration of the Scriptures, nor 
 of any part of them. Yet this was the true and sole purpose 
 for which their testimony was sought ; and anything short 
 of a formal testimony to their inspiration, is simply beside the 
 question. Divine guidance and infallibility, or exemption 
 from error, are not equivalent to inspiration. Thus the Chm-ch 
 is divinely guided, and she infallibly teaches truth, yet she 
 claims not inspiration. 2°. Even if the terms in which our 
 Saviom- speaks of the Jewish Scriptures did imply their 
 inspiration, his authority could avail the Protestant only for 
 such books of Scripture as he is related by the Evangelists to 
 have named. But if we except Isaias, Jeremias, and the 
 Psalms, he is not related to have mentioned any book of Scrip- 
 ture by name. His references are general ; such as " the 
 Law," " Moses," " the Prophets," " the Scriptui-es." But to 
 
28 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 know that " tlie Scripture " is inspired, or that '' the Pro- 
 phets " are inspired, is only a preliminary to the formation of 
 the canon. The Protestant has not brought the authority of 
 our Saviour for the canon, unless he produce His testimony 
 that Genesis is inspired, that Canticles, Proverbs, Ruth, &c., 
 in a word, that each book composing the canon is fiilly and 
 separately inspired. Moreover, the Professor can know what 
 books are meant by "the Prophets," "the Law," &c., only by 
 having recourse to the Jewish ^ and Catholic tradition — sources 
 not only supplementary to that from which he professes ex- 
 clusively to draw, but formally rejected by his first principle 
 as a Protestant. Besides, there are many books of the Old 
 Testament which our Saviour neither quotes nor alludes to. 
 Were the Professor's argument valid, they must be rejected 
 from the canon. Thus, even did the language of our Saviour 
 imply the inspiration of the writings, Professor Woods could 
 not attach the predicate of inspiration to any book in particular 
 upon any other authority than tradition. Even, therefore, 
 with the help of a forced and incorrect interpretation, he fails 
 to show, from our Saviour's testimony, the inspiration of the 
 books he holds to be canonical. From the words of our 
 Saviour, therefore, recorded in the fom* Evangelists, the Pro- 
 testant cannot prove the inspiration of the Old Testament ; 
 much less can he learn what are the books of which it is com- 
 posed. 
 
 The second part of the Doctor's proof is from the testimony 
 of the apostles. He commences with the text from 2 Tim. : 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- 
 able for doctrine, for reproof, for coiTection, for instruction in 
 righteousness." In addition to the remarks we have alrea^ly 
 made on this passage, we shall here only add, that even when 
 Protestants have given to the apostle's words the interpretation 
 for which they contend, they have not advanced a single step 
 in the actual formation of the canon. As St. Paul does not 
 name the books or parts of books which compose inspired 
 Scriptm-e, Protestants can allege no authority of his for assert- 
 
 ' The Jewish traditiun we shall afterwards show not to be uniform on this 
 question. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 29 
 
 ing the inspiration of any specific book. But, as the canon 
 of Scripture is the catalogue of books whose inspiration has 
 been authentically declared, it is evident that the passage in 
 question does not enable the Protestant to determine a single 
 book of the canon. The inconclusiveness of the rest of the 
 reasoning can be fully seen only by perusing the entire argu- 
 ment. 
 
 " The other text (2 Peter i. 21) teaches that ' prophecy came 
 not by the will of man, but holy men of God sjjahe as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost.' This passage, which the 
 Apostle Peter applied particularly to the subject of which he 
 was speaking, may be considered as explanatory of what is 
 intended by inspiration. For, to say that all Scripture is 
 divinely inspired, and that men of God ^crote it as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost, is one and the same thing. The 
 various texts in which Christ and the apostles speak of Scrip- 
 ture as the word of God, and as invested with authority to 
 decide all questions of truth and duty, fully coiTespond with 
 the texts above considered." 
 
 The dexterous manipulation of the sacred text which this 
 argument displays, must at once attract attention, even on the 
 part of Protestants, accustomed, as they are, to see it wrested 
 and twisted to suit the notions of every private expounder. 
 An argument like the above, coming, as it does, from the jjen 
 of a scholar, a divine, and professor of theology, displays, in 
 but too clear a light, the corrupting influence which Pro- 
 testantism exercises upon intellect and conscience, as well as 
 upon truth. The substitution of the word " wrote " for " spake " 
 is so obvious and so unjustifiable, that the most negligent 
 reader could not fail to mark and condemn it. It is almost 
 superfluous to notice, that from St. Peter's declaration that 
 ike, 2J'>'ophets ^'■spahe as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," 
 the Professor is not warranted in drawing the conclusion, all 
 the authors of the Old Testament wrote their various books 
 under the like inspiration. The concluding sentence is of a 
 somewhat similar nature. It is a confident, but gTOundless 
 assumption. Neither the Old Testament as a whole, nor any 
 book of it in particular, is anywhere, l:>y our Saviour or the 
 
30 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 apostles, called "the word of God." How a Christian can 
 assert that the Old Testament is " invested with authority to 
 decide all questions of truth," we cannot well comprehend; 
 and we suspect that Protestants who make such frequent 
 appeals to the New Testament in their controversies, will 
 demur to this assertion of all-sufficiency for the Old. If the 
 Professor really believed his own proposition, he was beyond 
 measure inconsistent in striving to decide this question of 
 inspiration by the writings of St. Peter and St. Paul. 
 
 Having concluded, in this remarkable manner, his argument 
 for the Old Testament, the Professor proceeds to demonstrate 
 the inspiration of the New. He advances three arguments : 
 1°. " Jesus Christ gave a commission to his apostles to act in 
 his stead, and to carry out the work of instniction which he 
 had begun. . . . But how could such a commission have 
 answered the end proposed, had not the Divine Spirit so guided 
 the apostles as to render them infallible and perfect teachers 
 of divine truth?" This argument proves admirably the wfalli- 
 hility of the apostles, and, therefore, of the Church. But it 
 does not prove that their teaching, and still less does it prove 
 their writings were inspired. The Professor is evidently pre- 
 pared to admit not only the infallibility of the apostles, but 
 also of their successors in the office of teaching. For St. Mark 
 and St. Luke were not apostles, and to them, personally, the 
 commission was not addressed. Thus, if the terms infallibility 
 and inspiration be considered as different and independent, the 
 Professor fails to prove the inspiration of the New Testament. 
 If they be taken as identical, then, also, he fails to prove the 
 inspiration of the books in question; but does succeed in proving, 
 against himself, that the Church in her teaching is infallible. 
 2°. " Jesus expressly promises to give them the Holy Spirit, to 
 abide with them continually, and to guide them into all truth. 
 . . . If these promises were fulfilled, as they certainly 
 were, then the apostles had the constant assistance of the Holy 
 Spirit, and whether engaged in speaking or writing^ were under 
 divine guidance, and, of course, were liable to no mistakes, 
 either as to the matter or manner of their instructions." This 
 argument confirms the infallibility of the Church's teachers, 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 31 
 
 ■which was established by the last ; but it falls much short 
 of proving the inspiration of their writings. The promises 
 guaranteed the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the apostles 
 and their successors in the fulfilment of their commission. But 
 the commission they received was not to writer but to preach. 
 Scripture nowhere records that our Saviour gave a commission 
 to write. From the commission, therefore, received by the 
 apostles, the inspiration of their writings cannot be deduced. 
 3°. The third argument is liable to the same objections as the 
 former: — "The writers of the New Testament manifestly con- 
 sidered themselves to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, 
 and their instructions, whether oral or written, to be clothed 
 with divine authority, as the word of God. ' We speak^ they 
 say, '• as of God.' '■ Which things we speahj not in the words 
 which man's wisdom teacheth, but in words which the Holy 
 Ghost teacheth.' They declared what they taught to be the 
 word of God, and the things which they wi'ote to be the com- 
 mandments of God." All is simply beside the question. The 
 inquiry is, whether the writers were inspired, not whether " the 
 things which they wi-ote were the commandments of God." 
 Even Professor Woods might write " things which are the 
 commandments of God," but his book would not necessarily 
 be inspired. Anyhow, many of the writers make no such 
 statements ; and it is evidently inconclusive to argue, that, 
 because St. Paul claims to deliver in his WTitings command- 
 ments of God, therefore the Epistles of St. Jude or St, James, 
 who do not put forward such a claim, are inspired. Such, 
 according to this Professor of theology, is the strongest and 
 most satisfactory proof of the inspiration of the Bible which 
 Protestantism can fm-nish. It contains, from beginning to 
 end, an assumption of the point to be proved ; the passages 
 on which it rests, do not even refer to the matter in question ; 
 and, although they did, they would not enable the Protestant 
 to form the canon, as they furnish no list of the books of 
 Scripture. 
 
 If this argument, so much resorted to by Protestants, and 
 sanctioned by the Westminster Confession, were only conclu- 
 sive and illogical, it might here be left. But it destroys, if 
 
32 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 legltimatelj carried out, the integrity of the canon it is brought 
 to establish. For, if the testimony of the Scriptures them- 
 selves be the proper proof of inspii-ation in favour of a book, 
 then such books as have not this testimony, would not 
 merely be without sufficient proof of canonicity, but authorita- 
 tively excluded from the canon. Such has, in fact, been to a 
 certain extent the case : for all Protestants are not alike in- 
 consistent. Some of the Swiss, and many of the Gennan 
 Protestants, reject various books from their canon, which the 
 Westminster Confession holds to be inspired. The contempla- 
 tion of the disastrous consequences of this " internal evidence," 
 rather than its intrinsic unsoundness, has made many timorous 
 Protestants shrink back, and, in spite of their Protestantism, 
 throw themselves, as their only resource, upon Catholic tradi- 
 tion and Church authority. Thus, another writer in the 
 Biblical Cyclopaedia, already quoted, says, — '' As for the 
 internal evidence, one needs only to look at the havoc Avhich 
 Semler and his school have made of the canon, to be satisfied 
 that where dogmatical considerations are allowed to determine 
 exclusively such questions, each man will extend or extenuate 
 the canon, so as to adjust it to the' Procrustean couch of his 
 own preconceived notions." ^ Would Strauss have denied 
 the canonicity of the four gospels, had he found it asserted in 
 any book he believed to have divine authority? If Luther 
 had seen the Epistle of St. James declared to be inspired in 
 St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, would he have expunged it 
 from the number of canonical books '? Or, would Calvin have 
 refused to admit the canonicity of the Second Epistle of St, 
 Peter, if he had found it named in any of the four gospels ? 
 It is then impossible, from the Bible itself, to fomi the canon 
 of Scriptm-e. But the Confession of Faith teaches, 1°, that 
 there can be no divine authority for any doctrine, unless 
 expressly set down in Scripture, or, by good and necessary 
 consequence, may be deduced from Scripture ; and, 2°, that 
 the canon of inspired writings cannot be formed, save by 
 divine authority. Our conclusion is, therefore, evident, '4hat 
 
 ' Rev. W. L. Alexander, author of Connection ahd Uurmony of the Old and New 
 Testiiments: Article, " Canon." 
 
KELATIOXS TO SCRIPTURE. 33 
 
 " the doctrine of the Westminster Confession renders the for- 
 mation of the Scripture canon impossible." 
 
 II. The second proposition which we undertook to prove, 
 is an evident corollary of the first. The canon of Scri])turc 
 cannot be known by men who adhere to doctrines which, as 
 has been demonstrated, render the formation of the canon im- 
 possible. In this second part, our chief object shall be to 
 examine the question of tact. Is it not possible for Presby- 
 terians, if not by means of their principles, then in violation 
 of them, to discover the canon of Scripture ? Do they not, in 
 fact, possess it ? And, if they do, then have they not their 
 rule of taith, although they may, indeed, hold it on illogical 
 or insufficient authority ? To this we answer, that even did 
 Protestants possess the entire canon, if they hold it upon any 
 other than divine authority, they cannot make it a rule of 
 faith; for faith is essentially grounded on the authority of 
 God. But an illogical or insutficient authority cannot be the 
 authority of God ; so that, if they hold the canon illogically, 
 they have no rule of faith. 
 
 But as to the question of fact, we assert that Protestants, 
 while rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, cannot 
 know what are the canonical books. Besides the methods 
 already noticed, there remains only one by which Protestants 
 can seek to learn the canon — Tradition. However inconsistent 
 it may be with their principles to have recourse to this means, 
 learned Protestants are not wanting who assert, that by it alone 
 can they hope to know what books form the canon of Scrip- 
 ture ; and that, in reality, tradition, backed by the authoritv 
 of the ministers, is the only ground upon which the people 
 hold the Scriptures to be the word of God. Thus, Richard 
 Baxter {Saint's Best, p. 2) : — " Few Christians among us, for 
 aught I find, have any better than the Popish implicit faith 
 in this point, nor any better arguments than the Papists have 
 to prove the Scripture to be the word of God. They have 
 received it by tradition. Godly ministers and Christians tell 
 them so ; it is impious to doubt of it ; therefore, they believe 
 it. . . . Papists l>elieve Scripture to be the word of God, 
 because tlieir Church saith so; and we, because our Cliureh 
 
34 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 or our leaders say so." As, however, the researches which 
 must be undertaken in a personal examination into the belief 
 of antiquity, require a thorough knowledg'e of several lan- 
 guages Avhich are no longer spoken, and a certain familiarity 
 with the principles of criticism, and cannot be conducted with- 
 out access to patristic libraries, and a leism-e which few can 
 command, the bulk of men — the people — are absolutely pre- 
 cluded from entering upon them. With the people, then, it 
 is no question of choice. If they are to believe the first article 
 of the Protestant creed — the sole soui'ce of all their doctrine — 
 they must believe it on the word of other men. The inquiry 
 into the genuineness, authenticity, integrity, and canonicity 
 of the Scripture, they must abandon to men of leisure and 
 learning; and, upon the results of their studies, found their 
 faith. So self-contradictory is Protestantism ! If the people 
 had but thougld^ the Reformation could not have taken place ; 
 if they would but think now — did they but act for one day on 
 their principle of private judgment. Protestantism would not 
 survive till the moiTow. They threw off the infallible autho- 
 rity of the Church, only to cast themselves, bound hand and 
 foot, on the mercy of fallible men, who not only made up for 
 them the creeds they must believe, but mocked them, by 
 assuring them of their entire freedom and independence, and 
 of their unquestionable right and ability to judge all things, 
 to decide all things for themselves. The existence of a ministry 
 is a scathing sarcasm on the intellect of Protestants. After 
 three hundred years of warfare against Church authority 
 on the part of the people ; after three hundred years of flattery 
 and falsehood on the part of their ministers ; persuading their 
 simple and confiding followers that they could judge for them- 
 selves, and that it was intolerable tyranny on the part of the 
 Catholic Church to pretend to dictate in matters of faith ; and 
 that " no other party, whether ci\'il or ecclesiastical, can come 
 between Christ and his disciple," ^ — the true state of the case 
 begins to be acknowledged. Let Protestants learn, at last, to 
 recognise the real grounds of their belief, and cease to stun 
 
 * Catechism of the Principles of tlie Free Churdi of Scotland. Q. 18. 
 
liELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 35 
 
 the world with the encomiums of Private Judgment, which 
 common sense pronounces to be vox ct prceterea nil. Let them 
 cease to look upon " the right of individual examination " in 
 any other light, than as a party watch-word, a useful war-cry, 
 or a bait for human pride. The following passage, from an 
 article by the Eev. W. "Wright, of Trinity College, Dublin, 
 should give matter for serious and profitable meditation to 
 Protestants: — '^ Mr. Jones conceives that testimony and tradi- 
 tion are the principal means of ascertaining whether a book be 
 canonical or apocryphal. Inquiries of this kind, however, 
 viiLstj of necessity J he confined to the few. The mass of Chris- 
 tians who have neither time nor other means of satisfying 
 themselves, must confide^ in questions of this kind, either in 
 the judgment of the learned, or the testimony .^ at least^ if not the 
 authority of the Church.^^ ^ It is, certainly, no slight consola- 
 tion to find even a solitary truth thus, at last, resuscitated and 
 confronted with the Protestant body, the very breath of whose 
 nostrils was drawn from its supposed death ; a body which 
 never wearies of treading on its grave, and assuring itself and 
 the world that its resurrection can now be believed in by none ; 
 — it is consoling to find that many are so drawn towards the 
 religion of Jesus Christ, as to show themselves in palpable 
 contradiction with themselves, rather than quit their hold of 
 his revelation. But what becomes of their Protestantism? 
 They ought, indeed, to believe the gospel — they ought to be- 
 lieve the Scriptures — for om* good God has given them to be 
 believed, and has given such grounds of belief as to make 
 unbelief inexcusable. But let them cease to believe unreason- 
 ably. Let them cease to believe in a principle which destroys 
 the credibility of Scripture, while they profess belief in the 
 Scripture itself. Let them cease, therefore, to be Protestants. 
 Yet, when the Protestant has resolved to rest his faith upon 
 the learning and honesty of another man, to whom shall he 
 apply "? Such has always been the diversity of opinion among 
 learned Protestants, that they have not yet been able to fix 
 upon a common list of the books which they are disposed to 
 
 ^ Article " Apocrypha," in Kitto's Biblical Cychp(edia. 
 
36 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 consider inspired. The canon of Lnther^ Avas adhered to Ly 
 a part only of his ovni followers. That of Cahan,^ and the 
 continental Calvinists, differed from the canon of Luther, as 
 well as from that adopted by the Westminster Confession. 
 Among the leading men of modern Protestantism, the differ- 
 ences of opinion are still more sweeping and nmiierons. 
 Strauss and Bauer look upon the four gospels as only a collec- 
 tion of ecclesiastical anecdotes, neither authentic nor inspired ; 
 and, indeed, throughout Germany, various schools of Protes- 
 tant divines have been formed, each of which lops off books 
 or portions of books from the canon, until, at length, they 
 have left the world in doubt whether they admit a canon at 
 all ; and if they do, whether they do not regard it in the light 
 of a pure myth. Several portions of books are, by many 
 Protestants, called spurious, which are considered by others 
 as only doubtful. Thus Protestant critics, both English and 
 foreign, deny the authenticity of the famous verses of 1 John, 
 ch. V. ; many also reftase to admit the concluding chapter of 
 St. Mark's gospel. In fine, there is scarcely a book or portion 
 of a book on whose canonicity Protestant scholars are agreed. 
 And to whom shall the distracted inquirer, on his introduction 
 to this learned Babel, adhere? All the great Protestant 
 critics have had access to the same documents ; all may be 
 supposed capable of accomplishing whatever is within the 
 
 ^ " There are various and abundant reasons why I regard this book (the Apo- 
 calypse or Revelation of St. John) as neither apostolical nor prophetic. ... It 
 seems to me far too arrogant for the author to enjoin it upon his readers to regard 
 this, his own work, as of more importance than any other sacred work. . . . My 
 spirit cannot adapt itself to the production, and this is reason enough for me, why I 
 should not esteem it very highly." — Luther's Works, as cited in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, 
 art. " Revelation." Of the Epistle of St. James, Luther says, " This Epistle, in 
 comparison with the writuigs of John, Paul, and Peter, is a right strawy epistle, 
 being destitute of an evangelical character. ... I do not hold it to be the 
 writing of an apostle, and these are my reasons : first, it directly opposes St. Paul 
 and other Scriptures iti ascribing jitstijication to u-orks,'" &c. — Id. art. " James." 
 This is the fruit of private judgment — to deny the Scripture rather than sacrifice an 
 opinion which it opposes. 
 
 2 Calvin, speaking of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, writes, "If it is to be received 
 as canonical, Peter must have been its author;" but, he obser^•es, "notwithstanding 
 some affinity in stj-le, the discrei'ancies between it and the former (1st of St. Peter), 
 are such as to indicate tliat they had not the same author." — Comment, in Epist. Catt. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTURE. 37 
 
 range of human abilities ; all are to be judged to liave been 
 actuated by the same high motives in seeking the true canon 
 of Scripture. On what ground, then, is an ignorant man to 
 give a preference to one over the others ? How shall he have 
 greater confidence in Calvin than in Luther? Or on what 
 grounds prefer the Westminster divines to Calvin, Strauss, or 
 Parker? The Westminster divines avow their inability to 
 form the canon, for they acknowledge no such power in any 
 man or church. On what authority, then, do they give a 
 list of books, and declare them canonical? Who passed the 
 canon for them ? The list they give (that of the English Pro- 
 testant Bible) does not correspond with any one list of sacred 
 books, of ancient or modern times. It differs from the lists of 
 the first Reformers. It differs from the canon of the Catholic 
 Church. In a word, it has not the sanction of any man or 
 body, church or council, since the days of the apostles. The 
 Presbyterian has no sanction to adduce for his canon, save the 
 fact of its being in the Confession of Faith — a weak guarantee, 
 in tmth, since it is expressly said by the Confession itself to 
 be of no value. Nor let it be for a moment imagined that 
 Presbyterians have, after examination, agreed upon their list. 
 There may, perhaps, be uniformity among them ; but let sub- 
 scription to the Confession of Faith be abolished, or even let 
 biblical studies be prosecuted freely and logically by the Pres- 
 byterians of Scotland, on Protestant principles^ and the unva- 
 rying result will infallibly take place — the word of God will 
 be unblushingly pushed aside as an antiquated fable. 
 
 It is, then, a fact that Protestants have been hitherto unable, 
 on any principle they have adopted, to know the canon of 
 Scripture. But if they have not been able, in the course of 
 three hundred years, to accomplish this necessary, and to them 
 primarily necessary object, could a more incontestable proof be 
 required to show that their principles are false, and that their 
 method is wrong ? The rule of faith given by Jesus Christ 
 must have been attainable at all times by all men, because 
 meant fpr all ages and all classes — the poor and ignorant, as 
 well as the rich and the learned. The Protestant rule is 
 admitted to be unattainable by "the mass of Christians," and 
 
38 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 the fact demonstrates that "the few" have not yet succeeded in 
 their attempts to find it. But if the Scriptures be a rule of faith 
 — as indeed they are — much more, if they were the sole rule, 
 as Protestants assert, their canonicity could remain unknown 
 and unproved only to such as seek the proof on false princi- 
 ples ; for it cannot be supposed that Christ established a rule 
 of impossible or even difficult attainment. As, however, those 
 who proceed on false principles cannot obtain the proof, Pro- 
 testants, by the fact of their failure to establish the canon, 
 prove that they cannot establish it. 
 
 Disappointment was the only result to have been expected 
 from a search into tradition by those who start without the 
 Church as their guide. Declarations of the canonical books, 
 like definitions of faith, were published only as occasion called 
 them forth. Hence, for several centuries, particular writers, 
 and even particular churches, possessed only portions of the 
 canon ; or, while they might have been in possession of all the 
 books, were yet without the published guarantee of the Church 
 for the canonicity of all. Thus we find the canonicity of 
 some books spoken of as doubtful by early Christian writers, 
 that of others denied ; and, in fine, some few looked upon as 
 inspired which the Church never admitted into the canon. 
 This state of things gradually disappeared, however, as the 
 decrees of Pope Gelasius and of the African councils became 
 known. It is evident, however, that in not a few of the ear- 
 liest fathers, we can only look for the partial tradition of the 
 churches with which they were best acquainted. The different 
 parts of the New Testament were sent at first to particular 
 individuals, as Philemon and the Elect Lady, or to particular 
 churches, as those of Cyprus and Corinth. In this manner por- 
 tions of the apostolic writings could not have become generally 
 known for many years. Those who came to know of them after- 
 wards, by copies or report, required, Avhere they considered the 
 proof of authenticity deficient, to await the decision of the 
 Universal Church, before they could unhesitatingly admit them 
 as canonical. It was, then, by the junction of partial tradi- 
 tions, that the entire canon could be formed ; and those who 
 now seek in isolated writers for the canon, will, in some cases, 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 39 
 
 find only the books known as canonical at the thne by the 
 nearest churches. Hence, the tradition of the Universal 
 Church can alone suffice. To this, as expressed without vari- 
 ation at Hippo, Carthage, Rome, and Trent, the partial tradi- 
 tions of individuals must be referred. In reference to it they 
 are invaluable ; but their words, if not judged with reference 
 to the position which the authors occupied in the Church, by 
 the age in which they lived, and, above all, by the fact that 
 they are each consigning to posterity his own contribution to 
 a great whole, of which the Church is the depository and the 
 guardian, can lead only to confusion and error. 
 
 Nor, if taken by itself, is the tradition of the Jews regard- 
 ing the Old Testament so clear or so decisive as most Protes- 
 tants have been led to imagine. Here, too, an inquirer needs 
 the Church to shed her light upon his labours. The tradition 
 of the Jews, confirmed by the Church, assures us that Esdras 
 formed the canon after the rebuilding of the temple. But they 
 have no tradition that it was then finally closed. On the 
 contrary, the writings called Deutero-canonical (as having 
 been placed in the canon at a later period), which the Con- 
 fession of Faith has, without much reflection, denominated 
 Apocrypha, were looked upon by all Jews as sacred and au- 
 thoritative. As such they were read in the synagogues. They 
 were not, however, admitted to be canonical Scripture by that 
 part of the people which made use of the Hebrew text. But 
 imtil many years after the commencement of the Christian era^ 
 the great majority of the Jews held these books to be divine, 
 and made use of the Greek version of the Seventy, in which 
 they were contained. It must be allowed to add much weight 
 to this belief of the majority, that our Saviour and the apos- 
 tles, in their quotations from the Old Testament, make use of 
 this version. For, when they speak of the Scripture, they 
 point out no difference in the authority of its different books f 
 and, as the version they quoted from contained the Deutero- 
 canonical, as well as the Proto-canonical books, and as the 
 former were held to be divine Scripture by those Avho made 
 use of that version, there is at least a strong presumption 
 afforded in favour of their canonicity. Anyhow, the private 
 
40 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 inquirer must find himself nearly helpless when he sees the 
 people from whom he seeks information divided among them- 
 aelves. 
 
 Meanwhile, what is the state of the individual dm-iug the 
 inquiry ? Protestantism tells its adherents that they are to 
 take no article of their creed on the word of any man — that 
 each must examine for himself, and satisfy himself as to the 
 divine truth of every dogma he is to believe. Until, then, he 
 has satisfied himself, by personal examination of the canonicity 
 of the sacred books, he cannot believe in the Bible ; and, as 
 his starting-point is the principle that Christian truth is to be 
 found exclusively in the Bible, belief in any of the truths of 
 Christianity is, at least during the examination, equally im- 
 possible. Now, as all children, '^ the mass of Christians," and 
 even " the few," until they finish their inquiry, are in this 
 state, they are precluded, by Protestantism, from belief in 
 any article of the Christian revelation. Such are the neces- 
 sary consequences of Protestantism. It is in contradiction 
 with revelation, not less than with itself. 
 
 Let not, however, the Protestant suppose that the case is 
 hopeless. It is so onl^ to him; and even to him it will cease 
 to be so, whenever he shall cease to take for gi-anted the omni- 
 potence of private judgment. Let him look around, and he 
 will see a body of Christians who profess to hold the canon of 
 Scripture on an infallible authority. He will see in that com- 
 munity the same authority equjdly available to all. The 
 child, the poor, the ignorant, receive the same divine assm- 
 ance for every inspired book as is given to the man of lofty 
 station or high attainments. Protestants are aware that it 
 was from this same body — the Catholic Church — they them- 
 selves received the sacred books. Surely, then, they must see 
 that, on throwing off her authority, they could not reasonably 
 have retained the Scriptures which they first received from 
 her hands. Her authority to establish the canon, as the only 
 means left untried by the Protestant, should, at last, attract 
 his notice. Let him give her claims a hearing. True, he has 
 hitherto considered the Catholic Chui-ch as simply out of the 
 question 5 not, indeed, that he has himself found her wanting, 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIl'TURE. 41 
 
 Lilt that he regards her as a body whose claims do not admit even 
 of being taken into consideration. Let him, however, be thus 
 far consistent with his present principles. Let Mm judge Jier 
 claims for himself. Let him take up her belief as she herself 
 defines it, not as it is distorted and mutilated in the writin.gs 
 of interested adversaries. Let him weigh her reasons as they 
 are in her own "svriters, not as they are retailed, clipped xip 
 and adulterated, by those whose object is to read for the 
 people, to judge for them, and to save them from the fatal 
 temptation of exercising what they, with such withering irony, 
 call the right and duty of private judgment. 
 To sum up this argument, 
 ity i 
 
 ticient guarantee, of the divine inspiration of the canonical 
 books. But there is no man, nor body of men, on earth, that 
 even claims an infallible authority, save the Roman Catholic 
 Church. She alone, therefore, can establish or guarantee 
 the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. This argument must 
 be held valid by all who believe that the canon can he estab- 
 lished; and that it can be established, must be admitted by 
 all who believe the divine missio: 
 torical truth of the four gospels, 
 believe both His divine mission and the credibility of the 
 gospels, must admit, 1°, That the inspiration of the canonical 
 books can be established only by the authority of the Roman 
 Catholic Church ; as consequences of this, 2°, That those who 
 reject her authority, can neither fix the canon nor know the 
 canonical books ; 3°, That, therefore, Protestants do not, in 
 fact, profess the canon, since they have it not as fixed by the 
 Church ;^ and, 4°, That as the Roman Catholic Church alone 
 can form the canon, she is infallible. 
 
 1 Although the object of this work is to show the untenable and self-contradictorj' 
 nature of Protestantism, and not directly to prove the truth of Catholicity — and, 
 therefore, a formal defence of the canon would perhaps be out of place — it may not, 
 however, be considered ill-timed to give in this note a short view of such objections 
 as Protestants make to the canonicity of those books of Scripture which they have 
 rejected. We give those objections in the words of the Rev. J. Begg, D.D., of 
 Edinburgh, because he is the latest Protestant writer we have found who treats of 
 this subject ; and may thus be supposed to bring forward all that Protestantism is 
 
42 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Section III. — The Object of Scripture. 
 This section leads us from those difficulties, which are hut 
 of a preliminary character, to such as are immediately con- 
 nected with the nature and working of the Protestant's sup- 
 able to object to the inspiration of the Deutero-caiionical boolis; and because the 
 title attached to his name is a guarantee that his biblical learning and controversial 
 powers are considered to be of a high standard in the body to which he belongs. 
 His performance thus becomes of some interest, as it may be considered a fair index 
 of the state of theological, biblical, and logical science among the Presbyterians of 
 Scotland. We give his objections consecutivelj', and without abridgment, num- 
 bering each, that all may be distinctly met without interrupting his argument. 
 
 1°. " It is certain that not one of them (the Deutero-canonical books) is extant 
 in Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament. 2". Jerome, in the fourth 
 century, gives the list of Hebrew inspired books precisely as we have it. 3°. Not 
 one apocryphal writer, in dii-ect tenns, claims to be inspired. 4°. Their works were 
 never received by the Jews as part of the Old Testament. 5°. They are never 
 quoted by our Lord or his apostles. 6°. The early fathers do not quote them as 
 being on a level with canonical Scripture. 7°. The Popish Church seems to have had 
 a special object in attempting to thrust them unwarrantably into the inspired canon, 
 inasmuch as they countenance prayers for the dead and salvation by works. This, 
 however, is plainly an internal evidence of their forming no part of the word of 
 God. 8°. And Eome has never been able to give any satisfactory proof of their 
 inspiration beyond her bare word, which is of no value in the face of such undoubted 
 facts as we have just stated." 
 
 We answer, 1°, That no book was inspired unless written in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage is not a self-evident proposition ; and those who believe that God could have 
 inspired a Greek, or Syro-Chaldaic writer, will naturally remind the objector that 
 he has fallen into the usual Protestant fallacy of begging the question, when he 
 limits the original text of the Old Testament to the Hebrew. But the doctor, who 
 seems, from the style of his objections, to have fallen, by some untoward accident, 
 from the clouds into the tield of biblical criticism — he looks so strangely, and 
 expresses with such simplicity his rare notions of the curiosities among which he 
 finds himself — perhaps means to admit that the books were at one time inspired, and 
 had been originally written in Hebrew, but had unfortunately lost their inspiration 
 as soon as they ceased to be extant in their original tongue. His words will fairly 
 bear this interpretation. But in this case the objection is too sweeping ; for the 
 original Syro-Chaldaic of St. Matthew's gospel is no longer extant ; and the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and some other books of the New Testament, are 
 supposed by many Protestant critics to have been originally written in Hebrew or 
 Syro-Chaldaic ; and these critics maintain that the Greek text we possess of those 
 liooks is, at all events, onlj' a translation. Does Dr. Begg suppose that the inspira- 
 tion of those books ceased to be a fact from the time that the originals disappeared? 
 2°. This assertion, although containing truth, has, by suppressing part of the ti-uth, 
 all the effect of a misstatement. St. Jerome gives, indeed, the list of canonical books 
 as acknowledged by all Jews, and this list not only corresponds with the Old Tes- 
 tament books in the Protestant Bible, but, strange as this will sound to the doctor, 
 
DELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 43 
 
 posed rule of faith. From the foregoing pages, it will not be 
 difficult to infer that we are not likely to admit the competence 
 of Protestants to discuss the question — Is the Bible the sole 
 rule of faith ? We have shown that, on their own principles, 
 
 "is precisely such as" the Catholic Church retains it. But neither St. Jerome nor 
 the Catholic Church held those to be the only inspired books of the Old Testament. It 
 did not enter into the saint's design to translate all the -wTitings which the -Jews 
 held sacred ; his list, therefore, contains only those which had been declared canoni- 
 cal by Esdras. In the Appendix (A) the reader will find sufficient evidence that 
 St. Jerome's sentiments, as to the inspired books, were by no means such as a Pro- 
 testant would gather from the statement of Dr. Begg. 3°. Even if the Deutero- 
 canonical writers did not, in direct terms, claim inspiration, this would not afford 
 the slightest presumption against their inspiration. This objection is founded on 
 a total misconception of the nature of the proof by which alone inspiration can be 
 established. The proof of inspiration is to be found, not in the claim of the writer, 
 but in the sanction of God to the claim of the writer, where made ; or directly to the 
 fact itself of inspiration. We have seen already, however, that in the whole Bible 
 no single writer claims, " in direct terms," or indeed in any terms at all, inspiration 
 for the book he writes. The learned doctor is truly unfortunate in the choice of his 
 arguments. Some of his brethren, who may perchance be gifted with a clearer view 
 on those matters, might charitably remind our friend that he is too strong a reasoner 
 — he proves too much— he has acquired an unfortunate habit of striking at random, 
 and thus doing more damage to himself and his friends than to his opponents. He 
 ought quietly to expunge this third objection from his book, since its validity would 
 wninspire every page of the Bible, 4°. This is but a variation of the second objection. 
 We would here remind the reader that the Hellenistic Jews did believe in the in- 
 spiration of the Deutero-canonical books, and ranked them among the inspired writ- 
 ings, although they had not been authoritatively declared canonical. It does occur 
 to us as something anomalous, that a Christian writer should thus insinuate that 
 the authority of the Jews is necessary to fix the canon of Scripture. The Christian 
 church has specially received the divine sanction for every book of Scripture. If 
 the Jews are to be the Protestant's authority in fixing the canon, what will become 
 of the New Testament? The doctor is evidently handling tools of whose power and 
 use he is totally ignorant. W^e would respectfully remind him of the trite but sen- 
 sible adage, " Ne sutor ultra crepidam." 5°. If the Deutero-canonical books are not 
 quoted by our Lord, they will be only in the same position as Judges, Ruth, 1st and 
 4th Kings, 1st and 2d Paralipomenon, Esdras, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ab- 
 dias, and Sophonius. They are, however, frequently referred to in all parts of the 
 New Testament. Compare Matt. vii. 14, with Tobias iv. 16; Hebrews i. 3, with 
 Wisdom vii. 20; Romans xii. 15, with Ecclesiasticus vii. 38; 1 Corinth, x. 9, 10, 
 with Judith viii. 25 ; 1 Thessal. v. 17, with Ecclesiasticus xviii. 22 ; Luke xii. 19, 
 with Ecclesiasticus xi. 19. These are but a few of the references that a careful 
 reader will find. Certainly, on reading the doctor's objections, one is tempted to 
 ask, has this divine lent his services to some anti-Bible society ? He seems incur- 
 ably bent upon urging objections which, if they had any force, would simply show 
 that there was no inspired Scripture. 6°. This objection could be made only by one 
 
44 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 they can neither know what books compose the Bihle, nor 
 that the Bible is the word of God. Further discussion 
 seems to be superfluous. Yet, to show that Protestantism 
 is on every side indefensible, and that the Protestant is, 
 
 whose acquaintance with the "early fathers" is confined to something less than the 
 knowledge of their names. We do not content ourselves with giving it the most 
 eni])hatic contradiction, but refer the reader to a few passages (Ajipendix B) out of 
 liundreds that might be collected from the fathers of the first five centuries. It is a 
 pleasure to find our friend at last abandoning his suicidal arguments. This objec- 
 tion supposes only ignorance of facts, and a certain unscrupulous readiness of asser- 
 tion — blemishes of a venial nature in an argument against Popery. They will not 
 call down such severe censure as his use of arguments fatal to the entire Bible, and 
 his ignorance of the meaning and effect of his own words. 7°. The " object" of the 
 Church, and her grounds for declaring the books in question canonical, may be learned 
 from Pallavicini's History of the Council of Trent, and the deliberations of the theo- 
 logians, whose duty it was to examine all the objections which human learning and 
 ingenuity could urge against their canonicity. The supposition of an unworthy 
 object is as calumnious as it is gratuitous; and certainly would not have been 
 ventiu-ed by one who had ever read a moderate abridgment of church history. 
 Although, however, we cannot allow this doctor, who knows as much about the 
 Catholic religion as he does about the parents of Melchisedech, to teach us the 
 "objects" of our Church, we do not object to his testimony as to those of his own. 
 It may be that the Presbyterian body has found in J. Begg, D.D., an honest and 
 competent exponent of her " objects." The learned gentleman, speaking apparently 
 in the spirit of his Church, avows and adopts the principle on which Luther rejected 
 the Epistle of St. James and the Apocalypse, and the Rationalists reject the entire 
 gospel. Those books did not accord with the opinions which Luther and the Ration- 
 alists had formed, the one on the subject of good works, and the others on the ques- 
 tions of miracles and mysteries. This was to them " plainly an internal evidence 
 of their forming no part of the word of God." With such respectable authorities, 
 then, the doctor makes his preconceived opinions the avowed standard of Scripture ; 
 although Protestants profess to consider Scripture the standard of their opinions. 
 8°. A suflicieut reply to this objection will be found in the text. The Church of 
 Rome proves her divine commission, and her continued support and guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit. Such as refuse to admit the inspiration of Scripture on her word, thus 
 guaranteed, may abandon the hope of ever reaching this truth. The " undoubted 
 facts" spoken of may now be estimated at their proper value; and the condition of 
 theological studies among the Presbyterians of Scotland pretty accurately deter- 
 mined. The work we have been citing is entitled "A Handbook of Popery." 
 Since we have named this book, we cannot refrain from expressing our reprobation, 
 as (,"hristians and members of society, of the manner in which it conducts the con- 
 troversy. We do not allude so much to the bad reasoning it contains, or the 
 pitiable ignorance it displays on every biblical and theological subject, as to the 
 calumnies against the persons and doctrines of Catholics, and the obscene tales which 
 it has collected from American and European newspapers, and from the pages of 
 unprincipled and licentious travellers or apostates. That the book is not a regular 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 45 
 
 even on tlie ground he has usurped, and from which he can 
 with such ease be removed, altogether unable to reach divine 
 faith, we shall suppose that he has been able to identify the 
 books of Scriptm-e, and has got possession of the canon in its 
 integrity. When these concessions have been made, are his 
 difficulties at an end ? Has Jesus Christ appointed the writ- 
 ten word to be the sole rule of faith ? And does He require 
 every individual to interpret it for himself? We propose now 
 to examine the teaching of the Westminster Confession on 
 these points. 
 
 The leaders of the Scotch Reformation, following the ex- 
 ample of their brethren abroad, commenced by asserting or 
 assuming that it was the right and duty of every man to seek 
 his religion for himself in the Scriptures. The individual 
 was declared to have been invested by the Almighty with full 
 authority to bring the Church to the bar of Scripture, to sit in 
 judgment on her, and to reject her, if found not to accord with 
 his ideas of Scripture trath. This doctrine, however, although 
 very serviceable in the destruction of the old, proved to be by 
 no means so auxiliary in the formation of a new religion. No 
 sooner, then, had the people been forced or duped into the 
 abandonment of Catholicity, than they were called upon by the 
 Reformers virtually to sacrifice their lately-acquired right of 
 private judgment, by submitting themselves to the obedience 
 of the Lutheran, Calvinistic, or Scotch Church, as the case 
 might be. Even those whose ideas of a chm-ch are the most 
 removed from dogmatism, men who would explain away or 
 reject spiritual power as far as it can be done, without an 
 absolute denial of all authority on religious matters, must 
 admit that no number of individuals, how concordant soever 
 they may be in their opinions, form a church by the sole fact 
 of their uniformity. An outward bond of some sort is required. 
 
 treatise on any subject, we have no right to complain ; nor do we find much fault 
 with it because it is but a farrago of scraps from anonymous letters, books, pam])h- 
 lets, newspapers, &c., strung together bj^ the di-awling reflections and sapient plati- 
 tudes, which were to have been expected from the author of the reasonings and 
 " facts" we have been examining. But, against books of religious controversy being 
 made cesspools for the verj^ sediments of newspaper obscenity and anonymous slan- 
 der, we think that society as well as religion has the right to protest. 
 
46 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 A church essentially supposes a certain organization. It must 
 be a corporation, with power at least to declare its own belief, 
 and the conditions on which its communion can be obtained. 
 These conditions are the boundaries within which only the 
 free action of the members is permitted by the body. As a 
 church exists in order to teach and perpetuate certain doc- 
 trines, both speculative and practical, her conditions of com- 
 munion necessarily affect both the intellect and the will. 
 Tlie intellect operates by judging. It is impossible, there- 
 fore, for any one to be a member of any body which claims 
 to be a church, without consenting to a certain limitation in 
 the exercise of his judgment. Where there is limitation of a 
 right, there the right ceases. There is no right, there can 
 only be transgression beyond the limits marked. The limits, 
 however, cannot be appointed without authority ; and the 
 party who appoints them exercises authority over the judg- 
 ment for which it declares the limit. But the Reformers had 
 started from the pi-inciple, that there was no outward autho- 
 rity on earth which could interfere with the individual, or 
 limit his right of judging, so that the very attempt on their 
 part to form churches was a virtual apostacy fi-om their prin- 
 ciple of private judgment. It would, however, have exposed 
 to the people too clearly the hollowness and inconsistency of the 
 new religions, to have at once openly claimed church authority 
 for the ministers. The whole movement might have proved 
 abortive, if some compromise could not be effected, which 
 should happily unite the obnoxious but coveted authority 
 with a liberty which must, at least in name, exist. Nothing, 
 indeed, is more evident than that any number of individuals, 
 really acting on the first principles of the Reformation, could 
 never form a church. They might have arrived at like con- 
 clusions, or formed similar opinions ; but each, resting on 
 liimself, takes nothing from another, yields nothing to another, 
 and consequently can form no part of a corporation or church. 
 They are but a number of units. They may be brought to- 
 gether by external influence, but like a handful of sand they 
 have no cohesion, and crumble down from the moment the 
 force which brought them together is wltlidrawn. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTURE. 47 
 
 To assert, then, even to the smallest extent compatible witli 
 the idea of a church, the principle of authority in matters of 
 faith, and, at the same time, to acknowledge the right of private 
 judgment in the people, could not, by any subtlety, be done 
 without falling into contradiction. As, however, contradictions 
 are not only a self-condemnation, but a complete refutation of 
 the system containing them, they were, by every means, to 
 be avoided in the reformed Confessions of Faith. But to 
 avoid the contradictions noticed above, and thus prove no 
 church, w^ould have been the abandonment of Christianity, 
 while, to assert an authority which should limit the exercise 
 of private judgment, would have reduced the Reformation to 
 an impious rebellion. The Reformers, it seems, were less 
 solicitous about consistency, than they were eager to secure for 
 themselves the reins of spiritual power, which they had torn 
 from the hands of the Catholic clergy. They resolved to have 
 their churches and their Confessions of Faith. Since, however, 
 these were impossible without admitting the contradiction, the 
 best was done that the circumstances would permit — the con- 
 tradiction was overlaid with ambiguous expressions, and 
 attention withdrawn from it by endless citations of irrelevant 
 texts. 
 
 The teaching of the Confession of Faith on '^ the object of 
 Scripture," will be examined in the course of our proof of the 
 following propositions : — 
 
 1°. The Bible is not the Rule of Faith a2)2)ointed or intended 
 hy Jesus Christ. 
 
 2°. The so-called Right of Private Judgment (by which we 
 understand an alleged right of every individual to examine and 
 decide on the sense of Scripture), is by its nature either a de- 
 lusion or an imjnety. 
 
 3°. Private Judgment (as already defined)^ where exercised, 
 renders Faith unattainable. 
 
 I. THE BIBLE NOT THE RULE OF FAITH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 For greater clearness, it may here be explained, that the 
 word faith signifies both the divine virtue by which man is 
 enabled to make a supernatural act of belief in the trutlis of 
 
48 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 revelation, and those truths themselves which are the object 
 upon which the virtue is exercised. Thus, St. James, speaking 
 of the virtue, says — " Do you not see, that by works a man is 
 justified, and not by faith only ?" and iSt. Paul — " If I 
 should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, 
 and have not charity, I am nothing." In the second ac- 
 ceptation it is thus employed by St. Paul — " In the last 
 times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits 
 of error and doctrines of devils." The same apostle points 
 out thus the origin of all heresies — " For the desire of 
 money is the root of all evil ; which some coveting, have 
 erred from the faith.'''' To elicit an act of the virtue, the 
 understanding must have been directed to the proper object — 
 revealed truth. That, then, which directs the virtue in its 
 exercise may be called the rule of faith. In this sense, the 
 rule of faith must propose the truth divinely guaranteed, point 
 it out to the understanding, and exclude error. It declares 
 authoritatively what is divine truth, and what is not. It must, 
 then, be something distinct from the revelation which it 
 proposes to the intellect. It is identical with the source or 
 record where man acquires the knowledge of revealed truth. 
 Protestants maintain that the Bible is the only rule of faith 
 in this sense of a record and guarantee of divine truth. If 
 hj the expression "rule of faith " be understood a standard of 
 comparison, then its purpose is implied in the name. It is 
 the object with which a proposed doctrine is to be compared, 
 by which it is to be measured, in order that, from its con- 
 formity or discrepancy, its nature may be deduced. 
 
 A rule of faith, as a standard, necessarily gives but a negative 
 decision. As it is impossible for any truth to be in contradic- 
 tion with any other tnith, any doctrine found to be in contra- 
 diction with a revealed truth, is evidently neither revealed nor 
 true. But it is impossible to conclude that a doctrine has 
 been revealed, solely from the fact of its conformity with 
 revealed truths. We cannot, by a standard, know that a 
 doctrine has been revealed, nor have more than a presumption 
 that it is true. In as far as it coincides witli the standard, it 
 may he true ; if it is in no respect discordant, it mtiy also be 
 
liKLATIONS TO SCIJirTUUE. 49 
 
 revealed. But tliQ-fuft of its revelation mast be discovered by 
 positive testimony. Comparison can be made only Avhere 
 there is resemblance, and to the extent of that resemblance. 
 Jn as far as two objects or truths do not resemble each other, 
 no comparison can be instituted between them. Now, doc- 
 trines may have many points of contact with each other, they 
 may perfectly harmonize with each other ; but they could not, 
 unless identical, be subjected to a perfectly adequate compari- 
 son. Thus it is that a standard for the whole Christian revela- 
 tion, and each of its truths, could be no other than the Christian 
 revelation itself. It could not be the truths of science, or those 
 acquired by experience, consciousness, or the reasoning faculty ; 
 for all those, as well as every truth we can know without 
 revelation, are natural, while the truths of revelation are of a 
 different order. They are supernatural, and can no more be 
 truly judged of by natural truths, than that which is infinite 
 can be compared with that which is finite. Nor can one 
 revealed truth be made the standard for another, as each, 
 although harmonizing with all others, and that in a manner 
 and to an extent wonderfully surpassing our apprehension, yet 
 differs from every other. The standard, therefore, is incom- 
 plete, and can give only an imperfect, because an incomplete 
 result. By what standard could the doctrine of the ever-blessed 
 Trinity be judged? No other truth of revelation resembles it. 
 Compare it Avith any other among the truths of revelation, and 
 you can only say, it contradicts none of them. But from this 
 negative judgment, you can conclude neither the truth of the 
 doctrine nor its divinity. The rule of faith, then, if imderstood 
 as the standard of revealed truth, cannot bring any man to the 
 knowledge of the divine revelation, nor tell him whether any 
 single doctrine has been revealed. An adequate standard 
 could be only the divine revelation itself, and available only 
 to him who already possessed it. But it is then evidently 
 superfluous ; since where the revelation is already known, the 
 need of a standard by which to discover it has necessarily ceased. 
 Revealed truth is, however, an infallible standard for discover- 
 ing the errors of human teaching, and judging of the soundness 
 of those deductions Avhich reason draws from revelation. But 
 
 D 
 
50 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 as our object at present is with the truths of revehiti(Mi them- 
 selves, not with the operations of reason upon them — hoAV man 
 acquires the knowledge of these truths, not what consequences 
 he may draw from them — to find the rale oi faith, not a rale 
 for human opinions — a standard for tliem woidd be, at present, 
 altogether beside the question. Our arguments will show that 
 the Bible was not appointed by Christ to be, and, in fact, it 
 cannot be, the only rale of faith, whether it be considered as 
 the standard, or as the source of faith. 
 
 The opinion we oppose is thus enoimced in the Westmin- 
 ster Confession : — " It pleased the Lord to reveal himself, and 
 to declare his will unto his Church, and aftenvards for the 
 better preserving and propagation of the truth ... to 
 commit the same wholly imto writing." (Chap. I.) Again, 
 " The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary 
 for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either 
 expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary 
 consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which 
 nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations 
 of the Spirit, or traditions of man." The list of books contained 
 in the Protestant Bible is given, and the Confession continues, 
 " All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of 
 iaith and life." [Id.) 
 
 The Free Kirk is even more explicit. In the Catechism of 
 the Principles of the Free Kirk, we find the following questions 
 and answers : '' Where are his revelations contained ? In the 
 Scriptures alone. Comes not the voice of the gi-eat Teacher 
 through the medium of tradition also ? It comes only through 
 the written word. Is the adoption of a Confession of Faith by 
 a Church consistent? Yes ; provided the Bible is always 
 received as the ultimate standard of reference and appeal." 
 
 1. Our first argument shall be a simple statement of facts. 
 As far as the nature of Christianity, its history, its government, 
 its doctrines, the duties it inculcates, are contained in the Bible, 
 the record is to be found in the New Testament. But the 
 New Testament gives direct and conclusive evidence that our 
 Saviour, far from having appointed it to be the rule of faith, 
 or any part thereof, had founded the Church, constituted her 
 
DELATIONS TO 8CRI1'TUUE. 51 
 
 the depositary of his doctrines,^ appointed her teaehcrs and 
 governors, provided for the continuance of their functions, ^ 
 completed the work of redemption, and ascended into lieavcn, 
 vears before one line of that sacred volume was penned. To 
 say, therefore, that our Saviour established the Scripture as 
 the sole rule of faith, is to contradict the facts narrated by the 
 inspired writers themselves, and to represent Him as establish- 
 ing for a rule of faith that lohicJi did not even exist. The only 
 standard established by Jesus Christ, was the doctrine He 
 delivered orally to his disciples, and directed to be preached 
 till the end of time. The only source of doctrine He established 
 was the teaching body of his Church. ^ If, then, we regard 
 the Church in the message she has been sent to deliver, she is 
 the standard ; if in her authority to deliver and guarantee the 
 message, she is the rule of faith established by Jesus Christ. 
 
 This fact can be denied by none who admit the Scripture 
 narrative. Did, then, our Saviour establish two rules ? Or did 
 he make any provision for a total change in the constitution 
 of his Church, so that, after a certain number of years, those 
 who had been forbidden to listen to an angel from heaven, 
 against the teaching of the Church's pastors, were to listen 
 neither to angel nor pastor, but to teach themselves from a book 
 which millions of Christians in every age could not read, and 
 which millions of readers, as the innumerable multitude of 
 conflicting biblical sects demonstrates, could not understand ? 
 No authority for such a change can be produced. It is then a 
 fact, that the Scriptures were not established by our Saviour, 
 as, in any sense, the rule of faith. An}^ presumption against 
 this fact would be not only gratuitous, but subversive of the 
 Scripture narrative. A presumption that a radical change wrs 
 
 1 " Going, therefore, teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to obsen-e all 
 things ivhatsover I have commanded you," Matt, xxviii. 19, "20. "All things 
 whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made kno-mi to you," John xv. lo. 
 
 2 " Behold, I am mth you all days, even to the consummation of the world," 
 Matt, xxviii. 19. " Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against it," Matt. xvi. IG. 
 
 2 " He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despisetli you, despiseth me ; 
 and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me," Luke x. Ki. " If he will 
 not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen or a publican," Matt, xviii. 17. 
 
OZ CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 to be effected in the constitution of tlie CInu-cli, hy the intro- 
 duction of a new rule of faith, differing- in its nature, in its appli- 
 cation, in its extent and capacity, from the one lie Jiad established 
 — changing the nature and duties of the ministry he had ap- 
 pointed while on earth — which he had so minutely described, 
 so amply guaranteed, and endowed with such magnificent privi- 
 leges, to which he had promised perpetuity, and subjected the 
 whole human race for ever — that this was to be effected without 
 any announcement from our Saviour, who seemed so solicitous 
 to consolidate his Church, and to seize opportunities, as they 
 offered, of preparing his followers for whatever could have 
 appeared likely to embarrass them after his departure — without 
 any hint from the apostles, or any of the sacred writers, that 
 so momentous a change was ever to take place, is amply 
 refuted by its own extravagance. Yet, those who maintain 
 the Bible to be the sole rule of faith, must presume that this 
 incredible change did take })lace ; and this most extraordinary 
 presumption is the sole ground of their belief. Truly, Protes- 
 tants in favom- of Protestantism are satisfied with slender proof! 
 2. A second fact. The canon of Scripture Avas not declared 
 until the year 393, at the Council of Hippo, and, even after 
 that declaration, it was not known in many places for several 
 centuries. But what is not known cannot be a rule of faith. 
 Eitlier, then, there was no rule of faith before the Church had 
 collected together the scattered books of Scripture, separated 
 them from uninspired writings, and made them known through- 
 out the world, or the rule of faith was not the Bible. But it 
 is granted that there was a rule of faith established by Christ. 
 Again, therefore, the rule of faith established by Christ was 
 not the Scripture. Ecclesiastical history, which tells us of all 
 the fortunes of the Church, of her sufferings, her progress, her 
 triumphs — which points out to us the origin of heresies, and the 
 means adopted for their confutation and suppression — records 
 nothing of any change in her rule of faith, either as expected 
 or accomplished. It tells us how the canon of Scripture was 
 gradually formed, but hints not at its superseding the dogmatic 
 authority of the Church. On this subject a silence equally 
 profound is observed by both profane and sacred historians. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCUIPTURE. 53 
 
 Since, then, Christ did not establish the Scriptnres to be the 
 ride of faith, nor give any announcement that they were ever 
 to become so ; since the Scriptm-es coidd not have been the 
 rule for many centuries ; since there is no record that they 
 ever did become the rule in the Church ; by what authority 
 have Protestants made them the rale of faith "? The first wlio 
 ever appealed to the portions of the inspired books they pos- 
 sessed, as a higher authority from the teaching of the Church, 
 Avere the Nicobites, the Ebionites, and other Gnostic sects, 
 who confidently cited the sacred text to justify their unnatm-al 
 lusts. All succeeding heretics followed the course marked out 
 by those impious sectaries. The Marcionites, Nestorians, 
 Arians, all clung to the Scripture as their sole rule ; and by it 
 strove to establish their tenets. But the Chm-ch constantly 
 condemned their doctrines, and denied the la-svfulness of any 
 appeal from her decisions. None made or defended such 
 appeals, save those whom Protestants themselves will condemn 
 as heretics. The Protestant must admit that his rule of faith 
 is that of all the heretics of the first six centuries, and that it 
 was not, nor could have been, the rule of the Chui-ch of Chi ist. 
 As, then, the facts of Scripture and history testify that the 
 Protestant rule was not that established by Christ, and show 
 not a vestige of evidence which a Christian can admit in sup- 
 port of sucli a rule, it must fall to the ground as a baseless 
 assumption. 
 
 3. A Church wliich asserts the Scriptures to be the sole 
 source of its doctrine — which seeks in them alone the reason 
 of its existence, demonstrates, by that single fact, that its claims 
 are false, and draws a line of distinction between itself and 
 the Church of Christ, which the most illiterate and inexperienced 
 of mankind can hardly fail to perceive. The origin of a 
 Church which pretends to derive existence from the Scriptures, 
 must be posterior to that of the Church of Christ. It is 
 admitted that our Saviour gave his Church her origin years 
 before the Scriptures were written ; it is also admitted by 
 Protestants,^ and proved from Scripture, that He declared she 
 
 1 " There shall always be a Church on earth to -worship God according to his will," 
 Confess, of Faith, chap. xxv. " The visible Church hath the privilege of being 
 
-54 CALYIXISM IN ITS 
 
 shoukl never cease to exist. It must, tlierefore, be also admitted 
 that a Chm-cli claiming the Scriptm-es as the sole som-ce of its 
 doctrine and existence, demonstrates, by that fact, that both 
 its claim and itself are spurious. Besides, the dates of their 
 composition show that the Scriptm-es were not originally, and 
 therefore never could become for an imperishable body, the 
 source of revealed truth. The inspired writers received the 
 doctrines of Christianity from our Saviour himself, or, as in the 
 case of Luke and Mark, from the Gluirch. These were the 
 sources of doctrine. The writers, where they establish a doc- 
 trine, do but record that which they had already received. 
 The Bible can no more be the source of doctrine for the Cliurch 
 of Christ, than an authentic history of England could be the 
 source of English law and government. 
 
 4. The Protestant assumes that the Bible contains the whole 
 of those truths Avhich God has revealed^ and iipon this assump- 
 tion founds his belief that it is the sole rule of feith. It is 
 evident, that if there be any revealed truth to which God 
 demands our assent, the evidence of which is not contained in 
 the Bible, but rests upon some other authority, that authority 
 at least, jointly with the Bible, must share the title of " the rule 
 of faith." Are there, then, no truths, the belief of which 
 Protestants consider to be commanded of God, which yet arc 
 not to be found in Scripture? Tlie Protestant must, with 
 whatever reluctance, recognise the existence of such truths. 
 This is, indeed, a hard fact for Protestantism, and sing-ularly 
 at variance Avith the axiom that the Bible is the religion of 
 Protestants ; but, welcome or ungrateful, it must be admitted 
 by all who believe in the Bible — nay more, it must be admitted 
 as a necessary condition of belief in the Bible. The Westminster 
 Confession asserts the doctrine of infant baptism, and the 
 validity of baptism by aspersion. Yet, in the whole Bible, it 
 is nowhere said that infants may or even can be admitted to 
 this sacrament ; nor is a single instance recorded, either of 
 
 under God's special care and government ; of being proterted and preserrnl in all 
 ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies," Larger Catechism, Q. C,'.). It 
 seems strange that the Scotch Eefonners sliould have preferred creating a I'hurdi 
 for themselves, to joining the one which was to be " preserved in all ages,"' 
 
KELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 55 
 
 infant baptism, or of baptism administered by aspersion. The 
 apostles assembled at Jerusalem, prohibited, along with idolatry 
 and fornication, the use of blood and things strangled. No 
 part of Scripture indicates that the prohibition was only 
 temporary ; yet Protestants believe they are breaking no divine 
 law by the use of those forbidden things, God, by express 
 command, enjoined the sanctilication of the seventh day of the 
 week from sunset to sunset. The Scripture contains no abro- 
 gation of that command. Neither in its substance nor manner 
 is that law said by the Bible to have been changed ; and Ave 
 find our Saviour, and his disciples after his ascension, fre- 
 quenting the synagogues on the Jewish Sabbath. Neverthe- 
 less, Protestants consider the sanctification of the first day of 
 the week to be of divine or apostolic origin, and that they have 
 the authority of God himself for the abolition of the Sabbath. ^ 
 
 2 It must not be supposed that because none of these thhigs are contamed in the 
 Bible, Protestants are prepared frankly to acknowledge their debts to tradition, for 
 example, or the Church, or their oiv-n imagination. Far from it. Protestants, 
 rather than admit the insufficiency of their rule of faith, will find a doctrine " clearly 
 set down in Scripture," or " by good and necessary consequence deduced" from it, 
 to which there is not even an allusion in the sacred volume. Their excruciating 
 attempts to force their opinions from the reluctant text of the Bible, show, indeed, 
 that thej^ are deeply hnpressed with the necessity of finding Scripture support, but 
 do not display much critical skill, nor any very sharp appreciation of the ridiculous. 
 Some might even say that they manifest no high standard of honesty, as they evince 
 eagerness to find the means of wrangling with an opponent, rather than a groimd to 
 justify belief to their owa minds. Be that as it may, we give in this note a speci- 
 men of their " Scripture ground" for doctrines. Of the different subjects mentioned 
 above, we select that on which Protestants have laboured most, and for which their 
 allegation of Scripture, although eminently strained and inconclusive, is not, however, 
 so much so as to appear ridiculous. They adduce three texts for the abolition of 
 the Sabbath, and the sanctification of the first day of the week. " Upon the first 
 day of the week, let everj- one of you lay by him, in store, as God hath prospered 
 him, that there be no gatherings when I come," 1 Cor. xvi. 2. "And upon the first 
 day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached 
 unto them, and continued his speech until midnight," Acts xx. 7. " I was in the 
 Spirit on the Lord's day," Kev. i. 10. The first text contains no allusion to the 
 abolition of the Sabbath, nor does it order the first day to be sanctified, nor even 
 insinuate that it was sanctified by the Christians, or distinguished in any other wa}- 
 than by putting apart the collections which were to be made for the brethren. It 
 does not so much as mention or allude to either of the two points it is adduced to 
 prove. The passage from Acts is as little to the purpose. From the fact of the 
 disciples meeting on the evening of the first day, it will require great ingenuity to 
 
56 CALVINISM IN rrs 
 
 They maintain also the docti-ine that the Holy Ghost proceeds 
 from the Father and the Son, althongh this procession is no- 
 where mentioned in any of the inspired Looks. 
 
 We have already examined, at some length, the Protestant 
 proofs for the doctrine of inspiration, and shown that no book 
 of the Bible claims inspiration for itself, or asserts it of any 
 other book, and that few even declare certain of the doctrinetJ 
 they contain, or prophecies they record, to have been immediate 
 messages from God. If, however, there be an.y doctiine which 
 the Protestant considers eminently vital and essential, it is this 
 of the divine origin of Scriptiu-e. He professes to ground solely 
 on this the acceptableness of his belief and worship before 
 God ; on this he professes to rest his hops for eternity. It is 
 the master doctrine of his system, or rather, it is the base upon 
 which he constructs his system of Christianity. Belief in this 
 fundamental dogma must precede all others, for no other is 
 possible to him until this foundation has been made gT>od. If 
 this rule of faith be complete, it must contaiii, prominently, 
 clearly, miassailably established, this first principle of Protes- 
 tantism. It is needless to enlarge vipon the general question. 
 It Avill bear more upon our argument to apply liere the principles 
 previously established. It is an article of faith among those 
 who adhere to the Westminster Confession, and among Protes- 
 tants generally, that the Epistle of St. James is inspired 
 
 deduce either the abrogation of an express command which was to be observed as 
 "an everlasting covenant," (Exod. xxxi. IG,) or the sanctitication of the Snnday. 
 If the mere assembling of the disciples for worship indicates that the day on whicl» 
 they met was to be sanctified, then would there be a choice of seven days for 
 observing the Christian Sabbath, or rather the Jewish festival would be super- 
 seded by the entire seven days of tl\e week. For, from Acts ii. 42, we learn that 
 the disciples met every day for prayer, and the administration of the Eucharist. 
 " And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communica- 
 tion of the breaking of bread, and in prayer, (v. 46.) And continuing dnify with 
 one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from honse to house." Lastly, St. 
 John " was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." But as Scripture does not give any 
 clue to discover which of the seven days this was, Protestants, if disposed to sanctify 
 the thu-d or fourth day, coidd on this text display, in behalf of the novelty, as much 
 learning, and derive as satisfactory proof as they now do in favour of the first. 
 Such is tlie manner in which Protestants understand the Bible to be their rule of 
 faith. Its texts are violently, often outrageously appropriated as pegs on which 
 to hang previously-furmed opinions. 
 
RELATIONS TO S(;RIPTURE. 57 
 
 Scripture. This article either can be proved from the Bible, 
 or it cannot. If it can, let the passages which prove it be pro- 
 duced. Here no reasonings nor declamations nor presumptions 
 will serve. Texts direct and explicit are called for ; no other 
 proof can fulfil the condition. If it cannot be proved from 
 Scripture, then it must be either rejected by the Protestant, or 
 admitted upon some authority distinct from the Scripture. If 
 the authority upon which he admits it be the Church, thoi for 
 this article the Church is his rule of fiuth, and it is not true 
 that " the whole counsel of God's will concerning all things 
 necessary for faith" is contained in the Scriptures, nor true 
 that the Bible is his sole rule of faith. If it be admitted on 
 any other authority whatever, as history, tradition, or the 
 authority of parents and ministers, then these will be, in part 
 at least, his rule of faith. That the inspiration of the Epistle 
 in question is not " set down in Scripture," nor can be deduced 
 from it, is evident, for the book is not once mentioned or alluded 
 to by any of the otlier inspired writers, nor does St. James 
 himself in his Epistle claim inspiration for it or any of its 
 contents. The Protestant must, of necessity, abandon either 
 his rale or this book. Does lie admit no doctrine which cannot 
 be established by texts of Scripture *? then he must renounce 
 his belief in the Epistle of St. James. Does he, on the other 
 hand, adhere to the Epistle ? then let him no longer pretend 
 that his rule is the Bible alone. What has been said of St. 
 James' Epistle, may be said of every book in succession. The 
 entire collection of sacred writings can be proved to be the 
 word of God only by an exterior witness. It can be proved, 
 as has been said by the Rev. Mr. Wright in the article already 
 quoted, only by the testimony and authority of the Church. 
 But, in this case, the rule of Protestants is not partially, it is 
 exclusively tradition and Church authority ; since, upon the 
 evidence these afford, the Bible itself and its doctrines are 
 admitted. The Beformers have been guilty of cruel deceit. 
 They have made Protestants, during the last three centuries, 
 fight for a chimera. They taught that all traditions ought to be 
 rejected ; they undertook to construct religions which should 
 be independent of tradition, and to found churches which 
 
58 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 should rest immediatelj and solely on the word of God, But 
 their followers find, that, like all other partisans of revolution, 
 far from realizing the flattering promises of their leaders, thej 
 have been stripped of every real advantage Avhich they had 
 previously enjoyed, and inextricably entangled in those very 
 bonds, against which, as an intolerable evil, they had been 
 persuaded to protest. 
 
 The extravagance of the opinion entertained by Protestants 
 of the all-sufficiency of Scripture, is amply demonstrated by 
 the necessary inconsistency of its abettors, in admitting doc- 
 trines and practices as divine, for which they have no other 
 ground than the tradition of the Catholic Church. But the 
 Bible itself rejects, in express terms, the claim put forward in 
 its behalf. It certainly repudiates the officious services of its 
 self-constituted champions, as effectually as they are belied by 
 the ])ractice of Protestants. Not only does it declare that the 
 whole teaching of Jesus Christ should never be written,^ — not 
 only does it frequently allude so obscurely to some revealed 
 doctrines, and ground arguments upon others, which are not 
 expressed in any of the books, that both allusions and argu- 
 ments would have been unintelligible to those who had not 
 from another source received the doctrines, and thus been 
 enabled to follow the relations of the writers' ideas, and perceive 
 the validity of their reasoning ; but it makes known the im- 
 portant fact, that of the inspired books which were written, 
 several have not survived till our day. Our Saviour himself 
 cites from Jeremias a prophecy which is not to be found among 
 the writings of that prophet which remain.^ In the Old Tes- 
 tament, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of the 
 Prophet Nathan, the Book of Gad the Seer, are not only cited 
 frequently by the inspired writers, but referred to as documents 
 of equal authority with Kings, Paralipomenon, &c., for the more 
 complete history of many events which the historical books of 
 the Old Testament seem only to have abridged from them. 
 
 1 " But there are also many other things which Jesus did ; which, if they were 
 written every one, the world itself, I think, would not contain the books tliat 
 should be written." John xxi. 25. 
 
 -' Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 59 
 
 St. Paul (1 Cor. V. 9) refers the Corinthians to an epistle 
 which he had previously sent them ; and (Col. iv. 16) orders 
 that an epistle he had written to the Laodiceans should be 
 read in the church. Protestants cannot doubt that those 
 epistles to which he refers, and which he orders to be publicly 
 read along with his writings which are extant, were of equal 
 authority, and equally of divine origin. Can they then 
 pretend that they possess the whole word of God which was 
 written ? If they do not possess the whole, their rule of faith 
 is incomplete, and, since incomplete, cannot be the rule which 
 was established or intended by Jesus Christ ; for it would 
 have been incompatible with his goodness to have established 
 a means imperfect, and thus inadequate to the end proposed. 
 
 5. The object of the rule of faith being to give men the 
 knowledge of revealed truth, to retain them in the profession 
 of the true faith, and to enable them to reject all erroneous 
 doctrine ; in a word, to secm-e to them that " faith without 
 which it is impossible to please God," the rule established by 
 Christ must be within the reach of all, and suited to the capa- 
 cities of all. It is utterly repugnant to all the ideas of justice, 
 goodness, and charity which man has received, whether by 
 nature or revelation, to suppose that God has given to his 
 creatures, as the sole means of coming to the knowledge of his 
 revelation, a rule which lies beyond their reach, or which 
 when possessed should be impracticable. Is it possible to 
 reconcile with the perfections of God the necessity he has laid 
 upon all men of believing his revelation, and the assertion 
 that he has established, as the sole means of coming to the 
 knowledge thereof, a rule of faith impracticable for any man V 
 Well, even at the present day, when societies whose resources 
 seem boundless, whose organization is complete, whose in- 
 fluential supporters remove all difficulties at home and abroad, 
 and prepare the field for their undistm'bed and untrammeled 
 operation, exist for the sole purpose of circulating Bibles — 
 Avhen throughout the country a perfect mania for "education" 
 has seized all classes of society- 
 denominational schools, and ragi 
 by their partisans into the panacea which shall restore health 
 
60 CALVIXISM IN ITS 
 
 and vig-ouv to the })utrid members of ]3ritis]i society — the 
 Bible is still far from being a possible rule for every individual, 
 whether we speak of its mere possession or its use. AVe are 
 perfectly aware of the subterfuge by whieh Protestants seek to 
 escape the force of this objection. It is but an evasion. The 
 unlearned, they say, and the poor can have the Bible read to 
 them ; or receive from their ministers its doctrines, and thus be- 
 come fully possessed of the Protestant rule of faith. So, then, 
 it is not the Bible, but the doctrines which the individual or 
 his minister for him draws from the Bible, which form the 
 rule of faith. Be it so ; but how can it be said that doctrines 
 not yet known are the means by which the knowledge of 
 revelation is to be acquired, seeing that revelation consists of 
 those very doctrines ? Can the Protestant make use of 
 doctrines as a rule which he is yet only seeking to leani"? 
 He must have the rule before he can nse it; and since it is the 
 sole criterion of divine truth, he cannot know what is divine 
 truth until he has the rule. Until, therefore, he has learned the 
 truths of revelation, he has no rule to determine what is or is 
 not revealed truth. Granting, then, for the sake of the argu- 
 ment, that the Bible did contain all divine truths necessary to 
 be believed, the Protestant cannot possibly know Avhat these 
 are until he is in possession of his rule of faith. But how 
 shall he acquire his rule ; for it consists of the doctrines of 
 revelation ? How shall he learn the first truth of his system? 
 Until he has got that first truth, he is absolutely destitute of 
 tlie rule of faith. He has no part of it. He has not CA'cn the 
 beginning of quantity. But without the rule of faith it is 
 impossible for him to know any article of faith whatever — even 
 the first truth, which might be the commencement of his rule. 
 On the supposition, therefore, of the doctrines of Scripture 
 being the Protestant's rule of faith, he can never possibly haA^e 
 either the rule or the doctrine. He cannot have the doctrine 
 Avithout the rule, for it is only by the rule of faith that he can 
 know what is revealed truth and what is not. He cannot 
 have the rule until he has got the doctrine, for by the supposi- 
 tion the doctrine is itself the rule. If, on the other hand, the 
 book, not its doctrines, be the rule of faith, then it is self- 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTUKE. 61 
 
 evident that those avIio possess not the book, and all who 
 cannot read, have no rule of faith. And men are found who 
 fear not to attribute to our Saviour the establishment of a 
 rule of faith — that is, a necessary condition of faith, and there- 
 fore of salvation — which would, either physically or morally, 
 be impossible of attainment to far the greater number of his 
 followers in every age, and those, too, the poor, the young, 
 the ignorant — ever the special objects of his predilection. 
 
 But the case bears a still more intolerable aspect in the 
 pages of the Westminster Confession. We have hitherto 
 been reasoning as if the English Bible were the Protestant 
 rule of faith. Such, undoubtedly, is the popular persuasion. 
 The unthinking, credulous crowd among Protestants have 
 always thought so. No doubt their ministers, when declaiming 
 against Catholicity, or attempting to shoAV the practicability 
 of their pretended rule, or exalting the high privilege of freely 
 jierusing the Bible of King James in the vulgar tongue, allow 
 the people to depart with the understanding that the English 
 version has been put into their hands to be their rule of faith. 
 But nothing could be further from the truth. The English 
 version has been given them as a sort of edifying spiritual 
 book ; or, as the Confession of Faith has it, " that tlie word of 
 God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an 
 acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the 
 Scriptures may have hope." But the rule of faith established 
 by the Westminster Confession is the Hebrew text of the Old, 
 and the Greek text of the New Testament. Nothing can be more 
 explicit than its teaching on this point : " The Old Testament 
 in Hehrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immedi- 
 ately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence 
 kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as, in ALL 
 controversies of religion, the Church is FINALLY TO APPEAL 
 UNTO THEM."^ There can be no appeal from the rule of faith, 
 which, as its name implies, has been established as the last 
 and highest resort in matters of faith. But an appeal is here 
 recognised from the English or any other version to the 
 Hebrew and Greek texts. The English version is, therefore, 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, chap. i. 
 
62 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 not recognised bv the Westminster Confession for the rde 
 of faith. Since, moreover, the original texts are declared to 
 be the final arbiter, from which no appeal is permitted in 
 conti-oversies of religion, these texts are established as the 
 sole standard and rule of faith. The consequences of this 
 article of the Presbyterian standard to that numerous body of 
 Protestants, who, it is to be presumed, have not yet acquired 
 a competent knowledge of the Oriental tongues, are serious 
 indeed, and will doubtless receive their close consideration. 
 But even the most accomplished scholars of our Scotch uni- 
 versities will meet with no slight embaiTassment in their 
 efforts to complete their nile of faith, according to the terms of 
 tlie Westminster Confession. Originals alone are, by that 
 authority, pronounced to be authentic. What, then, becomes 
 of St. Matthew's gospel, of which there are extant only trans- 
 lations ? What of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the original of 
 which is considered by respectable Protestant critics to have, 
 in like manner, disappeared? Protestantism, then, at one 
 stroke of the pen, strips a considerable portion of the New 
 Testament of its authority, and throws upon another a doubt 
 which, without aids which the Protestant dare not employ, 
 cannot be dissipated. Such teaching may well fill with con- 
 sternation the minds of Protestants, who have been accustomed 
 to contemplate their system, not as it is in itself, but in its 
 anti-popery characteristics. It has, since the Reformation, 
 been to Protestants an occasion for much religious indignation, 
 that the Church has sanctioned tlie continued use of the 
 liturgy or service of the mass in the language in whicli it was 
 first delivered to the different nations she has converted. 
 Thus, over a great part of the East, the Greek liturgy, called 
 of St. James, is used, and in the west, the Latin, or litm-gy of 
 St. Peter. It is needless to say, that the priests, the only 
 parties whom the Church calls upon to use the liturgy, must 
 know the language in which it is composed. The faitliful 
 have translations of the liturgy itself, and special devotions 
 besides, in their native tongue, for accompanying tlie ])riest 
 during the celebration of mass. This is the object of that 
 ceaseless toiTent of abuse which, since the Reformation, has 
 
RELATIONS TO SCKIPTUKK, 63 
 
 been poured upon us under tlie title of " prayer in an unkno^vn 
 tongue." Could it have been imagined that the men who 
 have so strenuously and so perseveringly declaimed against 
 this part of ecclesiastical discipline, would have given them- 
 selves up with such humble docility to their leaders as to 
 accept from their hands, not indeed a form of prayer, understood 
 by him who uses it, and certainly by Him to whom it is 
 addressed, but a rule of faith — the only source of their belief — 
 their final standard of dogma — their last appeal, '^ in all con- 
 troversies of religion " — written partly in Hebrew and partly 
 in Greek ? Yet there stands the decree. Let Protestants 
 read it again and again ; let them weigh it well, and learn to 
 appreciate, at their full worth, the privileges which their 
 Church bestows upon them. They have indeed been deprived 
 of the ti-adition and living voice of the Catholic Church to 
 guide them into all truth ; but in exchange they have received 
 truly precious favours. They have been empowered to collect 
 for themselves a system of religious opinions, from the pages 
 of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments ! They have had put 
 into their hands a rule of faith, not, it is true, in the "unknown 
 tongue" of ancient Rome, but partly in the sacred language of 
 Moses and the prophets, and partly in that of Homer and 
 Demosthenes. He would be blind, indeed, who could fail to 
 see how readily this Protestant rule of faith is made available 
 to all ; how peculiarly it is fitted to the capacities and attain- 
 ments of all ; how admirably corresponding Avith Avhat might 
 have been anticipated from the wisdom and beneficence of 
 Jesus ; how rarely calculated to bring to a speedy and happy 
 termination every difference of religious opinion ! Let the 
 poor man, who with difficulty procures the necessaries of life 
 for himself and family ; whose literary efforts have had their 
 highest flight in a tedious spelling through a chapter of the 
 gospel ; let the boy from the ragged school procm-e his Hebrew 
 Bible and Greek Testament. They are then provided with their 
 rule of faith, completely equipped for any " controversy of 
 religion," able and authorised to set at defiance the decisions 
 of any Synod or General Assembly on earth. The magnetic 
 current of Protestantism is no sooner sent through the people, 
 
(U CALVINISM IX ITS 
 
 than each individual starts off in fretful independence — a 
 perfect magnet, with one pole attracting the negative fluid of 
 Protestantism, with the other repelling all that is positive in 
 Christian theology. He becomes a church in miniature, and 
 keeps up an establishinent of ministers only by way of religious 
 luxury, or as a perennial provocation for his critical poAvers — 
 a sort of gladiatorial institution, to keep alive the contentious 
 spirit of priva.te judgment, and the HebrcAV and Greek acquire- 
 ments of our Presbyterian population. Can anything be more 
 opposed to all that Christians believe of the wisdom, the 
 power, the goodness of our divine Redeemer, than this pre- 
 posterous doctrine of the Westminster Confession ? The first 
 elements of reason will suffice to show that our Saviour never 
 could have established, as the rule of faith for Christians of 
 every age, the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. The 
 Confession of Faith, by establishing an appeal to those texts, 
 precludes any claim for the English or any other version ; and 
 we conceive that few will be found to assert that our Saviour 
 constituted any translation whatever of the Scriptures to be 
 the rule of faith. We have proved that the doctrines of the 
 Bible cannot be the sole rule to any man, and to the Protestant 
 cannot be a rule at all. And we have shown that Christ did 
 not, in fact, establish the Scriptures as in any sense the rule 
 of faith ; and that, for several ages, they were not, nor could 
 they have been, the rule ; that they are not yet the sole rule 
 even to Protestants, and that they cannot be made the sole 
 rule without rendering faith impossible. We are therefore 
 entitled to our conclusion, that our Saviour neither constituted 
 nor intended the Scriptures to be the rale of faith. 
 
 II. THE SO-CALLED RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT, A DELUSION 
 OR AN IMPIETY. 
 
 Protestantism, which is a system of suppositions built upon 
 otlier suppositions, has raised its supposed right of private 
 judgment, on the supposition that the Bible is the sole rule 
 of faith appointed by Jesus Christ. A lengthened examination 
 of this alleged right cannot be necessary, after the demonstra- 
 tion we have given, that the supposition upon which it rests 
 
IIELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 65 
 
 is both gratuitous and false. We shall, therefore, consult 
 brevity as far as possible, consistently with the exelusiveness 
 of our argument. 
 
 1. Wherever private judgment is exercised, the result must 
 be either truth or error, for an interpretation cannot be true 
 and false at the same time. The " right of private judgment," 
 then, either implies the right to form a false as well as a true 
 judgment, or means the right of forming only true conclusions ; 
 in other words, the " right" is either absolute or limited by 
 objected truths. In the first sense, the " right of private 
 judgment" is no right, but an impiety ; in the second, it is a 
 delusion, 1°. All right is from God. To suppose a right 
 received or held independently of God, is to destroy either the 
 unity or the perfection of God. It is to set a limit to his 
 power, and therefore supposes either a plurality of Gods, or 
 imperfection in the Divine nature. Private judgment is in fact 
 claimed by Protestants as a right bestowed by the Almighty. 
 Now, God cannot give a right to form a talse judgment in 
 regard of that to which he demands our assent ; for, as belief 
 follows judgment, a right to form a false judgment would 
 include the right to reject the truth and believe a lie. If man 
 had the absolute right to intei-pret the Scriptures, then he 
 could not be condemned or punished for unbelief or false belief, 
 since he could intei-pose the '^ right" he had received between 
 the justice of God and his own infidelity. God could not con- 
 demn or punish his creature for doing that which he himself 
 had given him the right to do. The doctrine of an absolute 
 right of judgment would overthrow the whole of Christianity, 
 which essentially requires faith in the truths of revelation, and 
 denounces wrath to " him that believeth not." It is also 
 incompatible with the perfections of God, as it would destroy 
 his veracity by involving his sanction for error. Private 
 judgment, therefore, if understood as an absolute right of 
 interpretation, is an impiety. 2°, If the right contended for 
 be not absolute but limited — if no right be claimed beyond the 
 circle of revealed truth, interpretation can with no propriety 
 be termed " private." For a system of tmth, objectively real, 
 existing independently of the mind, is then acknoAvledged as the 
 
 E 
 
bb CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Standard with wliicli all interpretation, to be true, must accord. 
 We have seen the Confession of Faith asserting that there 
 would always exist on earth a Church holding and teaching 
 those truths. The individuars intei-pretation of Scripture is, 
 therefore, if tnie — that is, if made according to the conditions 
 on which he holds his " right" — no other than the doctrines 
 of that Church ; and his right of private judgment proves 
 to be only imaginary, for it resolves itself into the duti/ of 
 learning and believing the truths of revelation as taught by 
 that Church, which the Westminster Confession says, shall 
 always subsist " on earth to worship God according to his will ;" 
 which Jesus Christ authorised when he said, " He that heareth 
 you, heareth me." The Westminster divines saw clearly that 
 the Scriptures, instead of being the rule of faith, were, in 
 reality, the thing for which the rale of faith was required ; and 
 that, if the individual were really to interpret them for himself, 
 he would be his own standard of faith and morality. But this 
 would necessarily suppose individual infallibility, since the 
 standard of faith must itself have all the security of faith, and 
 faith is essentially grounded on the veracity of God, the infalli- 
 ble truth. If, however, every individual were to be his own 
 standard of truth, or gifted with infallibility, not only would 
 the entire Protestant theory on the rule of faith be at once 
 uprooted, but the very idea of a Church would be annihilated. 
 It was, however, necessary to preserve both, and, for this pur- 
 pose, an article was inserted in the Confession of Faith, ^ the 
 complete efficacy of which bears indisputable testimony to the 
 meek pliability of the Presbyterian body. Notwithstanding 
 the stubborn self-sufficiency, and the intolerance of dictation 
 which the history of the Covenant shows to be no stranger to 
 the breast of the Scotch Presbyterian, he is not unwilling, at 
 the voice of the Westminster Confession, to close his eyes to 
 the palpable impracticability of his position, and to believe 
 that all is made smooth and consistent by the simple assertion, 
 
 ^ " The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and, 
 therefore, when there is question about the tnie and full sense of any Scriptui-e 
 (which is not manifold but one), it must be searched and known by other ])laces 
 that speak more clearly." — Chap. i. 9. 
 
KKLATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 67 
 
 that tlie text A is interpreted by the text B. Text B itself 
 requires, it seems, no explanation. It explains both itself and 
 A ; meets no obstacle in the mind from prejudice or passion, 
 nor does it pass through any coloured medium. The mind of 
 the reader is, of course, purely passive. It makes no com- 
 parison, puts no meaning on B, and forms no judgment. The 
 true interpretation falls of its own accord upon the purely 
 passive mind. So that the doctrine evolved from the collation 
 of texts, is not a mere human opinion — a result of the reader's 
 ingenuity, learning, prejudice, or ignorance — nor, after all, a 
 "private interpretation." It is the pure voice of the text; 
 or, as the Confession of Faith says, the voice of the Spirit 
 speaking in the text.^ Here, no doubt, we might find the 
 explanation of the very remarkable unity of Protestantism. 
 For as truth is one, the true interpretation of Scripture is one. 
 And as it seems not to be the individual but the Spirit which 
 interprets the Bible for Protestants, the same word is, of course, 
 spoken to all, to Baptists and Anabaptists, to Pedobaptists 
 and Antipedobaptists, to Mormons, Independents, Presby- 
 terians, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Seceders, &c. The mem- 
 bers of the harmonious whole are too numerous for individual 
 notice. It is evident, indeed, that the same Spirit does interpret 
 the Scripture for them, and his identity few will fail to recognise. 
 His name is " Legion." To resume : Whether we look upon 
 private judgment as necessarily limited by divine tnith to the 
 one true interpretation of Scripture, or, with the Westminster 
 Confession, regard the Holy Spirit, and not the individual as 
 the sole interpreter, it is evident that the alleged individual 
 " right" is a pure delusion — a flattering motto, it may be, to 
 flaunt on no-popery banners, but bearing, on close examina- 
 tion, a suspicious resemblance to the proscribed doctrine of 
 Chm-ch authority. 
 
 2. Protestants must admit that the " right of private judg- 
 ment" is a delusion, if it cannot be established by their sole 
 
 1 " The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined 
 . . . and doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose 
 sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holj- Spirit spealting in the Scrip- 
 ture."— /</. 10. 
 
68 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 rule of faith. But neither our Saviour nor his apostles assert 
 or sanction such a right in favour of Christians. It must, 
 therefore, be condemned as a figment. Certainly, Protestants 
 are accustomed to cite in its support certain passages. But, 
 from their bearing, they seem to be adduced for the sake of 
 form, not as if the Protestant really hoped to derive his opinion 
 from them ; useless, indeed, in his scriptural investigations. 
 None act upon the principles of the grammarian who made lucus 
 a derivative from non lucendo. A number of passages of the 
 Old Testament are quoted, in which the Israelites are urged 
 to learn and meditate upon the law of God, and to conform 
 their lives to its precepts. These must be all set aside together. 
 They are wholly irrelevant to the question at issue. For the 
 reasoning is inadmissible, by any stretch of indulgence, which 
 concludes that Christians have the right to intevpret the whole 
 BibJcj because the Jews were directed to learn and meditate 
 upon the commandments. But, unfortunately for the Protes- 
 tant argument, we know the nature of the Jewish " right" of 
 interpretation, and can assure those who clamour for private 
 interpretation, that if their demands go not beyond the right 
 which was enjoyed by the Jews, their war against the Catholic 
 Church has certainly been conducted on a grievous misunder- 
 standing. The Jews were bound, by the express ordinance of 
 God, to interpret according to the teaching of their Church; and 
 the man who should dare to judge for himself, and refuse to 
 submit to the teaching of the priests, was commanded to he put 
 to death} From the New Testament, two passages are gener- 
 ally quoted as bearing on the question. Our Saviour says, 
 '' Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal 
 life, and tliey are they which testify of me." This is the 
 Protestant version. The original word, ifovan^ maybe rendered 
 either " search" or " ye search ;" but the Protestant translators 
 
 ^ " If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in 
 judgment . . . thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the 
 judge that shall be at that time, and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall show 
 thee the truth of the judgment. And thou shalt do whatsoever they sluill say, and 
 what they shall teach thee . . . But he that will bo proud, and refuse to obey 
 the commandment of the priest, . . . that man shall die, and thou shalt take 
 away the evil from Israel." Dcut. xvii. 8 — 13. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 69 
 
 have decided the meaning of the word to prevent the possi- 
 bility of an erroneous impression being received by the people 
 from " the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." The second 
 reference is to Acts xvii./ where the Bereans are said to have 
 searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so. In both 
 passages, the men spoken of Avere not believers in the divine 
 mission of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour and his apostles sought 
 to draAv them to Christianity, by appealing to the authority of 
 the Old Testament, which they admitted, for proof of the 
 single fact that " Jesus was the Christ." The reasoning of 
 Protestants upon these facts is more characteristic than conclu- 
 sive. It is, that because men who were not Christians were 
 referred to the Old Testament, interpreted for them by Jesus 
 Christ and his apostles, for the proof of one fact, therefore all 
 Christians are required to interpret for themselves the tohole 
 Bihle, in order to discover all the doctrines of Christianity. 
 The simple statement of such an argument leaves nothing to 
 refute. The imagination can scarcely conceive reasoning more 
 ludicrously extravagant. But although the Scripture does 
 not establish the private interpretation of Protestants, it does 
 not altogether pass over the matter in silence. St. Peter, as 
 if he had had before his mind the future pretensions of Pro- 
 testantism, recorded their foiinal condemnation, nearly fifteen 
 centuries before they were made the battle-cry of Luther. 
 " Knowing this first, that no 'pro'phecy of Scripture is of any 
 private interpretation.'''' As if it had not been enough for his 
 zeal to condemn the principle, he returns again to the subject, 
 and warns men of its ruinous consequences. " In which also 
 (he says, speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul) are some things 
 
 1 " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the 
 word -wath all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those 
 things were so." In rendering the passage thus, the Protestant translators consulted 
 rather the necessities of Protestantism than fidelity to the text. The passage has 
 been corrupted, in order to secure, in favour of Protestant doctrine, a support from 
 English Scripture which the Greek refused to aftbrd. The sacred writer appears, from 
 the English version, to assign the superiority of the Bereans to tlie fact tliat they 
 searched the Scriptures. But the original only narrates the fact, without either 
 qualifying it, or making it a ground of commendation : 'Ovroi hi jjirav tuyinim^oi ru, 
 IV BurrxXonxvi oirins iSi^'xiro tov Xoj-ov, x.t.x. " These Were more noble than those of 
 Thessalonica, who," &c. 
 
70 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 liard to he understood, -wliicli they that are unlearned and 
 unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their 
 own destruction," 2 Peter iii. 16. Protestants are, of course, 
 neither convinced nor silenced by those texts ; for the right 
 they claim to explain is extended, when the text formally con- 
 tradicts their opinions, into a right to explain aivay the Scrip- 
 ture. The difficult passages referred to are said to be " non- 
 essentials." All that is essential to be believed, is easily 
 understood and interpreted. The proper answer to this start- 
 ling assumption, is the repetition of St. Peter's words. Were 
 anything more required, it would be found in the fact, that the 
 consequence of the erroneous judgment in question is the eternal 
 destruction of the aspirants to " the right of private interpre- 
 tation." Passages, whose misinterpretation involves this 
 penalty, have a well-merited title to be ranked among " essen- 
 tials." Since, then, the Scriptures acknowledge no such right 
 to Christians as is claimed by Protestants, but, on the contrary, 
 condemn it in express terms, it ought to be abandoned by 
 those who profess to make the Bible their sole rule of faith. 
 
 3. We shall take but a passing glance at some of the prac- 
 tical difficulties which must be encountered by any one who 
 undertakes to interpret Scripture for himself. The oldest copy 
 of any part of the Hebrew text dates from the beginning of 
 the twelfth century. Of the Greek texts, the copy known by 
 the title of Codex Vaticanus is the most ancient. It was 
 written about the middle of the fourth century. It will thus 
 be seen that the original of no portion of the Scripture exists 
 at the present day. We have only copies, and in the case of 
 at least St. Matthew's Gospel, the copy only of a translation. 
 The Protestant interpreter must satisfy himself that the copies 
 and translations are in conformity with the original. This is 
 possible for him only by means of tradition, and that is to him 
 a sealed book. This task is anyhow more difficult from the 
 many variations which are to be found among the ancient 
 copies of the sacred books. The different readings published 
 by Mills, in his celebrated edition of the Greek New Testa- 
 ment, amounted to upwards of thirty thousand. The edition 
 from which we have taken the Greek texts previously cited. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTUKE. 71 
 
 contains, besides tlie different readings given by Mills, many- 
 thousands which have been more recently discovered. How 
 is the unlearned Protestant to distinguish the words of the 
 inspired writers from the mistakes and interpolations of copy- 
 ists ? To him who would draw his faith from the Bible alone, 
 this distinction is of essential importance ; for while the true 
 text is the word of God, the variations are only the word of 
 man. It must be admitted by Protestants, that our Saviour 
 did not constitute the English Bible the rule of faith; and 
 that, even if the Scriptures were the rule, the original texts 
 alone, as is maintained by the Westminster Confession, could 
 claim the title. The right and duty, therefore, of private in- 
 terpretation, means the right and duty of every Protestant to 
 interpret for himself the Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek originals. 
 Thus Dr. Kitto, in his preface to the Biblical Cyclopedia, 
 says — " The science which discloses to us the tenets of holy 
 writ, we call biblical exegesis, or interpretation. It involves 
 the difficult task of discovering the true meaning attached to 
 the words by the writer. To be able to do this, a thorough 
 knowledge of the language in which the author has written 
 down his thoughts is indispensable; consequently, a i^rofound 
 knoioledge of Hebrew for the Old Testament, and of Greek for 
 the New, is of the ^dmost necessity ^ and is one of the first requi- 
 sites in an expounder of the Bible. But as the sacred writings 
 have greatly suffered from, and have been disfigured by, tlie 
 liberties of transcribers and emendators,* it is needful to try to 
 discover or restore the real words of the original text." Are 
 such qualifications very general among Presbyterians ? Is the 
 working man able to interpret Scripture for himself? Is the 
 merchant or man of business able ? Is the literary man able ? 
 Nay, how many ministers can boast of a " thorough knowledge 
 of Hebrew and Greek," or find the necessary leisure and faci- 
 lities for deciphering and comparing manuscripts, and estimat- 
 ing their age, authenticity, and comparative authority ? Yet 
 all these requisites are but " the first requisites'''' to the interpre- 
 
 ' Compare this language with that of the Confession of Faith, when justifying its 
 supposed rule — " The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek 
 . . being, by God's singular care and providence, kept pm-e in all ages." 
 
72 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 tation of Scripfiwe. Did we not find it sulemnly declared in 
 the authoritative exposition of Presbyterianism, that this 
 " right and duty of private judgment," requiring, as it does, 
 for its exercise, such rare attainments and opportunities, had 
 been established by Jesus Christ, we should have doubted the 
 possibility of such a doctrine having been ever put forward by 
 sane men. What ideas the authors of the Westminster Con- 
 fession entertained of the wisdom and goodness of our Saviour, 
 we know not ; but their doctrine, that he has bestowed on his 
 people a " right," but denied them the power to use it; that 
 he has laid upon them a " duty," which he knew they could 
 not possibly perform, shows that they were not of the most 
 exalted nature. It will, no doubt, be said by Protestants, 
 that it is sufficient for the people to interpret the English Bible, 
 admitting, on the authority of the translators, that it conveys 
 with sufficient accuracy the meaning of the original. But, 
 1st, the English Bible is not the Protestant rule of faith. 2d, 
 Even if it were, hoAvever, the Protestant cannot receive it upon 
 liuman authority, without admitting a7?upon human authority, 
 and making man the rule of faith. 3d, It would still be neces- 
 sary to the exercise of private judgment, that every one should 
 assure himself, by personal examination, that the translation 
 he uses is faithful. This obligation will appear the more 
 imperative, when the number, and above all, the nature, of the 
 errors in the Protestant Bible are considered. There are many 
 passages, bearing on controverted doctrines, in which the Pro- 
 testant translators have permitted their prejudices to triumph 
 over their sense of duty, and to give a sectarian colour to their 
 translation, while not a few texts have been altogether 
 i\ilsified.i 
 
 4. As error is necessarily self-contradictory, Ave need not 
 look beyond Protestantism itself for a complete demonstration 
 of the futility of " private judgment." The existence of a 
 Church, of a Catechism, or of a Confession of Faith, is an 
 authentic protest against the " right" in question; Avhile it is 
 opposed, with no less force, by the standards of Scotch Pres- 
 byterianism. These define the Church to " consist of all those 
 
 1 A few examples will be found in Aj)pendix C. 
 
KEI.ATIONS TO SCUIPTURE. 73 
 
 throughout the world that j^rofess the true religion^ together 
 with their children, and is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no 
 ordinary possibility of salvation.''''^ They declare and oblige 
 their members to adopt the declaration, that their doctrines 
 are those of Jesus Christ, and that the adherents of the Con- 
 fession of Faith are members of the true Church of Jesus Christ, 
 out of which there is not salvation. " We all, and every one 
 of us, . . . subscribe with our hands, and constantly 
 affirm before God and the whole world, that this only is the 
 true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God and bringing 
 salvation to man, which now (1580) is, by the mercy of God, 
 KEVE ALED to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel ; 
 and is received and defended by many and sundry notable 
 kirks and realms, hut chiefly hy the Kirk of Scotland, the King's 
 majesty, and three estates of thig realm, as God's eternal truth, 
 and only ground of om- salvation."^ The founders of Scotch 
 Presbyterianism not only denied private judgment to others, 
 but bound themselves by an oath, never, during life, to make 
 use themselves of the dangerous " right." They continue — 
 " And finally, . . . promising and swearing hy the great 
 name of the Lord our God, that we shall continue in the ohedi- 
 ence of the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend 
 the same, according to our vocation and power, all the days of 
 our lives, under the pains contained in the law, and danger 
 both of body and soul in the day of God's fearful judgments.''^ 
 Now, apart from the astounding assertion, that the truths of 
 Christianity Avere revealed about the year 1580, in favour of 
 '' the Kirk of Scotland, the King's majesty, and the three estates 
 of this realm;" and abstracting from the inconsistency of ■Pro- 
 testants swearing constancy to any doctrine, the fundamental 
 sentiment of the above extract is in itself such as a church 
 must entertain. For, faith is certainty. Nay, it is certainty 
 of the highest order, for its guarantee is the Divine veracity. 
 A church can exist only by professing to hold divine faith ; 
 and, consequently, every church must profess certainty in the 
 
 ' Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. 2. 
 2 Confession of Fail h or Xutional Coi-enunt. 3 y^/rf. 
 
74 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 doctrines she holds to have been divinely revealed. As, more- 
 over, God has revealed truth in order that it should be believed, 
 his will is, that man, by accepting revealed truth, should 
 render Him the homage of his intellect, " bringing into cap- 
 tivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ."^ 
 Can a church, then, which believes its own doctrines to have 
 been revealed, admit a right in any man to reject them, and 
 thus frustrate the immediate object for which they were 
 revealed ? Can it even admit a right of choice ? Heresy is 
 sin. For the denial, or rejection, or corruption of revealed truth 
 is opposed to the will and command of God, just as theft or 
 murder. It is because error is sin, that " they who believe 
 not shall be condemned." Man possesses, indeed, the 'power 
 to commit sin, but not the right. He has the power of choice, 
 for he has free-will, but not the right to choose. To embrace 
 virtue and truth is a duty expressly commanded by God, and 
 therefore man can have no right to choose whether he will 
 believe or not — whether he will believe truth or error, any 
 more than he has a right to choose whether he will practise 
 vice or virtue. Where God commands, miconditional obedi- 
 ence alone is the part of man. It is evident, then, that no 
 church which believes its own doctrines can possibly admit a 
 right in any one to refuse his assent to her teaching. She 
 must consider belief, on the part of all, as an absolute duty. 
 Thus a church, by the sole fact of its existence, enters a most 
 unequivocal protest against the " right of private judgment ;" 
 and a church which professed to grant or acknowledge such a 
 right, would but delude its members with a mock right ; unless, 
 indeed, it be possible to suppose a church which neither 
 believes nor requires belief in the truths of revelation. It 
 follows from this, that infallibility is of tlie very essence of the 
 time Church ; and that even false churches cannot subsist but 
 by acting as if they themselves had that infallibility against 
 which they protest. The testimony such churches afford 
 against " private judgment," is not less valuable because in 
 flagrant contradiction with their principles. It is the very 
 nature of things which compels them to overthrow the pve- 
 
 1 2 L'or. X. 0. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 75 
 
 tended right upon which they strive to base the justice of the 
 Reformation. Does not the body which could have demanded 
 the oath above cited, necessarily suppose its own infallibility ? 
 If that body could have supposed itself deceived in holding 
 the doctrines to which it required subscription, or if it could 
 have supposed itself as possibly deceiving those to whom it 
 proposed the doctrines, it never could have enjoined the oath. 
 For an oath cannot be taken where there is not certainty, and 
 certainty is not possible where the proposer of the fact or doc- 
 trine to which the oath is demanded can deceive, or be himself 
 deceived in admitting it. Unless, then, the General Assembly, 
 in demanding this oath to the truth of the doctrines it proposed, 
 believed itself to be incapable of deceiving or being deceived, 
 its procedure would have been no less immoral and impious 
 than tyrannical. It is on the supposition of the Kirk's infal- 
 libility that her claim to authority in matters of faith can be 
 understood. '' It belongeth to synods and councils ministe- 
 rially to determine controversies of faith, . . . which 
 decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, 
 are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for 
 their agreement with the word, hut also for the poive^' wherehy 
 they are made, being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto 
 in his word."^ Were there on the part of the Kirk any latent 
 longings after the prerogative of infallibility, they would per- 
 fectly harmonize with this article. But of what avail to Pres- 
 byterianism could this solitary instance of consistency prove? 
 The article is in contradiction not less formal with the Pro- 
 testant system, than would be the claim to infallibility itself. 
 Protestantism is a caput tnsanahtle, which cannot be purged of 
 contradictions. Although the power is asserted in the above 
 article to be derived from God, there is yet a superior authority 
 acknowledged to exist somewhere; for the clause, " if agreeable 
 to the word of God," necessarily supposes an authority to 
 judge the acts of the synod, and pronounce definitively on 
 their conformity or non-conformity with the Bible. There is, 
 indeed, no little confusion here ; and we should think it a 
 difficult matter for Protestants to learn what they are to 
 
 ' Confession of Faith, chap. xxxi. 3. 
 
tQ CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 believe, or wliere to liave recourse on controverted questions. 
 For, first, the individual is said to have the right, which is the 
 foundation of Protestantism, of interpreting the Scriptures for 
 himself; then it is said that the Church has authority from 
 God to interpret and settle controversies, and tliat to her deci- 
 sion the individual must submit. Again, it is asserted that 
 neither the individual nor the Church is the intei-preter, but 
 the Bible itself; and again, that the Holy Ghost, speaking in 
 the Scripture, is the supreme judge in all controversies ; and, 
 finally, as we have just seen, all is tlirown again into the hands 
 of the individual, Avho is to judge for himself whether the 
 decrees of the Church be according to the teaching of the 
 Spirit. The Free Church involves the matter in still greater 
 difficvdty, by seeming to deny the right of the individual to 
 judge the Church's decisions, but yet conceding him a right 
 of appeal from them.^ The appeal is not, however, as might 
 have been expected, to " the Bible as the ultimate rule and 
 standard," but to Jesus Christ. This implies, either that 
 there is no rule of fiiith, or that the rule is the Church ; for 
 there is no appeal aclmoivledged from the Ghurclis decision to 
 any authority upon earthy not even to the Bible ; and the rale 
 of faith is but another name for the highest authority on earth 
 in matters of faith. 
 
 From this dark mass of contradiction, one truth stands fortli 
 intact and indestructible, resplendent in contrast with the 
 dense obscurity from the midst of which it sprung. It is, that 
 infallihility is an essential attrihute o/the Church, since even 
 churches which expressly renounce intallibility for themselves 
 
 1 " Are tlie office-bearers of the Church not liable to err ? Doubtless, they may 
 err. Is there no remedy to those aggrieved by their proceedings? Doubtless, 
 they have a remedy. They can take their appeal to the Head of the Church. 
 What does this right of appeal imply ? That the right of private judgment belongs 
 to the individual members and office-bearers of the Church. Are those who take an 
 appeal to Christ at liberty to disregard the sentence of which they complain ? They 
 are, hut at their peril, and as thej- shall answer to Christ when he decides on their 
 appeal." — Free Kirk Catechism, Q. 95 — 98. This is strange doctrine indeed, that 
 Christ has left no final authority on earth to decide in matters of faith, but that cer- 
 tainty as to the doctrine which men are to believe cannot be had till the day of 
 judgment. And it is altogether incomprehensible, how an appeal to the proper 
 tribunal can involve peril, if God himself had conferred the riglit of appeal. 
 
KELATIOXS TO SCRIPTUliE. 77 
 
 are yet compelled, in direct opposition to tlieir profession, to 
 establish, as the first indispensable reqiiisite to their having 
 the form of a church, the very infallibility they repudiate. 
 That Church alone, then, which claims infallibility has logical 
 existence. All others are but carcasses, for they are neces- 
 sarily in contradiction with themselves, and contradiction 
 necessarily produces dissolution. Yet the necessary truth 
 they involved survives. It is the gold ornament which is 
 found unbroken and uncorroded amid the mouldering dust 
 and bones of the charnel-house. The Free Kirk shall com- 
 plete the argument against " the right of private judgment :" — 
 " The commission authoritatively to declare the mind of Christ, 
 respecting all the a fairs of his Church, was given NOT TO THE 
 MEMBERS, but to the pastors and presbyters of the Church."^ 
 
 III. THE EXERCISE OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT RENDERS FAITH IMPOSSIBLE. 
 
 Faith is described in the Westminster Confession as being 
 " the grace wliereby tlie elect are enabled to believe to the 
 saving of their souls ; the work of the spirit of Christ in their 
 hearts. . . . By this faith a Christian believeth to be 
 true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of 
 God himself speaking therein." (Chap, xiv.) We pass over at 
 present the grave errors involved in this description, as our 
 immediate object regards only the truths which it contains. 
 The first great truth here admitted is, that the act of faitli, 
 without which salvation is impossible, is an act of belief made on 
 the authority of God. The second great truth is, that the object 
 of this act of belief is "whatsoever God has revealed." Faith 
 is, then, essentially supernatural, both in its motive and in its 
 object ; for its object is the truth, as God has revealed it, and 
 its motive the veracity of God, who makes the revelation. 
 Wherever, therefore, the supernatural motive or ol)ject is 
 wanting, there cannot be faith. Since the truths of faith rest 
 immediately on the authority of God, they are infsillibly 
 certain. Since, too, the man who has faith has the authority 
 of God for the truths which he believes, he has infallible 
 
 1 Free Kirk Catechism, Q. 453. 
 
78 (!ALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 certainty. Thus, faith, really such, is absolute unwavering 
 certainty. 
 
 In the system of the Westminster divines, the individual 
 believer becomes, by the above definition, infallible as well as 
 impeccable. For the Confession of Faith declares that grace, 
 once conferred, can never be lost, and that faith alone justifies 
 a man, as well as enables him to believe the truths of revela- 
 tion. The Catholic Church, however, teaches that grace may 
 be lost ; and that even faith may be uprooted by enormous 
 or long-continued sin. The individual, therefore, although 
 infallibly certain of the truth of those doctrines proposed to 
 him, so long as he continues in his allegiance to the Church, 
 through which the authority of God can be realized, in which 
 the Spirit of God teaches, according to the declaration of our 
 Saviour — "he that heareth you, heareth me," is not infallible. 
 At all times, but especially in these days, when the love of 
 money, which St. Paul reckons the great cause of heresy, has 
 become the motive power of society, it is necessary to warn men 
 to "continue in the faith, grounded, and settled, and immove- 
 able;"^ and to preserve, in the midst of infidelity and seduction, 
 " a good conscience, which some rejecting, have made ship- 
 wreck concerning the faith. "^ From the nature of faith, it is 
 then evident — 1°, that a man cannot have faith in a doctrine 
 if he entertain any doubt or uncertainty as to its truth ; 2°, 
 that even where he is convinced of the objective truth of a 
 doctrine, if he has any doubt or uncertainty as to whether he 
 lias the autliority of God for believing it to have been revealed, 
 he has not faith. For that a doubt can be entertained as to 
 the truth of that which is received on the autliority of God is 
 impossible, as it is also impossible that the formal motive of 
 belief in a dogma is the authority of God, when the existence 
 of this authority in its favour is doubtful or uncertain ; 3°, 
 religious opinions are essentially different from faith. 
 
 This brings us to the question of such vital importance to 
 
 the Protestant. Is it possible for man, by the exercise of 
 
 private judgment, either to arrive at certainty as to what 
 
 those truths are to Avhich God demands his assent ; or to ob- 
 
 1 Colos. i. 2;). 2 J 'ii,„_ i_ i,i_ 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTUliE. 79 
 
 tain the authority of God, as the ground of his belief in the 
 doctrines he professes ? It is here admitted that the doctrines 
 contained or sanctioned in the Bible have been revealed by- 
 Almighty God ; and that, therefore, they are the proper object 
 of faith ; and have, in the authority of God, by whom they 
 Avere revealed, the formal motive of faith. Protestantism has 
 established private interpretation, as the legitimate means of 
 discovering what the doctrines are which the Scriptm-es con- 
 tain. This means, we maintain, to be altogether inadequate 
 to the attainment of faith, either as to its object or motive. 
 
 1. The doctrinal expositions of all Protestant sects deny 
 that any Church or any individual is infallible. They make 
 fallibility in matters of faith, to be an essential predicate of 
 the human intellect. No judgment which man can form will 
 they admit to be infallible. This universal fallibility is 
 necessarily an axiom with Protestants. For, were they to 
 admit any infallible individual or body, they Avould admit the 
 obligation of all men to adhere to his judgment on all doc- 
 trines, in regard of which his infallibility was acknowledged. 
 Protestants must, therefore, admit, that in the exercise of their 
 private judgment, they are liable to error ; and that, conse- 
 quently, their interpretations of Scripture may be erroneous. 
 But his interpretation of Scripture is what the Protestant 
 judges to be the doctrines of Scripture. Since, then, he admits 
 that his judgment may have been erroneously formed, he must 
 also admit that what he considers to be the doctrine of Scrip- 
 tm-e may, in reality, be not the doctrine of Scripture, but an 
 erroneous opinion of his own. But the object of his belief is 
 that which his judgment presents to him as the revealed truth ; 
 and this he admits, by acknowledging the fallibility of his 
 judgment, may not be revealed truth, but his own erroneous 
 opinion. By the exercise of private interpretation, then, no 
 other object of belief can ever be obtained, than an opinion 
 which may confessedly be erroneous. But an opinion which 
 may be erroneous, cannot be the object of faith ; for it is not 
 a revealed truth, and revealed truth alone is the object of 
 faith ; nor has it the sole motive of faith — the authority of 
 God — for if it had, it could not possibly be erroneous. From 
 
80 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 the exercise of private interpretation, opinion only can l)e 
 obtained ; bnt God never revealed an opinion. Faith is, 
 therefore, simply incompatible -with the exercise of private 
 judgment. 
 
 We do not, however, require the admission of Protestants, 
 in order to know how liable private judgment is to err in 
 matters of faith. Although absolute certainty may be attained 
 by reason in regard of things which are of the natural order, 
 it must be carefully borne in mind that the truths of revela- 
 tion lie beyond the sphere of reason — that they can be known 
 only by a revelation from God ; and only to the extent, and 
 in the manner. He has been pleased to reveal them. Where, 
 then, the revelation has been made in a past age, its truths 
 can be made known only by testimony. If the language of 
 the witness who announces those truths be obscure, or admit 
 of various interpretations, the attempts of reason to clear up 
 the obscurity, and bring out the one true interpretation, must 
 ever give an uncertain result. For the natm'al powers of 
 man, and the natural objects of his knowledge, are of a differ- 
 ent order from the truths which he seeks to obtain. And it 
 must not be forgotten, that even those natural powers have 
 been deteriorated and weakened,^ so that the certain attain- 
 ment of tnith, even in the natural order, is not unfrequently 
 difficult, sometimes it is impossible. What hope, then, of a 
 certain result, can that man have Avho attempts, by his natural 
 powers, to discover doctrines which differ in their nature from 
 all things of which he has naturally cognizance? Analogies 
 or comparisons between natural and supernatural are evidently 
 perilous — they may often be erroneous, they must always be 
 inconclusive. To these elements of uncertainty and error, 
 must be added uncertain, or even fallacious principles of 
 judgment, which have been adopted upon insufficient grounds, 
 or having been imbibed from prevailing modes of reasoning, 
 without ever being formally examined, or distinctly brought 
 
 s The "Westminster Confession goes so far as to make the attainment of truth not 
 only doubtful, but impossible. It declares that since the fall, "we are utterly in- 
 disposed, disabled, and made opposite to all iiwd, and wholly inclined to all evil." 
 Chap. vi. 4. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 81 
 
 up before the mind, liave been allowed to lie as it were latent. 
 Those only who have been accustomed to analyse the phe- 
 nomena of their own minds, can appreciate the extent to which 
 those latent principles influence the judgments even of men 
 who have made generous efforts to divest themselves of all 
 that they looked upon as prejudice. The question of Philip, 
 " Understandest thou the Scripture which thou readest?" was 
 answered by the Ethiopian eunuch in the name of the human 
 race, "and how can I, unless some man show me?" And, in 
 fact, the truth of this humble acknowledgment of inability 
 received the sanction of God ; for a man was divinely sent to 
 point out the true interpretation. 
 
 If a just estimate be formed of the power of such influences 
 as we have alluded to, and still more, of the constant though 
 unacknowledged agency of passion, interest, human respect, 
 and a will indisposed to the confession of previous eiTor, neither 
 the number nor the magnitude of those differences which liavc 
 shivered the work of Luther into a thousand pieces, will cause 
 us much surprise. It is with Protestants as with all who 
 speculate upon subjects on wliich they have not been instructed 
 by some man qualified to show them their nature : they leap 
 at conclusions without any process of reasoning whatever ; 
 they set up objects of comparison where no points of resem- 
 blance are to be discovered, and fly to the most extravagant 
 and untenable principles and hypotheses, in order to avoid 
 some difficulty which their own imagination, it may be, or the 
 want of some simple principle, had conjured up. The Bible 
 is, in fact, forced into the eccentric mould of a contracted 
 and undisciplined judgment, and made to assume forms the 
 most violent, contradictory, and flxntastic, instead of bemg, as 
 Protestants so fondly but so falsely imagine, the standard to 
 which they conform their ideas. There is no doctrine asserted, 
 on the authority of Scripture, interpreted by private judgment, 
 by any sect of Protestants, which is not, on the same authority, 
 refuted and anathematized by some other. Tlie nature of 
 God, his attributes ; the sacraments, their number, nature, 
 administration, and power ; the inspii-ation of Scripture, and 
 the number of inspired books ; grace, liberty, eternal punish- 
 
82 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 inents, good works, faith, are a few of those suhjects on wlilch 
 the various sects of Protestantism are at open war with each 
 other. Yet each of these sects employs the same rule of faith, 
 which it consults and applies Ly the same means ; they all 
 possess the same authority to form their judgments ; and claim, 
 on the same gTOunds, the same supernatural assistance in their 
 task of interpretation. It frequently happens that contending 
 sects seize upon the same passage of the sacred text, the one 
 passionately maintaining that it establishes, the other as 
 resolutely asserting that it refutes, the disputed doctrine. The 
 seamless garment of Christ is rent by clamorous combatants, 
 who, bending the knee, call Him their King, whom they are 
 hurrying off to execution as a teacher of contradictions, and a 
 deceiv^er of the people. 
 
 As an illustration of the working of the Protestant principle, 
 we may instance the conti'oversies upon the Avords — " This is 
 my body." Upon this simple affirmation, Protestants have 
 advanced upwards of fifty different opinions. Some, with 
 Luther, maintain, that words so plain, so often repeated in 
 Scripture, uttered on so solemn an occasion, cannot be ex- 
 plained away, or taken in any other than the literal sense, 
 Avithout overturning the whole system of Bible teaching;. 
 For they who assert that our Saviour gave only a figure of 
 his body, when He says he gave his body itself, can answer 
 nothing to those who maintain that Christ gaA^e himself up to 
 death only in figiu-e, although he says, '' This is my body 
 Avliich is broken for you;" or that " the Word Avas God;" or 
 that " the Word Avas made flesh ;" or that '' God created the 
 heavens and the earth." For not one of these truths is more 
 forcibly or more clearly affirmed than the one in (question. 
 Their opponents, hoAvever, have a strong impression, that tlie 
 real presence is an impossible doctrine; and their gi-and object 
 is to shoAV that it is neither " set doAvn in Scripture, nor can 
 by good and necessaiy consequence be deduced from it." 
 Ilcre the principle is distinctly admitted, that the object of 
 faith is not the mere words, but the true interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture. Those Avho deny the doctrine of the real presence, must 
 even go so far as to hold, that a man may assert a doctrine in 
 
KELATIOXS TO SCRIPTURE. 83 
 
 tlie very Avords of inspiration which shall nevertheless 1)C 
 erroneous, while he may maintain a real Scripture doctrine 
 which can be correctly expressed only ly the contradiction of 
 the text. For the doctrine of the Eucharist, which the 
 majority of Protestants hold to be scriptural, cannot be 
 gathered from the text, " this is my body," while it would be 
 accurately conveyed by the contrary, " this is not my body." 
 Let us follow still farther this process of private interpretation. 
 Protestants say that Scripture is to be compared with Scrip- 
 ture, and the passages which are clear Avill serve to illustrate 
 those which are obscure. This canon of interpretation seems, 
 at first sight, very satisfactory and very reasonable 5 but in 
 practice it is of difficult application, as the contending parties 
 claim, each for itself, the clear texts, and insist upon their 
 adversaries explaining all other passages in accordance with 
 them. Thus every sectarian considers all texts which he 
 thinks favour his own vieAvs to be clear texts, and those which 
 oppose him to be ol)Scure. However, let us apply the rule, 
 such as it is. Let us examine, in succession, all the passages 
 which bear upon the real presence, and find, if possible, words 
 clearer than the proposition, ''this is my body," by which 
 these may be made to say, '' this is not my body." Dol-s, 
 then, the account of St. JMark tend in any Avay to show that 
 the words of institution, as cpioted above from St. Matthew's 
 gospel, are to be understood in a figurative sense ? St. ]\Iark 
 gives the same identical expressions. St. Luke, Avho also 
 records the institution of the Eucharist, repeats the same 
 terms. St. Paul, declaring the doctrine Avhich he " had re- 
 ceived of the Lord," uses the same words, '^ take and eat, this 
 is my body J' '^ The accounts of the institution are not, how- 
 ever, the only portions of Scripture in which this doctrine is 
 spoken of St. Paul reasons upon the Eucharist, drawing 
 from the nature of this sacrament practical consequences which 
 should have perpetual influence in the Christian church. He 
 insists on the necessity of reflection and self-examination on 
 the part of intending communicants, lest, by precipitance or 
 negligence, they should fail to discern in the sacrament "the 
 
 1 1 Cor. -xi. 24. 
 
84 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 body of the Lord." Tlie unworthy communicant he pro- 
 nounces to be guilty, not against a figure, but " of the body 
 and hlood of the Lordy All this is evidently unfavourable to 
 those Avho interpret figuratively. Here is a public teacher, 
 declaring a certain act to be sinful, and explaining the nature 
 of the sin. In such an exercise of his office, figurative 
 language would not only be out of place, it would inevitably 
 produce confusion of ideas, and give rise to the formation of a 
 false conscience ; while the langiiage of exaggeration would 
 be equivalent to deceit. Where, then, the guilt of the Lord's 
 body and blood can be contracted, there the body and blood 
 of the Lord must exist. But the apostle does not confine 
 himself to the effects of bad communions; he likewise explains 
 their cause. It is the spirit of Rationalism refusing obedience 
 to the teaching of faith. '■'■ He that eateth and drinketh 
 unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not 
 discerning the body of the Lordy The body of the Lord can 
 be discerned only where it exists ; and it cannot be a crime 
 in any one not to perceive it where it does not exist. Lest 
 the people should still be more inclined to trust to the outward 
 appearance than to the sure word of faith, the apostle affirms 
 the real presence in the strongest form that language affords — 
 an interrogation: — "The chalice of benediction which we bless, 
 is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread 
 which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the 
 Lord?" To the Protestant these texts must, we presume, be 
 themselves obscure ; for if the words of institution are to 
 receive any light from St. Paul, they must, more than before, 
 be accepted in their literal signification. We must then seek 
 elsewhere for the text which is to " speak more clearly." In 
 St. John's gospel (chap, vi.), our Saviour promised that the 
 time should come, when he would give his flesh to be eaten, 
 and his blood to be drank : " I am the living bread which 
 came down from heaven. And the bread that I will give is 
 my flesh, for the life of the world." Here, too, the language 
 is very simple, but in perfect conformity with that of St. Paul 
 and of the other three evangelists. Still Protestants hesitate 
 as to the meaning of our Saviour. The expressions are, 
 
KELATIOXS TO SCRIPTURE. 85 
 
 indeed, tlie same in all the passages ; and each succeeding 
 text serves only to confirm tlie impression natm-ally made hj 
 •the first. But yet the Protestant insists upon his question. 
 "Did our Saviour intend this hmguage to be understood 
 figuratively, or did he really mean that his flesh and blood 
 ■were to become meat and drink to his followers?" This 
 inquiry was anticipated by our Lord, for (v. 56) he says, 
 "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink INDEED" 
 (aXvjdug — truly, really). Any doubt as to the meaning of our 
 Saviour, seems, after such a declaration, impossible. It now 
 only remains for private judgment to question the truth of the 
 doctrine so repeatedly, so strongly declared. Indeed, the princi- 
 pal, if not the sole objection to the real presence, urged by 
 Protestants, is that it seems to be an impossibility — that God 
 could not Avork such a miracle; and that, therefore, the words of 
 Scripture must be made to yield — they must be bent from their 
 obvious sense, and inteii^reted figuratively. How, it is asked, 
 can a body be in many places at once ? How could Christ 
 give, with his own hands, his own flesh to his disciples ? If 
 it were once admitted, that, where God has spoken, man may 
 yet refuse belief to His words, as often as unaided reason does 
 not see how they are to be accomplished, these questions 
 would be admissible. They will naturally occur to men who 
 have not received " the faith of God," nor been able to com- 
 prehend the words— " With God all things are ijossibley The 
 Jews, in fact, summed up the objections of Protestants to 
 our Lord's declarations, in their ready exclamation — " How 
 can this man give us his flesh to eat?" The answer of our 
 Saviour gives no countenance to the idea that he had been 
 using figui'es of speech. It is a repetition, in still more 
 forcible terms, of his precious declaration ; strengthened yet 
 more by the assurance, "Amen, amen, I say unto you; unless 
 you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye 
 shall uot have life in you." The assurance that " with God 
 all things are possible," and the words " my flesh is meat 
 indeed," do not afford a c?M'ec< answer to the "How?" of Jews 
 and Protestants. Both parties remain, therefore, still at issue 
 with our Saviour as to the truth of his asseverations. They 
 
86 CALVINISM IX ITS 
 
 declare that this of the real ])reseiice, '■'■ is a hard saying, who 
 can hear if?" (v, 61.) The Jews, consistently with their 
 sceptical ideas, abandon the teacher, because they cannot 
 listen to his doctrine. But the Protestant, who will neither 
 abandon the teacher nor admit his doctrine, is driven to search 
 for a figurative meaning to apply to words which our Saviour 
 saw that his hearers understood literally ; yet was so far from 
 correcting their literal interpretation as erroneous, that He 
 strengtliened their impression, and permitted them to abandon 
 him for ever, solely because they objected to believe his words 
 in the sense in which he saw they loere understood. To give a 
 colour of probability to an interpretation which was unknown 
 to those who heard the words of our Lord, one solitary verse 
 of the Scripture is singled out (v. 64) : — " It is the Spirit that 
 quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I 
 have spoken to you are spirit and life." This is siipposed to 
 make all jdain.^ It is true, indeed, that wherever, in the 
 
 1 The (Uth (in the Protestant version 63d) verse of St. John's Gospel has much 
 occupied the attention of Protestant commentators. Yet no one of any note will 
 be found who does not reject, v.ith contempt, the interpretation alluded to in the 
 text, which, we believe, is peculiar to our anti-popery expounders. When a man's 
 sole object is, per fas aut nefas, to strike Popery, he will not be restrained by con- 
 siderations of mere probability or consistency. But popular lecturers and others 
 should pause ere they urge, even against Popery, an argument which, if it be not 
 equivalent to a denial of the redemption, is so utterly absurd as to be capable only 
 of throwing ridicule upon the entire science of biblical inter])retation. Does the 
 Protestant refer the word "flesh" literally to the flesh of Christ? AVill he pro- 
 nounce it to be profitless ? This, we believe, many have done. But how they 
 could maintain such an opinion, and yet believe that that flesh had redeemed tlie 
 world, and reconciled man to his offended God, we are at a loss to understand. We 
 may be permitted to suggest an interpretation certainly more in harmony with the 
 analogies of Scripture, and more in keeping with the language aud conduct of our 
 Saviour on the occasion when the words were uttered. Our Saviour, seeing the 
 unwillingness of his hearers to admit the truth of his assertion — "He that eateth 
 my flesh and drinketh my blood, shall abide in me, and I in liini," proceeded to 
 allay the ofl'ence that had been taken at this " hard saying." He assiu-es his 
 disciples that man, as he is by nature dead in sin, is incapable of admitting or 
 appreciating divine truths; that, of himself, he is absolutely fruitless — unable to be- 
 lieve what even a divine authority proposes. But the Spirit gives life, and light, 
 and strength ; and it is to those who have been quickened by the Spirit, that the 
 words of the Spirit— the mysteries of faith — are specially addressed; by them they 
 are received and appreciated. That the meaning we have given to the tenn "flesh," 
 as here contrasted with "spirit," is strictly con-ect, may be seen on a perusal of 
 
IJELATIOXS TO SCRIPTl'RE. bi 
 
 sacred voliiine, the words /&s7< and spirit are contrasted, they 
 mean the corruption and weakness of fallen nature, as com- 
 pared Avith the regenerated and strengthened soul ; and that 
 nowhere do they mean or refer to literal and figurative 
 language. But, in this particular passage, if they were in- 
 terpreted in such a manner as to explain our Saviour's previous 
 words metaphorically, they Avould afford such timely support 
 to the Protestant doctrine, that our popular controversialists 
 have resolved that the "ilesh" shall here, at all hazards, bear 
 the literal, and '' the spirit" the figurative meaning of loords. 
 Had our Saviour given to those disciples who left him in 
 consequence of his 'Miiird saying," any reason to understand 
 the words of verse 64 in this novel sense, they would, un- 
 doubtedly, have continued in their adherence to their beloved 
 Master ; but as they saw no sanction in those words for any 
 modification or figurative interpretation of the "hard saying," 
 after hearing the supposed explanation, " they went back and 
 walked no more with him." How truly might our Lord's 
 reproach to the Sadducees be applied to Protestants — '^ You 
 err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God! " 
 
 From this single instance, the uncertain and unsatisfactory 
 working of private interpretation may be known. Upwards 
 of twenty texts speak on this suliject the same language, 
 declare the same doctrine; and, although showing it in various 
 relations, all exhibit it Avithout a shade of difference or modi- 
 fication. The clearness and simplicity of the language 
 employed could not be greater. Terms more appropriate 
 could not have been found to express the doctrine of the real 
 presence ; terms more inappropriate or more fallacious could 
 not have been selected to convey the figurative meaning of 
 Protestants. Yet a single passage, whose language is, 
 avoAvedly, neither so obvious nor so simple, is itself interpreted 
 in a figurative sense ; and this figurative interpretation is 
 made the authority for rejecting texts in their obvious signi- 
 fication, by forcing upon them a metaphorical meaning, the 
 
 Knmans viii. 1 — 14, and Galatians v. IG — 20. The interpretation \ve have given 
 to the word "profits" {ti^iXiit, to assist, to aid, to avail), is, we subnut, in complete 
 accordance witli the radical signification of the word. 
 
«» CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 most extraordinaiy to be met with in any language. We 
 consider that the Calvinist must abandon the hope of certainty 
 in his explanation. But we would ask him — What ray of 
 probability, that he has obtained the true mterpretation, can 
 cheer his anxious mind? His procedure violates all the 
 canons of inteqDretation ; and, if admitted, woidd speedily re- 
 duce the whole divine revelation to the level of a Geraian 
 myth. He has against him all the authority and learning of 
 the Catholic Church. He is opposed by the Greek and 
 E-ussian Churches, as well as by all the remnants of Nestorian, 
 Eutychian, and other ancient heresies ; while several Protes- 
 tant sects are equally opposed to his meagre creed. Such an 
 accumulation of testimony, adverse to his judgment, might 
 well stagger the confidence of one, whose fundamental princi- 
 ple supposes that he himself may be wrong, and that his 
 adversaries may be right. 
 
 This argument may now be reduced to a more concise form. 
 The man who sees that the probabilities for the adoption or 
 rejection of a doctrine are balanced, or nearly so, cannot be 
 certain that he is right, either in admitting or denying the 
 doctrine. His judgment on the one side or the other, can 
 amount only to a more or less probable opinion. Certainty 
 it cannot be. But the Protestant sees that the probabilities 
 for and against every specific doctrine of his sect are equal, 
 or nearly so. He cannot, therefore, have certainty for the 
 truth of any one of the articles of his creed. The first member 
 of this argument is self-evident. It simply says that a man 
 cannot be certain he is right, when he admits that there 
 is nearly an equal probability he may be wrong. The 
 second member we prove thus : — The probabilities for and 
 against a doctrine are balanced when its opponents are men of 
 equal abilities, equal learning, and equal piety ; and who 
 have formed their judgment by the same right, with the same 
 means ; and drawn their reasons from the same source, and by 
 the same process as its supporters. Now, unless the individual 
 Protestant set himself iip as the most able, the most learned, 
 the most pious, and most favoured of men, by special revela- 
 tions of truth, he must admit that the opponents of his 
 
EELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 89 
 
 doctrinal views are his equals in all those respects. He must, 
 therefore, also admit that the moral probability is as great in 
 favour of their denial as of his affirmation. And as he holds 
 no single doctrine which is not denied by some church or 
 other, he can have no more than a, probability in his favour 
 on any one point. But faith in a probability is an absurdity; 
 for it is a contradiction in terms, since faith is absolute cer- 
 tainty. There can be faith only in what God has revealed ; 
 and He revealed facts, not probabilities. As the exercise, 
 however, of private judgment has been proved to be capable 
 of yielding in matters of revelation only probabilities, it renders 
 faith impossible. 
 
 An explanation is, no doubt, due, and we consider that 
 here it may most fittingly be given, of the manner in which 
 our argument has hitherto been, and, throughout these pages, 
 Avill be conducted. We have, it will be observed, made use 
 of passages from sacred writ, almost exclusively in illustration 
 of our reasoning and definitions. Rarely, if at all, have we 
 sought to introduce them as direct proof of our positions. If 
 we have thus departed from the general course of controversial 
 writers, it has not been without a purpose, which reasons 
 maturely weighed amply justify. 1°. We have seen the 
 Westminster Confession lay down the incontrovertible fact, 
 that the work of the Holy Ohost^ the inspired w^ord of God, is 
 not tlte English Bihle^ but the original texts. Those are the 
 only authentic documents acknowledged by the Confession. 
 Now, an argument conducted by appeals to the original texts, 
 would be altogether unsuited to a popular Avork. And to what 
 pm-pose should we argue from the English Bible against men 
 who deny it to be any authority ? 2°. The words of Scrip- 
 ture, whether in the original texts or in versions, are but the 
 outward instrument for conveying to the reader the word of 
 God. The thought suggested to the mind of the inspired 
 writer by the Holy Spirit, is the word ; and that word, as the 
 Confession of Faith has truly said, "is not manifold, but one." 
 The outward expression may be tortured by the caprice or 
 malice or ignorance of the reader, but the word is eternal 
 truth, one and unchangeable. When the letter is divorced 
 
90 CALVINISM IX ITS 
 
 from the true interpretation, or attacliefl to another, it kilh'th. 
 The language of Scripture, when made to convey a meaning 
 which was not intended by the Holy Spirit, is not the word 
 of God, but error — the perverse offspring of the human mind. 
 3°. The Catholic believes the Church to be the sole authorized 
 interpreter of the Scriptures ; and, therefore, holds that every 
 interpretation which has not been sanctioned by her, or is not 
 in accordance with her teaching, is not the word of God, but 
 error. When, then, the Catholic quotes the language of 
 Scripture, he does so in the sense of the Church ; for this sense 
 alone is true — thus alone is the Scripture the word of God. 
 Does the Protestant admit the application of passages quoted 
 in this sense? Then there can be no controversy between 
 us. He is ready to embrace the entire system of Catholic 
 dogma. Does he deny that, in the sense of the Church, the 
 passages are the word of God? Then they are for him no 
 authority, and any appeal to them would be made in vain. 
 4°. To convince the Protestant, by philological and hernie- 
 neutical principles, that the Catholic is the true interpretation, 
 would be a tedious process, and lead us far beyond the bounds 
 we have prescribed to ourselves. It would, moreover, place 
 the weight of the Church's authority on a seeming level Avith 
 that of the private individual ; and betray us into the incon- 
 sistency of acthig as if the Scripture, interpreted by private 
 judgment, were a true rule of faith — the very doctrine we 
 proposed to demolish. The Protestant is not entitled to make 
 or call upon us to make any appeal to Scripture, until he can 
 show that he has Scripture to appeal to ; and that^ we have 
 ])roved, he cannot show. We might, indeed, have argued 
 fr(^m the Bible as an argument ad Jiominevi; but we have 
 preferred to take the more direct and logical process of bring- 
 ing the Protestant to the only ground he really possesses along 
 with us — our common reason. We convince Protestantism of 
 error and deceit, first, from principles which we demonstrate, or 
 which are admitted by all men ; and, secondly, from its own 
 formularies, whose authority will not be called in question. It 
 seemed to us that our task might thus be most honestly and most 
 effectually accomplished, and that no room for cavil or excep- 
 tion could thus be left to an honourable and consistent opponent. 
 
KELATIOXS TO SCRIPTriM:. 91 
 
 CHAPTER IT. 
 
 ON GOD. 
 
 The all-sufficiency of Scripture, and tlie " rigTit of private 
 judgment," lie at the root of Protestantism. These were not, 
 indeed, the first questions brought up in the contest betAveen 
 the Keformers aird the Church ; but they necessarily preceded, 
 in the minds of all who broke off from the ancient taith, ever}- 
 other innovation. The principles of Protestantism Avere latent 
 in the mind of Luther ; the doctrine of indulgences Avas only 
 the agent Avhich excited their activity. That the Reformers, 
 even before their defection from the Church, acted as if they 
 supposed the entire Christian rcA^elation to be contained in the 
 Bible, is evident from the fact, that they Avould admit only 
 texts of Scripture in proof of reA^ealed truths, and that the 
 Avords of Scripture Avere acknoAvledged by them as authorita- 
 tiA'e, not Avhen explained in the sense of the Church, but as 
 they Avere interpreted by the Reformers themselves. So 
 deeply-rooted, howcA^er, had the principle of Church authority 
 become, that those new principles were, for some time, acted 
 upon by the Reformers, not only unconsciously, but cA-en 
 contrary to their Avishes and intention. Hence Luther long 
 and repeatedly expressed his Avillingness to abandon his 
 innovations, if they should ever be pronounced erroneous by 
 the Pope. Nor did their reiterated condemnation at Rome 
 suffice to make him acknoAvledge the principles on Avliich his 
 reforming career had been conducted, or couA^ince him that he 
 was in open rebellion against the Church. He continued for 
 many years, in spite of his gross and pul)lic acts of insubordi- 
 nation, to profess his readiness to submit to the decision of 
 the Pope " better informed." And it Avas only toAvards the 
 close of his life that he AvithdrcAV (if, indeed, lie ever did 
 
92 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 withdraw) his protestations of submission to the judgment of 
 a General Council. Many causes were, however, at work, to 
 propel the disciples of Luther far beyond their teacher in the 
 career of reform. The element of Rationalism has, since the 
 desire of our first parents to " become as gods, knowing good 
 and evil," been restrained at times, but not eradicated from 
 the human breast. Even the severe enactments of the Mosaic 
 law were insufficient for its total repression. Hence we find 
 the Sadducees denying the mystery of the resm-rection, because 
 of its seeming repugnance to their reason. Jesus Christ gave 
 a new sanction to the principle of authority in matters of 
 faith. But six hundred years elapsed ere it obtained the 
 mastery over that Rationalism, which, more persevering and 
 more dreaded than the sword of the persecutors, strove with- 
 out ceasing, at one time to assault, at another to undermine, 
 the truths of Christianity. At no period has Rationalism been 
 more active than during the first seven centuries of the Chris- 
 tian era. But, under the evident guidance and protection of 
 God, the Church was finally victorious ; and, with the over- 
 throw of Arianism, that principle seemed to disappear. The 
 Church was then left free to devote her energies to the 
 conversion of heathen nations, to the civilization of those 
 barbarous hordes which had been brought in to execute the 
 divine vengeance upon pagan Rome, and to effect a complete 
 revolution in society. It was necessary that the distractions 
 caused by those swarms of sects to which the restless spirit of 
 Rationalism had given rise, should be removed when the 
 Church had before her the great work of moulding society 
 anew, and laying the foundations of the great European 
 monarchies. From time to time, however, the hydra which 
 had been overpowered gave signs of life ; and Photius, 
 Abelard, Wicleff appeared as the heralds of those future evils, 
 of which they were also to a certain extent the cause. 
 
 The revival and excessive study of the heathen classics 
 about the opening of the sixteenth century, did more, however, 
 for the Reformation, than the dogmatic efforts of previous 
 sectaries. The voluptuous poetry of Greece and Rome was 
 ill calculated to strengthen that spirit of mortification and self- 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 93 
 
 restraint wliicli is still made so serious a reproacli to Catholicity, 
 while the philosophy of those countries, by its endless doubts 
 and subtle speculations, adorned as they were with all the 
 graces Avhich the language of men such as Plato and Cicero 
 could impart, tended not less to introduce and foster the spirit 
 of scepticism, than to create in the minds it had eifeminated 
 an aversion to the iron philosophy of the schoolmen. Luther 
 appeared, just as the rage for classical studies had attained its 
 height. Prepared, as were the minds of men, by their passion 
 for the classics, to welcome a religion which should afford free 
 scope to the speculations of reason, and impose a gentler yoke 
 on the appetites than did the unbending morality of the 
 Church, they readily seized upon the principles which were 
 the spring oif Luther's actions, and gave to them a meaning 
 and a development at which their daring author himself stood 
 aghast. Although the principle of Rationalism, which re- 
 ceived its logical development in the systems of the German 
 Anabaptists, of Socinus, of Fox, Swedenborg, Strauss, and 
 perhaps Irving, be really the essence of Protestantism, yet all 
 Protestants have not ranged themselves under the banners of 
 such leaders, nor formed for themselves religions analogous 
 to theirs. For there is another element in Protestantism. 
 Luther and his followers professed to be reformers. They did 
 not come to publish a new, but io reform the old revelation. 
 Thus it was, that, along Avith their own peculiar tenets, most 
 of the Protestant sects have retained several of the doctrines 
 which they carried with them from the Church. It is true, in 
 every case, the old dogmas are in contradiction with the new. 
 But such is the nature of things. And if it were not so, that 
 error destroyed itself, it might have been said that God 
 had left man without sufficient light to distinguish between 
 truth and falsehood. Men cannot "put new wine into old 
 bottles; othenvise the bottles break, and the wine runneth 
 out, and the bottles perish." 
 
 The new and old doctrines being mutually repulsive, have 
 been mixed in Protestantism ; but they cannot, by any process, 
 be combined so as to form one homogeneous body. There is 
 a continual struggle for a separation between elements so un- 
 
94 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 congenial. Tims Protestantism is ever more and more 
 Lrcaking up, and all its developments are towards entire 
 liberty, and a complete emancipation from the trammels of 
 dogmatism. The advanced Protestant of the present daj 
 occupies the ground which was held by the so-called " free- 
 thinkers " of last century. As to those who fear to push their 
 ])rinciples to their results, they ofier to us the melancholy 
 spectacle of men professing to be guided by reason, yet 
 establishing principles against whose legitimate consequences 
 they see themselves compelled to enter, by anticipation, re- 
 peated protests. Again and again, in the Confession of Faith, 
 are doctrines laid down, the authors of which, perceiving at 
 once that the most fatal consequences flow directly from them, 
 have with a moral weakness, equalled only by their reliance 
 on the blind obedience of their followers, declared that the 
 doctrines themselves are to be held, yet so as that their 
 consequences are to be strenuously rejected. When the 
 Westminster divines treat directly of the nature and attributes 
 of God, their language is clear, correct, and eloquent. They 
 simply transcribe the Catholic doctrine. But when, in other 
 articles, they define certain of the new doctrines, in consequence, 
 confusion and imbecility contend for pre-eminence. At one 
 time, as the writers of the Confession feel themselves approach- 
 ing dangerous ground, they close the article abruptly with 
 some pompous nothing, or take themselves off with an 
 edifying but irrelevant text of Scripture. At another, when 
 the results of their principles are so evident that they must 
 occur to the mind of the simplest reader, a formal reprobation 
 of the impiety is recorded. This conflict must continue so 
 long as a single dogma is retained in Protestantism of all that 
 were carried out from the Catholic Church. The Protestant 
 who wishes to retain the old doctrines, must suffer a constant 
 martyrdom from the ncAV. He finds himself continually flying 
 from the face of the creature which his own hands liad made. 
 He turns on every side for some asylum or means of escape 
 from his relentless foe. 
 can find none. He is 
 never coming to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
EELATIOXS TO SC.'RirTURE. 95 
 
 Tlic cToctrincs of Calvin, which have heen cmlxxlied in the 
 Westminster Confession, arc hekl, at the present day, in their 
 integrity, liy few, perhaps, besides the ultra-evangelicals. 
 Yet they have never been formally repudiated. They retain, 
 unchanged, their place in the Confession of Faith and Cate- 
 chisms ; and the office-bearers and communicants of the 
 Presbyterian bodies are still required to subscribe to their 
 truth. It can scarcely be believed that the nature of these 
 doctrines is known by the majority of those who profess them; 
 for they are quite irreconcilable with the language generally 
 used by Presbyterians when speaking of the divine attributes. 
 We shall demonstrate, in this chapter, that the doctrines of 
 the Westminster Confession strip God of his Justice, his 
 Truth, and his Sanctity. 
 
 Section I. — The Justice of Gon. 
 
 There are certain doctrines of Calvinism which the Confes- 
 sion of Faith orders "to be handled with special prudence and 
 care." (Chap. iii. 8.) The defenders of Calvinism, when speak- 
 ing of these doctrines, dwell much upon the weakness of human 
 reason, and the necessity of a jealous guard against its intrusion 
 into the domain of faith ; and affect a modesty of expression 
 Avliich would be highly edifying and exceedingly honourable 
 to their religious sentiments, were it only consistent with their 
 general conduct, or honestly intended to define the boundaries 
 between faith and reason. But men who reject books of 
 Scripture, because they find their opinions condemned in those 
 books ; and who deny doctrines established by the clearest 
 Avords of the books they do admit, because such doctrines are 
 above the order of nature and incomprehensible to reason, 
 cannot be permitted to withdraw at pleasure their opinions 
 from the bar of that reason to which they themselves had 
 appealed; much less can they be allowed to hold unchallenged 
 opinions which make a mockery of the universal reason of 
 mankind, merely because they are supported by the authority 
 of Calvin. No truth can be in contradiction with any other 
 truth. The truths of revelation cannot be in contradiction 
 with the truths of reason. For God is the author of reason as 
 
96 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 %yell as of revelation, and he cannot be in contradiction witli 
 himself. If, therefore, an opinion or interpretation of Scrip- 
 tare be in evident contradiction with a trntli which, lying 
 within the natnral order, is or has been made really evident 
 to reason, that opinion or interpretation must be erroneous. 
 
 There are certain ideas and principles which precede in the 
 human mind all reasoning, and all belief grounded upon 
 reasoning. To these principles and ideas all reasoning can 
 be traced back ; for by them only is it intelligible, and from 
 them it derives its validity. Were they to be displaced or 
 called in question, reasoning and knowledge would become 
 impossible. To unsettle them is to overtm-n reason itself. 
 In the moral order, such are the ideas of good, right, respon- 
 sibility, guilt, duty. The first principles of morality are 
 practical forms of those primary ideas. Although they are 
 expressed as judgments, and the expression may be both the 
 object and the result of a judgment, the principles themselves 
 are anterior to the judgment in which they are expressed, and 
 are held and acted on independently of all formulas of morality. 
 They are believed, not in consequence of reflection and judg- 
 ment, but because their truth is seen and felt — it is an object 
 of consciousness. All men feel and know that they are 
 responsible ; that they can contract guilt ; that they can do 
 wrong ; that they can abstain from doing it ; that the limit 
 of power is the limit of duty ; that where duty ceases, guilt 
 can no longer be contracted ; and that the degree of guilt is 
 the measure of punishment. Such are a few of those principles 
 we have been alluding to, which bear more immediately upon 
 the questions to be discussed in this chapter. They cannot 
 be proved by direct demonstration, and they stand in need of 
 no proof; for they are self-evident as soon as understood. 
 The universality of these principles shows that they are not ac- 
 quired by a process, but have been planted in the human breast 
 by the hand of God. By them society exists. All the rules of 
 human actions are grounded on them, or framed in relation to 
 them. On their truth all laws are based, and justice is ad- 
 ministered. Even those who have called them in question, 
 find it impossible to act without supposing their truth. Like 
 
DELATIONS TO SCRirTUUE. 97 
 
 the sophists who deny the possibility of motion, or the 
 existence of an exterior world, they are compelled, with the 
 crowd, to laugh at their own sophistry, which in truth serves 
 only to puzzle or irritate the scholar, and to forget all their 
 theories from the moment they lay aside the mantle of Zeno, 
 and descend from the halls of the academy into the walks of 
 real life. 
 
 I. Among those who have signalized themselves by their 
 efforts to overturn the first principles of morality, the leaders 
 of the Reformation occupy a conspicuous position. All of 
 them did not, indeed, so directly as Zwingle, Luther, and 
 Melancthon, subvert the justice of God ; but, by establishing 
 doctrines which were incompatible with it, Calvin, Beza, and 
 the more reflecting sectaries, virtually denied all justice, and 
 rendered morality unintelligible and absurd. The ideas of 
 Calvin have been adopted by "the Westminster divines, and 
 still form part of Presbyterian orthodoxy, as will appear in 
 our proof of the proposition, that — 
 
 The Doctrines of the Scotch Confession of Faith are subver- 
 sive of the Divine Justice. 
 
 1. It is unjust and tyi-annical to require of any man a 
 service which it is impossible for him to render. But the 
 Confession of Faith represents God as requiring from his 
 creatures services which it is impossible for them to render ; 
 the Confession of Faith, therefore, represents God as tyrannical 
 and unjust. The major term of this syllogism has, by the 
 universal consent of mankind, been declared a first principle 
 of reason, and a self-evident truth. It would be a fruitless 
 task to undertake the demonstration of a first principle, or to 
 render more forcible a self-evident proposition. Those who 
 deny first principles place themselves beyond the pale of 
 reason. They cannot be reached by any syllogism or figure 
 of logic ; for all reasoning rests upon the principles which 
 they reject. They are in the position of a blind man who 
 should deny the existence of colours. It is in vain that he is 
 instructed in the dififerent properties of red, violet, and yellow 
 rays. He denies that there is such a thing as red, or yellow, 
 or violet. What he requires is not argument but a faculty. 
 
 G 
 
98 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Those who deny first principles, in like manner, stand in need 
 rather of a faculty of reason than of reasons. The subject, 
 however, admits of illustration to an extent sufficient to place, 
 in a very strong light, the inconsistency as well as the un- 
 reasonahleness of those who are prepared to deny that it is 
 tyranny and injustice to command an impossibility. 
 
 There is noAvhere to be found any discrepancy of opinion as 
 to the parties for whom legislation has been instituted. The 
 wildest despots whom the world has yet seen, never dreamt of 
 passing enactments to bind those whom nature had incapaci- 
 tated from observing them. Even Caligaila, whose mad 
 tyranny led him to outrage reason so far as to create his horse 
 a consul, never reached such a pitch of extravagance as to 
 draw up a code of laws for the good conduct of the brute; 
 nor did he attempt to hedge in with pains and penalties the 
 acts of infants, or of those unfortunate beings in whom the 
 light of reason had been extinguished. Their incapacity was 
 a sufficient protection against the caprice of a man who recoiled 
 from no known species of injustice. Could any possible 
 palliation be found for a legislator who should ventiu-e to do 
 that which Caligula dared not attempt ? Is there a man who 
 would hesitate for a moment to characterize as the supreme 
 effi^rt of human wickedness, a law commanding, under pain of 
 death, all the inhabitants of a distant island to present them- 
 selves at court on a given day, and directing, at the same 
 time, the officers of government to remove every possible 
 means of ti-ansport from the unhappy people until the ap- 
 pointed day should have passed ? Would the injustice of 
 such a law be in any degree lessened, if the government were 
 arbitrarily to name a small number of individuals, without 
 any regard to their conduct or circumstances, and exempt them 
 from the general massacre ? Again, when the avarice of an 
 employer stimulates him to exact of his dependents tasks 
 unsuited to their years or strength, he will find, on every 
 tongue, eloquent denunciations of his cruelty and injustice. 
 What shouts of indignation filled the land when the horrors 
 of the factory system were first exposed to public view ! No 
 one waited for the passing of the ten-hours' bill to stigmatize. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 99 
 
 as it deserved, the conduct of a great body of the mill-owners. 
 Yet those men had not gone so tar as to require absolute 
 impossibilities ; nay, it is probable that few among them had 
 formally broken the law. Even the high authority Avhich 
 parents have received from God would prove no justification 
 of their conduct, were they, from any motive whatever, to 
 exact of their children an obedience which nature had rendered 
 impossible. That relationship from which their authority is 
 derived, involving, as it does, proportionally stronger mutual 
 duties, far from excusing their tyranny, would but increase 
 the heinousness of their guilt. 
 
 The most rigid Calvinists will not deny, that, between man 
 and man, the principles of justice on the point at present 
 under discussion are undeniably clear, and universally ad- 
 mitted. But they are accustomed to say : We dare not apply 
 those principles to the conduct of the Almighty, nor circum- 
 scribe him by the boundaries within which we ourselves must 
 move. " His ways are not as our ways." His supreme do- 
 minion over all his creatures gives him tlie right to do through- 
 out creation as he will ; so that, what in a mortal superior 
 would be tyranny and injustice, may in him, as Creator 
 and absolute Lord of all, be but the exercise of his legitimate 
 authority. In fine, what appeai-s to us unjust — judging by 
 the common principles of justice — may in him be the most 
 exalted righteousness. Yet the men who speak with such 
 diffidence of the powers of reason, refuse to believe the real 
 presence because their reason cannot comprehend how a 
 spiritual body can subsist and act, save in subjection to the 
 ordinary laAVs which govern the material world. If the 
 sjDiritual body will not subject itself to the laws of gravity, 
 nor become present conformably to their ideas of space and 
 time, it cannot be admitted to be present at all. If its motion 
 cannot be traced by the equation of a parabola, its movement 
 is only the fancy of a superstitious mind. When they can 
 thus invest their reason with powers to subject the spiritual 
 world to the mechanical laws, their modest fear lest it should 
 overleap its limits by assenting to a self-evident principle, 
 can only be considered as a cloak to conceal some dreaded 
 
100 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 tnith. There can be no presumption in saying that the 
 providence of God is guided by the principles of justice which 
 universal reason proclaims for the direction of mankind. For 
 since those principles are universal and unchangeable, they 
 come from God himself; and thus it is, that if man be 
 required to conform his life to them, he is in reality called 
 upon to make the rule of his conduct the principles of eternal 
 justice on which God himself acts ; it can no Avay be said that 
 God is circumscribed by the ideas of man. It is a perversion 
 of ideas as well as of lang-uage to say that justice can be one 
 thing in God and another in man. Justice is eternal, and 
 therefore unchangeable and one. The justice of man is true 
 only as it is a reflex of the justice of God. It is true that 
 " God's ways are not as our ways," for the perfections of God 
 are infinite, those of man are finite. But the Calvinist's 
 reasoning upon the text makes the justice of God differ from 
 that of man, not by showing it to be infinitely perfect, but by 
 changing it into injustice. If the justice of God differ in its 
 nature from that of man, then the more that man seeks to 
 approach his Maker, and conform himself to the pattern which 
 God incarnate set before him, the more will he wander from 
 the standard of true perfection, whereas all Christendom has 
 agreed to take as the rule of life the sayings: — "Be ye perfect, 
 as your heavenly Father is perfect ;" and " Be ye holy, be- 
 cause I the Lord your God am holy." If the fundamental 
 ideas of justice possessed by man were false or inapplicable to 
 the dispositions of divine providence, then the perfection 
 Avhich was so resplendent in the life of our Saviour Avas a 
 deception. All morality would be a lie ; for morality rests 
 upon the perfections of God for its reason as well as for its 
 form. If those ideas were false, there could be no sufficient 
 proof for the existence of God ; or rather, there could be no 
 God. For we can conceive God only as a being possessed 
 of all perfections in infinite measure. Justice, as we under- 
 stand it, is a real perfection, and, if not found in God, the idea 
 of a being of infinite perfection is destroyed. If infinite 
 justice consist in what reason compels all men to pronounce 
 injustice, then all reason and all language is a delusion and a 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 
 
 101 
 
 snare ; and man knows nothing, and must ever remain inca- 
 pable of knowledge. That man is the creature of God, and 
 absolutely at his disposal, is true. But it is a blasphemous 
 explanation of the rights of creation or parentage, which 
 changes them into injustice and tyranny. In proportion as 
 the tie of creation and providence is more powerful than any 
 earthly relationship, so much more will equity and mercy 
 mark the conduct of the Creator towards his creatm-es. As, 
 therefore, the fundamental principles of justice are the dictates 
 of our rational nature, and therefore the voice of God, and as 
 those i^rinciples are supposed and sanctioned throughout both 
 the Jewish and Christian revelation, and, in particular, are 
 the groundwork of the divine law, they cannot be denied 
 without denying reason itself, and, with it, all knowledge, 
 even the knowledge of God and his attributes. And as those 
 principles of reason and precepts of the divine law, have been 
 given by the Almighty in order that, by following them, man 
 might conform his conduct to the holiness and perfection of 
 God, they are the expression of divine as well as of human 
 justice. To assert, therefore, that God can be in contra- 
 diction with them, is to assert that God could act in contradic- 
 tion with himself. The proposition, therefore, that " it is 
 unjust and tyrannical to require of any man a service which 
 it is impossible for him to render," must be admitted as 
 an absolute truth by all who do not deny both God and 
 reason. 
 
 2. The proof of the second member of om* argument— " the 
 Confession of Faith represents God as requiring of his crea- 
 tures services which it is impossible for them to render "— wnll 
 require little to render it conclusive, beyond extracts from the 
 Confession itself and its authorized accompaniment — the 
 Larger Catechism. Luther, by his docti-ine of "gospel 
 liberty," paved the way for the atrocities of the Anabaptists, 
 and established the principles whence the various sects of the 
 Antinomians sprang. Although he waged a deadly war, both 
 morally and materially, against the sectaries to whom his own 
 opinions had given birth, and, in consequence of their ex- 
 cesses, modified, or at least qualified, to some extent, his 
 
102 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 expressions, yet he constantly maintained that the observance 
 of the divine kw was impossible, and, indeed, that it was not 
 binding upon the righteous. Calvin, whose cooler and more 
 disciplined judgment enabled him to examine his principles 
 and weigh his expressions, avoids, indeed, the irreverent 
 sallies of Luther; but, by adopting his doctrine that the 
 observance of the law was impossible, while, nevertheless, he 
 held it to be really binding upon all men, fell into a contra- 
 diction which his more daring brother reformer had avoided. 
 If, however, his more moderate language was inspired by 
 reverence for God, whose revealed will the law is, the same 
 motive might well have m-ged him a step farther, and induced 
 him to reject the impiety contained in the doctrine of Luther, 
 as well as the revolting terms in which it had been published. 
 The opinions of Calvin have been adopted, almost in the 
 language of their author, by the Westminster divines. Ac- 
 cording to them, God has imposed upon us a yoke too grievous 
 for any man to bear, and a burden too heavy for any man to 
 carry. The great obligations which God has imposed upon 
 man, may be summarily said to consist of belief, obedience, 
 and repentance. That all men, without exception, have been 
 required by Almighty God to believe in him, to obey his 
 will, and to repent of sin, is asserted in the Westminster 
 Confession with a force and clearness which could scarcely be 
 surpassed. " The moral law doth for ever bind all, as loell 
 justified jjersons as others, to the obedience thereof. . . . 
 Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much 
 strengthen this obligation.^ " The Larger Catechism (Q. 93) 
 explains very satisfactorily the basis of this perpetual obliga- 
 tion. " The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to 
 mankind, directing and binding everi/ one to personal^ perfect, 
 and pei-petual obedience and conformity thereunto, in tlie 
 frame and dispositions of the whole man, soul and body ; and 
 in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness 
 which he oweth to God and man, promising life on the ful- 
 filling, and threatening deatli upon the breach of it." The 
 law, then, is the will of God. Now, without contradicting 
 
 ' Confession of Faith, chap. xix. 5. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 103 
 
 himself, God cannot fail to require this real and personal 
 obedience to the law ; for he cannot cease to desire that his 
 own will should be accomplished. He desires, however, its 
 accomplishment, not solely because of its intrinsic holiness 
 and justice, but also as a means to an end. It is the condition 
 of salvation, " promising life upon the fulfilling-, and threaten- 
 ing death upon the breach of it." This is certainly sound 
 teaching, and entirely in accordance with the words of Jesus 
 Christ — " If thou wilt enter into life, keep the command- 
 ments." No man is or can ever be exempted from this 
 obligation of full obedience to the law. The Confession of 
 Faith not only states, as above, the general obligation of all 
 men, the just and the unjust, but reiterates it again and again, 
 and details, moreover, the special uses and advantages of the 
 law for each of those classes into which it divides the human 
 race. That the unregenerate are bound to the observance of 
 the law is evident ; for, if they fail to observe it, they are 
 " left inexcusable and under the curse thereof." ^ Obedience 
 to the law brings special advantages to the elect : " It is of 
 great use to them (the elect) as well as to others, in that, as a 
 rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, 
 it directs and binds them to walk accordingly."^ The duties 
 of belief and repentance, although included in the law, are, 
 however, specially required : ^'That we may escape the -wrath 
 and cm-se of God due to us by reason of the transgression of 
 the laAV, he (God) requireth of us repentance towards God, 
 and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ."^ 
 
 These extracts leave no doubt as to the mind of the West- 
 minster divines. They affirm, in terms which admit of no 
 reservation or double interpretation, that God has imposed 
 upon all men, the just and the unjust, the duties of belief in 
 himself and in his revelation, of a real and personal obedience 
 to his law, and of repentance for sin. To complete our argu- 
 ment, we now proceed to show that those same divines have 
 declared that, of the duties above mentioned, belief and 
 repentance are possible only to the elect, and that the fulfil- 
 
 1 Larger Cuteckism., Q. 96. ' Confession oj" Faith, chap. xix. 6. 
 
 ^ Luryer Catechism, Q. 153. 
 
104 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 ment of the divine law is absolutely and for ever impossible 
 to all, the elect not less than the reprobate. 
 
 The natural inability of fallen man to do anything in order 
 to salvation, without the assistance of divine grace, is acknow- 
 ledged, we believe, by all Christians. Salvation is a super- 
 natural state of happiness, and no natural act could bear any 
 proportion to it, unless God freely bestowed on the act a 
 virtue by which it should acquire a supernatural value. 
 Hence we can neither believe nor obey, so as to please God, 
 without grace. This St. Paul affirms when he writes — 
 " Without faith it is impossible to please God ;" for faith is a 
 grace. Whilst, however, the Catholic Church teaches that 
 God offers his grace to all men, and bestows it upon all who 
 will, so that the condemnation of the wicked is to be attributed 
 solely to their free rejection of the grace which they had the 
 power to have accepted, the Calvinists maintain that God 
 either offers not his grace at all to those who shall be lost, or, 
 if an offer is made, that it is insincere, since there is not, and 
 cannot be, on the part of God, any wish or design to confer it. 
 In either case, the Calvinist finds the reason of the sinner's 
 condemnation exclusively in God. We are here simply 
 stating the fact; we are not exaggerating an opinion. If 
 even a Calvinist should feel a natural horror of such doctrines, 
 when stated in intelligible terms, let him only, with a firm 
 eye and impartial judgment, as in the presence of God, 
 measure and weigh the proofs ; and say whether Calvinism 
 be not tlie enemy of God, as well as of reason and revelation. 
 
 As to the belief which God requires of man, the Confession 
 of Faith speaks thus : — " God freely offereth unto sinners life 
 and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him 
 that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those 
 that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them 
 willing and ahle to helievey^ The ability to believe in the 
 manner God requires is not possessed by the natural man ; 
 hence the act of faith is impossible to him until he has re- 
 ceived the grace of faith. Now, if the words of the above 
 article be considered, it will be seen that, although belief is 
 
 1 Confvssion of Faith, chap. viii. 3. 
 
EELATIONS TO SCRIPTUKE. 105 
 
 required of all, and life and salvation are offered to all, God will 
 not grant to all the ability to believe; for it is only those that 
 are " ordained unto life " whom he has promised to make able 
 and willing to believe. It must be borne in mind, in our 
 appreciation of the Avords just noted, that the inability of men 
 to please God is not in consequence of any actual transgression 
 of their own. They are conceived and born in this state of 
 spiritual impotence ; and, in the system of Calvin, it depends 
 solely and exclusively upon God, and neither directly nor 
 indirectly upon man, to remove this disability. For it can 
 be removed only by grace ; and God gives the necessary 
 grace only to those whom he has from eternity determined to 
 save ; and he withholds it from all the rest of mankind, not 
 because they will not admit or respond to his goodness, nor 
 even because of their sins, but solely because it is his pleasure 
 to take one and reject another. His offer of life and salvation 
 to those whom he has absolutely foreordained to perdition, is, 
 therefore, by this system altogether illusory. It is a greater 
 mockery of helpless weakness and misfortune than would be 
 an offer, on the part of a sovereign, of life and liberty to a 
 condemned criminal, upon condition of his accepting a pardon 
 authenticated by the royal sign and seal, which, however, the 
 sovereign had no intention of granting — nay, had unchangeably 
 determined never to grant. The strict accuracy of this state- 
 ment of the Calvinistic doctrine will be made most fully evident 
 by the citations to be brought from the Confession of Faith in 
 proof of our next proposition. Meanwhile we give proof to 
 show that Calvinism represents the observance of the law 
 which God has imposed upon us, as simply impossible to any 
 of his creatures : " They who in their obedience attain to the 
 greatest height which is possible in this life . . . fall 
 short of much which in duty they are hound to doy^ In regard 
 to the " best works " of the just, it is said — " as they are 
 wrought by us they are defiled and mixed with so much 
 weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity 
 of God's judgment."^ If we now consider the nature of 
 works which are defiled, as it is explained by the Larger 
 
 1 Confession nf Faith, chap. xvi. 4. ^ Id., chap. xvi. 5. 
 
106 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Catechism, we will understand how utterly impossible it is 
 for even the just, by their best efforts, to fulfil the obligations 
 which God requires of them : " Every sin, even the least, 
 being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, 
 and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse 
 both in this life and that which is to come. "^ Thus far as to 
 the just — those who are destined to reign in happiness eternal. 
 To show that the authors of the Westminster Confession 
 denied the possibility of men in general fulfilling the laAv, 
 may now seem superfluous. However, to adduce even seem- 
 ingly superfluous proof in support of a charge so important, 
 in which the attributes of God are concerned, will scarcely be 
 considered extravagant or unprofitable. The Larger Cate- 
 chism exposes, in the following terms, its doctrine on tlie 
 spiritual incapacity of mankind generally: " No man is able, 
 either of himself or hy any grace received in this llfe^ perfectly 
 to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them 
 in thought, word, and deed." (Q. 149.) As to the " unrc- 
 generate " (that is, the great bulk of mankind — those un- 
 happy beings for whom the Confession of Faith says that 
 Christ did not die — Avho have not been redeemed ^) — '' works 
 done by unregenerate man, although for the matter of them 
 they may be things which God commands^ and of good use 
 both to themselves and others, yet . . . they are sinful, 
 and cannot jylecise 6^of7, or make a man meet to receive grace 
 from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and 
 displeasing unto God. "^ This doctrine, apart from its bearing 
 on our present object, is an astonishing example of the 
 extravagances which men will, without hesitation, maintain 
 when they have once lost their hold on the sheet-anchor of the 
 Church's infallibility. Here the God of infinite holiness is 
 represented as commanding the unregenerate to commit sin, 
 and as being more displeased with them for the omission of 
 the sin, than he is with the sin itself It seems to be the last 
 
 1 Laryer Catechim, Q. 152. 
 2 " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ effectually called, justified, adoijtol, 
 sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.'" — Confession of Faith, chap. iii. G. 
 * Confession of Faith, chap. x\'i. 7. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCIUPTUUE, 107 
 
 conceivable refinement of inj'ustice, to render, by an immntable 
 decree, every action of a man sinful, and yet charge the 
 sinner with a heavier guilt, should he seek to avoid the sin by 
 omitting the action. But bad principles are often responsible 
 for bad consequences. Ahyssus ahi/ssurn invocat. We may 
 here adduce the words of Calvin himself in confirmation, and, 
 if that were necessary, in explanation of his doctrine, which 
 we have been endeavouring to state : " We must now briefly 
 explain and prove our assertion, that the observance of the 
 law is impossible. I shall not here enter upon any tiresome 
 discussion as to the various kinds of possibility. I call that 
 impossible which never was, and, by the ordinance and decree 
 of God, is prevented from ever being." ^ The law of God, 
 therefore, by the teaching of the Westminster Confession, 
 never was, and never will be kept by any man ; and this 
 arises from its observance being absolutely impossible. We 
 say absolutely, because the impossibility, as explained ex- 
 pressly by Calvin, and, as we shall immediately see, also by 
 the Confession of Faith, arises not from the want of will in 
 man to observe it, nor even (save in a secondary sense) from 
 his inability, but directly from the eternal and immutable 
 decree of God, which, without any regard to the will or dis- 
 positions of man, has prevented its observance from ever 
 becoming a possibility to any of Adam's descendants. Mean- 
 while, we may here present to the reader's eye the ground Ave 
 have thus far made good. The Confession of Faith expressly 
 teaches that God requires of all men the real and personal 
 observance of his law ; which observance it declares, in terms 
 
 1 "Quod autem impossibilem Icgis observationem diximus, id est paucis verbis 
 explicandum simul et confirmanduin. Non texam hie longas ambages de variis 
 possibilitatis generibus. Impossibile appello quod nee fuit unquani et, ne in posteruui 
 sit Dei ordinatione ae decreto impeditur." — Calvini Institutiunes, lib. ii. c. 7, § 5. Pat- 
 triek Ilauiilton, whose " godly doctrine " was so highly extolled by Knox, expresses 
 the doctrine which Calvin adopted in very plain terms : " The law biddeth us do 
 that which is impossible for us ; for it bids us keep all the commandments of God 
 and yet it is not in our power to keep any of them. Ergo, it biddeth us do that 
 which is impossible for us. Thou wilt say, loherefore doth God command w (hat 
 which is impossible Jor usf I answer, to make thee know tliou art but evil." — Aj>ud 
 Knox's Ilist'iri/, p. 67. 
 
108 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 equally express, to be absolutely and for ever impossible to 
 any man. But all reason rightly pronounces the command of 
 an impossibility to be unjust and tyrannical in every possible 
 case. It is therefore proved that the Confession of Faith 
 teaches the impiety, that the infinitely perfect God is, in his 
 relations to his creatures, both tyrannical and unjust. 
 
 II. Hitherto we have not seen the worst of Calvinism. 
 " In the lowest depth, there is a lower still." The formularies 
 of Calvinism teach that God punishes his own creatures with 
 eternal torments^ because they fail to do that which his oicn 
 decree has made impossible for them; and because they do those 
 things which He himself had^ from eternity, determined and 
 ordained them to do. To some it will doubtless appear in- 
 credible that the human mind, even when abandoned to the 
 fantastic guidance of private judgment, could have adopted 
 ideas so perverse and so manifestly repugnant to all the 
 principles which guide the thoughts and acts of all men — of 
 Calvinists themselves, on every subject, save religion. But, 
 when the oidy principle upon which faith can be held has 
 been once rejected, it seems impossible to imagine a limit to 
 the excesses of which the mind, now the slave of a grovelling 
 credulity, and now the dupe of scepticism, will be guilty, 
 " Therefore God shall send upon them the operation of eiTor, 
 that they should believe a lie."^ Absolute predestination is 
 asserted by the Confession of Faith as follows : — " God, 
 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 creatures, 
 nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken 
 away, but rather established.""^ The utter futility of the last 
 clause, as a vindication of the holiness of God, will be fully 
 demonstrated in the following section ; here we need only point 
 out that the liberty of man is directly contradicted by the con- 
 text. For, either it is in the power of the sinner to avoid his 
 guilty act, or it is not. If it is, then the act cannot have been 
 "unchangeably foreordained" of God. If it is not in his power 
 
 1 2 Thes8. ii. 11. * Confession p/Faiih, chap. iii. 1. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTURE. 109 
 
 to avoid the act, then he shis by a necessity which God, by his 
 unchangeable decree, has imposed upon him. What, then, 
 becomes of his liberty? Either liberty, or the doctrine of 
 absolute predestination, must be abandoned. But Calvinists 
 have taken their stand upon predestination, and left liberty 
 nothing but the name. For, confounding liberty with the 
 spontaneity which is common to man with all animated beings, 
 they say that man sins freely, because he sins willingly. Is 
 then, we would ask, the life of the wicked so very smooth, so 
 full of contentment? Does his every action spring from a 
 mind where no contradiction, no conflict, ever enters ? Is he 
 really so far exempt from the miseries of human life, that he 
 never requires to do violence to himself, and act, as alas! so 
 many do, with much unwillingness? Such untroubled peace 
 on the part of the wicked has not yet, we believe, been 
 adopted into any of the creeds even of modem sectarianism. 
 There are, then, acts of the reprobate which are unwillingly 
 performed — therefore not free, even in the unphilosophical 
 sense attached by Calvinists to " freedom." But every act 
 of the unjust man is said, by the Confession of Faith, to deserve 
 the eternal wrath of God. Therefore, even by their own 
 doctrines, and according to their own terms, Calvinism is re- 
 sponsible for the impious tenet that God necessitates men to 
 perform certain actions, and then condemns them to eternal 
 flames for their compliance with His decree. Moreover, grant- 
 ing still to Calvinism its own definition of liberty, the necessity 
 which, by the theory of absolute predestination, compels every 
 man at every moment to act as he does, and prevents him 
 from acting othei-wise, would be in no degree modified. For 
 Calvinism makes man's very willingness to have been pre- 
 destinated from eternity, not less than the acts which it 
 accompanies. Thus the sinner is necessitated by the un- 
 changeable decree of God, not only to do the act, hut to do it 
 toillingly. The willingness, then, can as little be attributed 
 to him as the act. This is not a one-sided view of Calvinism. 
 Our wish is not merely to make good om* case, but to give an 
 honest representation of that religious system. 
 
 That the absolute decree of God includes even the acts for 
 
110 CALVINISM IX ITS 
 
 wliicli lie condemns tlie wicked, and, therefore, makes tliem 
 necessary, will appear bv the description which the Confession 
 of Faith gives of fallen man : — " We are (it says) utterly in- 
 disposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly 
 inclined to all evil ;"^ and again — "Man, l)y his fall into a 
 state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual 
 good accomjmnying salvation."^ As the Confession of Faith 
 lays it down that God had also decreed that none but the elect 
 should ever receive grace (by which only their disability could 
 be removed), it is evident that those who are not of tke elect 
 number, even if they had liberty, could not avoid sin. For 
 " all the acts of unregenerate men" are declared to be sinful; 
 and the guilt of the sinner is said to be in many cases greater 
 by the neglect, than by the commission of the sinful act.^ If, 
 then, men can do nothing but sin ; and if God will not render 
 it possible for them to avoid sin — 'if men can do absolutely 
 nothing but that which God hath predetemiined them to do, 
 and in the manner, with the intentions, dispositions, and 
 motives, which had, in like manner, been etei-nally fixed by 
 the immutable decree of God, is it not clear as the sun at noon- 
 day, that men are to be punished by the Almighty for doing 
 that which He himself had determined and ordained them to 
 do ; and for not doing those things which God himself, by his 
 decree, had rendered it impossible for them to perform ? 
 
 If we inquire, why then are men to be condemned ? The 
 Confession of Faith replies : — " The rest of mankind God was 
 ])leased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, 
 whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, 
 for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatiures, to pass 
 by and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sins, to 
 the praise of his glorious justice." * But that men are to l)e 
 punished /or their sins, is a portion of Catholic doctrine, which 
 could have been admitted into such an uncongenial article 
 only by some unaccountable oversight, or by a remarkable 
 oblivion of the words which are to be found on the same page 
 — " God hath not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, chap. vi. 4. - I'l. ix. 3. 
 
 3 Id. xvi. 7, already cited. * Fd. iii. 7. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTUK]:, 111 
 
 future, or as that wliicli avouUI come to pass upon such con-U- 
 tions." ^ This is the genuine Calvinistic doctrine. This only 
 is consistent with the spirit of Genevan theology. So far is 
 sin from being the reason of the sinner's punishment, that no 
 condition whatever is admitted by the Confession of Faith, as 
 influencing God in condemning men to the endless torments 
 of hell. God, it tells us, has simply decreed the condemnation 
 of all who shall be lost. In himself alone he finds the motive 
 of his decree. He requires neither that they should sin, nor 
 that He should foresee that they would sin, nor any such con- 
 ditions. He has destined the vast majority of mankind to 
 everlasting flames, not, therefore, to punish their sin, but for 
 a motive which begins and terminates in himself: '^ By the 
 decree of God, /or the manifestation of his oicn glory ^ some men 
 and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others 
 foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus 
 predestined and foreordained are particularly and unchange- 
 ably designed ; and their number is so certain and definite, 
 that it cannot be either increased or diminished."^ Even the 
 distorted view taken by Calvinists of the effects of Adam's 
 tall, can furnish them with no intelligible motive for the con- 
 demnation of any man ; for the fall itself was, in their opinion, 
 not only ordained and decreed from eternity, but by a special 
 intei-position of God's power, Adam was bounded, ordered, 
 and guided in the commission of his first sin : " The Almighty 
 power, misearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, 
 so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth, 
 itself even to tlie first foil, and all other sins of men and angels ; 
 and that not hy a hare jpermission^ but such as hath joined with 
 it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering 
 and governing of them in a manifold dispensation to his own 
 holy ends ; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only 
 from the creature, and not from God."^ Since, then, all the 
 actions — nay, in express terms, " all the sins of men and 
 angels " — are not only decreed by God from eternity, but are 
 also " bounded, governed, and ordered" by him, for his own 
 ends, sin is simply the accomplishment of his will. The 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 2. ^ /^r. jii. 3 4. 3 j^i y. 4. 
 
112 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Westminster divines found, therefore, in tlie '' manifestation 
 of God's glory," a reason for the condemnation of those who 
 shall be lost, somewhat less revolting to the common sense of 
 their followers, and, at the same time, in happier agreement 
 with their own gentle notions of goodness and justice, than 
 they could have met with in "sin;" which, although in the 
 Catholic system consistent, intelligible, and sufficient, would 
 yet, according to their theories, be a palpably false pretext. 
 For, as they make sin to be, in every respect, the accomplish- 
 ment of God's will, it is certainly more consistent and less 
 unreasonable on their part to say that God condemns men 
 for his own glory, or his own pleasure, than it would be, 
 were they to assert that he does so because they accomplish 
 his will, by their faithful fulfilment of his decrees. 
 
 Let all the revolting misrepresentations of Catliolic doctrine 
 which the Reformation has yet produced, be fused into one 
 monstrous caricature, and let any man who believes that God 
 exists, say whether its hideousness could be compared with 
 the wickedness of the doctrines we have shown to be contained 
 in the authorized symbols of Scotch Presbyterianism. No 
 man who has attentively studied the doctrines of Calvin, can 
 wonder at his rejection of the great mysteries of God's love. 
 He destroys the very idea of an atonement ; and the mystery 
 Avhich conveys to us the most lively idea of God's mercy, love, 
 and condescension to fallen man — the ever sweet and adorable 
 Eucharist — he reduces to a cold, cheerless, lifeless shadow ! 
 His gloomy and vindictive soul cared not to contemplate 
 God, save as He presents himself armed in the terrors of his 
 justice. He lost sight of the Being in the intense study of 
 the attribute — he saw no more than the vengeance of God. 
 For him God was not a God of love. He was to Calvin a 
 Being capricious, not bountiful in his favours, Avithout pity 
 and without motive in His anger. If we abstract from those 
 enumerations of God's attributes and perfections which the 
 Calvinistic formularies have retained from the Catholic Cate- 
 chism, and which, far from harmonizing with the system of 
 Calvin, stand over against it in violent antagonism, we must 
 rise from the perusal of the " Institutes," or the Confession of 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 11 o 
 
 Faith and Larger Catechism, persuaded that the Reformers 
 had imported into Europe the demonolatry of Africa, shorn 
 onlj of its propitiatory rites. No propitiations coukl have been 
 logically tolerated by Calvin. For, since he represents the 
 Supreme Being as himself fixing "whatsoever comes to pass," 
 by the inflexible decree of fate,^ the creature cannot move off 
 the iron way of his decree, even to ask for the mercy which 
 
 Section II. — The Truth of God. 
 
 How bright, how holy, does the Catholic doctrine appear 
 v\^hen contrasted with the system we have just been examining! 
 It tells every man, that, if he will, he may be saved — that his 
 condemnation (if he shall be condemned) will be wholly from 
 himself — that grace is really offered to him ; and that God is 
 
 1 It may be here said, once for all, that the conclusions to w hich we have been 
 led on the subject of Calvinism, are not formed in any case upon isolated passages ; 
 nor, properly, upon mere passages at all. They are the results of a careful and 
 conscientious study and comparison of the doctrinal books of Presbyterianism and 
 tlie -wrritings of Calvin. From the few extracts we give, it will be impossible to see 
 so clearly and satisfactorilj' the truth of our representations, as it would be by the 
 careful perusal of the evidence to which we have referred. We have, however, m 
 every case adduced what we consider to be evidence amply sufficient for the justifi- 
 cation of our assertions. Those who wish for more complete proof of our fidelity, 
 will, by consulting the authentic documents from which we quote, find it in profusion. 
 The bare doctrine of Calvin may, indeed, be correctly represented by a collection of 
 citations ; but his spirit, and the full mutual bearing of the different parts of his 
 system, cannot be perfectly conveyed in any number of extracts. Thus it is that the 
 employment of the word in the text, to which reference is made in this note, will 
 best be justified; although we confidently refer also to the foregoing pages. As a 
 more formal warrant, however, we adduce the following passage in justification : — 
 " God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect ; . . . nevertheless 
 they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, achialhj apply Christ 
 unto them." {Confession of Faith ^ xi. 4.) If it were possible for one of the elect 
 to die before his justification, he could not be saved, for those only who have been 
 actually justified can enter heaven, and he is, previous to justification, the enemy of 
 (lod, and therefore incapable while in that state of salvation. But, by the very 
 fact of his being of the elect, he must, by the immutable necessity of God's decree, 
 be both justified and saved. It is, therefore, impossible that he can die before the 
 day fixed from eternity for his justification. But if it be impossible that he can die 
 until a certain day, in what does this differ from the fatalism of the Turks, or the 
 fatism of the Pagans? The charmed life of the elect bids defiance to all the dangers 
 of the battle-field, to the rage of the elements, to fire, and swcrd, and pestilence, and 
 all that host of reapers whicli death sends forth to his harvest. 
 
 II 
 
114 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 at all times waiting, with that solicitude wliich nature and 
 revelation tell us the Creator entertains for the creature of his 
 hands, ready to strengthen, to heal, to comfort, and to save 
 him. While life remains, the sinner may and can repent ; 
 nor will his repentance be rejected by the God of mercy and 
 truth. Religious hope throws over a Catholic people a ray 
 of happy light, that may be seen reflected in every countenance, 
 and can be traced in the national customs, amusements, and 
 salutations, as well in the more important pursuits, as in the 
 trivial occupations of life. When no extraneous cause of 
 depression exists — when the people are truly Catholic, and the 
 canker-worm of heresy has not entered to dry up the sap and 
 corrode the fibres of their frame — there is a cheerfulness and 
 buoyancy to be seen in all their movements, ininning through 
 all their speech, which tells how intimately hope pervades 
 their being. The truth of God is the security of hope. What 
 the Eternal truth has said, that he will certainly accomplish. 
 He has said, that whoever really calls upon him shall not call 
 in vain ; and he tells all the children of Adam to come and 
 receive of the gifts he has in store for them. His truth makes 
 him as incapable of a deceitful word or act, as of a lie. Since, 
 then, he tells all to come, he has put it in the power of all to 
 approach for mercy. Calvinism says it is not so. For by its 
 doctrine of absolute predestination, it either puffs up man witli 
 the flattering but delusive presumption of an " infallible assur- 
 ance of salvation," or plunges him into utter and in-emediable 
 despair. An infallible assurance extinguishes hope, just as 
 fruition terminates desire. As the assm-ance of salvation is 
 said by the Confession of Faith to be given to all the elect, 
 the man who receives it not, sees in this privation the seal 
 of an immutable rej)robation pronounced against him from 
 eternity. For him, then, there remains only the "dreadful 
 expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall 
 consume the adversaries." This everlasting misery is a sacri- 
 fice necessary to "manifest the glory of God." With Christian 
 hope, there disappeared also, from the system of Calvin, the 
 ground on which it reposed. That system represents God as 
 wantonly mocking and deceiving his creatures. This is a 
 
EELATIOXS TO SCRIPTURE. 
 
 115 
 
 fearful charge ; and were not the proof by which it is sup- 
 ported irresistible, we should not dare to urge it against a 
 system professing to be Christian. Our justification rests upon 
 the proof of the following propositions : — 
 
 The truth, of God is destroyed hy the doctrines of the West- 
 minster Confession. 
 
 To appreciate sufficiently the teaching of Calvinism in 
 relation to the divine veracity, it will be necessary to premise 
 a very brief account of the designs of God upon the human 
 race, and particularly of the dealings of his Providence with 
 the sinner. This we shall do, as far as possible, in the very 
 words in which God himself, or his authorized messengers, 
 describe his designs. In drawing thus to some extent upon 
 the sacred text, our departure from the plan of argument 
 which, at the outset, we proposed to ourselves, will be more 
 apparent than real. We do not, in reality, enter upon a 
 biblical discussion. We shall but give, in the language of the 
 inspired writers, a few of those details which God has vouch- 
 safed to us of his designs upon fallen man, in order to show, 
 in more forcible and appropriate terms than we could employ, 
 how directly Calvinism represents Him as contradicting or 
 rendering illusory his. words. 
 
 We know that God created man for his own glory. For 
 the formal end of God's action must be worthy of himself; and 
 an infinitely perfect end is alone worthy of the infinitely perfect 
 God. His own glory was to be served and shown forth by 
 the perfections and homage of his creatures ; and the end of 
 man himself was to be the everlasting enjoyment of his Creator. 
 The attainment of his end, or eternal felicity, by man, was, 
 however, to be conditional ; for God had made him free, and 
 had imposed upon him certain conditions, by the fulfilment of 
 which his happiness and that of his posterity would have been 
 secured. Had he observed the conditions, then, heaven would 
 have been the infallible lot of all the descendants of Adam ; 
 and the glory of God would have been manifested by the 
 universal praises of his creatures, whom his own bounty and 
 justice would have crowned. As, however, our first parents 
 foi-feited by sin their right to heaven, they could not convey 
 
116 CALVINISM IX ITS 
 
 to tlieir posterity that wliich they themselves no longer pos- 
 sessed. Men are, therefore, born in sin, aliens to God, and 
 excluded from every claim to his kingdom. But the fall did 
 not change the goodness of God into cruelty, nor absolutely 
 close the gates of heaven against any member of our fallen 
 race. It seemed but to open up a wider field for the exercise 
 of the divine mercy, and to prepare a way for the stupendous 
 combination of justice and goodness, which was displayed in 
 the incarnation and subsequent career of the Son of God. The 
 end of man is what it was before the fall — eternal felicity ; but 
 its attainment, though possible to all, is now conditional in the 
 case of every one. " He that believeth and is baptized, shall 
 be saved; he that believeth not, shall be condemned."^ The 
 mercy as well as the justice of God is shown to every man — 
 the just and the unjust; while Calvinism represents the wicked 
 as experiencing a justice with which no mercy is mingled. As 
 if the attributes of God, his justice and mercy, were not really 
 one, but different, and even independent. God still regards 
 with benevolence the works of his hands, and calls on man to 
 look up to heaven from the scene of his exile, and to consider 
 liimself to be only a pilgi-im and a stranger on the earth : 
 " But now they desire a better, that is to say, a heavenly 
 country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their 
 God ; for he hath prepared for them a city."^ The conditions 
 of our admission to that country to which his free boimty in- 
 vites us, are such as all may, if they will, accomplish : " His 
 commandments are not heavy." ^ And " My yoke is sweet, 
 and my burden light."* His desire has been repeatedly and 
 pressingly manifested, that all should avail themselves of his 
 beneficence, throw themselves upon his mercy, and flee from 
 the wrath to come : " The Lord delayeth not his promise, as 
 some imagine ; but dealeth patiently for your sake ; not Avill- 
 ing that any should perish, but that all should return to 
 penance."^ Far from having unconditionally ordained any of 
 his creatures to destruction, he wishes that all sinners, even 
 the chief, should return to him and be saved : " As I live,^ 
 
 1 Mark xvi. 1 (J. - Hob. xi. 16. si John v. 3. 
 
 '' JIatth. xi. SO. 6 2 Peter iii. 9. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 117 
 
 saitli the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, hut 
 that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn 
 ye from your evil ways; why will you die, O house of Israel?" ^ 
 To the same effect he says : "The soul that sinneth, the same 
 shall die. . . . But if the wicked do penance for all his 
 sins which he hath committed, and keep all my command- 
 ments, and do judgment and justice, living he shall live, and 
 shall not die. . . . Is it my will that a sinner should die, 
 saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from 
 his ways and live? "^ The use of such expressions as " to he 
 reconciled with God," "to return to God," taken in connection 
 with the parable of the lost sheep, and the words of Isaias — 
 " All we, like sheep, have gone astray; every one hath turned 
 aside into his own Avay,"^ show, that even yet, the true end 
 after which God wishes all men to aspire is eternal happiness ; 
 for it supposes that a man in sin is wandering from the path 
 in which God had placed him ; for his reconciliation does not 
 change the end of his creation, but restores him to the course 
 he must pursue for its attainment, from which sin had carried 
 him away. The sincerity of the will which God expresses 
 for the salvation of all men, is amply demonstrated by the 
 superabundance of means he has provided for its accomplish- 
 ment. He declares that he hath done everything which could 
 be done compatibly with the freedom of men for their salva- 
 tion. " What could have been done more to my vineyard, 
 that I have not done it?"^ He gave up to death for the re- 
 demption of sinners his only-begotten Son ; and offers to every 
 man who requires a Saviour, the participation of his merits : 
 "For the charity of Christ 'presseth us; judging this, that if 
 one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for 
 all."^ His express wish, that the sufferings which Jesus 
 Christ endured for all should be universally available, he 
 declares in the most decisive manner. " He will have all men 
 to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For 
 there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, 
 the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all, 
 
 1 Ezek. xxxiii. 11. 2 Ezek. xviii. 20—23. s Isaias liii. 6. 
 
 * Lsaias V. 4. i 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 
 
118 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 a testimony in due times." ^ And again, "We see Jesus for 
 the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour ; that, 
 through the grace of God, he might taste death for all."^ Lest 
 it should be imagined that the phrase, " all men," did not in- 
 clude really the whole human race, but only the elect, St. 
 Paul tells us, that " We hope in the living God, who is the 
 Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful."^ The same 
 truth is thus repeated by St. John : " But if any man sin, 
 we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just ; 
 and he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, 
 but for those of the whole world." ^ 
 
 Such professions of goodness and of justice tempered witli 
 mercy, on the part of an offended God, awaken an almost 
 intuitive perception of their truth in the heart and head of 
 every riglit-thinking man. They give meaning and consis- 
 tency to the preaching, sacraments, and worship of Christianity. 
 They afford to all men a sure ground of hope ; yet check the 
 approaches of a delusive self-righteous presumption. Con- 
 sistent as those professions are with themselves, harmonizing 
 with all that we know of God from the study of his works, 
 and consonant as they must appear with the dictates of right 
 reason, they were all, nevertheless, cast aside by Calvin and 
 his followers, the Westminster divines, as they could not be 
 bent to the opinions which those interpreters had attached to 
 other portions of the sacred text. The doctrine of absolute 
 predestination is the essence of Calvinism. It is the main 
 pillar of the entire edifice. Let it but be shaken, and the 
 ruins of Calvinism would not be distinguishable from the 
 shapeless fragments of those numerous sects whose ephemeral 
 existence had been, from time to time, contributing to raise 
 the motley buildings of the Keformation. This essential 
 dogma of Calvinism admits of no contingency, no conditions 
 in the conduct and government of the universe. All is rigid, 
 fixed, unalterable. Whatever is was so determined. What- 
 ever ts not could not possibly have been. Wliatever sJmll le 
 must be ; because it shall be in consequence of an eternal, 
 unchangeable, unconditional decree. To retain such a doc- 
 
 1 1 Tim. ii. 4— G. 2 Heb. ii. 9. ^ 1 Tim. iv. 10. « 1 John ii. 2. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 119 
 
 trine, and yet believe the words we have quoted above as 
 conveying to us the intentions of God towards sinners, is 
 evidently impossible. In order, therefore, that Calvinism 
 might escape an untimely fate, and come into the world a 
 living thing — in order that it might not fall still-born from 
 the pen of its author, it was necessary to give such an expla- 
 nation to those and similar professions of mercy, as would 
 virtually render them either false or intentionally delusive. 
 
 Closely connected in the mind of Calvin with the doctrine 
 of absolute predestination, was the opinion which he had 
 formed of the inamissibility of grace. He considered that 
 whosoever once received grace could never again be deprived 
 of it. No crimes, no infidelities, could again separate him 
 fi-om the friendship of God. He must persevere and be saved. 
 This made it necessary for Calvin to say that no grace can be 
 conferred on any man who is not in the number of the elect ; 
 for, otherwise, men would be saved who had been foreordained 
 to destruction. Calvin was by no means blind to the incon- 
 veniences of his opinion. Indeed, if we may judge by the 
 dictatorial and intemperate manner in which he attempts to 
 cover this portion of his theory from the united attacks of 
 Scripture, reason, and experience, he must have felt by no 
 means satisfied with either his system or the arguments he 
 could find for its support. It was not in the days of Calvin,, 
 nor is it now, an unheard-of thing, that men who bear about 
 them in their carriage, in their conversation, in their deeds, 
 and in their desires, the evidences that divine grace is pro- 
 ducing its happy fruits in their souls — who love the things of 
 God, whose delight it is to praise him and laboiu- for the 
 advancement of his glory and the conversion of sinners — who 
 are ready to suffer for his sake, and to make any sacrifice in 
 his cause, yet miserably fall away from their first fervour, 
 and abandon virtue, religion, and even faith. What we meet 
 with in common life is the exact counterpart of the view of 
 God's economy, in respect of grace presented to us in the 
 sacred pages. There we meet with a Saul, who, after having 
 received from God the most signal favours, both spiritual and 
 temporal, abandoned the paths of justice, turned Avith ingrati- 
 
120 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 tude against his divine Lenefactor, and at leugtli, rejected of 
 God, g-ave himself up to despair, and teraiinated his life hy a 
 deadly crime. Similar to this is the case of the traitor Judas. 
 All this was accurately represented by our Saviour in his 
 parable of the sower. The divine seed falling upon rocky 
 ground, symbolized, as our Lord informs us, the state of those 
 unstable believers who gladly receive the grace of God, cor- 
 respond with it for a time, but finally forfeit their crown by 
 failing to persevere : " They receive the word with joy, 
 they believe for a while, and in time of temptation they fall 
 away."^ 
 
 Such facts and statements were of evil augury for the 
 permanence of Calvinism, That those men finally fell away, 
 excluded them in Calvin's estimation from the number of 
 the elect. Their joyfully receiving the advances of God's 
 mercy, and for a time admitting special favours from above, 
 and acting in all things precisely as if they were the 
 friends of God, could not, in consequence of his doctrine of 
 the inamissibility of grace, be attributed by Calvin to the 
 presence of grace in their souls. To account, then, for such 
 phenomena, he had recourse to the hypothesis which we can- 
 not trust ourselves to qualify, that God produces in the souls 
 of the reprobate effects similar to those of grace, in order that 
 the unhappy men who experience them may, by their failure 
 to profit by what can only be termed mock graces, furnish 
 cause for their own condemnation. And this condemnation, 
 says Calvin, is to be justified on the ground that they rejected 
 and failed to profit by real grace. Thus Calvin — " Nor can 
 this be called in question, that to those whom God does not 
 wish to be illuminated, he presents his doctrine involved in 
 obscurity, lest tliey should derive any other profit fi-om it than 
 that of being abandoned to a greater blindness. ''''^ More to the 
 purpose still, he says — " Although none are either enlightened 
 by faith or actually feel the power of the gospel^ save those who 
 
 1 Luke viii. 13. 
 2 " Neque hoc quoque controverti potest, quos Deus illuminatos non vult, illis 
 doctrinam suam a;ni<jniatibus involutam tradere, ne quid inde proliciant, nisi iit 
 juajoreui hebetudinein trjidantur,"— /«s<iVz(/w, lib. iii. c. 24, § 13. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 121 
 
 have been predestined to salvation ; yet experience shows 
 that the reprobate also are at times influenced in a similar 
 manner to the elect, in m-der that they may think they differ 
 nothing from the elect. There is, therefore, no impropriety 
 where the apostle attributes to them the participation of 
 heavenly gifts, and our Saviour temporal faith ; it is not that 
 they experience solidly the power of spiritual grace, but be- 
 cause the Lord, in order to render them more guilty and 
 inexcusable, insinuates himself into their minds, as far as his 
 goodness can be tasted without the spirit of adoption." ^ The 
 Larger Catechism is upon this subject equally explicit : "All 
 the elect, and they only, are effectually called ; although 
 others may be, and often are called by the ministry of the 
 word, and have some common operations of the Spirit, who, 
 for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered 
 to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly 
 come to Christ." (Q. 68.) Let the Presbyterian reconcile, if 
 he can, this article with his doctrine that God's decree for the 
 sinner's condemnation was unconditional. The article comes 
 before us at present, however, from another point of view. 
 The reprobate are said to have " some common operations of 
 the Spirit," and to be condemned " for their wilful neglect and 
 contempt of the grace offered them." Now, one of two things 
 — either those " common operations of the Spirit " are the 
 " grace," whose rejection is said to constitute the guilt of the 
 sinner, or they are not. If they are, then Calvinism falls to 
 the groimd ; for the reprobate are thus made really recipients 
 of grace, and have the power to resist and reject it ; for they 
 actually do both. If they be able to resist and reject grace, 
 then predestination is not absolute, but conditional upon man's 
 admission of grace and correspondence with it. Such con- 
 
 1 " Etsi nou illumiuantur in fidem, nee evangelii efficaciam vere sentiunt nisi 
 qui praeordinati sunt ad salutem, experientia tamen ostendit, reprobos interduni 
 siniili fere sensu atque electos affici, ut, ne suo quidem judicio quicquam ab elect is 
 differant. Quare nihil absurdi est quod coelestium donorum gustus ab apostolo, et 
 temporalis fides a Christo illis ascribitur, non quod vim spiritualis gratiie solide 
 percipiant, ac eertum fidei lumen, sed quia Dominus, ut magLs convictos et inexcusa- 
 biles reddat, se insinuat in eorum mentea, quatenus sine adoptiouis spiritu gustari 
 potest ejus bonitas." — Institutio, lib. iii. c. 2, § 1 1. 
 
122 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 sequences would overturn Calvinism to its foundations. If, 
 on the contrary, the " common operations " are not the 
 "grace," for the rejection of which the wicked man is con- 
 demned, then those " operations," ^yhich produce all the 
 effects of grace, and which the sinner joyfully believes to he 
 grace, are but a delusion, and he is to be punished on the 
 charge of having contemned the reality, when he had only failed 
 to produce the fruits of grace from what was in truth but a 
 shadow. If the Calvinist say that real grace was offered, 
 can he imagine that this will improve the aspect of his theory, 
 when he reflects that his system makes such an offer itself an 
 equally cruel deception ? Does not his Confession of Faith 
 say, that wherever God really offers or Avishes to confer grace, 
 man can neither refuse nor resist ; ^ and that no act of his is 
 required in order that grace may reign in his heart ? Does it 
 not assert that all this is solely the word of God ; and that 
 man, until he has been actually justified, is in the admission 
 of grace simply passive 9^ What, then, becomes of the 
 justice and truth of God, when he is thus represented as con- 
 demning men for the rejection of grace which was not seriously 
 offered, and which, if offered, by its very nature could not 
 have been rejected? Where is the sanctity of God in the 
 system of those who describe him as offering to his creatures 
 that which, by the free act of his own will, he has rendered 
 them incapable of receiving '? Can they believe in the tnith 
 of God, who attribute to him a double and discordant will ; 
 who represent him as making known to sinners, by his 
 declared will, that they shall not die but live ; and, at the 
 same time, by his secret will, determining that they shall not 
 live, but die ; who represent the Spirit of God as insinuating 
 itself into the hearts of men, not to sanctify, not to enlighten 
 or strengthen them, that they might be elevated to an union 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, xvii. 2. Grace also is said to be conferred and really 
 offered only where God had so decreed. But the decree is infallible, irresistible, 
 and unconditional. 
 
 2 " This effectual call (to grace and salvation) is of God's free and special grace 
 alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, 
 until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit," &c. — Id. x. 2. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 123 
 
 with himself, and enahlecl to reach the goal of everlasting 
 happiness, but for the distinct purpose of producing abortive 
 effects and works, in order to have in those effects and works 
 the motive, or rather the pretext for a more dreadful punish- 
 ment ? 
 
 The deceit which Calvinism depicts the God of truth as 
 employing, in his dealings with his creatures, is not confined 
 to his treatment of the reprobate. Even in regard of his own 
 elect, he is described as acting and speaking with the same 
 insincerity. Although in his denunciations of sin he repeatedly 
 threatens that its consequences will be fatal to every soul that 
 yields to its enticements — although he makes no exceptions, 
 and grants to no one the privilege of offending him with 
 impunity, Calvinism ventures to trace even here a hidden 
 will directly at variance with that which has been manifested 
 to the world. The justified are a people truly favoured by 
 Calvinism. Their privileges are indeed exalted. They may 
 offend God to any extent ; but they can neither lose his 
 favour nor incur his wrath. They sin with impunity. The 
 law, that is, the expressed will of God, has nothing to say to 
 them. They are above the law. By it they can neither be 
 justified nor condemned. Their sins are no longer imputed 
 to them. Although they sin, it is not true that they shall 
 die. They shall only become more enlightened. They shall 
 only with greater clearness see their inability to do good and 
 their proneness to evil. Such imputations of secret designs 
 on the part of God at variance with his professions are not 
 new. They were resorted to in the earliest days of our race 
 by the first of heretics. The incident is remarkable, and bears 
 too fully upon our subject to be omitted. It fui-nishes us 
 with a perfect illustration : " And the woman answered him, 
 saying, God hath commanded that we should not touch it (the 
 forbidden fruit) lest perhaps we die. And the serpent said to 
 the woman, no, you shall not die the death; for God doth 
 know, that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, yom- eyes 
 shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and 
 evil." ^ Calvin has, in this part of his system, adopted the 
 
 1 Genesis iii. 3—5. 
 
124 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 language of one wlio, like himself, could make a liberal use 
 of Scripture in support of his theories. But it is for those of 
 his followers Avho sincerely desire to honour God according to 
 his will, to say whether Scripture be well employed in defend- 
 ing doctrines like to that which now occupies our attention. 
 The Confession of Faith thus assures us of the readiness of 
 the justified to violate the law of God : " They (the just) 
 may, through the temptations of Satan . . . fall into 
 grievous sins, and for a time continue therein." ^ Nevertheless, 
 the impmiity with which they commit those " grievous sins " 
 is in the same chapter thus complacently established : "They 
 whom God hath accepted in his Beloved . , . can neither 
 totally nor finally fall aioay from the state of grace, but shall 
 certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally 
 saved." ^ How utterly the immunity from the guilt of sin, 
 which God is here represented as conceding to the justified, is 
 in contradiction with his expressed purpose, will be made 
 strikingly apparent by the declaration which he publishes by 
 the mouth of Ezekiel : "The soul that sinneth, the same shall 
 die. . . . The wickedness of the wicked shall be upon 
 him. V. 24. But if the just man turn himself away from his 
 justice, and do iniquity, according to all the abominations 
 which the wicked man usetli to work, shall he live? All his 
 justices which he had done shall not be remembered in the 
 prevarication by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin 
 which he hath committed, in them he shall die. y. 26. For 
 when the just turneth himself away from his justice and com- 
 mitteth iniquity, he shall die therein ; in the injustice that he 
 hath wrought he shall die."^ Any hypothesis which supposes 
 that God is truth, must be unequal to the task of reconciling 
 the published designs of God, found in the above verses and 
 in every portion of Scripture, Avith those " secret counsels " 
 attributed to him by Calvinism in general, and by the Con- 
 fession of Faith in particular. 
 
 On this subject, where its usual inconsistency Avould have 
 been a virtue, Calvinism is consistent, and fears not to describe 
 the action of divine Providence in the affairs of men, in a style 
 
 1 Confession of Faith xvii. 3. 2 Id. xvii. 1. * Ezekiel xviii. 20— 2G. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTTJRE. 125 
 
 perfectly harmonizing with tliose secret reservations and 
 designs it had attributed to God. All is one vast system of 
 unreality. Christianity itself is, by the principles of Calvin, 
 only a magnificent fiction. Its preaching is instituted to 
 induce men to believe that they are masters of their own 
 actions, and that they can abstain from sin if they will, and 
 practise, if they will, the good required of them. It tells all 
 men tliat they are called to labour for salvation, just as if God 
 had not absolutely deteraiined the lot of every individual 
 from eternity, regardless of whether they should believe or 
 not, whether they should work good or devote themselves to 
 evil. It threatens men with punishment if they transgress 
 the law, and promises heaven to all who will repent and turn 
 to justice, just as if the justified could fall from the state of 
 grace, and the wicked had it in their power to turn from their 
 evil ways and live. Conscience, too, has been taught by God 
 to aid in the general plan of deception, and to rouse from the 
 depth of man's being a resistless conviction that he can avoid 
 sin, and attain the end of his being. In a word, the gospel 
 speaks to man as if he were free ; it treats him in all things 
 on the supposition that he is free; its instructions, admonitions, 
 reproaches, threatenings, promises ; its efforts to seek the 
 recesses of the sinful heart, and hold up the evil-doer to him- 
 self; its anatomy of his character, affections, passions, weak- 
 nesses, to discover the proper chord to be touched, that the 
 joyful sounds of the eternal truths may find an echo in his 
 breast ; to find a point on which to rest the lever that shall 
 raise his being from its state of degradation, and make him 
 worthy to be numbered among the sons of God; all suppose 
 that man can be moved, that he can act or refuse to act ; that 
 he has the power of acting in the manner God requires, or 
 contrary both to the divine law and the dictates of conscience ; 
 that he is free fr-om any necessity, arising from an absolute 
 predestination, as well as from external coaction. The sacra- 
 ments of Christianity have in like manner been appointed to 
 confer and to increase grace, and to prepare the Christian 
 f )r meeting the temptations to which he is exposed, and 
 surmounting the difficulties which obstruct his spiritual 
 
126 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 progress. The self-examination which precedes the reception 
 of a sacrament, the self-reproach which follows the discovery 
 of sin, and infidelity to grace, suppose that man had the 
 power to have avoided the sins with which he reproaches 
 himself of having been guilty. If his CA^ery thought and 
 action has been determined for him from eternity without any 
 contingency on his own will, then his purposes of amendment 
 are but the last act of a humiliating force. 
 
 The redemption, too — all Christianity is full of it. Its 
 excellence, efficiency, and necessity form the constant theme 
 of the preacher. It is represented as the fountain of infinite 
 merit, and the source of grace. How pressing are the invita- 
 tions given by God himself, in his gospel, and by his ministers 
 in his name, to all that thirst, to come and receive the living 
 water of this fountain, without money and without price ! 
 How beneficent must such an invitation appear to a world 
 groaning under the weight of sin ! How sweet, how bound- 
 less seems the mercy of God towards his ungrateful creatures! 
 Alas ! it is all but a dream or a deception. The world may 
 again sink back into despair. The redemption only of the 
 elect, says Calvinism, was wrought on Calvary. An offer of 
 redemption, therefore, made to any others, is but one piece 
 more of that miserable web of disappointment and deception 
 in which man is on every side enveloped. Even the Confes- 
 sion of Faith speaks in every page of the duties of men, 
 whether they be regarded as saints or sinners, as if they w^ere 
 really free, as if they could, if they chose, attain to both grace 
 and salvation. But it acknowledges, without tergiversation, 
 that in reality there is no such thing — that all is but a fond 
 imagination. " Although," it says, " in relation to the fore- 
 knowledge and decree of God — the first cause — all things 
 come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same 
 providence, he ordereth them to fiill out according to the 
 nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contin- 
 gently."^ It is here said that God so orders all events as to 
 induce men to believe that they have power to act otherwise 
 than they do ; that they are following the dictates of their 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, v. 2. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 127 
 
 own uncontrolled will, when they are, both in their outward 
 acts and the movements of their will, only accomplishing 
 that which they had been absolutely predetermined to do, 
 and forming so many links in that chain of second causes 
 which have been " ordered " to fall out freehj. The language 
 is certainly far from being philosophically correct ; but the 
 meaning no one can be at a loss to understand. The world 
 with all its inhabitants is a grand and ingenious piece of 
 mechanism. It is a philosophical toy on a gigantic scale, 
 where the workmanship is most perfect, and the wires, and 
 pulleys, and cranks which produce its varied motions are 
 perfectly concealed, and not liable to decay. So perfect, 
 indeed, is the machinery, that the creatures which appear in 
 succession, and perform their part in the general design, 
 imagine themselves that they are free, and their acts contingent 
 solely on their own will. To this opinion they are in-esistibly 
 led by the voice of God addressed to them through revelation 
 and conscience. But all this only tends to the completeness 
 of the effect, and shows how perfectly all the arrangements 
 have been combined for the conduct of the automata, and hoAV 
 admirably those things which men call free, fall out as they 
 had from eternity been " ordered." The secret will of the 
 Creator is the real and sole mover and director of all. It 
 orders aU things — even every violation of the expressed will ; 
 yet so as that every act of compliance with the secret dis- 
 positions of the divine decrees shall appear to have been, not 
 merely spontaneous, but free effects of the human will. Cal- 
 vin can here throAV important light upon the above article of 
 the Westminster Confession : '' That men do nothing but by 
 the secret will of God, and even by deliberation do nothing 
 whatever but that which he himself had afready decreed, and 
 by his secret direction determined, is established by many 
 and clear proofs." ^ Perceiving that this doctrine destroyed 
 the truth of God, by falsifying the authentic declarations of 
 his will to all men, and especially his invitations and exhorta- 
 
 1 "Quod, autem nihil efficiunt homines nisi arcano Dei nutu, nee quicquam deliber- 
 ando agitent nisi quod ipse jam decreverit, et arcana sua direetione constituat, 
 innumeris et claris testimoniis probatur." — Instiiiitio, lib. i. c. 18, § 1. 
 
128 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 tlons to sinners, Calvin undertakes to defend his teaching 
 from the attacks of his adversaries. He says : " As to the 
 objection that, if nothing happens unless by the act of God's 
 Avill, there are in God two contrary wills, because, hy his 
 lildden counsel he decrees thinrjs which he distinctly forbids hy 
 his laiv, it is easily resolved."^ And by Calvin's method it 
 certainly is. The charge that there are contrary wills in God 
 is admitted, and the responsibility of the doctrine thrown from 
 the shoulders of Calvin upon the third person of the blessed 
 Trinity : " I wish the reader," he continues, " to take notice 
 that this cavil is directed, not against me, but against the 
 Holy Spirit."^ Hahernus conjitentum reum — There needs no 
 further evidence. Not only are principles laid down which 
 destroy the veracity of God, but their consequences are 
 intrepidly acknowledged. Such is Calvinism. The portrait 
 is from the hand of its author. 
 
 The bearing of this double will attributed to God by 
 Calvinism upon the practical doctrines of Christianity, is to 
 render them altogether meaningless, and, by their want of 
 reality, insulting to many of those to whom they are addressed. 
 If prayer be considered from the Calvinistic point of view, its 
 practice will appear to be as preposterous on the part of the 
 creature as its inculcation on the part of God will seem to be 
 hollow and delusive. The published will of God says to the 
 man w^ho is lost in sin, ask for pardon and reconciliation, and 
 you shall receive. The secret will has already written his 
 doom. He shall neither receive the promised gift nor the 
 power to ask it. The published will says to him : " "Whatever 
 you shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." ^ 
 The secret will has decided his fate. For him no Saviour 
 died. No gift, therefore, can be bestowed upon him. He 
 must look for nothins; but the frowns and maledictions of 
 
 1 "Quodpriino ohjiciunt, si niliil evoniat nisi volcnte Deo, duas in eo contrarias esse 
 voluntates, quia occulto consilio decemata qu« lege sua palam vetuit, facile diluitur." 
 —Td. lib. i. c. 18, § 3. 
 
 2 " Monitos volo lectores, cavillum hoc non in me, sod in Spiritum Sanctum tor- 
 queri." — Id. ibid. 
 
 ? John xvi. 23. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 129 
 
 God In this life, and In the next his place has already for ages 
 been prepared In that lake which burns with fire and brim- 
 stone. The published will says, " Cry to the Lord, and he 
 will turn from his anger." ^ The secret will has closed for 
 ever the ears of the Most High against men who had received 
 their existence for the sole purpose of glorifying God by 
 their destruction. By the expressed will, " prayer is to be 
 made for all men ; because this is pleasing to God, who will 
 have all men to be saved." ^ The secret will has "particularly 
 and unchangeably designed "^ the individuals for whom there 
 is no mercy, no redemption, no salvation. Prayer is the breath 
 of the Christian ; but by this system of imposture it serves 
 only to foster that false impression which Calvinism supposes 
 every outward manifestation of God's will tends to produce. 
 Principles are indestructible. Where they are really held, 
 they live and act even while their possessor may be uncon- 
 scious of their presence, or, at least, unaware of the nature of 
 the guest he entertains. Gradually, though perhaps un- 
 observedly, the principles of Calvinism have been producing 
 their natural fruits in the Presbyterian body. Prayer, or, to 
 be more accurate, pul)lic prayer, has virtually ceased. A 
 moral or doctrinal academic essay is committed to memory 
 by the officiating minister, and addressed ostensibly to God, 
 but in reality to the hearers. So well is this understood by 
 the people, that " the prayer " furnishes the weekly staple of 
 pastoral criticism. Were the people even inclined to look 
 upon the exercise as prayer, and join with their minister, in 
 the spirit of humility, they would find serious difficulties to 
 the accomplishment of their purpose. They are unacquainted 
 with the petitions their minister intends to prefer. They 
 know not the sentiments to which he may feel inclined to give 
 utterance. How, then, could a people, zealous with such a 
 burning zeal for orthodoxy as Calvinists are, turn their minds 
 to the placid confidence of prayer, when they must be all 
 attention lest some Erastian, Pelagian, or even Popish doc- 
 trine, some unacceptable sentiment or uncircumcised expression, 
 should commit tliem in the presence of God as the aiders and 
 
 ' Jonas iii. 8, 9, and iv. 11. 2 i Tim. ii. 1 — 4. ^ Confession of Faith, iii. 4. 
 
 1 
 
130 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 abettors of heresy? With serious care, "the prayer" must 
 be examined as to its literary, logical, and moral qualities. 
 Nor must it be imagined that this general view of prayer is 
 discouraged ; much less is it pronounced to be unsound, or an 
 usurpation of the prerogative of Him to whom it is officially 
 addressed. On the contrary, it is encouraged, in the most 
 unequivocal manner, by the whole economy of Presbyteri- 
 anism. The people are instructed that, when engaged in the 
 election of a minister, they must carefully examine his gift of 
 prayer — they must watch closely the structure of his sentences, 
 the flow of his language, the shade of his opinions, the very 
 tones of his voice, and the acceptableness of his doctrine, as 
 far as it can be gathered from his " trial prayers." Does he 
 pray so as to please the congregation? That is the point. 
 The question wliether his prayers were pleasing to God is 
 quite another matter, and enters not into the programme of 
 the inducting Presbytery. This is a step in advance ; for it 
 places prayer on the list of marketable commodities, whose 
 value can be estimated with as much precision as a given 
 amount of writing for a magazine or review. There is, how- 
 ever, an element in such prayers which, while raising their 
 interest as exhibitions of literary and philosophical talent, 
 detracts much from their respectability, if viewed as serious 
 religious exercises, — they partake so much of the nature of the 
 prize essay. To a Catholic, at least, it seems no trivial act 
 of irreverence which selects the very mercy-seat of God for 
 the battle-ground of men who have met to wrestle for a living. 
 Such prejudices must be looked upon with indulgence, for 
 they are now of old date with the Catholic. It is indeed in 
 the essence of his moral nature to regard prayer as a reality — 
 as an instrument capable of moving earth and heaven ; able to 
 raise the dead in sin to life ; able to erase from the book of 
 judgment, the sentence of the sinner's condemnation. The 
 principles of Calvinism will, sooner or later, discard prayer as 
 a useless form of words — a mere waste of time. The utter 
 impossibility of its producing any effects, or of conducing 
 directly or indirectly to any appreciable end, has been already 
 maintained by influential parties among the Calvinists of 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 131 
 
 France.^ Their conduct in this is not merely justified, it was 
 necessitated by the principles of their sect. Nor have the 
 governing and administrative bodies of Calvinism ventured to 
 repudiate their views. Perhaps they fear to touch the sore. 
 It will not bear to be probed. To one who looks dispassion- 
 ately upon the elements and present aspect of Calvinism, it 
 appears evident that there are several questions, of which this 
 of prayer is one, which cannot be safely handled. It is one 
 of those cases in which to draw the weapon from the wound, 
 or to open the gangrene, would be instantaneous death. 
 
 We have referred to the Atonement. It will, we doubt not, 
 be of interest to the reader, that we examine more closely the 
 influence of Calvinism upon this great dogma. The subject 
 is well worthy of our deepest attention, for all Christianity 
 
 1 We allude principally to the pastor Cockerell of Paris. This man is the lead- 
 ing Calvinist of France. There is not a more distinct notice taken here of his 
 system, as we have no longer at hand the work in which he treats at length of the 
 nature and effects of prayer, which, however, we some time since read with con- 
 siderable attention and no little surprise. We were scarcely prepared for the full 
 blaze of Protestant light which poured from that work upon our dazzled eyes. The 
 author advances with firm step on the path which Luther and Calvin had opened 
 up for him. He is certainly a better Protestant ; and if we regard the fundamental 
 principles of Calvinism, a truer Cahdnist than his fellow sectaries on this side 
 the channel. He maintains that prayer can get no favour from God, either spiri- 
 tual or temporal ; that is to say, as far as prayer is petition, it is folly. He admits, 
 however, that at times it does produce eflects ; but they are, he says, only indirect 
 —by reflection, as it were— and confined to the mind of him who prays. It may, 
 he says, compose the mind, and, to some extent, promote a spirit of resignation to 
 God's will ; or, more properly, to fate. It wUl be seen that its function, by M. 
 Cockerell's theory, is that of a mere philosophical meditation, or a soothmg distrac- 
 tion from care and grief. A man of this school would betake himself to prayer 
 solely for a purpose which he might more consistently, and with not less eflicacy, 
 accomplish by the perusal of a few pages of Plato, Shakspeare, or Walter Scott. 
 M. Cockerell is, we believe, the chief minister in the church which is the scene of 
 Pastor Monod's labours. The intimate connections of the latter gentleman with the 
 Calvinists of the United Kingdom, would seem to indicate that the theories of his 
 senior colleague are by no means unknown either to the members of the Scotch 
 General Assemblies, or to the heroes of the Evangelical Alliance. Certain it is, his 
 speculations have, as yet, excited little or no alarm, nor have they given rise to any 
 public expression of surprise. Is it possible that men so zealous for every iota of 
 that blessed evangel, which was revealed in 1580 to the king's most excellent 
 majesty and the three estates of the realm, as are our friends of the Free Kirk, can 
 connive at error or wnk at heterodoxy ? 
 
132 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 turns upon it — it is the key to the history of our race, and 
 throws a bright light upon the conduct of Providence in the 
 affairs of men. The world, by sin, had cut itself off from 
 God, and contracted a debt which could be cancelled only at 
 an infinite cost. All the efforts of created beings must have 
 for ever fallen infinitely short of making even one step towards 
 the remission of sin. The goodness of God sought out a 
 remedy. The only-begotten Son of God offered himself to 
 become a propitiation for the sins of the world, that the justice 
 of his Father might be fully satisfied, and that the world 
 through him might be saved. The incarnation and subsequent 
 humiliations, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ, opened to 
 man the gates of heaven, and restored him to his lost inherit- 
 ance. The religion of Christ was instituted for the preserva- 
 tion and propagation of this truth, and for supplying to men, 
 till the end of time, the means by which the merits of Christ's 
 death might be made available. From this mystery the 
 word of God derives its unction and its power. From this, the 
 sacraments receive their efficacy. By this, fiiith is possible, 
 and through it has been privileged to open the minds of men 
 to see something of the greatness and goodness of God, and to 
 prepare tlie way for that sanctification with which He desires 
 that every soul should be adorned. By this, prayer is able to 
 invest mortals with the power of omnipotence ; for the blood 
 of Christ has obtained for them access to the presence of God, 
 and clothed their petitions with its own infinite power. By 
 this, the poor efforts of men are elevated bej^ond their nature, 
 and acquire before God a value incalculably greater than the 
 mere natural abilities of any creature could have conferred. 
 
 Following the example of Luther, Calvin and the other 
 lleformers gave the utmost prominence to the doctrine of the 
 Atonement. It is, indeed, impossible to exaggerate its im- 
 portance, whether we regard its nature or effects. But, in as 
 far as they seemed to dwell so exclusively on this one point, 
 as to exclude, or affect to consider of little consequence, the 
 other mysteries of religion, they certainly allowed themselves 
 to be carried to excess. This, however, was the natural con- 
 sequence of the view taken of justification by the majority of 
 
KELATIOXS TO SCRIPTURE. 13?> 
 
 the Eeformers. If faitli alone, as tliej asserted, were tlie in- 
 stiTiment of justification, and if its efficacy consisted in the act 
 of the mind apprehending the merits of Christ, then evidently 
 the Atonement was not only the centre and tm-ning-point of 
 Christianity, but it was, literally, whole and entire Christian- 
 ity. The Evangelicals in particular have confined their reli- 
 gion so exclusively to the worship of this mystery, that they 
 consider it to be a depreciation of the Atonement to think or 
 speak of any other doctrine. And a sermon which should, for 
 a moment, leave the favom-ite theme, even to venture into the 
 region of duties, and inculcate obedience to the law of God, 
 would be indignantly condemned as a retm-n to the bondage 
 of Popery ; or, at least, censured as a worthless piece of " dead 
 dry morality." With this influential party of the Protestant 
 body, it has ever been a favom-ite charge against the Catholic 
 Church, that she does not speak with sufficient frequency of 
 the Atonement — that, in fact, she conceals it from public view 
 — that she withdraws attention from it, and teaches men to 
 trust to the intercession of the saints, to the virtue of the 
 sacraments, and to good works ; that she insists upon explicit 
 belief in many other mysteries, and refuses to accept of faith 
 in the Atonement as a complete equivalent for all truth, and 
 substitute for all morality. They say, it suffices for us to know 
 that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin — that Christ has 
 satisfied for us fully ; and that, by his death alone, exclusive 
 of all co-operation on our part, we have salvation. The Chm-ch 
 will readily, indeed, plead guilty to all the charges save this, 
 that she seeks to conceal or draw attention from the Atone- 
 ment, or to lessen its importance in the eyes of her children. 
 So far from this, she considers that all the practices she 
 recommends, all the devotions, all the duties she insists upon, 
 are but applications or instruments of the Atonement, or in 
 some intimate way connected with it. If the saints have 
 power to aid their brethren on earth, this, she is careful to 
 instruct us, they owe solely to the death of Christ, which made 
 them saints. If the sacraments have efficacy to heal and 
 strengthen us, they have received it fi-om the merits of Christ, 
 which they have been instituted in order to apply to the soul. 
 
134 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Relics, penitential works, prayer, even belief in the various 
 truths of religion, all receive their efficacy from the death of 
 Christ. Whatever influence, direct or indirect, they have in 
 the soul, they exercise solely through the virtue they have 
 drawn from that fountain of all grace. The Church, then, in 
 her various offices, feasts, practices, and instructions, does but 
 present before us, in some view or other, the great dogma of 
 the Atonement. She herself lives by it and for it ; and if the 
 word is not so often on her lips, the mystery is not the less 
 deeply engraven on her heart. She has no such contracted ider.s 
 of the efficacy of Christ's blood, as to imagine that its virtue 
 cannot extend beyond the narrow circle of the elect. She 
 maintains it to be infinite, and capable of saving the whole 
 world. She does not say, with the Confession of Faith, that 
 Christ died only for the elect, but with the apostle, that " He 
 is the propitiation for om* sins ; and not for ours only, but also 
 for those of the whole world." But let us now trace the effects 
 of the Calvinistic view of God's truth upon this fundamental 
 article of the Christian religion. 
 
 Calvinism expressly teaches that the Atonement is a limited 
 work. Its efficacy is confined to the elect. Whether this 
 limitation supposes that the work of redemption was but of 
 finite value, and is thus equivalent to a denial of our Saviour's 
 divinity, is a question which does not at present fall within 
 the scope of our inquiry. The limitation, then, in the efficacy 
 of Christ's sacrifice is said to arise, not from the bad disposi- 
 tions of men, or their refusal to appropriate to themselves the 
 benefits of redemption, but from the nature of the sacrifice. 
 The extracts already given from the Confession of Faith assert, 
 in formal terms, that Christ offered himself for the elect, and 
 fur them only. Such a restriction seems to detract much from 
 the weight which might have been attached to those profes- 
 sions of thankfulness and admiration of God's goodness and 
 power displayed in this mystery, which are the unfailing dis- 
 tinction of evangelical Protestants. If we look upon the over- 
 wrought expressions, in connection with the limited purpose 
 attributed to the Atonement, we find the conclusion forcing 
 itself upon us, that they savour more of self-righteous congni- 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 135 
 
 tulation than of humble and adoring gratitude. Anyhow, 
 the principles of Presbyterianism are still more fatally at 
 variance with the infinite value of the Atonement, than even 
 the avowed doctrines to which we have just alluded. Let the 
 reader recall once more that article of the Westminster Con- 
 fession, in which God is said to have foreordained all things 
 absolutely ; that is, to have decreed and determined all that 
 shall come to pass, directly, and without decreeing, or suppos- 
 ing, or foreseeing anything whatever as a condition.* The 
 justification of the elect, their perseverance in grace, and final 
 triumph in heaven, have then all been ordained from eternity, 
 without requiring or supposing anything as a condition. Thus 
 it is that good works, faith, and final perseverance are formally 
 excluded by the Westminster Confession as conditions of sal- 
 vation. The elect are said to be saved solely because God 
 decreed their salvation : " Those of mankind that are predes- 
 tinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was 
 laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the 
 secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in 
 Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, 
 without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance 
 in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as condi- 
 tions or causes moving him thereunto."^ The early Reform- 
 ers, imagining that, in the salvation of sinners, the Church 
 attributed too much to means and to the co-operation of man, 
 went so far as to deny all activity on the part of man, and left 
 him, according to the comparison of Luther, a mere log in the 
 hands of God. Li order to make God all, they annihilated 
 man. Their motive may have been pious ; but it is certainly 
 a morbid piety that contents itself only with gross exaggera- 
 tion, and seeks to honour God by depreciating the bounties of 
 his providence. Some such motive may have dictated the 
 above article of the Westminster Confession. However that 
 may be, its teaching destroys all idea of an Atonement. If the 
 Atonement be a reality — if there be any meaning in the words, 
 Christ died for the salvation of sinners, they mean that it is 
 by, and in consequence of, the death of Jesus Christ, that God 
 
 ^ Confession of Faith, iii. 2. ^ Hid. iii. 5. 
 
13G CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 pardons sin, and admits tlic penitent to his favour on earth, 
 and to salvation after death. If they do not mean this, they 
 mean nothing. They mean, tlien, that the Atonement is really 
 both the means and the motive, in consequence of which, and 
 the condition upon which, God consents to save any man. But 
 the above article declares that those who are saved, are saved 
 solely by the decree of God ; and that neither faith nor " any 
 other thing" is admissible either as a condition or motive. 
 This is confirmed by the general doctrine of Calvinism on the 
 subject of the divine decrees. God is said absolutely, imme- 
 diately, and without any condition, or foreknowledge of any 
 future event, to decree everything that comes to pass. Cal- 
 vinism, therefore, by its general theory, and by a special 
 article, denies that the elect are saved from any other motive 
 than the decree of God. It is then evident, that since the 
 decree is, as alleged in the above article, the sole cause of 
 salvation, the elect must have been saved, even although the 
 incarnation and death of Christ had never taken place. In 
 fact, that the Atonement has no influence whatever in the affair 
 of salvation. The Calvinist cannot avoid this consequence. 
 He cannot say that the Atonement is not excluded from being 
 a condition or cause of salvation, because the causes spoken of 
 in the article are said to be "in the creature." For, the causes 
 excluded are not those qualities which man has by nature, or 
 which he could of himself acquh-e. They are expressly said 
 to be such as are immediate gifts of God. Thus, among the 
 excluded causes, faith and perseverance in grace are specially 
 named. Now, the Atonement, to be a cause of salvation, must 
 be in the creature, at least in the manner he possesses faith, or 
 charity, or any other grace, for it must be applied to his soul. 
 If it is not so applied, he remains in his sins. The AtonemCiit 
 itself, then, if a cause of salvation, is in the creature ; and 
 that, too, in the same manner as faith, pei-severance, and the 
 other causes which the Confession of Faith declares to be 
 neither motives nor conditions of salvation. It is, therefore, 
 directly excluded by the words of the article. Nor can it be 
 said that, although the Atonement do not directly move God 
 to save the sinner, it might yet have been the motive of his 
 
IIELATIONS TO SCRIPTUKE. 137 
 
 saving decree. For if anytliing future had been the motive 
 of God's decree, then wouhl the decree have been conditional, 
 and Calvinism, with its absolute predestination, would fall to 
 the ground. It is proved, therefore, that the teaching of the 
 Westminster Confession annihilates, or at least renders mean- 
 ingless and fruitless, the sacred mystery of the Atonement. By 
 thus "making void the death of Christ," Calvinism classifies 
 the work of redemption among those unrealities to which its 
 principles reduce the other doctrines and institutions of Chris- 
 tianity. For four thousand years the whole world had ex- 
 pected the coming of the Saviour. His advent had been 
 announced by the Almighty to the patriarchs, foretold by the 
 prophets, and shadowed forth in the sacrifices and rites of the 
 old law. God had raised the hopes of the world that the Holy 
 One would make an offering for sin, and that His sacrifice 
 would be the condition and cause of salvation. Calvinism, 
 forgetful of its professions of regard for the Atonement, tells us 
 that the secret will of God has frustrated the credulity of the 
 world, by determining, without any condition whatever^ the 
 salvation of all who shall be saved, and the damnation of all 
 who shall be lost. 
 
 Calvinism, therefore, places God in conflict with Himself. 
 While it represents him as announcing that certain events are 
 possible and conditional upon others, it at the same time tells 
 us, that He himself has rendered those same events absolutely 
 and unchangeably impossible, and that, by directly decreeing 
 all things, he has precluded the possibility of any conditional 
 or contingent event in the conduct of the universe. Calvinism, 
 therefore, attacks directly the truth of God. It also represents 
 Him as encouraging what the Calvinist can regard only as a 
 false prejudice — the notion that men are free; and as instituting 
 rites and means the most extensive and varied, which, were 
 not all men free, and their salvation possible, and the price of 
 their redemption paid, would be nothing else than a gigantic 
 apparatus of deception. Calvinism, therefore, also indirectly 
 subverts the truth of God, and represents him as adding insult 
 to the misfortunes of his creatures, which he himself had 
 rendered irremediable. 
 
138 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Section III. — The Sanctity of God. 
 
 The proofs adduced in the two preceding sections, wouhl, 
 of themselves, amply justify the conclusion which we here 
 propose to establish. Whatever derogates from the justice or 
 the truth of God, derogates also from his holiness, which con- 
 sists in the infinite perfection of all his attributes, and the 
 absolute opposition of his nature to moral evil. To attack, 
 therefore, or to deny any one of his attributes, is to deny his 
 holiness. But Calvinism assails, in a still more formal manner, 
 the sanctity of God. Had it not been so, we might have 
 contented ourselves with calling the reader's attention to the 
 indirect antagonism of the system to this divine attribute. 
 The matter is, however, certainly among the most absorbing 
 that can claim the attention of the Christian ; and the voice of 
 Calvinism is so portentous, yet so clear in its utterances, that 
 it well merits at our hands a more special notice. 
 
 No question with which the human intellect has attempted 
 to grapple, presents to unassisted reason problems of deeper 
 interest or greater difficulty, than that of the origin of moral 
 evil. Where their investigations have been conducted with- 
 out the lights of revelation, men have, on this subject, been 
 led farther and more fatally astray than, perhaps, on any other 
 question which has ever occupied their attention. The exist- 
 ence of moral evil, or sin, is a fact of consciousness. All men, 
 in every age, have seen and believed that there is sin. But God 
 is infinitely perfect, infinitely holy. Sin, therefore, can, in no 
 respect, be traced up to him. Whence, then, is sin ? Where 
 does its guilt attach? These were the questions which the 
 founders of sects and systems of philosophy felt themselves 
 obliged to answer. This was the rock upon which they split. 
 The difficulties which the sages of Paganism had to overcome, 
 ere they could solve the problem, were simply insurmountable ; 
 and they became still more hopelessly so, in proportion as the 
 existence of an absolute necessity or fiite was, with greater 
 distinctness, acknowledged in their systems. For it was 
 evident of itself, that that which could necessitate all things 
 must be supreme. But it was in no degree less clearly seen, 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 139 
 
 that the Supreme Being must be infinitely holy, and sin in- 
 finitely ahhorrent in his sight. This evident truth drove the 
 philosophers either to deny the existence of moral evil, or to 
 seek some other cause of sin than the all-perfect God, or the 
 necessitated creature. Sin they could not deny. It was 
 palpable. Their conscience published it. They saw it in the 
 world around them — a dark, loathsome, overwhelming flood. 
 Its presence was testified by the existence of laws, by the 
 consent and universal tradition of mankind, and by the sacri- 
 fices, whose traces were to be found wherever a vestige of the 
 human race could be discovered. Whence, then, or from 
 whom did it spring? This was the difficulty; and the philo- 
 sophers lost the clue to its solution, by their denial of the 
 divine and human liberty. To cut the knot, the most ancient 
 of the Persian and Egyptian sages divided the empire of God. 
 They supposed that there were two eternal principles — the one 
 good, the other evil. The latter was the author of all sin and 
 physical evil ; the former was the cause of all good. It is 
 evident that this hypothesis explained nothing ; while the 
 previous question returned, embarrassed with additional diffi- 
 culties. It destroyed the unity and infinity of God, and thus 
 overturned the very truth it had been devised to save. Such 
 as it was, however, it formed the basis of almost all the sys- 
 tems subsequently elaborated by the Greek and Eoman philo- 
 sophers, as well as by the heretics, who, during the first two 
 centuries, threatened to reduce Christianity to their own 
 bastard heathenism. Plato adhered to this system, so far as 
 to make the cause of evil co-eternal with God. Matter, he 
 said, was the principle of evil. That God, therefore, in the 
 creation (or in his system, the formation) of the world, might 
 not be represented as the author of evil, he created intelli- 
 gences, through whose instrumentality all things were made. 
 The instruments were made the authors of evil; and the First 
 Principle was said to be unaffected by the wickedness which 
 his agents produced. This miserable subterfuge, by which 
 the responsibility of the author is thrown upon his instru- 
 ments, contains the prototype of Calvinism. Let not the 
 reader imagine that we are wandering from our subject in thus 
 
140 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 lightly glancing at tlie long-exploded theories of Paganism. 
 We have a veiy distinct end in view, and it bears directly 
 upon one subject of this section. If those theories be studied 
 with attention, it will be found that, however much execrated 
 when presented in the terms of their authors, they have yet 
 been revived in modern heresy. It is true, the phraseology 
 and grosser ideas of polytheism would not for a moment be 
 tolerated, even in the lowest ranks of sectarianism; but it is 
 surprising how much of the eastern ideas Calvin has been able 
 to embody under scriptural forms of words, in his scheme of 
 reformed Christianity. The doctrines of Plato were, with some 
 modifications, the most prevalent to be found in the philoso- 
 phical world, when the apostles of our Lord were preparing 
 to carry forth to the ends of the earth, the Gospel which was 
 destined to overturn those doctrines, and to replace them by a 
 system of truths at once holy in themselves, and divine in 
 their origin. 
 
 The fundamental ideas which Plato had boiTOwed from 
 Zoroaster and the other eastern philosophers, had, for ages, 
 held almost exclusive possession of the human mind. They 
 had thus come to be regarded as first principles. Christianity, 
 therefore, required to bring about a revolution, not only in the 
 acquired ideas of men, but — a task of infinitely greater difficulty 
 — to eradicate the very principles upon which men had been 
 taught to form their ideas and judgments. With comparative 
 ease, a man will throw from him an erroneous idea which he 
 may have formed ; but to divest himself of his principles — to 
 abandon his cherished modes of thought, is an almost super- 
 human task. Instead of frankly confessing their ignorance, 
 men are often inclined rather to compromise, than undergo 
 the trouble, and sometimes pain, of an entire change. Thus 
 it was that many of those who had heard the preachers of the 
 divine revelation, were desirous of engrafting it upon the putrid 
 stock of their own pagan philosophy, and produced that 
 monstrous spawn of impious sectaries, known by the general 
 appellation of Gnostics. There is nothing in the foul systems 
 of these sectaries to attract our attention, beyond their general 
 doctrines of the essential malignity of matter ; and the exist- 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 141 
 
 ence of a demiurgos, or inferior god — the creator of matter, and 
 cause of evil. They are mentioned here, only because they 
 form the last link in the chain which connected Zoroaster with 
 Manes. The followers of the latter soon absorbed into their 
 ranks the scattered remnants of discomfited Gnosticism. 
 
 The reseml)lance between the doctrines of Manes and those 
 of several modern sects is so striking, that more than a mere 
 passing notice must be taken of Manicheism. Manes, from 
 whom the various sects of Manicheans derived their name, 
 revived, and asserted with greater distinctness than the ancient 
 Persians had done, the belief of two eternal principles — the one 
 good, the other evil. He maintained that the empire of the 
 universe was divided between these two principles, or gods. 
 One of them, he said, was the creator of the soul, of light, and 
 of certain portions of matter; the other was the author of 
 darkness, the body, and the greater part of the material world. 
 Like Platonism, this system confounded moral with physical 
 evil ; or, to speak more correctly, established principles whicli 
 were incompatible with the possibility of moral evil. With 
 the Platonists, the Manicheans held that all the actions of men 
 were absolutely predestined; and that, consequently, man is not 
 free. They said that he is, nevertheless, capable of contract- 
 ing guilt, because he willingly violates the law. They taught 
 that although the two principles were co-eternal, and therefore 
 equal, yet the evil one had made an irruption into the region 
 of light. In other words, that he had corrupted, and, to a 
 certain extent, obtained power over the souls of men, the off- 
 spring of the good principle. Upon this, the latter, desirous 
 of saving, at least, a part of his creation from the power of his 
 adversaiy, made a compromise, by which he agreed to sacrifice 
 the greater portion of the human race, in order to preserve the 
 remainder. Hence the majority of men are wicked — they have 
 been handed over to the Evil One — they are the price of safety 
 to the elect. God, or the good principle, acts, they said, 
 necessarily. In confonnlty with his nature, and, therefore, can 
 act only in a beneficent manner. The elect, who alone had 
 been left to him, and Avho are his absolute property, on whom 
 the evil principle had renounced all designs, thus cannot, for 
 
142 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 any crimes, receive punishment, nor lose his favour. The evil 
 principle, acting in like manner necessarily, can give to the 
 portion of men that belongs to him only unmixed evil. They 
 cannot, therefore, by any faith, or works, or desires, cancel 
 the doom which has been recorded against them. Reprobation 
 is, therefore, the consequence, not of the sins of the wicked, 
 but of the unchangeably malignant will of the evil principle. 
 Salvation is, in like manner, unconditionally accorded to the 
 elect. They are saved by the sole act of God's will, without 
 regard to faith, or works, or any other condition. Another 
 doctrine of the Manicheans, remarkable in itself, and interest- 
 ing by reason of its revival in modern heresy, we shall yet 
 notice. They held the soul to be an emanation from the 
 supreme light, or good principle ; and the body, as matter, 
 they declared to be not only sinful, hut sin. It was simply 
 evil. This doctrine led to those awful errors upon the subject 
 of marriage, which rendered the Manicheans a moral plagiie 
 wherever they appeared. A system such as this, utterly in- 
 compatible with the existence of society, soon brought upon 
 the sectaries the eyes of all civil rulers. Driven from the East, 
 they sought refuge or concealment in Spain, in Bulgaria, and 
 in the southern parts of France. In those countries, under 
 the names of Cathari, Bulgari, and Albigenses, they perpetuated 
 their system of eiTor and their impious practices, until some 
 years after the introduction of Calvinism into France; the last 
 of them seem to have sacrificed the most obnoxious of their 
 tenets, and assimilated their creed to the standard of Geneva. 
 It may have been that Calvin had, upon this subject of evil, 
 adopted, for his model, the system of Manes ; or that the 
 Manicheans who joined his ranks reacted upon Calvinism, so 
 as to tinge it with their old opinions. At all events, the re- 
 semblance between the systems is too extensive and too marked 
 to have been altogether accidental. Some of the points of 
 resemblance, or even identity, will already have suggested 
 themselves to the reader ; more will appear in the following 
 pages. The differences between them consist, perhaps, on 
 some points more in their respective terms, than in their 
 doctrine. When we examine the theory of two contrary 
 
KELATIONS TO SCIlirTURE. 143 
 
 principles, It appears so evidently absurd and self-contradic- 
 tory, that it is with difficulty we can conceive how it could 
 have ever been entertained. It is generally believed that 
 many of the Persian magi, to avoid the contradiction, supposed 
 that the two principles were, though eternal, the offspring of 
 one only God. But they could have been eternal only by 
 being God himself; thus they would have been identical with 
 the divine will, not as it is in itself, but as it was manifested 
 in creation and providence. Instead, however, of attributing 
 to God himself two wills thus mutually destructive, the one 
 producing only good, the other constantly neutralizing the 
 good and producing evil, they adopted the equally preposterous 
 idea, that the two wills were distinct beings. They, in fact, 
 attributed to the Deity two contradictory wills, which, to avoid 
 inconveniences, they personified. But it was impossible for 
 them thus to effect their object. Indeed, it is a hopeless task 
 to endeavour, without the aid of revelation, or independently 
 of it, to account for the existence of moral evil in a manner 
 which can be reconciled with the sanctity of God. Whether 
 the magi supposed matter to have been eternal, or the principle 
 of evil which acted upon it to have existed from eternity, they 
 equally limited the empire and the power of God, and thus 
 rendered him only a finite being ; that is, they denied the 
 essence of God; for God is essentially infinite in all perfections. 
 The Manicheans, moreover, by supposing a principle essentially 
 evil, fell into an error, if possible, still more absurd. Evil is 
 the negation of good. An evil principle, or infinite evil, 
 would, therefore, have been the absence of all good, even 
 existence. It would, therefore, have been nothing. Yet such 
 a principle was that in which the Manicheans believed. Even 
 here, the traces of Manes are to be found in Calvinism. As 
 the question is intimately connected with the nature and cause 
 of evil, it will scarcely be considered a digression, to consider 
 how upon this subject the two systems coalesce. 
 
 In the description given by the Confession of Faith of the 
 sanctified man, the "corruption of nature" is said still to abide 
 throughout the whole man. It is spoken of, not as a defect, 
 or weakness, or proneness to sin; but rather as something 
 
144 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 which forms a real part of man's being, but which is, at the 
 same time, sin. In the sanctified man, there seems to be estab- 
 lished a real dualism. He is spoken of as having a double 
 nature, the one part rendered holy after justification, the other 
 evil in itself, and incapable of being sanctified. As the two 
 principles of Manicheism acted necessarily ; so here, in man, 
 an interminable war rages between his " unregenerate " and 
 his " sanctified part." " In which war (says the Confession 
 of Faith) , although the remaining corruption may for a time 
 much prevail, yet . . . the regenerate fart doth overcome, 
 and so the saints grow in grace." ^ This is strictly consistent 
 with the Protestant idea of justification. None of the Re- 
 formers would admit that sin could be cleansed from the soul. 
 Their justification consisted in the apprehension, by faith, of 
 the merits of Christ, which then stood between the sinfulness 
 of the soul and the justice of God. The soul remained un- 
 changed. It was precisely as before, only its sins, whether 
 past or future, could be no longer laid to its charge. If the 
 blood of Christ be incapable of washing clean the guilty soul, 
 and its effects be, as the Westminster Confession asserts, only 
 to " cover over" and to " conceal sin from the eyes of God," 
 this inadequacy cannot arise from any want of virtue in the 
 merits of Christ, which, undoubtedly, would wholly purify the 
 just, if the nature of the "corrupted part" was such as to admit 
 of cleansing. If the '^unregenerate part" were only s/?{/«/, 
 surely the blood of Christ, infinitely efficacious, could thoroughly 
 purify it. If it were in its essence good — if it had been the 
 work of God, but had become stained by sin, unquestionably the 
 blood shed on Calvary would be capable of washing out the 
 stain, and rendering the part " white as snow." But if it be 
 not only sinful, but sin^ then we have at once the reason why 
 Protestants so separate justification from sanctification, as to 
 say that a man, without falling from the state of grace, may 
 continue to be guilty of grievous sin — why the just are never 
 truly sanctified — why even the death of Christ cannot sanctify 
 the whole man — why, in a word, sin is said to be only "covered 
 over" and "concealed," but not extirpated from the soul. A 
 
 1 Conjession of Faith, xiii. 3 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 145 
 
 true sanctification could not take place without the annihila- 
 tion of a portion of the just man's being. For the part Avhich 
 is said to be " sin," could not cease to defile the man Avithout 
 ceasing to exist ; for sin cannot cease to be sin. Were, then, 
 the "unregenerate part " to become holy, the change would 
 involve a new creation ; or, at least, the substitution of another 
 being ; and thus the saint who Avould be crowned in heaven, 
 would not be the same being who had fought on earth. The 
 penitent sinner would repent of sins which he had not com- 
 mitted ; and the elect, before justification, would hope, not 
 through faith and repentance, but by the loss of his identity, 
 to receive the favour of God. But is this portion of Mani- 
 cheism Avhich, by pronouncing a part of man's being to be 
 "sin," gives to sin a real substance, only a remote consequence 
 of Calvinism ? Far from it. The doctrine of Manes is laid 
 down, in the Confession of Faith, with greater precision of 
 terms than we have ventured to employ in the above remarks. 
 The doctrine cannot be repudiated by Presbyterians ; for it is 
 clearly contemplated by their standards, reasoned upon, and, 
 of course, supported by the due complement of Scripture texts : 
 " From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indis- 
 posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly 
 inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. This 
 corruption of nature during this life^ doth remain in those that 
 are regenerated ; and although it be through Christ pardoned 
 and mortified, yet both itself, and ALL the motions 
 THEREOF, are truly and j)'>'operly SIN."^ That which is here 
 said to be truly and properly sin, must be a real substance. 
 For, if it were not, it could form no part of man. But the 
 Confession of Faith speaks of the corruption of nature as a 
 part of man's being, contrasting it with his " regenerate part." 
 That to this "corruption" substantial existence is attributed, 
 appears also from this, that it is said to be endowed with 
 activity ; for activity can be predicated only of being. " From 
 it spring all actual transgressions." Transgression, then, is 
 the manifestation of its activity. Not only itself, but " all its 
 motions" are said to be sin Now, a negative, or want, is in 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, vi. 5, 6. 
 
 K 
 
146 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 itself nothing, and can produce nothing. Real l^eing alone is 
 capable either of moving or producing motion — let the nature 
 of the motion be what it may. The motions, then, attributed 
 to the corruption of nature, being real, show it to be a real 
 cause. But a cause must have being ; for if it had not, it 
 would be nothing ; and nothing cannot, in any case, be said to 
 be a cause. From the Confession of Faith, therefore, we con- 
 clude, that the " coi-ruption of nature" is a part of man's being; 
 that it is itself a real being ; and that this being is " truly and 
 properly sin." Whence, then, comes this substance which is 
 said to be sin ? Has it existence from itself, or did it derive its 
 being from any other than God ? In the latter case, God is 
 not the sole creator — he has an equal — there would be more 
 gods than one ; for creation is an act of infinite power. In the 
 former supposition, sin would be self-existing and eternal, and, 
 therefore, the evil principle of Manes. Did it receive existence 
 from God ? Then God is the author of sin. That there is no 
 other alternative, is demonstrated by the works of many among 
 the Reformers, who, to escape from the impious errors of Manes, 
 feared not, with at least equal impiety, to proclaim that God 
 was the author of sm. But, like many illogical reasoners, by 
 their attempt to escape one of the evils, they only succeeded 
 in subjecting themselves to both. 
 
 No one wno has even cursorily examined the doctrines of 
 Calvinism, whether in the writings of its author, or in the 
 Presbyterian standards, can fail to be struck by the manner in 
 which all agency is made to disappear from the world, and 
 God is represented as exclusively active. This general im- 
 pression will be strengthened by a closer study of the system. 
 Second causes disappear, responsibility is destroyed, and those 
 beings who are distinguished by the name of "free agents," 
 prove to be only instruments in the hands of the Creator for 
 the accomplishment of his will. So intimately is the force of 
 an absolute necessity made to pervade all things, so distinctly 
 are all things said to be the immediate results of God's eternal 
 decree, that it seems impossible for the Calvinist, without 
 admitting Pantheism, and destroying thus the idea of evil, to 
 find any other author for sin than that one agent whom his 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 
 
 147 
 
 sjstem acknowledges. We are perfectly aware that Calvinists 
 repudiate with horror the imputation of making God the author 
 of evil. Calvin himself did so, and the Confession of Faith 
 repeatedly protests against the impiety with no less vigour, 
 and equal inconsistency. For, impious as is the doctrine, 
 loudly as it may have been repudiated by the followers of 
 Calvin, it is the strict logical consequence of the principles 
 they have set up and still defend. So long as the Westmin- 
 ster Confession and Larger Catechism continue to be the 
 standards of Presbyterianism, so long as Presbyterian minis- 
 ters and office-bearers subscribe the Confession of Faith, as 
 " the confession of their faith and belief," so long may they 
 be justly charged at least with unpardonable inconsistency ; 
 for they adopt and subscribe, in the teaching of that summary, 
 the very doctrine they reject as an impiety. 
 
 The first part of the article on predestination asserts that 
 " God did, from all eternity, freely and unchangeably ordain 
 whatsoever comes to pass."^ It is necessary here again to 
 remind the reader of the meaning which Calvinism attaches 
 to this eternal decree. It is said to determine all that comes 
 to pass, directly, and without any contingency on the will of 
 the creatm-e, or foreknowledge of its determinations. So that 
 man wills only that which the decree ordained him to will, 
 and he does so solely because it was thus ordained ; his act, or 
 the movement of his will, was not ordained as a consequence 
 upon God's foreknowledge of his free determination. When- 
 ever, in the course of this argument, we reason against pre- 
 destination, it is against the doctrine in tliis purely Calvinistic 
 sense. Now, as it is but too evident that there is sin in the 
 world, and as the existence and extensive prevalence of evil 
 is freely acknowdedged by Presbyterians, it might naturally 
 be concluded that they consider the existence of evil to be the 
 consequence of God's decree. If evil does take place, and if 
 God has from eternity " ordained all whatsoever comes to 
 pass," it seems to be a rigorous consequence that evil Avas 
 embraced by the decree. To put the argument more formally : 
 The Westminster Confession teaches that God decrees and 
 
 ^ Confession of Faith, iii, 1. 
 
148 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 ordains, immediately, " all whatsoever comes to pass." But 
 sin comes to pass. Therefore, by the Westminster Confession, 
 God ordains and decrees sin. Moreover, it teaches that the 
 decree of God is the cause of whatever is, and denies that 
 either God's foresight of future events, or " any other thing," 
 was the cause or motive of his decree. But we have proved 
 that it also teaches that He decrees sin. Therefore it asserts 
 the decree of God to be the cause of sin. What fatuity, then, 
 could have dictated the concluding portion of the article we 
 have referred to, and offered an outrage to the common sense 
 of mankind ? It concludes thus, " Yet so as thereby neither 
 is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of 
 the creatures." Fruitless and foolish effort! Calvinism can- 
 not be cleansed from the dreadful stain. If there be meaning 
 in language, if reason be not in its essence an imposture, 
 undoubtedly Calvinism makes God the author of sin. If 
 Calvinism could be cleared of this fearful charge, and if it 
 were possible for the latter part of the above article to be 
 reconciled with the first, it could only be by one or other of 
 the following suppositions : either, 1°, that, although God 
 absolutely foreordained all things, yet he did not therefore 
 foreordain sin ; or, 2°, that He could have so ordained shi 
 without becoming its author. But it will not be difficult to 
 show that neither supposition can, for a moment, be admitted. 
 1. We assert that, if God foreordains " all whatsoever comes 
 to pass," he foreordains sin. In sin, we may distinguish be- 
 tween what we may call the matter of sin, as the external act, 
 or the thought of the mind ; and the malice of the will, which 
 gives its evil quality to the guilty thought, word, or action. 
 As to the first, there can be no doubt that the Confession of 
 Faith included all sinful acts in the general decree. If they 
 were not included, then so far from " all whatsoever comes to 
 pass" having been foreordained, far the gi-eater part of all that 
 does take place would happen independently of the decree. 
 Moreover, there can be no reason why Presbyterians should 
 seek to except the mere physical acts^ whether of mind or 
 body, from the eternal decree ; for, apart from tlie malice of 
 the will, which renders them sinful, they may be indifferent 
 
r.ELATIOXS TO SCRIPTURE. 149 
 
 or even virtnous. To tcake tlie life of a fellow-creature is 
 murder, when cupidity, revenge, or passion is the motive ; in 
 necessary self-defence, or in lawful warfare, it is guiltless 
 before botli God and man. The judge who sums up the evi- 
 dence, contracts no guilt by repeating the testimony of a per- 
 jured witness ; nor does the witness who merely narrates the 
 blasphemy of a criminal partake of his crime. But, as we 
 have seen, the Confession of Faith (chap, v.) admits expressly 
 that the providence of God " extends itself to the first fall, 
 and all other sins of men and angels." It may, therefore, be 
 considered established, that at least the outward act of sin is, 
 by the Confession of Faith, included in the decree of God. 
 As to the malice of the will, it, too, must be held by Presby- 
 terians to have been foreordained of God. For the alienation 
 of the will from God, which we have termed the malice of the 
 will, is a real state of existence ; and the will, by formally 
 assuming this disposition, passes from its previous state, and 
 acquires a new relation towards both God and the sinful act. 
 But every state of existence, every modification of the will, 
 every change which takes place in its relations, how minute, 
 how secret soever it may be, is a phenomenon as real and as 
 appreciable as any external act can be. It can on no ground 
 whatever be excluded from the category of things "which 
 come to pass." When the just man admits the grace of God, 
 and seeks in acts of praise, or adoration, or charity, to manifest 
 his gratitude, his virtues, and the acts by which he strives to 
 conform his will to the will of God, were, according to the 
 Confession of Faith, all contained in God's eternal decree. 
 In like manner, then, the perversity of will, by which the soul 
 is rendered sinful, will have been foreordained, for equally 
 with pious and virtuous affections, is it included in " all 
 whatsoever comes to pass." Again, if God had not directly 
 foreordained the perversity of the sinner's will, or sin itself, 
 then would the Presbyterian be obliged to deny the possibility 
 of sin. For, as he maintains that nothing can take place but 
 what had been directly predetermined by the decree of God, 
 perversity, and malice, and sin could never, unless so decreed, 
 have entered the world. 
 
150 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 We sliall adduce jet another reason why Presbyterians 
 cannot adhere to their doctrine of predestination, without 
 maintaining that God formally decrees sin. Not to dwell 
 upon evil thoughts, which pass not farther than a simple act 
 of the mind, in which the act itself (which Presbyterians 
 admit to have been ordained) constitutes the sin ; even where 
 the evil is exteriorly manifested, the sin and the act will be 
 found so united that, on the principles of Calvinism, belief in 
 the foreordi nation of the one compels assent to the predeter- 
 mination of the other. There is no abstract existence. What- 
 ever God has decreed, he has decreed not abstractly, but as it 
 shall actually take place, with all its preceding and accompa- 
 nying circumstances. The decree of God, since it is said to 
 embrace all that comes to pass, does not determine merely 
 solitary and isolated acts. It had determined every movement 
 of the sinner's existence, and every act of his being, internal 
 and external. How often does it happen, then, that a man is 
 so placed, at the moment he is about to consent to a bread i 
 of God's law, that he can avoid sin only by the omission of 
 the external act ! If, now, the divine decree had not foreor- 
 dained his sin, it would be possible for him to avoid it. For, 
 since sin springs from the soul, a necessity of sinning could be 
 imposed only by nature or God. The Confession of Faitli 
 admits that the will is " neither forced, nor by any absolute 
 necessity of nature compelled to sin."^ If, therefore, man 
 cannot avoid the sin, the necessity under which he labours 
 must come from God. We haA^e supposed the very common 
 case, Avhere sin can be avoided only by the omission of the 
 forbidden act. But the act is admitted to have been preor- 
 dained as one of those things which shall come to pass. If, 
 therefore, the sin could be avoided, the act could be avoided ; 
 and thus the unchangeable and infallible decree of God could 
 be changed and defeated. The sin, therefore, is as necessary 
 as the external act. But it is admitted that this necessity does 
 not arise from nature ; and the will of man is subject to none 
 else but God. It follows, therefore, that, if God has abso- 
 lutely decreed the external act, he has also determined and 
 rendered necessary its sinfulness. The justice of this cor.clu- 
 
 ^ Con/issio)i oj Fait/i, ix. 1. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 151 
 
 sion would have been readily admitted by Calvin, who seems 
 to have had upon this subject more courage or more consist- 
 ency than the Westminster divines. He adopts, without hesi- 
 tation, the doctrine that God has ordained sin. " The first 
 man," he says, " fell hecause God had so ordained. Why he 
 detennined we know not. . . . Man, therefore, falls by 
 the determination of God's providence."^ The opponents of 
 Calvin were not slow to point out to him that this doctrine 
 destroyed the sanctity of God, and made Him the author of 
 sin. In his efforts to evade the self-evident consequences of 
 his opinions, he is betrayed into the most detestable blasphe- 
 mies, and led to pen many a sentence which, if cleared from 
 the harsh epithet of blasphemous, is indebted for this favour 
 to its own intrinsic nonsense. After all his efforts to smooth 
 down the asperities of his doctrine, behold his opinion of the 
 decree which he labours to defend : " How does it happen 
 that so many people, with their infant children, have been 
 involved, without remedy, in eternal death by the sin of 
 Adam, but because God had thus decreed ? / confess that it 
 is, indeed, a hon-ihle decree ; yet no one can deny that God 
 foreknew before he created man what end he would have ; 
 and he knew it, because he had hy Ins decree determined ity^ 
 
 2. If God has foreordained sin, he is necessarily its author. 
 The existence of contingent beings is inconceivable, save as 
 the results of an act of God's will, which alone could have 
 called them into being. It is evident that, previous to crea- 
 tion, there was no other reason for the future existence of any 
 creature than that which was to be found in the divine will ; 
 that without the creative act of that will, no existence could 
 have been possible. The act of God's will whicli determined 
 the existence of creatures was the real and efficient cause of 
 
 1 " Lapsus est primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire ccnsnerat. Cur censuerit, 
 DOS latet. . . Cadet igitur homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante." — Institvtio, 
 Ub. ill. c. 23, § 8. 
 
 2 " Unde factum est, ut tot gentes, una cum liberis eonim infantibus, aeterni 
 niorti involveret lapsus Ada;, absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? Decre- 
 tum quidem horribile, fateor; inficiari tamen nemo potuit, quin prKsciverit Deus 
 quern exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet ; et ideo prKsciverit 
 quia decreto sue sic ordinarat."— //w^jVwiio, lib. iii. c. 23, § 7. 
 
152 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 their being. This act, which determined all that should ever 
 he, is what is understood hy the decree of God. The Confes- 
 sion of Faith gives, indeed, no definition to this effect ; but 
 the deficiency is amply supplied by its description of the effects 
 of predestination, and by the language of the Larger Catechism, 
 The latter says, "God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts 
 of the counsel of his will, whereby he hath from all eternity, 
 for His own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes 
 to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men."^ We 
 can suppose a twofold metliod, by which, in reference to the 
 actions of men, the decree might be carried out. We can sup- 
 pose man endowed with freedom of will, and power to avoid 
 evil and to do good. The free determination of man's will, 
 under all circumstances, having been from eternity perfectly 
 known to the omniscience of God, his actions may be supposed 
 to have been foreordained as the free efi'ects of his will. Thus, 
 the decree of God would, in our minds, be subsequent to, and 
 dependent upon, the divine foreknowledge of the determinations 
 of man's free will. In this case, the will of man would be the 
 immediate and only cause of his sin ; the divine will would 
 but permit the evil, and determine the physical existence and 
 energy of the sinner. The other system suj^poses that God, 
 solely for his own good pleasure, and without any regard to 
 the will of the creature, or even foreknowledge of its determi- 
 nations, absolutely determines all things. Here, the decree 
 for all existence and all action precedes the foreknowledge of 
 God. He does not decree the acts of his creatures, because he 
 foresees them as the free acts of their will ; but he foresees 
 that such will be the thoughts, words, and acts of his creatures, 
 because his own will had already determined that they should 
 be so. The latter is the system of Calvin and his followers. 
 The former has ever been held by Calvinists in great abhor- 
 rence. It is true, several learned ministers of their body, 
 alarmed at what Calvin had called the "horrible" nature of 
 his doctrine, sought to mitigate, in some degree, its harshness. 
 They wished to maintain that the foreknowledge of God pre- 
 cedes his decree. But the death of Barnevelt, and the impri- 
 
 ^ Larger Catechism, Q. 12. 
 
EELATIONS TO SCEIPTURE. 153 
 
 sonment of Arminius, Grotius, and other leaders of the Re- 
 monstrants, proved to all men that Calvinism would tolerate 
 no encroachment on the dogmata of its founder. The West- 
 minster Confession rejects emphatically the ideas of Armi- 
 nius,^ and Calvin had, in even stronger terms, condemned, hy 
 anticipation, the rash attempt of the Dutch reformers. " Nor," 
 he says, " ought that which I maintain to be considered 
 absurd, that God not only foresaw the fsill of the first man 
 and the ruin of his posterity, but had, hy his own decree, deter- 
 mined it.''^^ Speaking of predestination, he says, " There are 
 some who confuse this question by their cavils, but especially 
 those who make the foreknowledge of God its cause. We also 
 affirm that both are in God ; but we say it is absurd to sub- 
 ject the one to the other." ^ To say that God only permits 
 sin, was heresy in the ears of Calvin. He, as the Westmin- 
 ster divines have also done, would, on no account, limit the 
 decree of God to a " bare permission of evil, but made it an 
 efficient creative act." After relating that some, through timid- 
 ity, had urged the distinction between permitting Satan and 
 the reprobate to sin, and impelling them, he continues, " They 
 are only shuffling, who say that this takes place by the per- 
 mission and not also by the will of God. He himself openly 
 proclaiming that he does it, repudiates the evasion. 
 God wishes that Achab should be deceived ; the devil offers 
 himself to accomplish his purpose ; he is sent with orders to be 
 a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets. If the blindness 
 and wickedness of Achab be effected by the determination of 
 God, the figment of a bare permission vanishes ; for it would 
 be ridiculous if a judge should only permit, and not also 
 decree that which it was his will should exist, and whose 
 
 1 " God hath not ordamed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that 
 ■which would come to pass upon such conditions." — Confession of Faith ^ iii. 2. 
 
 2 "Nee ahsurdum videri debet quod dico, Deum non modo primi hominis casum, 
 et in 60 posteriorum ruinam pran-idisse, sed arbitrio quoque sue disposuisse." — In- 
 stdutio, lib. iii. c. 23, § 7. 
 
 ^ " Sed earn (praedestionem) niulti cavillis involvunt, pnvsertim vero qui prajsci- 
 entiam faciunt ejus causam. Ac nos quidem, utramque in Deum statuinnis ; sed, 
 priepostere dicimus, alteram alteri subjici." — Listitulio, lib. iii. c. 21, § 5. 
 
154 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 accomplisliment he had committed to his servants."^ Cal- 
 vinism, then, repudiates with all its energy the " figment" of 
 a mere permission of sin on the part of God. The quotations 
 we have given from the Confession of Faith and the writings 
 of Calvin show that it holds the relation of God with sin to be 
 much more intimate. They prove, in fact, that Calvinism 
 maintains sin to have been, from eternity, directly decreed by 
 God, both as to the external act and the malice of the human 
 will. But the decree of God is, even in the system of Calvin, 
 the effective act of the divine will, as first cause, determining 
 that which shall come to pass. This act, we have seen, is the 
 cause, and the only real cause of existence. Calvinism, therefore, 
 teaches that God is the cause or author of sin. Since Calvin- 
 ists reject conditional predestination, they cannot escape this 
 conclusion. For the act of the divine will, which absolutely 
 deteniiines what shall come to pass, is as immediately and as 
 really its cause, in the case of a mental movement, as of an 
 external action ; or, as the act of the same will which deter- 
 mines the existence of man himself, is the real cause of his 
 being. God determines that man shall be. He determines, 
 says the Calvinist, that sin shall be. He allows no condition, 
 no foreknowledge, to influence his decree in the one case, any 
 more than he does in the other. The nature of his act is, 
 therefore, in both cases the same. He is, therefore, by the 
 Calviuistic theory of absolute predestination, the author of 
 sin, just as he is the author of man's being. 
 
 3. To throw back the entire responsibility of sin upon God, 
 seems, in spite of their repeated protestations, to have been 
 contemplated by the Westminster divines, in closer connec- 
 tion with their system than solely as a deduction from their 
 principles. They feared not to stand by their doctrine that 
 
 1 " Tergiversando, igitiir, effugiunt, Dei tantum pennissu, non etiam voluntate 
 hoc fieri ; ipse, vero palam se facere promintians, effugium illud repudiat. . . , 
 Vult Deus Achab decipi : operam suam offert diabolus, ad earn rem ; mittitur, cum 
 certo mandato, ut sit spiritus mendax, in ore omnium prophetarum. Si Dei judi- 
 cium est excacatio et amentia Achab, nudie permissionis figmentum evanescit ; quia 
 ridiculum esset, judicem tantum permittere, non etiam decernere, quid fieri veht et 
 mandare executionem ministris." — Iiistitutio, lib. i. c. 18, § 1. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRirTUKE. 155 
 
 God had decreed sin, so for as to make his providence the 
 ruler, director, and governor in all the sins of his creatures. 
 After defining providence to be the active influence of God's 
 power, carrying out infallibly, in his creatures, his eternal 
 decrees,^ they thus describe its functions in regard of moral 
 evil : " The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and 
 infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his 
 providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and 
 all other sins of angels and men ; and that, not hy a hare per- 
 mission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and 
 powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of 
 them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends, yet 
 so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the crea- 
 ture." ^ In vain do they thus qualify as "holy" the ends 
 for which sin was decreed. When evil means are directly 
 employed to accomplish an end, the end itself becomes as 
 unholy as the means. It is against the essence of holiness to 
 do evil that good may come.^ In vain, too, have they, with 
 a fatuity which calls forth pity rather than indignation, fled 
 to their accustomed shelter — a repudiation of the visible 
 consequences of their teaching, when these start up ten-ible 
 and tangible before them. The voice of reason they do not 
 silence, by merely stopping their ears against its sounds. 
 The sun at noonday does not shine less brightly, that the per- 
 verse man shuts his eyes and refuses to see and believe. If 
 God orders, bounds, and directs the sinner in his evil course, 
 and decrees and governs sin solely for his own ends, then is 
 the so-called sinner the helpless instrument of this will, and 
 no more responsible for the evil brought about by his means 
 than is the dagger or pistol answerable for the guilt of the 
 assassin. Were a parent, from a motive of his own interest, 
 to detei-mine his child to the commission of a sinful act, and, 
 lest his intention should be frustrated, to direct the move- 
 ments of his son by a most wise and powerful bounding, and 
 
 1 " Gofl, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern 
 all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most 
 ■wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free 
 and immutable counsel of his ov;ny(\\\"— Confession of Faith, v. 1. 
 ' Id. v. 4. ^ Romans iii. 8. 
 
156 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 otlierwise orclering and governing of them, in a manifold 
 dispensation, ''to his own (holy) ends," what would be the 
 sentence which religion, justice, and reason would pass upon 
 his impious hypocrisy ? Did he attempt to justify his con- 
 duct, hy pleading that he had indeed done all that was 
 alleged, " yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only 
 from " the child ? When the steersman sees a sail at a dis- 
 tance, and turns his vessel's head right upon the object, 
 regulating the movements of his own ship, and directing them 
 in such a manner as at last to send the unfortunate stranger, 
 with her crew, to the bottom, would the justice either of God 
 or man pursue the sails or engines or rudder, and leave the 
 pilot blameless ? He who governed and directed the offend- 
 ing vessel would surely be accounted the author of the catas- 
 trophe ; nor would he escape the heaviest sentence which 
 human laws impose, by protesting that his object was only 
 to procure his own pleasure or glory. 
 
 Luther compares the will of man to a horse whose move- 
 ments are determined and directed by the hand of his rider. 
 When God, he says, holds the reins, then the will is bent 
 towards good ; but when the devil rides, it is impelled into 
 every sin. The comparison will apply j^erfectly to the Cal- 
 vinistic idea of human responsibility, if it be borne in mind 
 that Calvinism represents every movement of the evil spirits 
 as having been equally decreed and governed by God. To 
 be sure, if a rider had, with his own hand and spur, plunged 
 his horse into the midst of a crowd, trampling down and 
 scattering the weak and helpless, he would in the tribunals 
 of men be held answerable for all the injury which the animal 
 might have inflicted. If in this case it were to be said in 
 justification of the rider, that although he had, for his own 
 ends, ordered and guided in this manner the movements 
 of his horse, yet it had been so as the sinfulness should 
 proceed from the horse, we should have a parallel to the in- 
 effable folly contained in the latter clause of the article quoted 
 above. 
 
 On this subject, Calvinists will study with much interest 
 the very explicit language of their founder : '' As to those 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 157 
 
 secret movements which, says Solomon, speaking of the heart 
 of the king, are inclined to one side or the other as God sees 
 fit, all the human race is embraced ; and he might equally 
 have said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed 
 to his own ends by the secret inspiration of God. ... I ad- 
 mit, indeed, that God, by interposing the service of Satan, often 
 acts in the reprobate; but it is in such a manner as that it is 
 hy his impulse Satan himself performs his part, and advances as 
 far as he has been directed."^ The following is the answer 
 he gave to those opponents who wished to say that God only 
 permitted sin, and objected to him, that if God determined 
 and willed the breaches of his own law, he would be in contra- 
 diction with himself : " I have already plainly shown that 
 God is called the autJior of all that those critics make to happen 
 onlij hy his idle permission. He testifies that he creates light 
 and darkness, that he forms good and evil, that nothing evil 
 fakes place xohich he had not done. I beg they Avill say now, 
 does he willingly or unwillingly execute his own decrees ?" ^ 
 To leave no room for cavil as to his meaning, and the extent 
 to which he was willing to push his principles, the courageous 
 reformer thus applies them to examples : " Although," he 
 writes, "when Absalom violated the wives of his father, God 
 wished, by this disgrace, to avenge the adultery of David ; 
 it was perhaps only for David's sake that he commanded this 
 criminal son to commit the incest.^'' ^ To the same effect he 
 says : " Whatever, therefore, man or Satan himself does, 
 nevertheless God holds the helm, that he may turn their 
 
 ^ " Quantum ad arcanos motus spectat, quod de corde regis prwdicat Solomo, 
 flecti hue vel illuc prout Dei visum est, ad totum humanum genus extenditur, 
 tantumque valet, ac si dixisset, quicquid animis concipimus, arcana Dei inspisa- 
 tione, ad suum finem dirigi. . . . Fateor, quidem, interposita Satanae opere, 
 saepe Deum agere in reprobis ; sed ut ejus impulsu Satan ipse suas partes agat, et 
 proficiat quatenus datum est. — Instituiio, lib. i. c. 18, § 2. 
 
 2 " Jam satis aperte ostendl Deum vocari eorum omnium auctorem quae isti 
 censores volunt otioso tantum ejus permissu contingere. Testatur se creare lucem 
 et teuebras, formare bonum et malum ; nihil male accidere quod ipse non fecerit. 
 Dicant, obsecro, volensne an nolens judicia sua exerceat ?" — Jrl. lib. i. c. 18, § 3 
 
 3 " Etsi dum, stupravit Absalom patris uxores, voluit hoc Dcus probro ulcisci 
 Davidis adulteriimi ; non ideo, tamen praecipit sclerato filio incestum committcre, 
 nisi forte D.ividis respectu." — Id lib. i. c. 18, § 4. 
 
158 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 efforts to the accomj^Hsliment of his decrees. . . Absa- 
 lom, by an incestuous intercourse, defiling his father's bed, 
 commits a detestable crime, yet God claima this work as his 
 owny^ He says, again, that "man, by a just impulse of 
 God^ does that which it is unlawful for him to do."^ And 
 to the same effect : " The devil and all the legions of the 
 wicked are so constrained, on every side, by the hand of 
 God, as by a bridle, that they are unable to conceive any evil 
 against us, or to accomplish what they have conceived ; nor, 
 how much soever they may try, can they move a finger in its 
 perpetration, save in as far as he has permitted — nay^ save in 
 as far as he has commanded^ ^ 
 
 The harmony between the standards of Scotch Presbyterians 
 and the writings of Calvin is, on this subject, most complete. 
 The Presbyterian would certainly derive a more distinct view 
 of his religious system from those writings, than he can hope 
 to meet with in the works of the more modern of his teachers. 
 For not only was the " Institution " the principal source of 
 inspiration to the divines who assembled at Westminster, 
 but the ideas of Calvin are there expressed with an openness 
 and boldness which would be looked for in vain among the 
 works of his successors. The brevity of the Confession of 
 Faith necessarily leaves considerable room for explanation. 
 To one who had already become familiar with the Scottish 
 symbol, the writings of Calvin will seem to be its natural 
 complement. Some doctrines which in the Confession are 
 stated with too great brevity, and others which are expressed 
 with a vagueness which gives no little occasion to doubts as 
 to their real meaning, are in the " Institute " enlarged upon, 
 enforced, and illustrated by appropriate examples. Presby- 
 
 1 " Ergo, quicquid agitent homines vel Satan ipse, Deus tamen ipse cla\-um tenet, 
 ut ad exequenda sua judicia convertat eonmi conatus. . . . Absalom, incesto 
 coitu, patris torum poUuens, detestabile scelus perpetrat ; Deus tamen, hoc ojius 
 suum esse pronunciat." — Id. ibid. § 1. 
 
 2 " Hie (homo) justo Dei impulsu agit quod sibi non licet." — Id. ibid, § 4. 
 
 3 " Diabolum, totamque improborum coliortem sic omnibus partibus manu Dei 
 tanquam frseno cohiberi, ut nee concipere uUum adversus nos maleficium, nee con- 
 ceptum moliri, nee ad perpetrandum, si maxime moliantur, digitum movere queant, 
 nisi quantum ille permiserit, imo, nisi quantum mandarit." — Id. lib. xvii. § 11. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTTTRE. 159 
 
 terians, we are aware, are not unwilling to pnljlisli their 
 obligations to Calvin ; but it is to be feared that many praise 
 him, extol the godliness of his doctrine, and enlarge upon the 
 share he had in the creation of the Kirk of Scotland, who 
 know him, not from his writings, but only by tradition. To 
 such the few extracts we have scattered through these pages 
 will, without doubt, prove an acceptable boon. They may, per- 
 chance, excite in the minds of Presbyterians a desire to fonn a 
 personal acquaintance with the able author of their religion. 
 The gratification of such desire could not fail to prove both 
 interesting and useful. The character and religious scheme 
 of the Genevan reformer, can be adequately gathered only 
 from the sketches of his own graphic pen. Even the few 
 extracts we have given will demonstrate, not only that the 
 belief of Presbyterian Scotland is, on all important matters, 
 identical with the original creed framed by Calvin for the 
 Protestants of Geneva, but that Scotch Presbyterians have 
 been much more faithful to the founder of their sect than 
 even the people who long basked in the sunshine of the 
 reformer's presence. "While Socinianism and infidelity have 
 swallowed up the remains of Calvinism in Geneva, the Pres- 
 byterians of Scotland yet cling with tenacity to such essentials 
 of Calvinism as " inamissible grace," " irresistible grace," 
 and the Shibboleth of the sect — " absolute predestination." 
 Thus we have shown, under the present section, that, in the 
 strictest conformity with Calvin, they maintain that every 
 sin had, from eternity, been ordained by the divine decree ; 
 that, in the movements of Satan and wicked men, it is God 
 himself who acts, for ends known only to himself ; that he 
 " impels " men to sin ; and that he has, by the infallible 
 operation of his providence, prevented the possibility of their 
 avoiding sin ; and, in fine, that he does all this purely for 
 his own good pleasure and glory, and to obtain sufficient 
 grounds for the condemnation of the reprobate. 
 
 Doctrines such as those we have shown to belong intimately 
 to the body of Calvinism, render absolutely vain and worth- 
 less every protestation against their necessary consequence — 
 that God is the author of sin. The evident results of their 
 
160 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 })riucl[)le3 ought certainly to indues those who disclaim their 
 impious results, not to rest content with an inconsistent and 
 unreasonable repudiation, under the impression that such a 
 repudiation will justify them in adhering to the principles in 
 which those results are contained, hut to examine the grounds 
 of their belief. It cannot be, that true doctrines will ever result 
 in false consequences. Truth produces only truth ; and a 
 single false consequence fairly flowing from a principle, suffices 
 to demonstrate that it is erroneous. 
 
 There is still another aspect under which tliis subject 
 claims our attention. The will which effectively consents to 
 evil is itself sinful. The guilt of the sinner consists precisely 
 in the perversity of his will, and its attachment to a forbidden 
 object. Calvinists hold that God has decreed sin ; and the 
 decree of God is, they tell us, but another name for the 
 effective act of his will. That which is decreed, is not willed 
 by a mere act of permission or even assent. We have seen 
 that such words as " permission" are reprobated by Calvin as 
 a mere temporizing or evasion. The object of the divine 
 decree is willed directly and efficaciously, so much so, that 
 the sole reason of its existence lies in the decree of God. 
 Calvinism, therefore, makes God first to will sin, and then de- 
 termines man to will it. Whether the sinner be thus cleared 
 from all guilt and responsibility, is a question which will 
 occur more appropriately hereafter. Meanwhile, it is evident 
 that, if sinfulness consist in the consent of the will to evil, 
 God himself, by the doctrine of Calvin, contracts the stain of 
 sin. Here we dare not venture to do more than raise a corner 
 of the veil. The terrible features of such a system might, 
 perhaps, by some, be contemplated in safety ; but they ought 
 not to he uncovered to the promiscuous gaze of men. To 
 dwell upon certain phases of evil, moral as well as physical, 
 is both painful and dangerous. Although none of the Re- 
 formers had the boldness to acknowledge this consequence of 
 their principles which we have just suggested, yet, in the 
 assertion of doctrines which involved, some more, some less 
 directly, that God was the author of sin, they showed a har- 
 mony in their speculations to which upon scarcely any other 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 161 
 
 question did they attain. Of Calvin's opinions we have 
 already spoken. But to show that they were cordially shared 
 by many of those who are looked upon as the authors or chief 
 supports of the Eeformation, and to demonstrate that the 
 entire Protestant movement has sprung from the same source; 
 that the chief Reformers have held the same ideas of God, and 
 represented, in the same light, the relations of the Creator 
 towards his creatures, we shall here bring forward a few 
 passages from the works of the most distinguished among the 
 reformed writers. 
 
 The following are a few of the propositions asserted by 
 Wickliffe:— "The world, and all that it contains, is of an ab- 
 solute necessity. It is useless to inquire why God does not 
 prevent sin ; the fact is he cannot ; or, in general, to ask why 
 he does or does not act in a certain manner; for he necessarily 
 does all that he can do. God has decreed all things ; he 
 necessitates as well the predestinated as the reprobate to all 
 that they do, and every creature in particular to every one of 
 its actions. In certain circumstances, a man necessarily sins ; 
 and God wills those circumstances. Thus he wills that man 
 should sin. He wills the sin because of the good he draws 
 from it. God approves of sin ; he necessitates to sin, and 
 man cannot do better than he does.''^ How justly has 
 WicklifFe been called the father of the Reformation ! Few, 
 we fear, of those who most loudly glory in their descent from 
 such a stock, are fully aware of the legitimacy of their relation- 
 ship. 
 
 Beza is nearly as explicit :— " It behoved God to decree the 
 sin of Adam ; but for the end which I have spoken of." He 
 continues : " We must seek the origin of evil in the sponta- 
 neous (not free) movement of God's instruments; so that 
 God justly decreed what they sinfully do. But, you say, 
 they could not resist the will of God, that is, his decree. I 
 admit that; but as they were unable, they were likewise 
 unwilling. But their willingness was also necessitated. I 
 admit this too, as to the result and activity ; but the will of 
 
 'Wickliffi Trialogiis, apiid Bossuet, Variations, livre xi. c. 153. 
 
 L 
 
162 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Adam was not forced." In his Aphorisms he says : " God 
 so acts by means of those instrmnents, that not only does he 
 permit them to act, and only regulates the result ; but also 
 excites, impels, moves, governs, and therefore, further still, 
 even creates them, in order that, by means of them, he may 
 accomplish what he had decreed."^ 
 
 The language of Zwingle is equally explicit : — " One and 
 the same action, such as adultery or homicide, in as far as it 
 is the work of God, its author, promoter, and instigator, is 
 not sin ; but in as far as it belongs to man, it is guilty and 
 criminal." He thus explains how his ideas are to be under- 
 stood, and why the same action is criminal only on the part 
 of man : " Whatsoever God does is not sin; because it is not 
 against the law ; for to him, as the Just One, there is no law 
 laid down, since, according to St. Paul, the law is not for 
 the just. The one (God) is not bound by the law, but the 
 other (man) is condemned by the law." Again : " When 
 God impels to any action which to the instrament is a sin, 
 yet it is none to him ; for he acts freely, and does no injustice 
 to the instrument, since all are more his property than are his 
 tools the property of the workman. He impels, therefore, the 
 robber to murder the innocent, even although unprepared for 
 death." 2 
 
 Melancthon, although perhaps the most moderate of the 
 Reformers, seems to have been carried away by the general 
 cuiTcnt of the new ideas ; and, when writing on this subject, 
 has fallen little, if at all, short of Zwingle in the force of his 
 language : — " Let it be held," he says, " as certain that all 
 things are from God, as well evil as good. We maintain, not 
 only that God permits his creatures to act, but that, strictly 
 speaking, he does all himself; so that, as they confess that 
 the vocation of Paul was properly the work of God, so they 
 may admit that all things are the personal {propria) work of 
 God, whether they be indifferent, as eating and drinking, or 
 evil, as was the adultery of David and the ferocity of Manlius. 
 I'or it is certain that God does all things, not by a bare per- 
 
 1 See Appendix D. ^ See Appendix D. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 163 
 
 mission, but by the influence of his power ; I mean that the 
 treason of Judas is as strictly his work as is the vocation of 
 Paul. . . . Therefore we cannot admit the meaningless 
 expression, that God permits evil but does it not." ^ 
 
 Such sentiments were no more than modifications of those 
 opinions which Luther had published on the relations of 
 man's will to God's decrees. He thus writes : — " This, there- 
 fore, it is most necessary and most salutary for the Christian 
 to know, that God foreknows nothing as contingent, but he 
 foresees, decrees, and performs all things by his immutable, 
 eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt is free-will 
 completely annihilated." A little further on he adds : 
 " From this it irrefragably follows, that all we do, although 
 it appear to us to be done contingently and mutably, and even 
 to us may happen contingently, yet, in reality, if we regard 
 the will of God, it takes place necessarily and immutably." 
 Again : " Whatever is done by us is done, not by free-will, 
 but by pure necessity." ^ "Man's will is like a horse; if 
 God sit upon it, it goes as God would have it ; if the devil 
 ride it, it goes as the devil would have it. Nor can the will 
 choose its rider; but each of them strives which shall get 
 possession of it. The great perfection of faith consists in 
 believing God to be just, although by his own will he neces- 
 sarily renders us worthy of damnation, so as to seem to take 
 pleasure in the torments of the miserable. God works the 
 evil in us as well as the good."^ 
 
 Such were the ideas of God's nature, attributes, and opera- 
 tions which the Reformers proclaimed before an astonished 
 world. Such was the Reformation effected by those unsent 
 apostles on this part of the Christian creed. The men 
 who published those ideas, professed to have received their 
 commission from the Spirit of God, and pretended to draw 
 from the sacred writings the sanction of their dreadful doc- 
 trines. Not one of all the blasphemies we have copied above 
 from their wi'itings, did they fail to support by copious and 
 frequent quotations from Scripture ; nor did they hesitate to 
 
 1 See Appendix D. 2 gge Appendix D. ' See Appendix D. 
 
164 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 affirm, that those who refused to accept their impious opinions, 
 resisted the Spirit of truth. Strange delusion this of Protes- 
 tantism ! Yet it is the secret of its growth and strength. It 
 has ever identified its own intei'pretations of the sacred text 
 with the word of God. Protestants did not, in the heat of the 
 Reformation controversies, now they w27?wo« distingniish between 
 their own fallible deductions from the Bible, and the actual 
 doctrines of the Bible. No sooner, then, have they dragged a 
 reluctant text into the arena in support of their most extravagant 
 notions, than they forthwith identify this phantasy of their 
 imagination with the sacred oracles, and scatter around, pro- 
 fusely enough, their denunciations upon the heads of all who 
 resist " the evidence of Scripture." Labouring under this 
 hallucination, the Reformers exerted themselves, under the 
 supposed authority of the Holy Spirit, to destroy the justice, 
 the truth, and the sanctity of God. We have shown that the 
 Reformers, and Calvin in particular, cannot appeal, without 
 offering an insult to reason, to the studied phrases in which 
 they assert all the attributes and the perfect holiness of God. 
 Such expressions, could they by any possibility be reconciled 
 with the essential principles of the Reformation, we should hail 
 with joy, as in perfect unison with the voice of the Universal 
 Church. But when we see that those attributes, the remains 
 of Catholic teaching, are destroyed, wherever they are brought 
 into contact with the proper principles of Protestantism, we 
 can look upon their retention in the sjaiibols of the Reformers, 
 only as an unwitting homage to the force of Catholic tradition, 
 and a testimony to the truth of Tertullian's saying, that the 
 soul is naturally Christian. What, then, has the world gained 
 by this Reformation ? What accession has been made, by its 
 means, to the knowledge men previously possessed of the 
 nature of God, his attributes, and his relations to fallen man ? 
 Until the fatal period of the Reformation, the Christian world 
 not only professed belief in the justice, truth, and sanctity of 
 God, but held no doctrine at variance with the infinite perfec- 
 tion of each one of those attributes. It believed that God 
 giv(^s power to all men to avoid evil and to do good ; that he 
 rewards every good, and punishes every wicked action ; that, 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 165 
 
 as no one will be crowned who has not fought and conquered, 
 so no one shall be punished, but for iniquities which he could 
 and should have avoided. In a word, that God rewards the 
 good, because they are faithful, and punishes the wicked, be- 
 cause they have sinned. Calvinism, reversing all this, teaches 
 that God saves the elect, solely because he decreed their sal- 
 vation, and without any regard to their faith or sanctity; 
 and condemns the wicked, because he willed their eternal 
 torments as a means of manifesting his own glory ; it teaches 
 that God has imposed upon his creatures a law, the observance 
 of which he alone can make possible to them, and yet, exclu- 
 sively for his own secret ends, he refuses to make it possible 
 to the great majority of mankind, and then draws from their 
 non-observance of it the motive for their condemnation. Until 
 the Reformation, men were taught that the will of God is one, 
 and just and truthful in the highest degree ; that God is the 
 unchangeable Truth, incapable of falsehood, prevarication, or 
 deceit; that he desires, in the only manner he can desire, 
 sincerely the salvation of all his creatures, and gives to all 
 sufficient means of salvation, with power to make use of those 
 means and be saved. Calvinism proclaimed that in God 
 there is a secret will by which all — the salvation or reproba- 
 tion of every member of the human family, and their every 
 thought, word, and deed — had been from eternity absolutely 
 and unchangeably determined, and that there was also an 
 expressed will, which addressed men as if they were free, and 
 able, on every occasion, to act or not to act, to act in this 
 manner or in that, as they themselves might determine ; that 
 God professes by this outward will to desire the salvation 
 of all, even of those whom, purely for his own pleasure and 
 glory, without reference to their good or evil acts, he had 
 from eternity condemned; that he offers them salvation 
 through Christ's merits, which he cannot bestow, for Christ, 
 it is said, died only for the elect ; and invites them to partake 
 of graces wdiich He has determined not to grant, alleging, 
 with a duplicity which we should expect to find only in the 
 gods of mythology, as a reason for the sinner's condemnation, 
 his non-acceptance of the very grace which He himself had 
 
166 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 determined him to refuse. Until the baleful apparition of 
 Wickliffe presaged the Reformation, the Christian world not 
 only believed that God is holy, but its entire creed supposed 
 and perfectly harmonized with the dogma of his absolute holi- 
 ness. It had been taught to believe that God had created 
 man with freedom of will and power to do good, and placed 
 him in a state of probation upon earth. His everlasting- 
 destiny was to be decided by the use he should make of his 
 liberty. In the exercise of his power, he might embrace good 
 or evil — respond to the calls of his Creator, and conform his 
 will to the will of God, or turn away his soul from duty, and 
 set his will in opposition to that of God. Man being left free 
 by the Almighty to choose good or evil, and having been 
 endowed with power to embrace the part which he might 
 choose, became completely and most justly responsible for the 
 evil he performs ; while tlie sanctity of God remained unsul- 
 lied by the sin of the creature. Calvinism, attempting, perhaps, 
 to exalt the Creator, and show the worthlessness of the creature, 
 annihilated all real agency, save the First Cause, to whom it 
 traced up the very evil by which it sought to depress the 
 creature. It shows us a God, who, without regard to anything 
 but his own will, determines all things that come to pass, the 
 evil as well as the good ; who hedges in man by His decrees, 
 so that he can move only on one line, and for the majority of 
 men He has made that line to terminate in hell. It shows us 
 a God who creates men for the purpose of doing by them the 
 evil which He will not accomplish by his own immediate act. 
 It shows us, in fine, a God whose acts are not sinful, only 
 because He is said not to be bound by his own law. It thus 
 exhibits the divine law as something distinct from God, and 
 independent of Him ; forgetful of its own statement, that the 
 law is nought else than the expression of the perfect will of 
 God. What, then, we again ask, has the world gained by the 
 Reformation? Let men only study the Reformation in the 
 works of its authors. Let them especially study the doctrines 
 of Calvinism in its authoritative fountains ; let them pursue 
 its principles to their legitimate results, and they Avill find 
 that, far from exalting their ideas of the goodness, justice, 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 167 
 
 truth, and holiness of God, or bringing out new harmonies in 
 the relations of his attributes to each other and to creatures, 
 it has cast over them a gloom so dense and so repulsive, as to 
 lead its disciples to look upon God, not with the affectionate 
 confidence of children, but with the shuddering dread of slaves 
 upon a tyrant master. 
 
168 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 OF MAN. 
 
 The dreadful heresies on the subject of God's nature and 
 attributes, which Calvinism partly originated and partly re- 
 vived, drew after them many corresponding errors on the state 
 of Man. As the heresies alluded to regard God in his rela- 
 tions to man, it is evident that they would either suppose or 
 produce analogous errors on the relations of the creature to 
 God. The direct object of revealed religion is to point out to 
 fallen man the means of salvation. For all, therefore, who 
 have assumed to themselves the task of preparing for tlie 
 world religious systems, the great problem has been. How is 
 man made just before his Maker ? It was by attempting to 
 solve this problem in a manner more satisfactory than, it 
 seems, Christianity had done, that Luther commenced his 
 reformation. But, although Justification was the first of the 
 new doctrines in point of time, it was not the first in the order 
 of logic. It may, therefore, have given occasion to the various 
 tenets of the new religions ; it may have decided the course of 
 the stream, or given a tinge to the colour of the waters ; but 
 it cannot be regarded as their source. Revelation has many 
 truths to make known ere it reaches the doctrine that man 
 stands in need of justification. When Luther broke througli 
 the circle of Catholic truths by his innovations on this point, 
 he found that the opinion he had fonned required him to look 
 back as well as forward — that, in fact, it compelled him to 
 modify some, and abandon others, of those views on man's 
 nature and state which alone had hitherto been received in 
 the Christian Church. He found that Christianity contained 
 a perfect body of doctrines, firmly bound by the principle of 
 divine authority, and intimately united to each other, not only 
 by dependence on their common centre, but by their mutual 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 169 
 
 position and relationship. They were a circumference foraied, 
 not of a mere collection of separate points, but of a continued 
 homogeneous line. The fragments of the line, once broken, 
 could never again be formed into one. Integrity, union, and 
 the centre would all be lost. Christianity is indeed one, and 
 its unity is perfect. But it is impossible to form a system out 
 of any number of its separate truths. Thus Luther soon dis- 
 covered that he could not hold the Catholic system, deprived 
 only of its doctrine on justification. This doctrine was found 
 to be the necessary consequence of another ; and itself, in its 
 tm-n, the source of a third. These also stretched out in both 
 directions, as producers and produced, until they met again. 
 
 No other argument is necessary to demonstrate the human 
 origin of Protestantism, than that which is presented by the 
 manner in which its different sects commenced their revolt 
 trom the Church. In spite of their incessant clamour, that the 
 Church had become totally coiTupt, no one of all the Reformers 
 ever dreamt of attempting a total reformation. Each seized 
 upon the point or points in the Catholic system which chance, 
 or passion, or fancy, or interest suggested, reformed it or them to 
 his taste, and then summoned the world to come and behold the 
 religion of Jesus Christ, which, after more than fifteen centu- 
 ries of experiments and failures, was now, by his efforts, pro- 
 duced pure and undefiled. Yet, although Catholicity had been 
 pronounced to have become totally coiTupted, the labours of 
 those modem lawgivers resulted in an miskilfully-executed 
 copy of Catholicity, which had also been mutilated by the 
 copyists of purgatory, or miracles, or confession, or the divinity 
 of Christ, or good works. 
 
 Too much honour has been done to the Reformers by those 
 divines who, in their refutations of Protestantism, treat it j;s 
 a system^ and endeavour to trace it as a logical consequence to 
 some generating dogma, and to reduce its teachings to some 
 appreciable principles. Protestantism, as such, has but one 
 principle — that reason is supreme in all matters to which man's 
 assent can be required. It has but one essential dogma — that 
 Popery is false. The Protestant may be driven in succession 
 from every opinion he thinks he holds, but so long as he 
 
170 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 adheres to this principle and this dogma, he is as real and as 
 unexceptionable a Protestant as if he were the first-born of 
 Luther or Calvin. The peculiar doctrines of the different sects 
 are but so many isolated points of belief. The adoption of 
 one, or the rejection of another, is only a question of more or 
 less. The essence of Protestantism is unaffected by any such 
 accidental changes. Instead of a system, it exhibits to us only 
 the disjecta membra of Catholicity, arranged according to 
 individual caprice, and mingled here and there with crude 
 theories and undigested thoughts. Whether we believe 
 Luther's own account of his commencement as a Reformer, or 
 adopt the puerile fable recorded with dramatic effect by 
 d'Aubigne, in his romance of the Reformation, we must 
 equally conclude that it was no inspiration from heaven, but 
 a mere casualty which selected the doctrine of justification for 
 the point of attack on Catholicity. The contest which chancJi 
 originated was continued by the vanity of Luther, who con- 
 stituted himself, or was pushed on by his short-sighted com- 
 panions, as the champion of a party-interest in the controversy 
 on Indulgences. The covetous eyes of several temporal 
 sovereigns were not slow to perceive the immense accession 
 which such a contest might be made to bring to their influence 
 and personal wealth. Nor were there wanting men, like the 
 Landgrave of Hesse, who saw that the supporters of the new 
 ideas would not be likely to refuse to the frailties of a powerful 
 ally such indulgences as were simply hopeless under the moral 
 rule of Catholicity. In England, the Reformation was the off- 
 spring of the eighth Henry's lust. Under him, however, the 
 Reformation received a form materially different from that 
 which it had assumed in Germany, Scotland, or indeed any 
 other country. It bore, in every feature, the likeness of its 
 parent. Henry had more than even the Tudor's pride. He 
 could brook no superior. The Reformation proclaimed him 
 supreme head of the Church on earth, with power to confer 
 spiritual jurisdiction, to define doctrines in the last resort, and 
 even, as in the case of his supremacy, to append new articles 
 of faith to whatever of Christianity he had condescended to 
 retain. As Henry was needy and covetous to the extreme 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 171' 
 
 point of rapacity, the Reformation made him master of the 
 Church's wealth 5 and miblushingly assm*ed him that he was 
 guilty of no moral transgression in tearing from its owners, to 
 reward his paramours and the tools of his despotism, property 
 which had been confirmed to them by every title which religion 
 and human laws could confer. As he was unprincipled, it told 
 him that where only religious men and women were concerned, 
 to slander their good name, and invent the most atrocious lies 
 in order to turnish a pretext for their suppression, was all right 
 and proper ; for the holiness of the end sanctified the means. 
 In Scotland, a compound in which Calvinism was predominant 
 became orthodox, because it so happened that the vilest and 
 the most traitorous of Em-opean nobility sorely wanted a refor- 
 mation which should transfer the lands and treasures of the 
 Church to themselves. They were poor to a proverb, and 
 could not afford to allow a generous share of the spoil to those 
 who should undertake to accomplish for them the theological 
 portion of the work. Their ecclesiastical auxiliaries must be 
 content to do their work cheaply. They were expected to 
 occupy the attention of the people with interminable prayers 
 and denunciations of the Church's iniquity, in heaping up the 
 mammon of this world, until such time as their employers had 
 secured for themselves a sufiicient share of the obnoxious 
 wealth. Fortunately for the purposes of the nobility, the Pro- 
 testants then in Scotland were, like Knox, men whose religious 
 opinions had, for the most part, been imported from Geneva. 
 Stern men they were, something of republicans withal, and 
 vehement enemies to all squandering of the precious metals in 
 the worship of God. They were the very men to accomplish 
 the kind of reformation which was desired. The riches of the 
 ecclesiastical establishments became the prize of the nobility ; 
 the ministers whose clamorous demands for a due share of the 
 spoil were preferred with a pertinacity proportioned to the 
 vehemence of their protestations of disinterestedness, picked 
 up with noisy discontent the driblets which were thrown them 
 by their employers ; and the people, who were the really 
 plundered party, after having swept their own wealth into 
 the pockets of their masters, were compelled to accept such a 
 
172 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 religion as the leading ministers could agree to frame. That 
 Calvinism is the established religion of Scotland, is then a mere 
 accident ; unless, perhaps, it be contended that divine Provi- 
 dence appointed it as the true and fitting religion for Scotch- 
 men ; while it raised up Luther to discover a revelation which 
 should be true and fitting for Denmark and the German 
 states ; and Henry the Eighth to accommodate the English 
 people with a set of opinions differing from both, but true, 
 and fitted to the more liberal ideas and loyal leanings of 
 Englishmen. 
 
 No branch of Protestantism ever rose to the dignity of a 
 philosophy. Whatever it selected for its first doctrine, it made 
 merely its point of departure. It started from that doctrine : 
 it was not developed from it. Unlike the philosopher who, 
 starting from a known or demonstrated principle, unfolds his 
 sure conclusions, and exhibits a system solid and consistent, 
 the Reformers chose, apparently at random, and laid down a 
 controverted proposition for a first principle, and, to its 
 exigences, they endeavoured to accommodate and change the 
 various articles of their previous creed. It may readily be 
 supposed that they soon found themselves struggling to main- 
 tain, by the side of their innovations, a portion of doctrine 
 entirely antagonistic. Thus, at every step were they compelled, 
 like the baneful empiric, to alter, amend, reject, and modify ; 
 confessing that here they had gone too far, there they had 
 stopped short too soon ; and, in fine, leaving their religions full 
 of inconsistency, without cohesion, and destitute even of a base 
 upon which to rest. 
 
 Hence, in the midst of all its variety, after all its changes, 
 Protestantism shows the deepest intellectual poverty. If we 
 except the modeni ultra-Protestant sects, such as the German 
 Rationalists, the Universalists, and Transcendentalists of 
 America, the various bodies of Protestants may be said to do 
 no more than ring the changes on the notes which Luther 
 sounded. Even Calvin, throughout a considerable part of his 
 system, may be looked upon only as a fr-ee commentator on 
 Luther. If his doctrine of election, and his views on the 
 subject of the Eucharist be excepted, he might have subscribed 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 173 
 
 the Formulary of Concord. To at least an equal extent lias 
 this been the case with the various sub-sectaries of Protestan- 
 tism. They made the doctrines of the body from which they 
 broke off the groundwork of their new creed, holding forth, 
 as their peculiar excellence and characteristic, their mode of 
 baptism, their views of a congregation's rights against the 
 Church, or the rights of the Church over congregations ; some 
 shadowy thought upon Predestination, or the fancied manifes- 
 tations of an indwelling Spirit. But over the wide extent of 
 Europe to which the Reformation spread, we will look in vain 
 for any noble ideas, any prolific principles, or even for the 
 consistent application of such principles as were the legacy of 
 Luther, 
 
 We have said, however, that there were some ideas whose 
 adoption gave occasion to much modification in doctrines to 
 which the Reformers had previously yielded unhesitating 
 assent. In this respect the Protestant doctrine of Justification 
 occupies a most important position. It called for radical 
 changes in the Reformers' ideas, as well of man's primitive as 
 of his present state. Luther and his followers yielded freely 
 to its requirements ; yet, great as their changes were, they did 
 not suffice to make contradictions disappear. From a few of 
 the instances which will incidentally come under our notice in 
 the course of this chapter, it will be seen that the great dis- 
 covery of the Reformation, that man is justified by faith alone, 
 has, after every effort to bring it into shape, and give it some 
 degree of consistency, been left in a state of irreconcilable 
 hostility with Scripture, with common sense, and with itself. 
 
 Luther traced the first germ of his reformation to a conver- 
 sation he had held in his convent at Erfurt with an aged monk. 
 Meditation on the sins of his youth had made such an impres- 
 sion upon him, that he was in a state of mind bordering on 
 despair. The well-meant language of the companion from 
 whom he had sought consolation, by exalting the power of 
 faith, soon carried the ardent mind of Luther, excited as it 
 then was, into the tempting regions of speculation. The old 
 way of self-denial, of penance, of abnegation, of the cross, 
 seemed so forbidding, so irksome to flesh and blood — while it 
 
174 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 was so simple, so easy, so pleasant to think tliat all miglit be 
 set right by a simple act of faith — that Luther did not long 
 hesitate in choosing the more comfortable path. It was, there- 
 fore, resolved, in the mind of the Reformer, that henceforth 
 man should be justified by faith alone. Ranke, and other 
 Protestant writers, consider the doctrine thus discovered to 
 have been the pole-star of Luther's after-life. By it, say those 
 authors, were the theological studies of the Reformer directed; 
 his new doctrines were, as far as possible, shaped in conformity 
 with it. There is, however, no vestige of evidence to show 
 that Luther acted steadily under the guidance of any fixed 
 principle whatever ; and the wayward bursts of passion in 
 which the greatest of his reforms were effected, totally annihi- 
 late the fond theories, by the aid of which his admirers seek 
 to cover their master with a philosophical cloak, which he him- 
 self would have torn in shreds, or trampled in the mire. That 
 many of his doctrines were, however, to a certain extent shaped 
 in conformity with his theory of justification, we have already 
 admitted, and some of those modifications will immediately 
 draw our attention. Luther had been taught, by the Catholic 
 Church, to believe that whatever man has, he received from 
 God ; and, therefore, owes the service of his faculties and of 
 his whole being to Him from whom all had been received. 
 Hence his obligation to love God with all his heart and all his 
 strength. The Reformer had also been taught the immediate 
 consequence of this, that, in justification, man cannot be pas- 
 sive, but must respond to the call of grace — that, to be justified, 
 man must will his own justification. All this teaching, how- 
 ever, required to be displaced, in order to make room for 
 justification by faith alone. Yet how set aside an obligation 
 which had its force from the very fact of creation? There 
 was but one method, and it was adopted by the Reformers. 
 They denied the possibility of man's correspondence with God. 
 They considered that if man had the power to co-operate with 
 God, his obligation to do so was self-evident ; and that, if no 
 such obligation lay upon him, the reason could be found only 
 in his want of ability. But they had already settled the point 
 of obligation, by declaring that justification was by faith alone; 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 175 
 
 and that, in justification, man was altogctlier passive. Thus 
 they conchided that grace operated without respect to the 
 state of man's will, and that he had no power either to admit 
 or reject grace, or to correspond in any way with the designs 
 of God. 
 
 Will, however, is the source of moral power. The Reformers 
 therefore, finding themselves obliged to deny to man all moral 
 power towards the performance of a good act, were compelled 
 also to deny him free-will. Luther, accordingly, asserted 
 boldly that man was not free ; but that, on the contrary, he 
 acted, in all things, as God had determined him. In this he 
 was followed, though with not a little tergiversation, by Cal- 
 vin, and his followers, the Westminster divines. 
 
 Thus far the consequences of the new doctrines were retro- 
 spective. But their eff'ects were to be more directly felt, and 
 soon became manifest in more startling inroads upon the old 
 creed of Christendom. Since it was laid down that man in 
 justification remained passive, and that God was the sole 
 agent, it followed that the justified man might remain in all 
 other respects unchanged — still bent upon evil, and yielding 
 to his corrupt inclinations — in other words, that the just man 
 is not necessarily sanctified. From this again it followed 
 that justification was quite external to man, and really con- 
 sisted in the removal of responsibility for sins past and ftiture, 
 but by no means in the cleansing of the soul. It also 
 followed, that a soul still perverted from good, and pursuing 
 sin, might nevertheless be a pleasing object in the sight of 
 God. All this was contemplated and admitted by Luther 
 and Calvin. But there was another consequence equally 
 necessary and equally evident with those, which was not, 
 however, contemplated by the authors of the Protestant 
 doctrine. This consequence will fall to be considered in the 
 present chapter. It is, that the doctrine of justification by 
 faith alone closes heaven against all the children of Adam ; so 
 that, even those who have been called and justified, must, no 
 less than their unregenerate brethren, be excluded fr-om the 
 hope of salvation. 
 
176 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Section I. — Man's Eesponsibility. 
 
 The further one advances in the study of religious revolu- 
 tions, the more strongly does the conviction press upon him, 
 that, from Simon Magus downwards, "reformers" have 
 considered themselves authorized to set aside the universally- 
 received axioms of reason. Their followers, too, seem tacitly 
 to have granted them the perilous privilege of imposing on 
 public credulity paradoxes, whose palpable absurdity should 
 not be allowed to militate against their adoption. No principle 
 of reason could have enjoyed a more perfect sanction, than did 
 the axiom which declares that liberty or free-will is the basis 
 of responsibility. Remove even the most fanatical sectary 
 from the little field of his peculiar dogmatism, and he will, 
 like other men, attribute blame only to the abuse of liberty, 
 and regard as irresponsible such agents as can act only at the 
 impulse or by the direction of another. Yet liberty has been 
 denied by the majority of modern reformers, and, strange to 
 say, the extremes of Protestantism have been united in this 
 denial. For, while the Socinians, Owenites, &c., are driven 
 at once to this negative by their pantheistic elements, Cal- 
 vinists have arrived at the same result as the first consequence 
 of their theory on predestination. 
 
 In our argument against Calvinism, we scarcely know 
 whether to look upon it as an advantage or an embarrassment, 
 that the system we oppose has so frequently and so directly 
 stumbled against the very foundations of reason. For if the 
 few will at once perceive where a self-evident truth has been 
 violated, and know that the system which openly or by implica- 
 tion denies such a truth, impresses on its brow the fatal stigma 
 of imposture ; the many — those who do not or cannot pierce 
 below the surface of things — will hardly admit that a religion 
 which they have been tauglit to look upon as the work of 
 learned and pious men, and which they see supported by men 
 of talents and education, can be so palpably in error. The 
 evidence which convicts Calvinism is too clear, too bright, 
 too overpowering. Men say there must be something in the 
 system which they have not yet studied or understood. That 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 177 
 
 its patent contradictious and bold absurdities must be sup- 
 ported below by some hidden wisdom, which, perhaps, their 
 " slowness of heart" prevents them from reaching. It cannot 
 be that grave divines should have framed a religion, whose 
 falsehood could thus be seen and touched, even by the most 
 simple and uneducated. But so it is. Calvinism is in the 
 most direct and fatal contradiction with many of those truths 
 which are self-evident — which are by legislators, philosophers, 
 and divines held as axioms or first principles. The question 
 which at present occupies our attention will give ample 
 opportunities for the proof of this assertion. This we shall 
 endeavour in part to show, by proving the proposition that — 
 
 The teaching of the Westminster Confession leads to the 
 denial of mans responsibility and of future punishments. 
 
 Without liberty or free-will there cannot be responsibility. 
 But the Westminster Confession destroys liberty: it therefore 
 destroys responsibility. 
 
 To avoid all ambiguity, we shall define the terms of our 
 argument. When we say that man is responsible, we mean 
 that he must render an account to God of all his thoughts, 
 words, and actions ; and that, according to the nature of the 
 account he renders, his eternal happiness or eternal misery 
 will be decided : " They that have done good shall come forth 
 unto the resurrection of life ; but they that have done evil, 
 -unto the resurrection of judgment."^ By " will " we mean 
 the power and faculty of choosing, resolving, determining, 
 with which the soul has been endowed. By freedom or 
 liberty we mean an immunity from necessity or dependence 
 on the part of the will, in choosing, resolving, and determining. 
 When we say, then, that the will of man is free, we mean 
 that man has a real untrammelled power of choice and self- 
 determination ; that Avhere two or more objects are presented 
 to the intellect, the will has the power of adhering to one and 
 rejecting another, approving or disapproving of one or more, 
 of disapproving or rejecting all. In a word, that the move- 
 ments of the soul are not predetermined nor necessitated by 
 any external power whatever ; that the soul, previous to its 
 
 ' John V. 29. 
 
 M 
 
178 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 determination or choice, was equally able and equally free to 
 have chosen or determined otherwise, or not to have deter- 
 mined at all ; that whether it approves or disapproves, 
 embraces or rejects, its act is its own. It is necessary to 
 notice that the liberty spoken of is a moral power — a power of 
 the soul. The ill-digested definitions and preposterous specu- 
 lations of Locke, have done much to confuse this question in 
 the minds of English readers. He defines liberty to be " the 
 power a man has to do or forbear doing any particular action, 
 according as its doing or forbearance has the actual preference 
 in the mind," ^ as if the question of moral liberty regarded 
 the body, or the freedom of the soul could be destroyed by the 
 chains which bind the body. Indeed, the entire chapter on 
 liberty, in the Essay on the Human Understanding, demon- 
 strates that this father of modern materialism understood 
 neither his subject nor himself. The worship paid in England 
 to his hollow name, shall not prevent us from recording our 
 opinion of his merits. To resume : the outward act may give 
 evidence of the freedom of the will ; but the will acts not less 
 freely when it chooses that which cannot be outwardly accom- 
 plished, than when it finds in the body a competent minister 
 of its power. A man in prison may yet render himself guilty 
 of every crime in the decalogue. 
 
 I. Without liberty, then, there can be no responsibility. 
 For— 
 
 1. If the volitions of man were necessitated, that is, if 
 man had power to will only that which he does actually will 
 — if he were, previous to his decision, destitute of the power 
 of suspending or withholding or refusing his assent — it is evi- 
 dent that he can have no real control over his thoughts or 
 determinations. They would be as little under his dominion 
 as if they were the thoughts or volitions of another. But it 
 would be absolutely unjust to hold a man responsible for that 
 over which he has not control. If, therefore, man had not 
 freedom of will, he could not be made responsible. For a 
 fuller view of this argument, we refer to the last chapter, 
 where it was treated at some length. 
 
 1 Essay on the Understandiuy:, chap. xxi. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 179 
 
 2. If man is responsible, he is so only for Ms own acts. No 
 one will maintain that one man can be called on to answer 
 for acts which are really another's. Not even the most viru- 
 lent* partisan of fatality will say that Pius the Ninth could 
 be made accountable for the bad theology of Calvin, or the 
 atheistical hypotheses of Locke ; or that Socinus could have 
 been punished for the murder of Servetus. Yet, why not ? 
 unless that men cannot be held responsible for acts which are 
 not their own. But, unless the will of man be free, his acts 
 are not his own. He is only the instrument of another, not a 
 self-directing agent. Where the will acts necessarily, that is, 
 where it has power to act only as it does, and previous to its 
 decision had not power to have acted otherwise, it is itself 
 determined by another. The efficient cause of its act is not 
 itself ; it is from without. But all acts are morally the acts 
 of the determining power, not of the instrument or necessitated 
 agent. Thus, the explosion of a magazine is the act not of 
 the match, but of the man who applies it. The destruction of 
 the Philisthie's crops was the act of Samson, not of the 
 animals he employed. If agents which are not free could be 
 responsible, then the animals would be responsible — then in- 
 fants and the insane would be responsible. But all men agree 
 that such are irresponsible, and consider that their movements, 
 whether physical or moral, spring not from an adequate 
 internal principle, but from a power which is without them- 
 selves — in a word, that their acts are not their own. When, 
 therefore, man is not able and free to choose between different 
 objects — to act or not to act — his acts are not his own, and 
 he cannot be held responsible for them. 
 
 3. The reasonableness and the binding force of all human 
 laws are based upon their conformity with the divine Avill. 
 "The power is fi-om God;" and legislators have ever believed 
 that they could bind by their enactments only those whom 
 the will of God subjected to their authority. Yet, wherever 
 human laws exist, they have been instituted solely for fi-ee 
 agents. Is God, then, less just than his creatm-es, that He 
 should hold men responsible for acts which they could neither 
 avoid nor modify ? It is, then, the universal conviction of 
 
180 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 mankind, that, at least in regard of external acts, where there 
 is not liberty there is not responsibility. But the quality of 
 outward acts is derived from the state of the will. If this be 
 in conformity with the will of God, the acts are good ; if 
 otherwise, they are evil. To declare, therefore, the outward 
 act exempt from responsibility, is simply to say that, because 
 of the necessity under which it acted, the will contracted no 
 guilt. 
 
 4. The compilers of the Westminster Confession were not 
 unaware of the truth, that liberty is the basis of responsibility. 
 With their cliaracteristic inconsistency, they seek to embrace 
 the truth and its contrary error in their religious scheme ; or 
 rather, they endeavour to save in words the tru.th which, with 
 all the followers of Calvin, they were obliged to sacrifice in 
 effect. It seems thus to have been only as a sop thrown to 
 the common sense and intimate conviction of mankind, that 
 they sanctioned the following article : " God hath endued 
 the will of man with that natm-al liberty, that it is neither 
 forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to 
 good or evil." ^ How misplaced is the assertion of any species 
 of liberty in a statement of Calvinistic doctrine, we shall pre- 
 sently see. Let the article serve here as even a Calvinistic 
 testimony to the truth, that responsibility cannot be conceived 
 without liberty. 
 
 II. But Calvinism destroys liberty. Tliis we prove — 
 1. From its doctrine of justification. If we experience any 
 difficulty in the proof of this portion of our argument, it arises 
 neither fi-om the paucity nor inconclusiveness of the evidence, 
 but from a certain degree of embarrassment to which the con- 
 flicting ideas of the Calvinistic formularies give rise. There 
 is, indeed, no little discrepancy of opinion among Calvinists 
 as to the nature and cause of justification ; and the opposi- 
 tion to be found between tlie various definitions and explana- 
 tions of their doctrine, whether the effect or the cause of that 
 discrepancy, proves a serious impediment to the attainment of 
 a clear apprehension of what modern Calvinism really is. 
 The Westminster Confession says, indeed, that ^' faith is the 
 
 1 Confession of Fuith, ix. 1. 
 
KELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 181 
 
 alone instniment of justification ;" ^ and the formula — " Man 
 is justified bj faith alone," is, we are aware, looked upon not 
 only as the main pillar of what are called the evangelical sects, 
 but even as a test of legitimate Protestantism. But to hoAV 
 many Protestants do these expressions call up a distinct idea? 
 In what statement of Presbyterian, or indeed of Protestant 
 doctrine, shall Ave search for an authentic explanation of what 
 is understood by the term "faith alone? " Does it mean that 
 the grace of faith — simply the gift of God — independently of 
 any act or co-operation on the part of man, justifies the sinner? 
 Or rather, that it is the act of the mind vivified, or, as we may 
 say, informed by faith, which apprehends the merits of Christ, 
 and obtains the forgiveness of sin ? The foimer was, unques- 
 tionably, the doctrine of Luther and the first Reformers. But 
 new light has arisen upon their folloAvers ; and even in the 
 ranks of Calvinism are to be found not a few who assert that 
 the act of faith, not the grace, is the instrument of justification. 
 As we know not to which of these parties belongs the honour 
 of truly representing the Presbyterianism of Scotland, and 
 as each can produce from the Confession of Faith the most 
 satisfactory testimonies of its exclusive orthodoxy, it will be 
 necessary for us to meet both in our reasoning. 
 
 If the meaning of the Protestant formula be, that grace 
 alone, Avithout concurrence on man's part, is the instrument of 
 justification, then it is not man, but God himself who appre- 
 hends and appropriates the merits of Christ. We have thus 
 the sinner pardoned and rendered the friend of God, not only 
 Avithout any effort or even desire on his part, but it may be 
 Avithout his consciousness of the great boon that has been con- 
 ferred upon him — in fact, as much a stranger to his good 
 fortune, as if the sins forgiven had been those of the grand 
 Mufti. A peculiarity of this species of justification, perhaps 
 still more Avorthy of notice, is, that since faith is a grace AAdiich 
 renders possible a supernatural act of belief, and its activity 
 is properly manifested in an act of belief, sinners are released 
 from the guilt of their transgressions by an act in Avhich God 
 believes In hi 
 
 1 Confession of Fi.ith, 
 
182 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 mercy through the merits of the Eedeemer. Another conse- 
 quence of this doctrine of the Eeformation, of a character 
 equally extraordinary as the preceding, is, that a man may be 
 rendered the friend of God, not only without desiring it, but 
 while actually renouncing and blaspheming God ; nay, he 
 may continue in this awful frame of mind for an indefinite 
 period of time, still remaining a pleasing object in the sight of 
 God — still entitled to the glorious epithet of ^' just." ^ The 
 reader will also readily perceive, that on the hypotheses we 
 are examining, the entire economy of divine Providence, in 
 relation to the justified, is overturned. A man whose justi- 
 fication and final perseverance in grace should be absolutely 
 secured by God, without the concurrence of the creature being 
 required, would no longer exist on earth in a state of probation. 
 His salvation, unconditionally and immutably fixed, would 
 render any trial or probation, in his regard, altogether un- 
 meaning. Far from resembling the saints of Christianity, 
 who, like St. Paul, strive to " work out their salvation with 
 fear and trembling," who, though in the grace of God, yet fear 
 " lest while they preach to others, they may not themselves 
 become castaways," the saints of Luther's theory present a 
 spectacle, to which a parallel can be found only in the heroes 
 and demigods of Grecian mythology, who could not, by any 
 amount of crime, forfeit the immortality to which they had 
 been destined by Jupiter. 
 
 Let it not be imagined that we have needlessly stepped 
 aside to notice the consequences of what many Protestants 
 will, no doubt, call a defunct form of their religion. An 
 opinion which can allege in its favour the respectable 
 authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith, is certainly 
 entitled to some consideration beyond the bare development 
 of that particular consequence for which principally it has 
 been here introduced. To resume, then, our argument : 
 Calvinism, as we have said, affords unequivocal support to 
 those who maintain that man is entirely passive, and in no 
 way concurs in his own justification. How, indeed, is it 
 possible for a being so essentially corrupt and sinful as man 
 
 1 Lnrger Catechism, Q. 71. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 183 
 
 is represented by Calvinism to be, to share in any work of 
 holiness ? How conld God, a being essentially holy, become 
 a moral partner with man in a work essentially sinful? 
 Calvinism represents coiTupted nature as "not only sinful, but 
 sin;"^ and in harmony with this view, pronounces all the 
 works of unregenerate men to be sinful,^ and therefore deserv- 
 ing of eternal flames. But man remains " unregenerate " 
 until he has been justified. Any act, therefore, of his, by 
 which he could co-operate with grace towards his justification, 
 could serve only to defile and render of no effect the opera- 
 tion of the Divine Spirit. How, moreover, could a system 
 which so loudly asserts justification to be the exclusive work 
 of God, allow man to come in as a sharer in the labour ? 
 Can it be said that the grace of faith is the alone instrument 
 of justification, if the sinner be pardoned by means of an act 
 of his own mind, even although that act were directed and 
 vivified by the Holy Ghost ? And the whole world knows 
 that Calvinism has ever adhered to the motto — " Justification 
 by faith alone." Through a desire for consistency, or, it 
 might have been, from conviction, the Westminster divines, 
 were not unwilling to guarantee the orthodoxy of this motto,, 
 by formally asserting that man is altogether passive in the 
 important movement of his justification : " This effectual call 
 is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at 
 all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, mitil, 
 being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is 
 thereby enabled to answer this call, and embrace the grace 
 offered and conveyed in it."^ Did Calvinism admit the 
 co-operation of man in justification, a fatal blow would be 
 
 ' Confession of Faith., vi. 5. ' Id. xvi. 7, 
 
 3 Coiifeiiion of Faith, x. 2. If the effectual call here referred to be not justifica- 
 tion, it supposes that grace to have been already conferred, and, therefore, that man 
 is passive in the -work of regeneration. It is said that the call cannot be embraced 
 by the sinner, until he has been quickened and renewed by the Holy Ghost. But 
 to be quickened and renewed by the Holy Ghost, supposes that sins have been 
 forgiven, grace actually imparted, and the person of the sinner rendered acceptable 
 before God ; or that the quickening and renewing operation is itself but another 
 expression for the forgiveness of sin. But the forgiveness of sin, and the accept- 
 ance of man as righteous, is precisely what the Confession of Faith understands by 
 
184 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 given to its doctrine on the subject of works. No sect has 
 ever more strenuously asserted the utter worthlessness of all 
 the works of man. If, then, the faith which justifies were 
 the act of the mind — the act of man — and not the pure grace, 
 without any admixtm-e of human effort, justification would be 
 by works; for, certainly, an act of the mind is a human work. 
 The instrument of luan's regeneration would be man himself, 
 and grace would but afford subordinate assistance. The doc- 
 trine, therefore, which Calvinists have ever held on the 
 subject of works, not less than their ideas of the state of man 
 since the fall, are absolutely untenable, unless on the supposi- 
 tion that justification is the exclusive work of God, and that 
 man, in the accomplishment of his regeneration, is entirely 
 passive. Since, then, no act is required on the part of man, 
 his justification is simply unconditional. It can be neither 
 procured nor prevented, neither accelerated nor retarded, by 
 his disposition or state of mind. It depends, therefore, solely 
 upon the will of God. But God is unchangeable ; and what- 
 ever he has willed, without imposing or requiring conditions 
 on the part of the creatures which change, is absolutely and 
 immutably determined. But the absolute determination of 
 God's will is his eternal decree; and thus, from the doctrine 
 of justification by faith alone, flows, necessarily, the theory 
 of absolute predestination. Predestination, however, as we 
 
 justification. The approval, therefore, meant to be given, by the article quoted in 
 the text, to the theory of justification without man's concurrence, is sufficiently 
 distinct. But the logical consistency of the article is not so easily perceived. 
 Perhaps some of those who subscribe the Westminster Confession could inform us 
 how a man who remains " passive " contrives to " embrace a grace ;" and how, 
 afler he has been " renewed by the Holy Ghost," it still remains for him to " em- 
 brace the grace " which is then offered for the purpose of renewing him ! If it be 
 necessary for justification that man should first " embrace the grace," then he can- 
 not be renewed until he has embraced it ; yet the article declares that he cannot 
 embrace the grace until he has actually been renewed. So that the first and most 
 necessary preliminary required in the process by which Calvinism justifies the sinner, 
 is his justification. He must, it seems, he reneived in order to make it possible for 
 him to commence the work of his renewal. If the votary of Calvinism can save 
 himself from being transfixed on one or other of the horns of this cruel dilemma, 
 he must have been gifted with very ample powers for the interpretation of the 
 Scotch Confession. 
 
EELAT[ONS TO SCKIPTURE. 185 
 
 have already in part shown, and shall immediately prove, 
 necessarily annihilates liberty. If, therefore, Calvinists hold 
 that justification by faith alone means justification without 
 the co-operation of man, they must admit, as a consequence 
 of this opinion, that the will of man is not free. 
 
 In direct opposition to this interpretation of the Protestant 
 formula, is that of those who maintain man's act of faith to 
 be the instrument of his justification. Strong as are the 
 grounds which the Confession of Faith affords to the supporters 
 of the previous theory, they will scarcely outweigh those 
 which the partisans of the second opinion can adduce from the 
 same source. According to this opinion, the instrument of 
 justification is faith, not, however, alone or in itself, but in the 
 act of the sinner, by which he believes that Christ died for 
 him and purchased his redemption, and that his sins have 
 been covered from the sight of God by the justice of the 
 Saviour. So much is this considered to be the act of man, that 
 popular divines have been applauded for giving a happy ex- 
 pression to the general opinion of Protestants, in the assertion 
 that "man is justified by thinking by an act of the mind." 
 Nor was the applause less which followed the declaration, that 
 it was the boast of Protestantism as an intellectual system, 
 that it believed man to be saved by the act of his intellect, in 
 opposition to Catholicity, which attributes justification to certain 
 sacraments which God has appointed for conveying his grace. 
 Nor could such declarations have been opposed by any one 
 desirous of giving a consistent adherence to the religious scheme 
 of the Westminster divines. Whether it was that they were 
 anxious to unite the conflicting views of the two parties, or 
 that they drew up their Confession without having themselves 
 any fixed opinions on the subject, we are scarcely called 
 upon to inquire : the result, not the motive of their labours, 
 is the present object of our research. In answer to the ques- 
 tion, "How doth faith justify a sinner?" the Larger Catechism 
 says, "Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God . . . 
 only as it is an instrument, by which he (the sinner) receiveth 
 and applieth Christ and his righteousness." When we con- 
 sider that the same authority had pronounced man to be pas- 
 
186 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 sive until he had heen renewed hy the Holy Ghost, and that 
 justification was the exclusive work of God, we might be in- 
 duced to doubt whether the answer just cited had been ever 
 penned by the Westminster divines. It does seem strange 
 that they shoukl thus make sinners capable of receiving and 
 applying Christ to themselves; in a word, the instruments of 
 their owni justification. Such, however, is the fact. The 
 Confession of Faith itself, after defining faith to be "the act of 
 believing," says, "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ 
 and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification." ^ 
 It is not therefore faith in itself, as a virtue or gift of God, but 
 as the act of the mind receiving and resting on Christ which 
 justifies. Quite in conformity with this, is the following ac- 
 count of the acts of the grace of faith, whereby " the elect are 
 enabled to hzlieve to the saving of their souUy ^ "By this 
 fiiith a Christian believeth to be time whatever is revealed in 
 the word. . . . But the principal acts of saving faith arc 
 accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justifica- 
 tion, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant 
 of grace." ^ In conformity with the teaching of such texts, 
 we find that Calvinists have ever insisted on the necessity of 
 sacraments and a public ministry. The use of such aids as 
 sacraments or such an institution as a ministry, could not be 
 required if faith alone were the instrument of justification. 
 Nay, if grace alone operated the renewal of the sinner's heart, 
 any ministry wherein man bore a part, would, by its imperfec- 
 tions, necessarily mar the effect of grace, and, perhaps, render 
 justification altogether impossible. The Confession of Faith 
 insists, too, upon the diity of ministers to call constantly upon 
 all men to repent and turn to God. Such calls, however, 
 would be no more than an insulting farce, if men were not 
 required to co-operate in their own reconciliation with God. 
 The sinner's duty as well as interest would clearly be, to leave 
 aside all care of the matter — to sit down in patient expectation, 
 since his interference, if it had any influence at all, could only 
 tend to defer, perhaps even to frustrate, the hapjDy consum- 
 mation. 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, xi. 2. '^ Id. xiv. 1. ^ Id. xiv. 2. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE, 187 
 
 We may thus fairly assume that the Confession of Faith 
 does hokl the concurrence of man to be necessary towards his 
 justitication. The question then immediately arises: Is it 
 possible for man to refuse his concin-rence? is his will free to 
 follow the call of grace, or is it not? One or the other it must 
 be. If not free, then our demonstration is complete — Calvinism, 
 it must be gi-anted, destroys free-will. If man can refuse his 
 concurrence, it follows that he is able to resist grace, and that 
 the salvation of the just is not absolutely determined, but 
 conditional — that man's salvation depends upon himself, not 
 indeed as the cause, but as a necessary co-operator. But 
 Calvinism stands or falls by its doctrine on grace, and it has 
 asserted, in the most solemn manner, that grace operates in- 
 fallibly, and that where God offers gi-ace with an intention to 
 grant it, man can neither refuse nor reject it. Another doctrine 
 on which the existence of Calvinism as a separate sect depends, 
 is, that the justification and salvation of the elect have from 
 eternity been absolutely and unconditionally decreed; and 
 consequently, that their regeneration, final perseverance, and 
 salvation, depend in no degree upon themselves,^ since they can 
 neither resist grace nor refuse salvation. Again, therefore, 
 the doctrine of justification by faith alone compels the Calvin- 
 ist to deny the free-will of man. 
 
 To whatever point of Calvin's system we direct our attention, 
 we find his theory of predestination forcing itself upon our 
 notice. It is, undoubtedly, not only the most prominent, but 
 also the most characteristic of that Reformer's opinions. Al- 
 though it cannot be said to have been the source of his system, 
 it cannot be denied to have suggested not a few of his ideas, 
 influenced more, and cast its dark shadow over his entire theory. 
 Any opinion which can be abandoned without impairing the 
 integrity of this doctrine, belongs not to the essence of Cal- 
 vinism; the Calvinist may cast it off, without fear of being- 
 swallowed up undistinguished among the masses of undefined 
 sectarianism. But wherever we have reached an idea which 
 supports or springs from the predestinarian theory, we are 
 touching that which affects the very life of Calvinism. If, 
 
 1 Id. X. 2, and other passages already cited. 
 
188 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 therefore, we wish to know whether Calvinism necessarily 
 denies human liberty, we must examine the question in the 
 light Avhich is thrown upon it by the doctrine of absolute 
 predestination. Little, however, will require to be added to 
 the arguments on this subject which will be found in the 
 previous pages. 
 
 Let the reader recall once more the texts ^ in which tlie 
 Confession of Faith defines the decree of God to be the counsel 
 of his will, by which he "unchangeably ordains whatsoever 
 comes to pass," and, in explanation of this doctrine, declares 
 that God did not ordain anything, because he foresaw that it 
 would take place, and that nothing is decreed in a conditional 
 manner. These explanations were but an extension of Cal- 
 vin's sayings, that God does not decree future events, because 
 he foresaw them; but that he foresees them, because he had 
 ordained them — that he foresees them in his decree.^ All 
 therefore that comes to pass has been immediately, unchange- 
 ably, and unconditionally foreordained by God. Now, the 
 movements of man's will are "things which come to pass;" 
 they have, therefore, been from eternity unchangeably deter- 
 mined. Nor have they been determined because God foresaw 
 that man's will would so determine itself; but man's will so 
 determines, because such was God's eternal decree. Is, then, 
 the will which God has unchangeably and unconditionally 
 determined to act in a certain manner, and in no other, free"? 
 Is it free to withhold assent where God has determined that it 
 shall assent? Or is it free to embrace that which he has fore- 
 ordained it to reject? It is impossible for any man who un- 
 derstands the terms of the question to answer in the affirmative. 
 That which God has unchangeably determined must take place, 
 and it is impossible that it can ftiil to take place. The being 
 whom he has unchangeably determined to be his agent or 
 instrument must fulfil the decree, and it is impossible for him 
 to evade, or refuse, or fail to fulfil it, with all its circumstances, 
 according to the decree. Every act, therefore, of the human 
 will, having been unchangeably foreordained, must take place 
 precisely as it does, and man cannot possibly evade, or avoid, 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, iii. 1,2. ^ InslituHo, lib. iii. cap. 23^ § 7. 
 
EELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 189 
 
 or refuse giving or witliliolding his assent. As far, therefore, 
 as man is concerned, every act of his will is necessary and not 
 free — determined by a poAver over which he has no control. 
 But if the acts of his will be necessary, free-will is absolutely 
 destroyed. Such, again, is the inevitable result of the essential 
 doctrines of Calvinism. 
 
 The evidence in support of our argument is thus conclusive. 
 But, if we were unable to make good our position by yet 
 another kind of proof, it might be said by Calvinists that they 
 had not contemplated such consequences of their doctrines, 
 and that they were prepared to disavow them. There are, 
 however, chapters in the Confession of Faith which profess to 
 explain the natm-e and present state of man. There his 
 tendencies and moral powers are treated of; and the language 
 employed confirms, in the clearest manner, the conclusion 
 which we have already reached. The effects of the fall are 
 described to have been truly fatal to the human race; its im- 
 mediate consequence was to bring upon the posterity of Adam 
 a "corruption of nature," which was not only great, but "total," 
 and extending to "all the faculties and parts of soul and body." ^ 
 One would imagine this to be sufficiently explicit and forcible. 
 If man be totally corrupt in all the faculties and parts of soul 
 and body, certainly his will is wholly incapable of turning 
 towards good. It is necessitated to do evil. This consequence 
 is admitted : " From original corruption, whereby we are 
 utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, 
 and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgres- 
 sions." 2 Little evidence need be adduced beyond this article, 
 in which Calvinism commits itself to the assertion, that man 
 is by nature wholly corrupt and inclined to all evil, and dis- 
 abled and made opposite to all good. To establish our con- 
 clusion, we shall refer to one other passage only, to show 
 that these sentences are not to be looked upon as rhetorical 
 exaggerations or hastily-adopted phrases, but to be regarded 
 as the deliberate and acknowledged opinions of Calvinism : 
 "Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of 
 them they may lie things icln'ch God commands, and of good 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, vi. 2. - Id. vi. 4. 
 
190 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 use both to themselves and others ; yet . . . they are sinful 
 and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace 
 from God." ^ From these statements two inevitable conse- 
 quences follow: 1, that man can will nothing but what God 
 has determined him to will; and 2, that no man, unless actually 
 justified, can will anything but what is evil. Since, therefore, 
 every movement of the will is said to have been determined by 
 the decree of God, man does not will evil in general: he must 
 will the precise evil which he does, for that it is which has been 
 decreed. The impossibility of willing good, under which man 
 is said, by the Westminster Confession, to labour, is from 
 nature. The necessity under which he is placed, according to 
 the same authority, of willing evil is from the decree of God. 
 We are now able to understand the real meaning of one of 
 those passages, which are not unfrequently to be met with in 
 the pages of the Scotch Confession, of which the conclusion is 
 so little connected with the beginning, as to induce one to 
 believe that the wandering mind of the writer had retained, ere 
 reaching its close, no impression whatever of the idea with 
 which it had commenced: " Man, by his fall into a state of sin, 
 hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accom- 
 panying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether 
 averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own 
 strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." ^ 
 The compilers of the Scotch Confession were unusually 
 cautious in thus drawing so very modest a consequence from 
 tlieir premises. These would certainly have authorized a 
 little more boldness than is shown in the deduction of what 
 must be considered, if not a mere truism, certainly a very 
 puny effort of the logical faculty. That a natural man cannot 
 l)y his own strength operate his salvation, which is a super- 
 natural effect, is a truth — nay, a very important truth. But 
 as it is only a special application of a self-evident maxim of 
 ])hilosophy — an effect cannot be greater than its cause — we 
 can scarcely imagine this to have been the coifclusion which 
 the Westminster divines wished to draw from their startling 
 ])roposition, that man had wholly lost all ability of will to do 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, xvi. 7. ^ Id. ix. 3. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 191 
 
 good. This, however, is a subordinate matter — the article 
 points to an opinion of more immediate interest in the present 
 discussion. The articles of the Confession which were cited a 
 little above, declare that the will is powerless, not only for 
 any good accompanying salvation, but simjily for any good 
 whatever ; for they tell us that every act and thought of the 
 natural man is necessarily sinful. When the Westminster 
 divines now tell us that the natural man has wholly lost all 
 ability of will to do good, do they regard the will as a jjoivei- 
 of the soul — the power of choice and self-determination ; or do 
 they look upon it as a distinct being, having existence and 
 abilities of its own? The latter view receives some colour of 
 probability from their previous assertion, that man had become 
 corrupt in all the "parts of soul and body." If this interpre- 
 tation of their words be correct, then they admit that the will 
 of every man who has not been justified is not only hindered 
 (not free), but absolutely incapacitated from embracing good. 
 We can scarcely, hoAvever, attribute to men who distinctly 
 profess belief in the spirituality of the soul, an opinion whicli 
 would at once destroy its simplicity. The will, then, is not a 
 part, but a power of the soul. To lose the ability of a power, 
 is a phrase which has no strong title to the praise of philo- 
 sophical accuracy; probably it is intended to convey the idea, 
 that the natural man in the exercise of his will is restricted 
 to evil. Even from this interpretation, the most favourable 
 to Calvinism which can be made, we justly conclude, that if 
 the ability be lost, will itself is lost ; for the will is the ability 
 or power of choice with which the Almighty had endowed the 
 soul. A total privation of "the ability of will to do good," 
 is then a total privation of the power to choose between good 
 and evil. Where, then, man can embrace only evil, it is 
 evident that he has been deprived of will itself; for will is the 
 power of choice, and a choice requires at least two objects. 
 Where the only object man can embrace is evil, he has no 
 choice ; and therefore he has no will, still less has he free- 
 will. 
 
 The proof we have adduced in support of our argument, not 
 only demonstrates that Calvinism denies the freedom of man's 
 
192 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 will or liberty as an isolated opinion, but also shows that this 
 denial pervades the entire system of the Genevan Keformer; 
 that it is contained in the doctrine of justification, as it is held 
 by Calvinists; and that the doctrine of absolute predestination, 
 the very essence of Calvinism, is that which directly annihi- 
 lates the free-Avill of man. But we have seen that, without 
 free-will, there can be no responsibility. Man, therefore, by 
 the Calvinism of the Westminster Confession, is not a re- 
 sponsible being. Yet, inasmuch as the Confession restores 
 the "ability of will" to the justified, can it not maintain that 
 they, at least, are responsible? Far from it. Calvinism, as if 
 it had repented of yielding so much in favour of reason and 
 religion as to concede a basis for responsibility in the case of 
 the justified, declares them to be irresponsible by the very 
 fact of their justification. For, while admitting that the just 
 man may grievously sin against God, it yet asserts that he 
 cannot, by any crime he may commit, incur the penalty of 
 sin. ^ To the just man, his sins are not imputed. In other 
 words, he is from the moment of his justification irresponsible. 
 Thus does Calvinism destroy all responsibility — that of the 
 unjust, by the denial of free-will; that of the just, by a special 
 privilege. 
 
 The wedge thus driven into Calvinism, soon rends open the 
 entire system, and exposes to our view the appalling negations 
 
 1 See page 183 note 1 ; also the following: "God doth continue to forgive the 
 sins of those that are justified, and, although they can never fall from the state o 
 justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's fatherly displeasure," &c. 
 (^Confession of Faith, xi. 5.) This piece of rare theology is worthy of notice for its 
 own sake, as well as on account of its incidental confirmation of the statement in 
 the text. Where there is forgiveness, there must, we presume, have been guilt. If 
 there were no guilt, there would be nothing to forgive. But the Westminster divines 
 have said that the guilt of every sin is deserving of eternal punishment ; and there- 
 fore, that any man who is under the guilt of sin is a child of hell. To render the 
 forgiveness of sin possible in the case of the justified, they must have contracted 
 guilt, and thus rendered themselves the enemies of God. But this, the Confession 
 of Faith tells us, they cannot after justification become. If, then, they cannot 
 become the enemies of God, they canpot contract the guilt of sin. Yet this article 
 obliges the Presbyterian to believe that God forgives the just, guilt which they had 
 not contracted, and that they fall under his displeasure for sins of which they were 
 not guilty ! And men of education are found to affix their signature to the non- 
 sense we have quoted, and send it out to the world as the Confession of their Faith! 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 193 
 
 ■wliicli lie concealed within this form of Protestantism. No 
 responsibility requires the denial of guilt ; and the denial of 
 guilt is equivalent to the denial of sin. If no responsibility 
 nor sin, then there can be no pimishment, for punishment is 
 the wages of sin. If no punishment for sin, then there is no 
 hell. If there be no sin nor liell, then there is no Saviour ; for 
 the object of a Saviour is to deliver men from sin and hell. 
 We need not look farther into the consequences of that fatal 
 denial of free-will which we have shown to be so deeply seated 
 in the very essence of Calvinism. They will occur to every 
 one. The glimpse we have afforded gives ample confirmation 
 to our assertion, that the question of which we are at present 
 treating, is of transcendent importance to all who look upon 
 the Westminster Confession as a faithful exponent of the 
 doctrines of Christianity. So great, in our estimation, is its 
 importance, that we scarcely fear to incur the charge of tedious- 
 ness, by devoting a few additional pages to the consideration 
 of those reasons and statements by which Calvinists endeavour 
 to clear their sect from the terrible consequences with which 
 we have shown it to be chargeable. 
 
 Has not Calvinism, then, acknowledged a sufficient basis for 
 responsibility in the "natural liberty" which, it says, is still 
 to be found in fallen man ? " God hath endued the will of 
 man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by 
 any absolute necessity of natm-e determined, to good or evil." ^ 
 The species of liberty here admitted, is by far too narrow to 
 support the moral responsibility of man. For 1°. It is only 
 physical, not moral liberty. It amounts to no more than this 
 that the acts of man's will do not necessarily spring from his 
 nature, as, for example, do the involuntary sensations of pain, 
 fatigue, &c. But the liberty which man, to be responsible, 
 must enjoy, is moral liberty; not merely the absence of physical 
 impossibility to will good or evil, but the moral power to choose 
 either. 2°. This "natural liberty" does not exclude necessity. 
 A man might possess it in its fulness, and yet be subject to the 
 most inexorable fate ; as, indeed, is shown in the case of Cal- 
 vinism ; for such is its theory. The necessity which the above 
 
 ' Confession oj" Faith, ix. 1. 
 
194 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 article excludes is, it will be observed, "of nature." It is not 
 said that the will is not necessitated ; but onlj that it is not 
 forced by an absolute necessity of nature. And, in effect, the 
 necessity under which Calvinism places the human will, arises 
 only indirectly from nature. It is, as we have seen, imposed 
 directly hy the decree of God. Man, according to the West- 
 minster Confession, is not free in the exercise of his will, 
 because God had, from eternity, determined all its movements ; 
 not because they have been forced upon it by nature. But the 
 necessity imposed by the divine decree has been demonstrated 
 to be as fatal to liberty as any conceivable influence of nature 
 could have been. 3°. The article, it will be noticed, does not 
 deny that man is necessitated to evil ; nor even that he is so 
 necessitated hy nature. It denies only that the necessity is in 
 itself absolute. But this distinction does not much improve the 
 Calvinist's position; for, although the necessity is not absolute, 
 if reference be made to the whole human race — since God can 
 remove it from the justified — yet, as regards the reprobate, it 
 is as absolute as the " immutable decree" of God can make it. 
 Calvinism tells us that the necessity of sinning, under which 
 the reprobate are placed hy nature, cannot be removed either by 
 the blood of Christ, or the mil of the Almighty. 4°. The article 
 is directly refuted by the Confession of Faith itself, which has 
 decreed that, by the " corruption of nature," man " is loliolly 
 disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wliolly inclined 
 to all evil." ^ 
 
 Here, again, is a verbal assertion of liberty, but equally 
 unsatisfactory as the last : "Nor is violence offered to the will 
 of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second 
 causes taken away, but rather established." ^ To this we 
 reply — 1°. That, if the will of man has been predetermined to 
 all its acts, it matters little whether the necessity under which 
 it lies be effected by "violence" or not. We have shown 
 that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, takes from man 
 all dominion over the movements of his will, and fixes it 
 absolutely in the decree of God. To say, then, that the will 
 is not seized as it were by violence, and compelled, in spite of 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, vi. 4. ^ jj^ \\[ x_ 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 195 
 
 its struggles, to decide against its own determination, is nothing 
 to the purpose. For the charge against Calvinism is, that it 
 annihilates freedom by the necessity which its doctrine of the 
 eternal decree imposes, not that it accuses God of offering 
 violence to the will. Galvinists, by having recourse to such 
 grounds of defence — leaving their real doctrine without a word 
 of apology, and dexterously defending themselves from a 
 purely imaginary attack — in reality abandon the field, and 
 tacitly admit that they have no defence to make. The real 
 question between them, as fatalists, and their opponents is, 
 whether or not the acts of man's will be predetermined by an 
 absolute decree? Calvinism again and again, directly and 
 indirectly, asserts this predetermination. The consequence 
 instantly follows — that man is not responsible. To avoid this 
 consequence, Calvinism does not retrace its steps and repudiate 
 the necessity ; but shows that it means to adhere to its fatal 
 principle, by busying itself solely on a subordinate point which 
 was not even in question. It merely denies that the necessity 
 is caused by " violence offered to the will." This defence 
 however, besides being altogether irrelevant, proceeds on a 
 supposition which is philosophically untenable. Indeed, it is 
 a pure absurdity to speak of violence being offered to the will. 
 As the will is the soul defermining itself; to suppose it deter- 
 mining against its decision, is to suppose it deciding and not 
 deciding at the same time. The philosophy of the Scotch 
 Confession is on a level with its logic and theology. 2°. The 
 previous clause of the sentence under consideration, is as direct 
 a contradiction to the words we have quoted, as anything which 
 we could say : " God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise 
 and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably 
 ordain whatsoever comes to pass." ^ 
 
 On the present question, there remains to Calvinism no 
 ground of defence. If Calvinists are still found to press into 
 their service some worn-out sophism or oft-detected fallacy, it 
 is rather with the hope of effecting an escape, than in the ex- 
 pectation of justifying their cause. One only of these feeble 
 devices we shall notice. Seizing upon an expression of the 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, iii. 1. 
 
196 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 Westminster Confession, which says that the elect freelij 
 answer the call of God, hecause grace makes them willing ^ 
 Calvinists have made the equivocation contained in the term 
 " willing," a ground for responsibility. As willingness is here 
 made an equivalent oi freedom, they consider that man may 
 be made responsible for all that he willingly does. But, 
 although, in ordinary conversation, the term willingness may 
 be used as an equivalent for will, such a license can by no 
 means be extended to an authoritative exposition of faith. 
 For, as the present argument shows, to confound those words 
 in the question of human liberty, is to overturn both religion 
 and morality. The freedom necessary for responsibility, is the 
 power to choose good or evil, not merely the power to do evil, 
 which is all that Calvinism concedes to the unregenerate man. 
 Willingness is not, in any sense, liberty ; nor is it an infallible 
 sign of liberty ; for it expresses only inclination, pleasure, or 
 readiness, but not power. It is rather the voice of the sensi- 
 tive appetite than the criterion of free-will. There may be 
 most perfect willingness where there is not a vestige of freedom. 
 Of all men, Calvinists should best know this truth ; for it is 
 an article of their creed, that a man may willingly do that 
 which Grod had unchangeably determined him to do, and 
 which, therefore, he had not freedom not to do. An act which 
 favoured both interest and inclination, would be assented to 
 by the will with great alacrity or willingness. But where the 
 will decides for interest against inclination, the act will be by 
 no means willingly performed. Yet the will displays greater 
 power in the latter than in the former case ; for willingness 
 was against the performance of the act, and was thus an 
 obstacle which had to be overcome by the will. Thus, a man, 
 who for worldly interest professes belief in a document whose 
 contradictions and absurdity he clearly sees, will tell the 
 world, by the sign which accompanies his signature, how 
 unwilling is the testimony afforded by his outward act to the 
 freedom of his will. The liberty which the evasion at present 
 under examination supposes, means no more than the power 
 to will or do that which must be willed or done ; but not a 
 power to refuse or refrain from acting. Such liberty is 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 197 
 
 enjoyed by the stone as it Mis through space towards the 
 body which most powerfully attracts it. Such freedom is 
 possessed by the lower animals in all their acts, whether under 
 compulsion, or spontaneously performed. If the will were 
 predetermined to all its acts by the absolute decree of God, 
 it would gravitate towards its object as the stone gravitates 
 towards the earth, with equal certainty and equal freedom. 
 The decree of God would be the law of its nature. Thus, 
 then, is Calvinism driven to the utter denial of human re- 
 sponsibility. Not only so ; but so intimately does this denial 
 pervade the essential doctrines of the sect, that the Calvinist 
 can never find a rational foundation for responsibility, until 
 he has pulled to the ground the entire fobric of the Westminster 
 theology. 
 
 Section II.— Bearing of the Calvinistic Doctrine of Sanctifying 
 Grace on the Immortality of the Soul. 
 
 The truth has amply avenged itself of the inroads of Cal- 
 vinism ; and, in the vengeance it has taken, read to the world 
 a lesson which may well make religious innovators tremble. 
 As if heresy were, by a special providence, destined to be its 
 own executioner, and to proclaim before the eyes of those whom 
 it has deluded, its own folly and impotence, the means which, 
 in its imaginary wisdom, it adopts to insure a certain result, 
 are the very instruments by which the desired end is frustrated. 
 Calvinism, in order to be able to vindicate the condemnation 
 of the wicked, represented the absolute decree of God as the 
 supreme reason and justification of the torments of hell. That 
 supposed absolute decree abolishes the doctrine of human 
 punishments, by cutting away the sole ground upon which 
 their justice could rest. In examining the doctrine of the 
 Westminster Confession on the state of man after his renewal 
 by grace, there, too, we shall trace the effects of the same 
 intellectual fatuity. Grace is the free gift which a bountiful 
 God concedes to man, to enable him to regain his forfeited 
 right to heaven. Calvinism closes the gates of heaven against 
 the entire human family ; and its doctrine on grace it is, by 
 which this disastrous result is accomplished. The proof of our 
 
i98 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 next proposition will save us from the charge of advancing a 
 paradox, when we assert that the doctrines of Calvinism lead 
 to the denial of the future existence of the soul. 
 
 Calvinism denies that the just are really sanctified, and there- 
 fore destroys belief in a future state of supernatural happiness. 
 
 It is here ]iecessary to return for a moment to speak of the 
 nature of justification. No one of the Keformers retained the 
 doctrine of justification as it was taught by the Church. Her 
 doctrine was, that, in justification, the merits of Christ are not 
 only imputed, but applied to the soul. Their immediate effect 
 is to remove sin and its guilt. By "remove," we mean that 
 sin is really extirpated from the soul, and its guilt forgiven. 
 As sin alone is in itself displeasing to God, and creatures are 
 displeasing to Him only as they are defiled by sin, its ejection 
 from the soul leaves nothing in man but what is the work of 
 God himself. There is, therefore, nothing in the justified man 
 displeasing to God. In the justification, therefore, of sinners, 
 the Church teaches that God not only " accounts their persons 
 as righteous," but really makes them righteous. She teaches 
 also that no being can exist in a state of indifference towards 
 God ; but that all must be objects either of his complacency 
 or of his displeasure ; and, therefore, that the man, from whom 
 has been removed that which alone was capable of making 
 him an object of displeasure, is, by the very fact, admitted 
 into favour. This effect, moreover, having been produced by 
 supernatural gTace through the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, 
 really infused into the soul, the just man becomes, even in a 
 supernatural manner, pleasing to his Maker. Thus the effect 
 of justification is not alone the forgiveness of sin, but neces- 
 sarily also sanctification. In opposition to this, Luther affirmed 
 that the sole effect of justification was the forgiveness of sin. 
 Nor would he admit that this forgiveness was more than 
 declaratory. God, he affirmed, only declared the sinner for- 
 given ; He did not remove sin from the soul. The justified 
 man still remained really unclean as before, and in himself an 
 object of detestation to God. The justice of Christ was, how- 
 ever, thrown as it were a cloak over his guilty person. This 
 justice as it is in Christ — for it never entered the soul to 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 199 
 
 quicken it, or become a part of its moral existence — was alone 
 righteous and accepted before God. The sinner is only 
 accounted as righteous. Sanctification was thus altogether 
 severed from justification; and here Luther proceeded to such 
 an extravagance of impiety, as to urge the justified to sin,^ in 
 order that holiness of life might not throw any doubt upon 
 their salvation. 
 
 Calvin so far modified the impious theory of his brother 
 Reformer, as to make sanctification an inseparable accompani- 
 ment of justification. The retrograde step which he thus took 
 towards the ancient faith, was unfortunately rendered nugatory 
 by his definitions and descriptions of sanctification. According 
 to him, the sinner is justified, not by a real and personal 
 appropriation of the merits of Christ, but by their imputation 
 to him. Christ, by his theory, dwells in the heart of the 
 believer ; yet in such a manner as that there is no moral union 
 between them. The sanctification which results from the 
 forgiveness of sin, does not suppose its extirpation ; it only 
 diminishes the power of the "original corruption," and enables 
 the justified gradually to repress their vices, and become less 
 impure in the sight of God. _ Sanctification, then, was con- 
 ceived, by Calvin, to have been the power of tending to 
 sanctity ; but not a real purifying of the soul, or rendering it 
 holy. In this manner it is represented as being, during life, 
 partial and imperfect. Such, substantially, is also the teach- 
 ing of the Westminster divines, to which we now turn our 
 attention. 
 
 The nature and results of sanctification are thus described : 
 " They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a 
 new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sancti- 
 fied, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death 
 and resurrection, by his word and spirit dwelling in them ; 
 the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the 
 
 1 " If grace be real, work real and not sham sin. God does not save sham sin- 
 ners. Be a sinner, and sin stoutly; oulj' trust more strongly, and rejoice in Christ. 
 We must sin so long as we abide here." — "Si vera gratia est, verum non tictuni 
 peccatum ferto. Deus non facit salvos ficte peccatores. Esto peccator, et pecca 
 fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo. Peccandum est quamdiu hie sumus." 
 — Epist. Luth. J. Aurifaln-o, torn i., Jena, 1866, p. 545. 
 
200 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and morti- 
 fied, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in 
 all saving gTaces to the practice of true holiness, without which 
 no man shall see the Lord," ^ Gladly would we have welcomed 
 this article as an approach to Catholic truth, far greater than 
 had been made by Calvin on the same subject, and as a noble 
 protest against the antichristian doctrine of Luther, had we 
 found it harmonizing with the system of the Westminster 
 divines; or could we even believe that it was held, in its ob- 
 vious sense, however inconsistently, by their followers. But 
 every doctrine of Calvinism, every page of the Scotch Con- 
 fession, raises its protest against the truths which it unwittingly 
 conveys. It is a truth which may be said to bear demonstration 
 on its front, that justification by grace, through the merits of 
 Christ, must really and personally sanctify the believer; yet, 
 so vehemently did the first Reformers insist upon the separation 
 of justification from sanctification; so great was the stress 
 which they laid upon this separation, as one of the pillars of 
 their Reformation, that we cannot but admire the courage 
 which the framers of the Westminster Confession have dis- 
 played by this testimony, advanced in. the face of sti'ong pre- 
 judice, to a truth which they did not even understand, and 
 still less were at liberty to maintain. Indeed, they were com- 
 pelled to frame articles utterly subversive of this great truth, 
 as well as to put on record distinct protests against its conse- 
 quences. Fearing, apparently, that they had betrayed, by 
 their admission of a real and personal sanctification, and their 
 glowing description of its efi'ects, one of the fimdamentals of 
 Protestantism, they hasten, in the article which immediately 
 follows the above extract, to qualify and limit," and we believe 
 it must be also added, entirely to nullify their unguarded 
 words. "This sanctification (they continue) is throughout in 
 the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still 
 some remnants of corruption in every part^ whence ariseth a 
 continual and irreconcileable war ; the flesh lusting against the 
 spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." ^ The words we have 
 marked emphatic in this extract, begin to dispel the pleasing 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, xiii. 1. "^ Id. ibid. 3. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 201 
 
 illusion that the Westminster Confession meant to admit a 
 sanctifieation either real or personal of the believer. Real 
 sanctification is opposed to that which is only imputed. It 
 requires that the soul he itself rendered holy. Whereas the 
 theory of imputed sanctification leaves it without any essential 
 change in its moral state, but yet regarded by God as if it 
 were holy. Personal sanctification is opposed to vicarious. 
 Luther said that man is, and must ahvays be, in himself im- 
 pure ; but that Christ our sanctification is infinitely pure. It 
 is the holiness of Christ, as it is in Christ, that constitutes 
 this species of sanctification, for it never becomes subjective 
 in the soul of the believer. Man's sanctification is thus out of 
 himself; it becomes not internal and personal. It efi'ects no 
 change in the moral natm-e of the soul. So that the sanctified 
 man remains essentially in the state he was in previous to 
 justification; his tendencies may be less wicked, or he may 
 yield less to temptation, but the difference, if any, between 
 his previous and present state will be only of degree. The 
 change is not in man, but in the relation of God towards him. 
 He is now seen, by the Omniscient, no longer as he is in him- 
 self, or directly, he is regarded through the medium of Christ's 
 merits. 
 
 These explanations will, perhaps, enable us to discover the 
 mind of the Westminster divines even through the mist of 
 their vague and vacillating phraseology. Our first effort must 
 be directed to form a coiTCct idea of the nature of the "imperfec- 
 tion" which is here said to be, during the life of the believer, 
 inseparable from sanctification. Whence does it arise? What 
 are its effects? Is it compatible with "real" sanctification, 
 or does it, on the contrary, destroy both the reality and person- 
 ality of sanctification? Its origin is expressly pointed out 
 by the article just quoted. It arises from "those remnants of 
 corruption" which abide "in every part." There remains, 
 therefore, in both soul and body, some of the "coiTuption of 
 nature," as Calvinism terms the temble consequences of man's 
 first sin. The same is affirmed, althoiTgh in a slightly differ- 
 ent form, in the chapter on the Fall: " They (our first parents) 
 being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was im- 
 
202 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 puted, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature con- 
 veyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary 
 generation." ^ Again, "Tliis corruption of nature, during this 
 life, doth remain in those that are regenerated." ^ Even then, 
 the sanctified, so long as they remain upon earth, are defiled 
 by this coiTuption of nature, and hence the imperfection of 
 their holiness. What estimate, then, are we to form of the 
 extent and evil of this imperfection ? We can conceive of an 
 imperfection which does not turn away the favour of God. 
 Thus the Church assures us that the soul of the just man is an 
 object of the divine complacency, and yet that his sanctification 
 may not be absolutely perfect ; for she holds that faults which 
 are in themselves trivial or attributable to the frailty of nature, 
 and not to malice, although they may diminish the favour of 
 God, do not, however, entirely withdraw it. But how can 
 Calvinists, who will admit no such distinction as that of venial 
 and mortal sin, believe that there can be a moral imperfection 
 in the just which does not prove fatal to sanctification? The 
 corruption, they say, extends to both soul and body; nor can 
 it be extirpated from either during the period of their union 
 upon earth: "This corruption of nature, during this life, doth 
 remain in those that are regenerated." ^ Thus, the sanctifica- 
 tion of the just is represented as imperfect dm-ing life, by 
 reason " of the corruption of nature." We have already had 
 occasion to speak of this corruption: it is alleged to be "both 
 itself and all the motions thereof truly and properly sin." ^ 
 The sanctified soul is, therefore, sinful during the entire period 
 of its union with the body. But Calvinism denies that there 
 is any difference in the nature of sins: it says "every sin, both 
 original and actual . . . doth, m its oion 7iature, bring guilt 
 upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God 
 and cm-se of the law, and so made subject to death with all 
 miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal." ^ The sanctified 
 soul is, therefore, " in its own nature," bound over to the wrath 
 of God and all miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal. Is a 
 soul in this state really and personally holy? Whatever, 
 
 1 Confession of Faith, vi. 3. • Id. ibid. 5. ^ Id. ibid. 
 
 * Id. ibid. * Id. 6 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 203 
 
 therefore, may be the professions of Calvinism, it cannot 
 hold a real and personal sanctification of the just. It asserts, 
 in express terms, that the soul of man remains until death 
 unclean in itself, and an object of the divine wrath and detes- 
 tation. The justice of this conclusion is demonstrated by the 
 following passages, the doctrine of which differs not essentially 
 from that of Luther, and may, without effort, be brought into 
 harmony with the special tenets of Calvinism: "Although 
 it (the corruption of nature) be through Chiist pardoned and 
 modified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly 
 and properly sin." Sin, therefore, even when pardoned, is 
 not removed from the soul. The soul, then, is pardoned, not 
 by being cleansed or rendered personally holy, but by the 
 non-imputation of its sins. The conclusion is not denied : 
 " Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justi- 
 fieth, not hy infusing righteousness into them^ but by pardoning 
 their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as 
 righteous^ not for anything tcrought in them^ . . . but by 
 imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them." ^ 
 No change, then, is wi'ought in the soul by the forgiveness 
 of sin; nor does justification infuse holiness into the just. 
 They are pardoned, not by the extirpation of sin, but solely 
 by the imputation of Christ's merits. We might add con- 
 siderably to these citations, but enough has been adduced to 
 prove — 1°. That the Confession of Faith cannot consistently, 
 and does not in fact, maintain tlie real and personal sanctifi- 
 cation of the just. 2°. That its assertion of such a sanctifica- 
 tion is a mere expression, which probably was not understood, 
 as it certainly was not believed by its authors, and which is 
 formally condemned by the several texts cited above. 3°. 
 That it represents the sanctified man as remaining, during 
 life, really and personally an unclean and sinful being, and 
 deserving of God's wrath and curse. 
 
 These consequences, the two first of which cannot, and the 
 last, we believe, will not be denied by Calvinists, suggest the 
 momentous question — How, then, shall the soul thus unclean 
 be admitted into the light of God's presence? The Confession 
 
204 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 of Faith here joins with the Scripture, in assuring us that no 
 unclean thing shall enter heaven. Is there, then, salvation for 
 the just, whose souls are said to remain thus defiled up till the 
 moment of their separation from the body? It is granted by 
 Calvinists that the soul cannot enter into heaven until it has 
 been cleansed from all sin, corruption, and imperfection, and 
 "made perfect in holiness." Since, then, they deny that the 
 soul of any man can be in a state of perfect holiness during 
 this life, they are compelled either to deny that there is a 
 future state of supernatural felicity, or to maintain that there 
 is after death a middle state, in which the souls of the just are 
 purified from the effects of sin and from all imperfection. The 
 latter alternative is purgatory. Are Calvinists prepared now 
 to admit this third state, after their long and vehement protest 
 against its existence? Against no other dogma of the Catholic 
 creed, save one, has there been more or fouler abuse poured 
 forth by Protestants. It would be strange, indeed, if even the 
 most illiberal of Protestant sects were to discover that it was 
 driven, by the irresistible force of its principles, to admit a 
 purgatory, as the only means by which it could believe in 
 heaven. We cannot, however, in justice, attribute to Cal- 
 vinists actual belief in a doctrine which they not only expressly 
 deny, but, with supei-fluous zeal, have sworn they never will 
 believe. ^ Yet, but for the intense energy of the protest, we 
 should have judged, not only from the eagerness which, we 
 presume, they feel to maintain the great dogma of the soul's 
 immortality, but also from certain expressions of the West- 
 minster Confession, that they were really ready to admit the 
 doctrine of purgatory, while exhausting their vocabulary in 
 
 1 In the National Covenant, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland 
 has given a detailed list of those articles of the Catholic Creed which she requires 
 her adherents to repudiate. The document closes with the most horrid oaths, by 
 which the subscribers bind themselves, "by the great name of the Lord our God, to 
 continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk all the days of 
 our lives." A place of sufficient prominence is given in the list to purgatory. But 
 besides the special condemnation, the subscribers swear to "abhor and detest all 
 contrary religion, but chiefly all kinds of Papistry in general and particular heads, 
 even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and the Kiik of 
 Scotland." — Confession oj Faith, p. 291. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 205 
 
 abuse of the name. The important difficulty under which we 
 have just shown Calvinism to labour, was not a secret to the 
 authors of the Scotch Confession. They could not, of course, 
 openly assert that there was no future life; but they saw that 
 the only probability of escape from this denial was to establish 
 a future purgation of the soul. This, however, would, in al- 
 most any shape, have grated so harshly upon long-fostered 
 prejudices, that there was every reason to fear lest Presbyterians 
 of every shade, should rise against any article which savoured 
 of the proscribed doctrine, and perhaps sweep away, in their 
 indiscriminating zeal, the Calvinistic with the Popish portions 
 of the new-made creed. We have said that the Westminster 
 Confession contains certain passages, which, by their testimony 
 to a future state or place of purification, show how sensible 
 were its authors of the grievous difficulty they had to encounter 
 on the subjects of heaven and the soul's immortality.' Let the 
 reader weigh them well, and judge of our accuracy: "The 
 bodies of men, after death, return to dust and see corruption ; 
 but their souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an im- 
 mortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. 
 The souls of the righteous beinc/ then made perfect in holiness^ 
 are received into the highest heavens." ^ The Larger Cate- 
 chism speaks to the same effect: "The communion in glory 
 with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy 
 immediately after death, is in that their souls are then made 
 perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens." 
 Q. 86. These words seem to be the logical complement of the 
 doctrine previously stated, that sanctification is ever imperfect 
 during life, as the soul while united with the body is defiled 
 by the remnants of original corruption. "Immediately after 
 death," it is said to be "made perfect in holiness," that it may 
 be qualified to assume its place in those mansions where 
 nought that is defiled can enter. Were a Catholic to use this 
 language, he would be at once understood; for it signifies 
 completely and accurately what he believes of purgatory. 
 Convinced, however, as we are of the entire sincerity of Pres- 
 byterians when they solemnly assure us that they neither do 
 
 1 Id. c. xxxii. 1. 
 
206 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 nor will believe in purgatory, we must look upon the above 
 phrases, not as a deliberate expression of belief, but as the 
 spontaneous voice of ''the soul, naturally Christian," bursting 
 from the depths of unconscious prejudice and ignorance, to tell 
 the partisans of Protestantism, that there must be a future 
 purgation from sin. But does not the word "immediately," 
 which the Catechism employs, show that the soul is made to 
 reach heaven without passing through an intermediate state? 
 Can the Presbyterian not believe in a future purification of 
 the soul, without throwing himself into the jaws of purgatory? 
 He cannot, unless perhaps his object be to contend for words 
 and not things. The essence of the Catholic doctrine is the 
 cleansing of the soul. The duration of the state of purgation 
 may be brief or extended; it may be but for a moment, or it 
 may endure for ages; it is not less purgatory in the one case 
 than in the other. Were the Presbyterian to admit that the 
 soul, after its separation from the body, was cleansed and 
 rendered fit to appear in the Divine presence, he would admit 
 the essential part of the Catholic dogma of purgatory. It is 
 with unfeigned regret that we yield entire credit to Presby- 
 terians in their sworn protestations against purgatory, not 
 only because we know that they thus impugn a most consoling 
 truth of revelation, but because we see that their denial of our 
 doctrine carries them far beyond the limits they themselves 
 had contemplated. If there be no purgatory, there is no fixture 
 purification of the soul; for purgatory is simply the purification 
 of the soul after death. If no future purification of the soul, 
 then there is no heaven, for Calvinism has decided that until 
 after death the souls of believers are still defiled by corruption, 
 and unfit to enter heaven. If the Calvinist be thus driven 
 by his principles to the denial of heaven, and by his oaths to 
 the denial of purgatory, he cannot admit a future life; for his 
 essential doctrines, we have proved, lead him also to the denial 
 of hell; and besides those, there can be no other future state 
 of existence. If, therefore, the soul after death exist not in 
 any of those states, it exists not at all. This consequence is 
 sufficiently startling; but, with the most rigorous justice, it 
 has been drawn from the acknowledged principles of Calvinism. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 207 
 
 Chicanery may, perhaps, take occasion to cavil, but justice 
 will point out no flaw in our reasoning. Our arguments have 
 been, without exception, drawn from the principles of Calvin- 
 ism, and founded upon its own definitions of its doctrines. 
 Nor have we in any case sought to force a meaning upon its 
 words; we have taken them in their obvious and grammatical 
 sense, being anxious only to reach the ideas of Calvinists 
 themselves, never to attribute to them an opinion which they 
 reject. The passages we have above collated, speak for the 
 sincerity of our Avish to describe Calvinism such as it really is. 
 If, then, the subscribers to the Westminster Confession would 
 act consistently as Calvinists, they are bound to deny the 
 immortality of the soul; if they would act as reasonable men, 
 they are bound to scatter their Calvinism to the winds as a 
 tissue of contradiction, absurdity, and impiety of the grossest 
 kind. 
 
 In the course of this discussion, we have found ourselves, 
 from time to time, brought close to various questions, subor- 
 dinate it may be to those upon which we were engaged, but 
 not on that account either uninteresting or unimportant. Cast- 
 ing, as they do, no inconsiderable light upon the genius of 
 Calvinism, they may well be introduced here. They will 
 serve, at the same time, to illustrate and to confimi om- argu- 
 ment. Already the reader will have observed that the pecu- 
 liar tendency of the errors of Calvinism is towards the depre- 
 ciation, perhaps with more truth we may say, the annihilation 
 of God's perfections; while he cannot fail to have perceived 
 that the very extravagance to which Calvinists have carried 
 their views, defeats its object, and not imfrequently drives 
 them into the very doctrine from which they were labouring 
 to escape. 
 
 A very succinct statement of the Catholic doctrine on 
 sanctification will serve, by the contrast it affords, to bring 
 into stronger relief the errors of Calvinism. The moral state 
 of man undergoes, by justification, a radical change : it is 
 rendered holy in itself (not, however, by itself); from having 
 been sinful, it becomes really pleasing and acceptable to God, 
 not immediately because Jesus Christ is pleasing and accept- 
 
208 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 able, but because he has rendered it so. The state of the 
 sanctified man differs essentially from that of the unjust and 
 the heathen. He differs, not merely in degree, being less 
 unclean than they ; but his soul is supernatm-ally holy and 
 pleasing before God ; while those continue in a purely natural 
 state, their whole being infected, and their persons made by 
 sin infinitely offensive to the holiness of God. As sanctifica- 
 tion is subjective — in the person — nay, is in effect the real 
 holiness of the person, consisting not only in the mortification 
 of the natural appetites, but in the effectual turning of the will 
 from evil and directing it to good ; any change, by which the 
 will should even for an instant turn from God and embrace 
 evil, would at once terminate this holy state of existence — the 
 person would cease to be either just or sanctified — he would 
 cease to be either pleasing or acceptable to God. For he, who 
 can neither deceive nor be deceived, would see him as he is — 
 a sinful being, deserving and actually liable to eternal wrath. 
 Sin is thus simply incompatible with sanctification. The one 
 is the negation of the other. The two can no more be found 
 together in the same person, than can light and darkness, or 
 any other mutually-excluding predicate, be true at the same 
 time of the same subject. 
 
 The theories which Protestantism has opposed to the Catho- 
 lic doctrine, labour from the outset under great disadvantages. 
 They oppose a system of extreme simplicity, whose clearness, 
 consistency, and conformity to reason, amount almost to a de- 
 monstration of its truth. They are compelled, if they would 
 retain a hope of evading the overwhelming objections by which 
 they are threatened, to envelop their ideas in such a confusion 
 of arrangement and language, as renders it difficult to bring 
 their opinions into view, and when they have been exposed to 
 light, equally difficult to understand them. Stripping the 
 Protestant theory of the verbiage under which it is, for the 
 most part, buried, we would present it to the Calvinist, and 
 then call upon him to realise, if it be possible, the state of that 
 soul which is at the same time "really" sanctified and really 
 sinful, abandoned to crime and yet "accounted and accepted 
 by God as righteous." Is it possible to conceive that a man 
 
RELATIONS TO KCRIPTURE. 209 
 
 continues in the state of grace even in tlie very act o'' grievous 
 sni ? Can the Spirit of God be abiding by grace in the soul 
 which has abandoned itself to iniquity? Yet this is Calvinism. 
 The Confession of Faith tells us that the soul once justified, 
 cannot, by any crimes, lose its sanctity nor its right to the 
 heavenly crown. So that, if, in the very midst of a criminal 
 career, the "sanctified man" were to be cut off; nay, were he 
 to die in the actual perpretation of a crime, he would, " im- 
 mediately after death, be made perfect in holiness, and be 
 received into the highest heavens." If Calvinists do not con- 
 sider the guilt of sin to be venial, surely their purgatory must 
 burn fiercely, since it can so speedily prepare such saints for 
 heaven. 
 
 How unintelligible this theory of Calvinism is, may be shown 
 from another point of view. It will be seen above, that sancti- 
 fication is said to be jn-oduced by the Holy Spirit abiding in 
 the soul. Calvin was wont to illustrate his idea by the help 
 of an earthen pot and a golden treasure. The vessel, he said, 
 acquires value, and becomes an object of esteem to the owner, 
 in consequence of the treasure which it contains. The gold 
 changes not the nature of the vessel, imparts to it none of its 
 own qualities; yet the owner considers its value to have been 
 infinitely augmented since it was made the recipient of liis 
 treasure. The latter alone is in itself valuable; the vessel 
 remains mere clay— in itself a worthless vessel of wrath. 
 Now, when the vessel is clay and the treasure gold, all this is 
 perfectly intelligible. But, when the Calvinists venture to 
 apply those material figures to spiritual subjects, the most 
 serious difliculties spring iqj. A simple and indivisible sub- 
 stance, such as the soul, does not contain its treasures after the 
 fashion of an earthen pot. The close union of two moral 
 beings, supposes something widely different from the mere 
 physical proximity of two material substances. The latter 
 union may well take place without either causing or requiring 
 any change, save in their relative positions; but the former 
 would be a self-contradiction, where there was not a similarity 
 of aim and harmony of will. When the Spirit of God is said 
 to dwell in the soul, we understand that, by his life-giving 
 
210 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 energy, he is quickening the soul, and raising it from that state 
 of helpless torpor in which it was by nature; that by his power 
 he is strengthening the will to embrace all holiness and reject 
 all iniquity; that he is conforming more and more the soul to 
 the image of God — Himself beholding with complacency the 
 image (feeble, it is true, but real) of his own sanctity reflected 
 in the creature whom he has cleansed, and strengthened, and 
 adorned with his graces — the soul, in its turn, rejoicing in 
 God its sanctifier, and ever advancing from strength to strength, 
 becoming daily more conformable in its whole being to the 
 perfect pattern that Christ had set before it. But a moral 
 union between the Spirit of Holiness and a soul in which self- 
 seeking, or pride, or lust, or any other passion of corrupt 
 nature is predominant, must appear to right reason an impos- 
 sibility. Union of Avill is the essence of a spiritual union. 
 Where, then, the will of man is sinful, can it be anything less 
 tlian impiety to say that there is a union between it and the 
 Spirit of God? Yet this is the union which Calvinism re- 
 quires its adherents to admit — God with his graces dwelling 
 in a soul subject to sin. 
 
 By pronouncing sanctification to be " inseparably joined 
 with justification,"^ the Westminster divines bore testimony 
 to a great truth. But they seem rather to have fallen blindly 
 upon this truth, than to have deliberately adopted it. Far 
 from fitting into the body of their opinions, it must have 
 caused them no little embarrassment when they came to fix 
 its place in the midst of ideas with which it was so openly 
 repugnant. We shall endeavour to bring out some of those 
 strange results which flow from the adoption of the above 
 doctrine by men holding the opinions of Calvin. Calvinism 
 maintains that justification cannot be lost ; because a man 
 once justified can never fall from the state of grace. Since 
 justification cannot be disjoined from sanctification, the man 
 who has once been justified, necessarily remains also sanctified. 
 Such a man, therefore, has the Holy Ghost abiding in him, 
 and is, during life, in the state of grace, and accounted and 
 accepted of God as righteous. But the doctrine of Calvinism 
 
 ' Tjarr/er Catechism, (}. 77. 
 
RELATIONS TO SCKIPTUKE. 211 
 
 teaches that the justified man, not only remains defiled by 
 orig-inal corruption, but sometimes gives himself up to the 
 commission of grievous sin : " Nevertheless, they " (" whom 
 God hath accepted in his Beloved," effectually called, and 
 sanctified by his Spirit) " may, through the temptations of 
 Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remain- 
 ing in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, 
 fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein. ^ But 
 against this doctrine, that a man neither falls from the state of 
 grace, nor ceases to be sanctified, who perpetrates grievous sin, 
 and perseveres therein, universal reason revolts. It offers an 
 outrage to common sense, and insults the Spirit of God, by 
 affirming that he could continue in moral union with a soul 
 thus abandoned to iniquity. Nor is this all. Such a doc- 
 trine, like many others in Calvinism, subverts every received 
 idea of morality, and directly assails the attributes of God. 
 For, the "justified" man who commits grievous sin, becomes, 
 by the fact, really and personally sinful, or he does not. If 
 he does not, then there is no such thing as sin, at least for the 
 "justified." Then sin would cease to be sin. If it be said 
 that " God continues to forgive the sins of the justified, we 
 answer that this forgiveness must have been granted either 
 before the commission of the sin or after. // before, it would 
 be equivalent to a permission, on the part of God, to the just 
 man to sin ; for there can be no forgiveness where there 
 is no guilt ; and guilt cannot be contracted until the sin 
 is either committed or assented to. But the permission 
 of God precludes the possibility of sinfulness. For sin 
 is nothing else than opposition to the will of God. If after, 
 then the guilt was contracted, otherwise it could not have 
 been forgiven ; and if contracted, the soul was really in a sin- 
 ful state. No Christian, however, can maintain either that God 
 gives permission to sin, or that sin can, in any case, cease to 
 be sin. It must, therefore, be admitted, that when the justified 
 man commits grievous sin, he becomes really and personally 
 sinful. But, in this case, God, by "accounting and accepting 
 him as righteous,^ ^ accounts him to be, and accepts him, as 
 
 J Confession of Faith, xvii. 8. 
 
212 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 v)hat he is not^ and denies the essence of liis own being, by 
 accepting of a sinful being as holy, placing thus sin and 
 sanctity in the same relation to himself. From this it follows 
 that God, in accounting as righteous a man who is really 
 sinful, either is deceived or he is not. The Calvinist must 
 either say that he is deceived, and deny his omniscience, or 
 maintain that he is not, and deny his sanctity. The first 
 member of this argument, is self-evident — a Being who has 
 all knowledge cannot be deceived. That the other member, 
 which Calvinists are driven to adopt, destroys the sanctity of 
 God, we now prove. Infinite sanctity is essentially and 
 i'lfinitely opposite to sin. A Being infinitely holy repels, by 
 the essence of his nature, all that is sin or sinful. The being, 
 therefore, who could accept of anything sinful — to whom a 
 sinfid object could be acceptable, would not be in a state of 
 essential opposition to sin. If, therefore, God could accept of 
 a sinful being, he would not be infinitely holy. But Cal- 
 vinism goes a step farther. It asserts not only that the sinful 
 " just man " is accepted, but that he is " accounted and 
 accepted as rigliteous.'''' God is represented, not only as look- 
 ing without horror upon iniquity, but of accepting it as 
 holiness. It does seem to us that judicial blindness, on the 
 part of its authors, can alone account for the presence of 
 such a sentence in the standard of a Christian sect, as that 
 which here attributes to God the miserable fiction of con- 
 sidering a man to be lohat he knows him not to he — of account- 
 ing that to be holy which he knows to be unholy — of being- 
 content, not only to account men as his saints who have no 
 sanctity, but to accept their sinfulness in its stead. 
 
 Catholics, who make it their business to study their own 
 religion, and whose curiosity has never led them to examine 
 the theories of the separated sects, often express the most 
 lively surprise at the extraordinary charges which Protestants 
 are accustomed to bring against Indulgences. It seems to 
 them impossible that men could find any foundation for such 
 notions, save in a disordered imagination. Catholics, too, 
 have since the Reformation been publishing in their books of 
 devotion, in works of co^-itroversy, from the pulpit, in their 
 
IJELATIONS TO SCKIPTURE. 213 
 
 cnteclietical iiistmctions, tliat the doctrines attributed to them 
 hy Protestants on tliis subject were unmitigated calumnies — 
 that they were to be detested by all Catholics as injurious to 
 God, and opposed to the teaching of the Church. But, with 
 a perseverance which ages have been incapable of wearying, 
 Protestants return to the charge, and repeat, in the same 
 words, the same libels which the exigencies of their case 
 induced the fathers of the Reformation to fabricate. They 
 seem even to feel indignant, and assume the tone of injured 
 men, if the Catholic, in his simplicity, informs them that they 
 must have fallen into some mistake, as his doctrine is quite 
 another thing from what they describe. The fact is, that the 
 Protestant in defining, after the approved fashion of Protes- 
 tantism, an Indulgence, defines his own doctrine on the 
 subject of sanctification. He has, of course, a clear conviction 
 that he is faithfully describing the ideas which are really pre- 
 sent to his mind on the suliject ; and hence his astonishment 
 when he finds himself accused by the Catholic of calumny, 
 misrepresentation, and ignorance. The sole mistake is, that 
 he unconsciously transfers the phenomena of his own mind to 
 that of the Catholic. All would be made right, provided 
 only the Protestant could get convinced of this truth, that 
 his religious notions are not doctrinal definitions of a General 
 Council ; and that the Catholic is perfectly orthodox, and in 
 full communion with his Church, when he holds her doctrines 
 such as she herself has defined them, even although they 
 should not thus coiTcspond, in many particulars, to the re- 
 ceived Protestant type. Her decisions are really all that the 
 Catholic can be held answerable for ; and they alone he will 
 probably feel called upon to defend. 
 
 An Indulgence, according to the definition of the Church, 
 is the remission of temporal punishment due to sin. It is 
 grounded on this great principle, that the merits of the inno- 
 cent can be applied to remit or diminish the punishment of 
 tlie guilty. Can any man who believes in the redemption 
 through Jesus Christ question the truth of this principle ? 
 By sin, man contracted guilt which no merely finite being could 
 expiate. Sufferings temporal and eteraal arc the merited 
 
214 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 punishment of every grievous sin. The application to the 
 repentant sinner of Christ's infinite merits frees liim from the 
 eternal debt which he himself is unable to pay, but does not 
 necessarily, and in every case, free him from those temporal 
 punishments to which also he had made himself liable, and 
 which it is in his power to undergo. Thus David was told 
 that God had truly forgiven his sin, but that he must, never- 
 theless, undergo the temporal chastisement which still re- 
 mained due to the divine justice. The Church teaches, then, 
 that God has left with her power to apply, to truly penitent 
 sinners, the merits of the innocent for the diminution or even 
 remission of this temporal guilt which is incurred by the 
 commission of sin. Such is the nature of an Indulgence 
 according to the teaching of Catholic theology. It is evident 
 from the definition, that an Indulgence is no pardon for sin at 
 all. Nay, the Church is careful, on the publication of every 
 Indulgence, to declare that those only who are tridy contrite, 
 have approached the sacraments, and already received the 
 forgiveness of their sins, are capable of profiting by the 
 Indulgence. How, then, comes it that Protestants will insist 
 that an Indulgence is a pardon for sin, past, present, and 
 future; or, at the least, a permission to commit sin for a time? 
 We have repeatedly shown from the Confession of Faith, that 
 Calvinists, by their doctrine of irresistible and inamissible 
 grace, have been led to maintain that grace cannot be conferred 
 on any but the elect, and that the smallest degree of grace is 
 therefore an infallible sign of both justification and final per- 
 severance. Unless, therefore, the Calvinist were to withdraw 
 himself from the circle of his sect, and raise himself above 
 the influence of his prejudices, he naturally concludes, that 
 where a spiritual favour is said to be conferred, and especially 
 if that favour carry with it the remission or relaxation of the 
 bonds of sin, justification, or the pardon of sin, is really meant 
 to be conferred. Now, the Calvinist's idea of justification is 
 that it forgives all sin, future as well as past ; for we have 
 just seen that the justified man is saved, never again to become 
 liable to eternal wrath, how great soever may be the sins he 
 fjiUs into after his regeneration. To forgive a future sin is 
 
RELATIONS TO SCKll'TURE. 215 
 
 only, in another form, to give permission to commit that sin. 
 When the Calvinist, therefore, speaks of remission, he will 
 use indifferently either form of expression. So long, then, as 
 Calvinists continue to form their ideas of Catholic doctrine 
 and practice, not from Catholic authorities, but from Protes- 
 tant authors — so long as they will persist in attaching Protes- 
 tant ideas to Catholic terms, we must expect to see them fall 
 into this grievous mistake on the subject of Indulgences. For 
 the whole of Protestant controversy on the Catholic question 
 is a vast accumulation of traditionary fiction. Let Protestants, 
 however, understand, that Catholics assert, and, by every 
 principle they maintain, must continue to assert, that no 
 power, divine or human, can give eitlier prospective pardon or 
 permission to commit sin. Plants of this nature thrive best 
 under the shadow of Calvinism. 
 
 We cannot take leave of this subject without alluding to 
 the doctrine of assurance, so intimately connected with the 
 Calvinistic theory of justification. On this subject, the Con- 
 fession of Faith tells us, that " such as truly believe in the 
 Lord Jesus . . . may in this life be certainly assured that 
 they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of 
 the glory of God."^ As to its nature, " This certainty is not 
 a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a 
 fallible hope, but an infallible assurance offaith^ founded upon 
 the divine truth of the promises of salvation." ^ As to the 
 manner of its attainment, " the believer may, without extra- 
 ordinary revelation, attain thereunto."^ The history of heresy 
 presents us with one sect, which, previous to the Reformation, 
 maintained a doctrine similar to this. The Manicheans, by 
 their belief in a compromise made between their good and 
 evil deities, by which the souls of men were unconditionally 
 and unchangeably apportioned between them, were obliged to 
 hold an opinion scarcely to be distinguished from the assu- 
 rance of Calvinism. As those who had been appointed to be 
 the portion of the evil principle could receive none but evil 
 gifts, any sign, how slight soever, of grace or virtue, was 
 sufficient to show an individual that he was the inalienable 
 
 ' Confession of Faith, xviii. 1. "^ Id. ibid. 2. ^ jj_ iiji,i. 3. 
 
216 CALVINLSM IN ITS 
 
 property of the good god. The compromise of the two prin- 
 ciples was michangeahle ; and, therefore, he who was assured 
 of the divine favom- at any instant of his life, was infallibly 
 assured that his salvation was an absolute certainty. Cal- 
 vinism has reached the same conclusion, and nearly by the 
 same process. The elect are said by Calvinists to be abso- 
 lutely predestined to salvation. Any man, therefore, who 
 is assured of his election, is assured also of his salvation. 
 Calvinism also represents grace as irresistible, and thus 
 granted only to the elect. Whoever, therefore, is at any 
 moment assured that he has received any divine grace, is 
 assured of his election. By having pronounced that man has 
 become by the fall altogether sinful, and, without grace, 
 capable only of sin, the Calvinist must believe that a single 
 good thought, if entertained, would suffice to show that God 
 had commenced within him the work of regeneration. Thus 
 it is, that, without an extraordinary revelation, the Calvinist 
 acquires his " infallible assurance of salvation." 
 
 The bare mention of an " wfallihle assui-ance " of salvation 
 must strike discordantly upon the ears of men who have 
 meditated on the nature of the gospel virtues. When believers 
 are called upon to excite within themselves and foster a con- 
 viction of their own sanctity; to make their spiritual privileges 
 the object of their deliberate complacency ; and to convince 
 themselves that their salvation has at length been removed 
 from the sphere of contingency to which all things below are 
 subjected, and now no longer depends even upon the goodness 
 of God ; is not humility torn up from its deepest roots ? 
 Humility teaches the believer to look with much diffidence 
 upon his virtues. Scarcely will it permit him to acknowledge 
 to himself that he possesses even the rudiments of virtue ; and, 
 for the most part, it altogether turns away souls from the con- 
 templation of their favom'S, lest the very acknowledgment of 
 their existence should terminate its own. And hope — the 
 Christian's anchor amid the storms of life — hope which derives 
 its life from our constant dependence upon the mercy of God, is 
 swept at once by '' assurance '' from the earth. For, in the 
 reprobate, who are said by Calvinism to have been condennied 
 
RELATIONS TO SCllIPTURE. 217 
 
 from eternity, hope, even if it could be attained, would be a 
 pure delusion ; for that which is impossible is not an object 
 of hope. But, being a divine virtue, they cannot even attain 
 it, as Calvinism allows of no divine gift to any but the elect. 
 In the regenerate, hope can find no place. Man cannot hope 
 for that of whose possession he has a certainty, amounting to 
 " an infallible assurance of faith," Hope terminates in cer- 
 tainty. Thus the Catholic cannot hope that the doctrines of 
 his creed are ti-ue. He is certain of their truth. The Protes- 
 tant, on the contrary, never gets beyond a hope that he may 
 be in the right ; for his religion, by excluding certainty, and 
 opening the door to doubt, introduces hope as the only avail- 
 able substitute for the certainty of Catholicity. Thus it is 
 that the glorious triad of divine virtues is broken by Protes- 
 tantism. Were Calvin to revise the writings of St. Paul, he 
 would inform the world that now there remaineth only this 
 one — faith. Hope has been made impossible, and charity 
 may be dispensed with ; for the greatest of these is faith. In 
 the endeavour, so earnestly pressed by Calvinism on its fol- 
 lowers, to realise within themselves this assurance, how is it 
 possible to avoid, on the one hand, presumption, or on the 
 other, despair ? The attempt to strain the mind to the neces- 
 sary pitch, must, in many cases, give occasion to the most 
 pernicious superstitions ; while, in not a few, it cannot fail to 
 disturb or even to unsettle reason. To this and the kindred 
 doctrine of predestination, may be traced the cause of that 
 compound of gloomy fanaticism and pharisaical pride, which 
 has been ever held up as the type of the rigid Calvinist. 
 
 But let us examine this doctrine more closely. The be- 
 liever, it asserts, has an infallible assurance of faith that he is 
 of the number of the elect. And the essence of the doctrine is, 
 that the assurance is a matter of faith, and not a mere con- 
 jecture or persuasion grounded on hope. The believer does 
 not acquire the assurance by immediate revelation ; much less 
 by a revelation made eighteen centuries since. This election, 
 therefore, which is the object of his infallible assm-ance, is not 
 a revealed truth. But the Confession t)f Faith, along with all 
 Christendom, teaches that revealed truth alone is the object 
 
218 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 of faith. From the Westminster Confession itself, therefore, 
 we conclude — 1°. That assurance of salvation cannot he a 
 matter of faith at all. 
 
 When a Protestant claims infallibility for any persuasion 
 he may entertain, he seems to us to take up much higher ground 
 than he is entitled to occupy or ahle to defend. Whence 
 arises the infallibility of assurance? Not, it is said, from 
 revelation. Is there, then, any other infallible authority on 
 earth, besides that of divine revelation and its divinely- 
 authorised interpreter? Is the individual Protestant the 
 interpreter, and does he derive his infallibility from the office? 
 The assurance of the individual cannot be more infallible 
 than the general doctrine from which it is deduced. It is 
 evident that, if the doctrine itself of an infallible assurance be 
 an eiTor, the assm-ance of the individual can be only a de- 
 lusion. The doctrine of assurance is taught, we are aware, 
 by the AVestminster divines, and was taught by Calvin before 
 them. Were either of these parties infallible ? This doctrine 
 has no firmer support than any other portion of Calvinism ; 
 and Calvinists must, as Protestants, admit that they were, 
 both singly and collectively, but fallible men, and very pos- 
 sibly wrong. The doctrine itself, therefore, is not infallibly 
 certain. If, therefore, it is not infallibly certain that there is 
 such a thing at all as this " infollible assurance," we conclude 
 — 2°. That still less can the individual ever conclude that Ms 
 assurance is infallible. 
 
 But, it is answered, the individual feels an unhesitating- 
 certainty of his salvation. That a man whose judgment is 
 too weak to counterpoise his imagination should reach any 
 extravagance of self-hallucination, the annals of mental patho- 
 logy too surely demonstrate. But it is something extraordi- 
 nary that a sect which invokes reason, should forget itself so 
 far as to appeal to a consciousness which its own fanaticism 
 had disordered, or to any merely subjective phenomena in 
 support of a dogma which it calls upon reason to accept. 
 But, admitting the individual's impression as a proof, we 
 shall leave to the Confession of Faith the task of determining 
 its value : '^ Tnie believers," it says, " may liave the assu- 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 219 
 
 ranee of their salvation divers xoaijs shaken^ diminished, and 
 intermitted, as by negligence in preserving of it, by falling 
 into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and 
 grieveth the Spirit ; . • . yet are they never utterly destitute 
 of that seed of God and life of faith . . . out of which, by the 
 operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be 
 revived, and by which, in the meantime, they are supported 
 from utter despair." ^ This infallible assurance is, then, capable 
 of being shaken ; nay, it may be measured by more and 
 less. Philosophers will, no doubt, gladly learn from Cal- 
 vinism how the certitude of faith, which is said to be 
 already infallible, can yet be increased ; or how infallibility 
 can be predicated of that which is less certain. But who 
 shall pretend to explain the paradox which follows ? This 
 infaUihle assurance may actually fall away ! It may for 
 a time be altogether " intermitted." Thus the light which 
 was to shine infallibly in the heart of the believer, may 
 become dimmed, be eclipsed, and finally fall extinguished 
 from the firmament. In its progress towards extinction, does 
 the assurance continue to be infallible ? When it finally 
 disappears, and leaves its credulous dupe on the brink of 
 despair, has it still its quality of infallibility? Or was it 
 infallible only so long as the believer thought it so ? If the 
 latter be the case, then its infallibility was derived from the 
 mind of the believer. But as the mind of man cannot give 
 objective truth to its thoughts, the supposition that the 
 assurance is infallible because the believer thinks it to be so, 
 means, in ordinary language, that the believer is the dupe of 
 his own imagination. During the eclipse of his assurance, 
 the believer must doubt, not only of its present, but also of its 
 past infallibility. His state of doubt is itself a demonstration 
 that it was not infallible. To what pm-pose, then, is it to be 
 desired or preserved ? It is liable to be assailed, diminished, 
 and even to disappear, so long as the soul remains exposed to 
 the assaults of its enemies. But that is during life. The 
 believer must, therefore, dm-ing life know that those periods 
 of darkness and doubt may occur. His doubts, therefore, of 
 
 '■ Confession of Faith, xviii. ■!. 
 
220 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 the infallibility of his assurance, fall equally upon the future 
 as upon the past. He sees that at any moment they may 
 revive, and, consequently, that, until the end, he cannot ac- 
 quire the certainty that his assurance was aught else than a 
 delusion. We conclude, therefore — 3°. That the " infallible 
 assurance" which diminishes, disappears, and perishes, which 
 is liable to be shaken and doubted of till death, is not cer- 
 tainty, but presumption based upon folly. 
 
 We have now brought to a conclusion our inquiry into the 
 nature of Calvinism. Vv^e have limited ourselves to the dis- 
 cussion of but few of its doctrines, preferring to sacrifice effect, 
 which might have been greater by condensing the argument, 
 and crowding together in more striking contrast, a multitude 
 of heterogeneous and conflicting doctrines, in favour of what 
 we consider the solid utility which, it seemed to us, the cause 
 of truth might reap from the more extended examination of 
 the smaller number. If, then, we have confined ourselves 
 within a narrow sphere, this has been our motive. Had it 
 been our object to bring together materials for a more com- 
 plete and detailed refutation of Calvinism, they were at hand 
 scattered in inexhaustible abundance throughout the pages of 
 the Westminster Confession of Faith. We have left un- 
 noticed its doctrines on the church, her constitution, authority, 
 and government ; the number, efficacy, and nature of the 
 sacraments ; and many other doctrines, on which we would 
 have found the same vacillation, the same contradictions, and 
 the same fatal tendency to array man's consciousness and the 
 first principles of his reason against the necessary attributes 
 of God. But if Calvinism be in grievous error upon the all- 
 important questions discussed in the preceding pages, to what 
 purpose should we seek to extend the field of controversy ? 
 Those questions are of such a nature, that the system which 
 essentially errs upon them cannot possess the shadow of a claim 
 to be the time religion. Nor can the man who dispassionately 
 weighs our reasons, deny that the manner of our argument is 
 just. We have compared Calvinism with itself; we have 
 also judged it by reason. We have not availed ourselves of 
 the Scriptm-e argument, not because we considered it to be 
 
KELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 221 
 
 less clear, less keen, or less decisive than the others, but be- 
 cause — 1°. Calvinism has no claim to be judged on Scripture 
 grounds by Catholics, who charge its fundamental principles 
 with being subversive of the Scriptures. 2° Consistency with 
 itself and with the first principles of reason, is an essential 
 property of eveiy truth. The system which is shown to be 
 destitute of this quality deserves no further refutation. When 
 a mine capable of blowing the fortress into the air is ready, it 
 would be a waste of time and labour to raze it to the ground 
 with a golden pick-axe. Calvinism is in perpetual conflict 
 with itself and with reason. 3°. Argument ought to be con- 
 ducted on ground really common to the contending parties. 
 But the Calvinist differs from the Catholic as to the books, 
 the object, the interpretation, and the interpreter of Scripture. 
 A more extended account of our reasons will be found in 
 another chapter. 
 
 A single glance will show that many of the charges we 
 have urged against Calvinism are entirely inconsistent with 
 each other, and that many of the conclusions for which we have 
 made its doctrines responsible destroy each other. Thus we 
 have said that its principles establish a purgatory; and again, 
 that they lead to the denial of the soul's immortality ; that 
 they, in like manner, make God the author of sin ; and, on the 
 other hand, press to the conclusion that there is no such 
 thing as sin. But if this appear to weaken our argument, it 
 can only be in the minds of those who are altogether strangers 
 to a process of reasoning, who have not yet learned, that any 
 conclusion, to be just, must follow the nature of the premises 
 from which it is deduced. Onr conclusions were in many 
 cases contradictory of each other, and precisely in this contra- 
 diction lies their force. They were conti-adictory, because 
 justly drawn from mutually contradictory docti'ines. Had 
 we from such doctrines drawn consistent conclusions, our 
 logic must have been at fault. The only lawful question here 
 is, do the consequences rigorously and justly flow from the 
 acknowledged doctrines of Calvinism? If they do, then their 
 contradiction and absm-dity are the contradiction and absurdity 
 of Calvinism. From the nature of number and quantity, the 
 
222 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 mathematician knows, ere commencing his process, what 
 must be the nature of his solution. And in ahnost every 
 problem of physical science, the only proof which can be had 
 that a con-ect solution has been obtained, is to be found in its 
 answering the conditions which the nature of the data had, 
 from the first, suggested. The self-contradiction of Calvinism 
 has been demonstrated. The absurdity, then, of the con- 
 clusions drawn from its doctrines affords, in itself, a pre- 
 sumption that they liave been fairly and logically drawn. 
 
 In speaking of Calvinism, we have throughout treated it as 
 something more than a mere No-popery phantom. We have 
 considered it as a body of doctrines ; and we have supposed 
 that, of its doctrines, some were so essential that the de- 
 monstration of their falsehood would be the annihilation of 
 Calvinism. A Protestant simply (that is, considered without 
 reference to those doctrines in which Protestants differ among 
 themselves, and viewed as holding something common to all 
 the body) is one who denies the truth of Catholicity. Elimi- 
 nate the doctrines which constitute the points of sectarian 
 difference, and this is absolutely all that will remain. But 
 Calvinism, unless it resolve itself into this simplest expression 
 of Protestantism, must unavoidably embrace something more 
 than this fundamental denial — something properly and ex- 
 clusively its own, to which it can point, as its badge of dis- 
 tinction, in the midst of the sects which jostle it on every side. 
 We take the articles of the Westminster Confession as the 
 authentic exponent of Calvinism — its symbol, the formula in 
 which its essence and marks are expressed. We have also 
 assumed throughout that Calvinism was not an abstraction, 
 nor the dead letter of the Westminster Confession. We have 
 looked upon it as the religion of Calvinists. We have taken 
 for granted that, such as it is found in the Scottish standards, 
 it is believed and professed by its adherents. Here, however, 
 we must in justice make a distinction. Calvinism, like every 
 other modem sect, comprises among its members some who 
 are practically and theoretically, others who are but nominally 
 such. Even those who acknowledge with greatest alacrity the 
 authenticity of the Westminster Confession and the authority 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 223 
 
 of the General Assembly, fail not, when pressed by a vigorous 
 adversary, to claim the right, as Protestants, to modify, or, if 
 need be, to deny the doctrine which for the moment causes 
 embarrassment. The uneducated, as well as the learned, when 
 gravely meditating on, or expounding the thorny points of 
 Calvinism, hesitate not to interpret it, each according to the 
 bent and calibre of his mind, innocently believing that, in 
 upholding the ludicrous blunders of his own untutored judg- 
 ment, he is defending the abstruse mysteries of Calvinism. 
 Others there are over whom the spirit of the age has passed, 
 and withered up within.them all the sap and vitality of religion. 
 Nevertheless they wish to be considered Calvinists. They 
 even conform to the outward requirements of Calvinism, con- 
 tribute towards its missionary, educational, and charitable 
 schemes. But here their membership terminates. They are 
 too much engrossed in the all-important pursuit of wealth or 
 place to trouble themselves with theological disputes, which, 
 indeed, as they have neither heart nor head to appreciate, 
 they put aside, in the true spirit of modern indifferentism, as 
 undeserving of attention, uncharitable, ill-timed, and so on. 
 They consider such things in the light of antiquated and 
 deservedly forgotten practices of the schools, which can no 
 more come again to be one of the affairs of life, than the 
 mummy can leave his swathes and mingle again in the society 
 of the living. 
 
 But there must be, among professing Calvinists, many 
 whose hearts yearn after truth — men who would estimate the 
 true religion at a value infinitely greater than that of gold. 
 Educated from infoncy in the tenets they yet profess, they 
 either believe the Westminster Confession to contain pure and 
 unmixed the religion of Jesus Christ, or, at least, hope they 
 may find acceptance in believing that it contains no error of 
 vital importance. They feel in their social, moral, and re- 
 ligious relations, the necessity of divine truth and a divinely- 
 sanctioned worship. They feel that religion — the true religion 
 — is not a matter of indifference ; and that God will demand 
 of every man an account of his profession as well as of his 
 practice. These men look upon Christianity as something 
 
224 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 more tlian sentimentalism or speculation, or a fashion, or a 
 means of secular advancement. They are convinced that it 
 must have a fixed dogma, a legislative and interpretive power, 
 and a divine sanction for its commands. To such men we 
 appeal. On what can you rest the most slender hope that 
 you possess a religion pure, undefiled, and well-pleasing before 
 God ? The truth, you say, is no indifferent matter to man. 
 His eternity depends upon his holding fast " the form of 
 sound words." The system to which you subscribe, levels with 
 tlie dust the truth and its only competent guarantee. Bear 
 with us, for the sake of the truth, while we cast a rapid glance 
 over the ground we have just passed. We have seen your 
 authorized exponents overturn the work which was raised by 
 the hands of our Saviour and cemented with his blood. 
 Jesus Christ built his Church upon the apostles — a living 
 body ; you have removed that foundation, and attempted to 
 build all upon the Scriptures ; but you find that, by the very 
 fact, you have removed those saci*ed writings from all adequate 
 support, and left them at the mercy of the mocker and the 
 infidel. By forming the Church from the Bible, and by 
 your denial of an infallible authority, you cut away the only 
 possible ground of credibility for either the inspiration or 
 authenticity of the Bible. You throw into the hands of the 
 individual the task of deciding on the truths of Scripture. 
 The very nature of inspiration renders it impossible for any 
 man to discover, without a miracle or special revelation, what 
 are the books Vv^hich compose the inspired volumes. You 
 have not been able to form the canon ; nor do you, in fact, 
 possess it. Your demand for the Scripture as your sole rule of 
 faith is contradicted by the whole New Testament narrative, 
 is irreconcileable with the facts it records, and is belied by all 
 ecclesiastical history. By calling upon all men to interpret 
 Scripture for themselves, you confer upon them an illusory 
 privilege, and charge them with an impossible duty. And we 
 have found that the " right of private interpretation," besides 
 rendering faith impossible, reduces revelation to a mere 
 aggregate of opinions, doubts, and views. Is your system, 
 then, calculated to slake your thirst for truth ? 
 
KELATIOXS TO SCRIPTURE. 225 
 
 When men to whom God had given no commission to 
 expound his will, presume to constitute themselves judges of 
 what is revelation, and what is not — to admit, reject, and 
 explain as seems good in their own eyes, need we wonder if, 
 in the exercise of their imaginary right, they fall into mis- 
 takes more startling, if possible, and more fatal than the 
 principle from which they had set out ? When the authority 
 of God was set aside in matters of faith, that the feeble 
 judgment of man might be thrust into its place, not all the 
 veneration which the idea and the great name of God inspire, 
 could save his nature, his providence, and his perfections from 
 the insults of reason, which, in all the self-sufficiency of pride, 
 had been let loose, without cm-b or rein, upon a field where 
 every step which is not made under the guiding hand of a 
 divine autliority must be a crime. How deep and hoAv fear- 
 ful is that abyss of error into which Calvinism has fallen on 
 the subject of God's nature and attributes ! His supreme 
 justice is made to disappear, and a tyranny which the mind 
 dare not contemplate, in all the length and breadth of its 
 malignant cruelty, is presented as the august attribute of the 
 Eternal Judge. While the true religion, joined from time to 
 time by the feebler voice which reason sent forth from the 
 bosom of Paganism, has echoed through all ages, that God is 
 eternal, unchangeable, and therefore true, Calvinism, as if an 
 inscrutable judgment had confounded its reason, holds up to 
 you a God whose duplicity finds a parallel only in the craelty 
 which he practises on his helpless creatures. Proceeding 
 with our examination, we found that the sanctity of God 
 suffered no less from the principles of Calvinism than his 
 justice and truth had done. By reviving the almost extin- 
 guished errors of the Manicheans, Calvinism undoubtedly 
 gave to the materialism of the present day its special direction. 
 Whether we consider it as denying, by its ultimate conse- 
 quences, the existence of evil, or directly establishing God to 
 be the author of sin, it equally annihilates the grounds of 
 morality, law, and religion, and tends to the extinction of 
 society. Those principles which we showed to be directly, 
 no less than by implication, contained in the theory of Cal- 
 
226 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 vinism, when drawn out to their legitimate consequences, 
 distorted so fearfully the sanctity of God in their baleful light, 
 that we drew back in horror from the contemplation of results 
 which it were almost a crime to clothe in language. Are 
 such errors of little consequence ? Does Calvinism draw the 
 soul towards God with the cords of a filial affection, and 
 nourish in the heart the sacred flame of divine love ? How 
 does it realise the idea which its claim to be considered a 
 revelation from God conveys '? 
 
 The doctrines on man, both in his natural state and in his 
 relations to grace, next occupied our attention. If we had 
 entertained the hope that here, at least, the license of private 
 interpretation would be held in check by the consciousness 
 which all men have of the phenomena of their own minds, we 
 meet with a signal disappointment. There is no fapt, except, 
 perhaps, existence, of which man has a clearer consciousness 
 than that of his moral fi'eedom. Every thought which the mind 
 deliberately entertains is an absolute demonstration of this 
 freedom. Yet has Calvinism subjected mind and body, 
 thoughts, words, and acts, to the decree of an unchangeable 
 necessity. Here, again, it removes the entire foundations of 
 morality, and leaves man without responsibility, freed from 
 the fear of hell, and reckless of a heaven, which the essence of 
 Calvinism proclaims that no child of Adam can ever enter. 
 The teaching of this portion of the system we showed to be equi- 
 valent to a denial of the soul's immortality. By the side of these 
 impieties and contradictions arose other questions, which equally 
 demonstrated the hopeless nature of such religions as private 
 judgment is capable of framing. We were told of a sanctity 
 which left man sinful, yet pleasing to God ; deserving of hell, 
 yet incapable of forfeiting heaven ; defiled in all his being, 
 and yet really and personally holy in the sight of God. To 
 crown this sad monument of human impotence, Calvinism, 
 again diving into the secrets of consciousness, tells its followers 
 that, by a certain process, they may reach an absolute security 
 of their salvation, which shall be at the same time certain and 
 liable to doubt ; infallible, and yet easily changed into an 
 uncertainty Avliich tenninates only on the verge of despair. 
 
EKLATIOXS TO SCTJTrTURE. 
 
 227 
 
 There is not, we willingly grant, a Calvinist to be found, 
 Avlio is not prepared to reject, with all his energy, such contra- 
 dictions and impieties. They would, if need were, anathe- 
 matize them as blasphemies. Religion forbids us to adopt 
 the policy of our adversaries, by attributing to them opinions 
 which they do not avoAV. We make not war upon indi- 
 viduals, but against their false principles. You disclaim, 
 then, those impieties, and we respect your words. But here 
 they are in the standards of your belief. You publisli to the 
 world those standards, and subscribe them as the confession 
 of your faith and belief, and the expression of what you con- 
 sider to be the religion of Jesus Christ. Can you continue to 
 believe in doctrines, of which some are in self-evident contra- 
 diction, and others contain the very impieties which you so 
 warmly repudiate ? He who professes a principle, is respon- 
 sible for all its legitimate consequences. He cannot hold the 
 one and reject the others. The principle and its consequences 
 must be held or rejected together. You admit, nay, you lay 
 down and defend the two members of the argument, and 
 then, with incomprehensible weakness or inconsistency, you 
 refuse to acknoAvledge the consequence. You admit that it is 
 impossible for A to exist and not exist at the same time; you also 
 acknowledge that A exists; but, nevertheless, you either refuse 
 to deny its non-existence, or deny it " yet so as thereby " 
 you reserve the poAver of retracting your denial whenever the 
 necessities of controversy shall have become less urgent. 
 Error and contradiction cannot legitimately be drawn from 
 truth. The terrible consequences which we have demonstrated 
 to be contained in yom- doctrines, could no more have been 
 drawn from them, if they had been true, than grapes can be 
 gathered from thorns, or iigs from thistles. The tree is known 
 l)y its fruits. Can you then justify your doctrines, or show 
 that they are not the parents of impiety ? We reply, that 
 you never can, save by dethroning reason, and replacing it b 
 the free-will which you deny — thus constituting your own 
 desires the criterion and judge of truth. 
 
 But if you believe not yoiu- standards in their evident gi-am- 
 matical sense, with all their impious consequences, what do 
 
228 CALVINISM IN ITS 
 
 you believe ? Cast aside the Confession of Faith, if you d are 
 no longer avow the doctrines it contains. Give an expression 
 to your creed. We doubt not that a strict analysis of your 
 religious ideas will show you that their reasonableness consists 
 in their obscurity, and that their imagined truth disappears 
 in exact proportion as you bring them into an intelligil)le form. 
 As we showed in our first chapter, the first principles upon 
 which your whole system rests, are assumptions equally 
 gratuitous and indefensible. Raise, then, upon this founda- 
 tion, the most perfect edifice to which the intellect of man can 
 give birth, and it will necessarily prove as unstable as the 
 quicksand upon which it shall have been built. You cannot 
 hope to do more than was done by Luther, or Calvin, or Socinus, 
 or Wesley. You may introduce variations ; you may add or 
 curtail, but you have only their fundamental principles, and 
 they will overthrow any conceivable dogmatic system, no less 
 than they have shattered the "religions" of previous Reformers. 
 The true religion is one ; and because true, it is unchangeable 
 and imperishable. You cannot, any more than Calvin, ex- 
 temporize the true religion. Vainly, therefore, do Protestants 
 seek to discover it in the Bible or anywhere else. You 
 deny that the true religion exists, by the very expectation of 
 its discovery. It now exists. It has always existed. As a 
 definitive, living, imperishable system, it was established by 
 Jesus Christ. The object of every sincere inquirer ought to 
 be to Jind this religion ; not to discover a true religion. You 
 may find it, if you only will. But discoveries of religious 
 dogmas are absolutely fatal to the system in which they are 
 adopted. This, alone, would condemn Protestantism in all 
 its sects. Lutheranism, Calvinism, &c., are discoveries. 
 Therefore, they are not the true religion — the religion of Christ 
 — but the theories of Luther, Calvin, &c. They come, at 
 least, fifteen hundred years too late. To have had even a 
 plausible claim on the attention of reasonable men, they ought 
 to have borne the authentic marks of an antiquity of at least 
 fifteen centuries. 
 
 We need not multiply words. If you adhere to the West- 
 minster Confession, avow, with honesty and frankness, its 
 
RELATIONS TO SCRIPTURE. 229 
 
 contents ; its spirit, as well as its mere letter. Accept its 
 absurdities and impieties, and defend them as you Lest may ; 
 but do not stultify yom* reason by joining together two and 
 two, while you refuse to admit that they make four. If you 
 repudiate the Confession of Faith, then do so openly. Cease 
 to acknowledge it for your standard. Release your ministers, 
 professors, and office-bearers from the gratuitous torture of 
 subscribing it as the summary and standard of their belief. 
 When a member of your body is accused of heresy, let his 
 doctrine be no longer judged by the Confession of Faith ; 
 make not conformity with its articles the proof of orthodoxy. 
 But, once more, whatever be your real opinions, let them see 
 the light, in the terms you judge most appropriate ; and if 
 they do not destroy themselves, and thus spare the labotu- of 
 refutation, charity and the love of truth are sufficiently pre- 
 valent to assure us that you will not long look for a refutation 
 in vain. 
 
 In the meantime, it remains firmly established, that, since 
 Calvinism knows not the revelation of God, nor where it is to 
 be found ; since it knows not God himself, nor hoAV he is to 
 be worshipped ; since it knows not what man is, nor his state, 
 nor his duties, nor his relations to God, nor how he is to attain 
 the end of his being, it is totally unfit to be a teacher or guide 
 of mortals. Its office is a usurpation. Its existence is sin. 
 It is a blind leader of the blind. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 St. Jerom, writing to those bisliops wlio had requested him to translate the book 
 of Tobias, says : — " You require me to translate the book of Tobias, which the 
 Heh'ews, separating from the canon of inspired Scriptures, have placed among the 
 sacred writings («5'">j'?«'i?«)- I have fulfilled your request, but not in such a manner 
 as I could have wished. The zeal of the Jews accuses us of opposing their canon in 
 translating this book for Latin readers." — Prcefatio in Tobiam. 
 
 In his preface to Daniel, St. Jerom thus mentions the division of the Jewish 
 Scriptures : — " I would here remind the reader that Daniel is not placed by the 
 Jews among the prophets (non haberi Danielem apud Hebraeos inter prophetas), but 
 among those who wrote the ayioy^oKpa. For all Scripture is by them divided into 
 three parts — the Law, the Prophets, and the ayiey^xfay 
 
 " The book of Judith is read by the Jews among the sacred books (^Scyioy^xipa,) ; 
 but as we read that the Council of Nice reckoned this book among the Holy Scrip- 
 tures (in numero sanctarum scripturarum), I have acceded to your request — nay, 
 your command " (to translate it). — Prcefatio in Judith. St. Jerom was misunder- 
 stood by some of his contemporaries, who accused him of rejecting the Deutero- 
 canonical books. He explams his Avords thus : — " As to my relating what the Jews 
 were accustomed to say against the History of Susanna, &c., which are not in the 
 Hebrew canon (voliunine Hebraico), he who accuses me proves himself to be a 
 calumniator. For I was explaining, not. my own sentiments, but what they are 
 accustomed to say against us.'' — Lib. ii. contra Rufinum, No. 33. 
 
 In his Epistles (cxviii. 1), he quotes tlius the book of Ecclesiasticus (ch. xxii. v. 5): 
 — "The divine Scripture says, 'A tale out of time is like music in mourning' 
 (divina Scriptura loquitur — musica in luctu intempestiva narratio)." Citing the 
 book of Wisdom, ch. i. 4, his words are :— " According to the Scripture, ' Avisdom 
 wiU not enter into a perverse soul ' (Dicente Scriptura in perversum animum non 
 iutrabit sapientia)." — Comment in c. xviii. Jeremias. 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 The author of the Apostolic Constitutions (a work composed at the end of the 
 first or beginning of the second century) supports his reasoning by passages from 
 the Deutero-canonical writers, without making any distinction between them and the 
 flther writers. The forms of expression usual among the primitive writers, when 
 introducing texts from the inspired books, are thus employed in the following 
 passage : — " As it is tcritlen, ' Alms deliver from all sin and from death.' " (Tol)ias 
 jv. II.)— Lib. ii. ch. 20. And citing l>aruch iil. 3G:— "/i is tcrilten, 'This is our 
 
APPENDIX. 231 
 
 God, and there shall be no other accounted of in comparison of him.' He found out 
 all the way of knowledge." — Lib. v. ch. 20. 
 
 St, Irenicus, who was instructed by the immediate disciples of the apostles, cites 
 the book of Baruch (ch. iv. 36) as a part of the prophecy of Jereniias. As Baruch 
 was the amanuensis of Jereniias, many of the Fathers regarded this book as having 
 been written at the dictation of the latter, and forming a part of the prophecies of 
 Jeremias: — " Jeremias the prophet exclaimed (significavit Jeremias propheta), look 
 about thee, O Jerusalem, towards the east, and behold the joy that cometh to thee 
 from God." — Lib. v. contra Ilfsreses, ch. 35. 
 
 Thus St. John Chrysostom cites Baruch iii. 3G : — " Read Jeremias, and he will 
 thus discoui-se — 'This is our God, and there shall be no other in comparison of him' 
 — (Ei.TO;t= Is?5/*'a ««*siK>; S/aX=|£Ta(). In all the Others also, thou wilt see the prophets 
 openly teaching thee." — Exposition of Psalm 49. 
 
 Thus, also, St. Basil: — " Jeremias, therefore, speaking of the Son, says — Q-nuv ou, 
 Ji^i/juK.; Tsjj -rou Cioii') — 'this is our God,'" &c. (Baruch iii. 36.} — Adversus Eunoniium, 
 lib. 4. 
 
 St. Justin cites in these terms the book of AVisdom iii. 16 : — " Since this is the 
 case, how is the Scriptm-e verified, which says— (toi? -h y^aft, a.Xy>9ivu Xiytura.') — that 
 'the children of adulterers shall not come to perfection?'" &c. — Qmestiones ad 
 Ortkodoxos, 78. 
 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus adduces the book of 'SA'isdom iii. 2-t : — " For the 
 sacred Scripture affirms (Sacra Scriptura confirmat) that, ' by the envy of the devil, 
 death came into the world.' " — In EvangeVmni Jvannis, lib, 1. 
 
 The following extract from St. Athanasius will better serve to show the views of 
 the early Fathers, in the nature of the books in question, than a multitude of pas- 
 sages. The manner in which they are introduced throughout the ^Titings of the 
 Fathers, shows that, not only the Christian writers, but their readers looked upon 
 the Deutero-canonical writings as of the same imquestioned authority with the 
 other parts of Scripture : — " Isaias says, ' The Lord is the everlastmg God, Avho 
 hath created the ends of the earth.' Susanna also says, ' O Eternal God.' Baruch 
 also, ' I will crj' to the Eternal God ; ' and a little after, he adds, ' for my hope is 
 in the Eternal, that he will save.' The apostle, likewise, 'writing to the Hebrews,' " 
 &c. — Contra Ai-ianos, oratio 2. 
 
 In the same manner, St. Hilarj': — "The apostle says, 'The judgments of God 
 are incomprehensible' (Rom. xi. 33). The prophet also has — 'for thy judgments, 
 Lord, are great, and thy words cannot be expressed.' " (Wisdom xvii. 1.) 
 
 St. Gregory Nazianzenus in Oratione Decima Sexta says, " I find a mysterj- of the 
 same kind iu the Scripture. It would, indeed, be tedious to relate all the Avords of 
 the Spirit (omnes Spiritus voces recensere) ; yet, ' who hath numbered the sand of 
 the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of the world.' " (Wisdom i. 2.) 
 
 St. Clement of Rome, who is spoken of by St. Paul (Philippians iv. 3), in his 
 first Epistle to the Corinthians, cites the books of Wisdom, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, 
 and 1st and 2nd Machabees, as divine Scripture ; as he does also the Deutero- 
 canonical books of the New Testament, Hebrews, 2d Peter, and Apocalypse. 
 
 We now bring two extracts of another class, which show that the Canon published 
 by the African councils and Pope Gelasius had, by the end of the sixth century-, be- 
 come pretty generally known. St. Augustin, enumerating the inspired books, writes 
 as follows: — " The whole canon of the Scriptures is contained in these books — five 
 
232 APPENDIX. 
 
 of Moses, . . . Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and two books of tlie 
 Machabees, and two of Esdras ; then the Prophets, . . . one book of Psalms, 
 . . . for those two books, the one called Wisdom, and the other Ecclesiasticus, 
 since they are deservedly received as anthoritative, must be ranked among the 
 Prophets." — De Doctrina Christiana, lib. i. 
 
 St. Isidore of Seville gives the list thus:— "There is among us a fourth part of 
 the Old Testament, composed of those books which are not in the Hebrew canon, 
 the first of which is the book of "Wisdom, the second, Ecclesiasticus, the third, 
 Tobias, fourth, Judith, fifth and sixth, the Machabees. Although the Jews con- 
 sider them as Apocrypha, yet the Church of Christ honours and proclaims them 
 among the divine books." (Quos Ecclesia tamen Christ! inter di\'inos libros et 
 honorat et pr»dicit.) — Liher sextus Etijmohgiorum. 
 
 To these testimonies it may be added, that the Greek Church, which broke off 
 from the Latin about the year 860, holds the same canon of Scripture as Avas confirmed 
 in the Council of Trent ; and that the Deutero-canonical books are contained in 
 the version of the Septuagint, as well as in the Syriac version of the Scriptures, 
 which dates from the first century of the Christian era. The Nestorians and 
 Eutychians, who were cut ofi" from the Catholic communion about the middle of the 
 fifth century, have retained the same canon as the Catholic Churih. 
 
 NOTE C. 
 St. Paul, referring to the primitive custom of communicating under one or both 
 
 kinds, at the option of the faithful, says — i; km la-Str, rov x^rov rnvrov ait^y, TO TOTTi»«>v, 
 
 &c. — "whosoever shall eat this bread o?' drink the chalice," &c. The disjunctive »i 
 (or) is in the Protestant version rendered "and." The object of this per%-ersion of 
 the text is sufficiently apparent ; yet a more extensive system of corruption would 
 be required, ere all traces of the early discipline of communion under one kind could 
 be efiaced from the sacred pages. — See Acts xx. 7, and ii. 42 ; also Luke xxiv. 30. 
 The following is the Protestant translation of St. Matthew's account of the 
 institution of the Eucharist : — " And, as they were eating, Jesus took bread and 
 blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples." St. Lidie is made to read 
 thus: — "And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it." St. Mark: — "And 
 as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed and brake it." St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 
 24) : — " The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ; 
 and when he had given thanks, he brake it," &c. In the original, the pronoun " it" 
 is as carefully avoided as it has been, in the Protestant version, studiously inserted. 
 In ever}' instance the word is a forgery. It was found, however, to aid the Pro- 
 testant doctrine, because it defined that which was broken and given to be bread. 
 
 The following is the text of St. Matthew: — EtrSioyrm Si avrav, XaiSav o I^itro-j; Tov x^mv, 
 xat ivXoyr^a-xi ixKatri xai ihihou roii ij-kByitoi; xxi iiiri, x.t.X. The text of the Other 'SATiterS 
 
 resembles this. The pronoun does not occur in a single instance. No doubt the 
 inspired writers had as strong a motive for the omission of the word, as the Protes- 
 tant translators had for its insertion. 
 
 To support the doctrine of man's utter inability to do good works, the passage of 
 St. Matthew, ch. xix. v. 11, has been rendered: — " But he said unto them, all men 
 cannot receive this saying." The original attributes no such inability to man. It 
 says: "all men do not receive this saying"— »« t«vt£5 x^i"'^'" "v >.oyi>v Touro,. 
 
ArrENDix. 233 
 
 The angel of God, testifying that the Blessed Virgin was adorned with the pleni- 
 tude of grace, salutes her — x"-'?^ 55£x«e'™."'S'"i- 'O Kt/jfo? ^sto <rou — " Hail, full of 
 grace. The Lord is with thee " (Luke i. 28). This unparalleled eulogium dwindles 
 do-wn, in the Protestant version, to " Hail thou that art highly favoured." Protes- 
 tants seem to think that they cannot offer a more acceptable homage to the Son, 
 than by dishonouring his mother. The translators, where doctrinal prejudices did 
 not sway their minds, could render similar constructions to the above in a very dif- 
 ferent manner. In Revelations xvii. 4, Kai f, yuvn i, vi^iiSiiSx^f^ivri ao^^u^x xat xcxxmu xa, 
 xix?««-c,f^iyi x?""-"- is made, "and the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, 
 and decked with, gold." But there seems to be no enmity between the apocalyptic 
 woman and Protestants; they therefore hud no inconvenience in translating her 
 description with fidelity. 1 Peter i. 8, Ay«.?.^ia.e<n x«-i»- «.^'.xX«.A-nTu, x«.t j£SeSa<r,«£»^ is 
 thus translated, "ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, wvAfull of glory:' Again, Luke 
 xvi. 20, U £/3Ei3x»ir« jreof tdv sruAiiva «.utou r.Xx^^fjLivoi, is rendered, " which was laid at 
 his gate/«// of sores." 
 
 Protestant controversialists, in their popular addresses or writings, quote, as ei,-i- 
 dence against tlie celibacy of the clergy and religious orders : — "Marriage is honourable 
 in all " (Heb. xiii. 4). The English Bible does certainly here favour tlie ywa.ixofj.a.yia of 
 the Protestant clergy. But it does so only in as far as it misrepresents the word of 
 God. The text says— T<,a(«; « ya^o; £v Tar;— literally, " Marriage honourable in 
 all." The anibiguitj' of the words sv i«<r( (which may mean either in all men or in 
 all things) could not well be preserved in English. But what can be said to excuse 
 the substitution of is for let it he, in the midst of a clause where, from beginning to 
 end, the imperative mood alone is employed? So well did the Protestant translators 
 know that '.trru, not so-t-i, was understood, that in the very next verse, precisely the 
 same construction («(p/A«§)-t/§of o t^oto?) is rendered — '■'■ Let your conversation he with- 
 out covetousness." 
 
 Connected with the same subject, another passage is not unfrequently adduced by 
 Protestants as seeming to favour their opinions. " Have we not power to lead 
 about a sister, a toife, &c. ? " Certainly, St. Paul, who tells us he was unmarried, 
 had not power to lead about a wife. But he had, with all the apostles, power to 
 lead about " a sister woman," or " a sister, a woman," which is the only claim he 
 prefers. Mjj ovx e%«^£v ili>v(ria.v aii\ifr,v yuvxixa. cr'.^ix-yisv. The word ywi means "wife," 
 only in its secondary signification. The primitive meaning of the word is a 
 " woman." The Protestant Bible gives here not a translation, but a comment upon 
 the original ; and the fact of St. Paul's celibacy proves the coninientarj' to be false. 
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 (a) " Oportuit ergo Deum quoque Adami lapsum ordinare, sed ad eura quern dixi 
 finem." " Quterenda est vitii origo in instrumentonmi spontaneo motu quo fit ut 
 Deus juste decreverit quod illi injuste fecerunt. At, enim dices, non potuenmt 
 resistere Dei volimtati, id est, decreto ; fateor, sed, sicut non potuenmt, ita, etiam 
 noluenmt. Venim, non poterant aliter veUe. Fateor, quoad eventum et m^yuxv, 
 sed voluntas tamen Adami coacta non fuit." — Responsio ad Sebastianum Castellionem. 
 " Sic autem agit (Deus) per iUa instrumenta ut non tantum sinat ilia agere nee 
 tantum moderetur eventum, sed etiam excitet, impellat, moveat, rogat, atque ideo, 
 quod omnium est maximum etiam erect, ut j.cr ilia agat ([nod constituit." — • 
 
234 APPENDIX. 
 
 Aphorismus, xxii (h) " Unum igitur atque idem facinus, puta ailulteriiiin aut 
 homicidium, quantum Dei est, auctoris, motoris impulsoris, opus est, crimen non 
 est ; quantum autem hominis est, crimen ac scelus est." — Tractaius de Providentm, 
 cap. V. " Quantum enim Deus facit, non est peccatum quia non est contra legem ; 
 illi, enim non est lex posita, utpote justo, nam justis non ponitur lex, juxta Paul! 
 sententiam, Ille, enim lege non tenetur, homo, autem lege etiam damnatur." 
 " Cum movet ad opus aliquod quod perficienti instrumento fraudi est, sibi tamen 
 non est, ipse enim libere movet, neque instrumento facit injuriara, cum omnia sint 
 magis sua quam cujusvis artificis sua instrumenta. Movet, ergo latronem ad 
 occidendum innocentem, etiamsi imparatum ad mortem." The following sentence 
 from the same treatise on Providence does not admit of translation: — " Quod Deus 
 facit, libere facit, alienus ab omni affectu noxio, igitur et absque peccato ut adul- 
 terium David, quod ad auctorem Deum pertinet non magis sit peccatum quam cum 
 taunis totum armentum incendit et implet." (c) " Haec sit certa sententia, a Deo 
 fieri omnia tam bona quam mala. Nos dicimus non solum Deum permittere crea- 
 turis, ut operentur, sed ipsum omnia proprie agere, ut sicut fatentur proprium Dei 
 opus fuisse Pauli vocationem ita fateantiir opera Dei propria esse, sive quae media 
 vocantur, ut commedere, bibere, sive quaj mala sunt ut Davidi adulterium, Manlii 
 severitatem ; constat, enim, Deum omnia facere, non permissive sed potenter, id est, 
 ut sit ejus proprium opus Judaj proditio, sicut Pauli vocatio. . . . Ergo, non 
 est cur frigidum glossema admittamus Deum mala permittere, non etiam facere." 
 Commentarium in Epistolam ad Homanos. {d) " Est, itaque et hoc imprimis neces- 
 sarium et salutare Christiano nosse quod Deus nihil prasscit contingenter, sed quod 
 omnia incommutabile et aeterna, infallibilique voluntate et providet et proponit et 
 facit. Hoc fulmine stemitur et conteritiir penitus liberum arbitrium." " Ex quo 
 sequitur irrefragabiliter omnia quaj facimus, etsi nobis videntur mutabiliter et con- 
 tingenter fieri, et ita etiam contingenter nobis fiant, revera tamen fiunt necessario et 
 immutabiliter si vohmtatem Dei spectes." "Quicquid fit a nobis non libero arbitrio, 
 sed mera necessitate fieri." — Lvtherus de Servo Arbitrio. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Prep-ace, - 
 ixthoductiox. 
 
 CHAPTER I.— SCRIPTURE. 
 Section I Tiik Inspiratiox of Scriptuke. 
 
 I. Proof of the Inspiration of Scripture rendered impossible by the doc- 
 trines of the Westminster Confession, _ . . . 2 
 
 Presbyterians cannot avaQ themseh-es of the Catholic Church to prove 
 
 this doctrine, -----._. 3 
 
 Examination of Protestant arguments : 
 
 1. Argument from style of Scripture, their harmonj', &c., - - 4 
 
 2. Testimony of Catholic Church, the only sufficient evidence, re- 
 
 jected by Protestants, -------5 
 
 ;i. Inspiration cannot be established by comparison of sacred with 
 
 other writings, ----___. g 
 
 4. AVestminster Confession equivalent!}' acknowledges that the 
 
 Inspiration of Scripture cannot be proved, - - - 7 
 
 II. Westminster Confession renders belie/ in Inspiration of Scripture impos- 
 sible to the gi-eat majority of men, ----- f) 
 
 Theory of internal illumination destroys the essence of Presbyterianism, 1 2 
 Protestant cannot from the Bible prove its inspiration, - - 14 
 
 Protestants cannot, even against Catholics, assume the inspiration 
 
 of Scripture, - - - - - - - -16 
 
 Section II. — The Canon of Scripture. 
 
 Nature and formation of the Canon, - - - - - - -18 
 
 I. Doctrine of the Westminster Confession renders the formation of the 
 
 Canon impossible, - - - - - - -23 
 
 1. Scripture gives no list of Canonical Books, - - - - 24 
 
 2. Insufficiency of means to which Protestants are confined for the 
 
 formation of the Canon, ------ 2o 
 
 II. Protestants cannot form the Canon and have it not in fact, - - 83 
 
 1. Admission of Protestants that the Canon cannot be formed on 
 
 Protestant principles, and that recourse must be had to Tra- 
 dition and Church authority, - - - - - -33 
 
 2. Certain inspired books rejected by Luther and Cah-in, - - 3G 
 
 3. Protestantism obliges all men to disbelieve the doctrines of 
 
 Christianity until they have personally formed the Canon, - 40 
 
 Catholic Church alone competent to form the Canon. Her Infallibilitj^, 41 
 Examination of Protestant objections to the Deutero-Canonical books, 
 
 (in note), -- -----__ 4I 
 
236 CONTEXTS. 
 
 Section III. — Object of ScitirruKE. page 
 
 I. The Bible not the Rule of Faith appointed by Christ, - _ _ 47 
 
 1. Bible did not exist until after our Saviour had ah-eady constituted 
 
 his Church, and endowed her with all reipiisites for existence 
 
 and propagation, --------50 
 
 2. Ecclesiastical history shows that the Bil)le never became the rule 
 
 of faith, ------- _ _ 52 
 
 3. A Church which draws its origin from the Scriptures not the 
 
 Church founded by Christ, ------ .53 
 
 4. Bible not only does not claim to be the Rule of Faith, but implies 
 
 and asserts that it is not, - - - - - -5-1 
 
 5. If the Bible were the Rule of Faitli, its own inspiration could 
 
 neither be proved nor believed, - - - _ _ 59 
 
 G. The Bible an impossible rule, at least to the majority of men, - CO 
 7. English Bible declared by the Confession of Faith to be of no 
 
 authority in controversies. The Hebrew and Greek texts 
 
 exclusively appointed to be the Protestant Rule, - - 61 
 II. So-called right of private judgment, if not limited to the reception and 
 
 belief of revealed truths, is an impiety, - - - - G4 
 
 If thus limited, it is a delusion, -_---__ 05 
 Protestantism in essential self-contradiction wlierever it retains the idea 
 
 or form of a Church, - - - - - - -Oi; 
 
 Scripture does not acknowledge such a right, but condemns it, - - C.) 
 
 Practical difficulties to the exercise of private judgment, - - - 70 
 
 Confession of Faith and Free Kirk Catechism condemn this "right," - 72 
 General Assembly requires all men to swear they will never claim this 
 
 "right," ------_-_ 72 
 
 Amazing contradictions of Protestantism, - - - __ 7,5 
 
 III. Exercise of "private judgment " renders faith impossible, - - - 77 
 
 Object and motive of faith, ----__-_ 77 
 
 An infallible authority absolutely necessary to justify an act of faith, - 78 
 Uncertainty of all human judgments in matters of faith acknowledged by 
 
 Protestants, - - - - - - - -79 
 
 Causes of this luicertainty, - - - - - - - -81 
 
 Application of the Protestant Rule of Faith to the words — "This is my 
 
 body," _------.. 82 
 
 Protestants must admit that in the case of ever}' doctrine they hold, they 
 
 are as likely to be wrong as riglit, ----- 88 
 
 They can therefore have only opinion ; never faith, - - - - 89 
 
 CHAPTER II.-ON GOD. 
 
 Remote cau-ses of Protestantism, - - - - - - - -iU 
 
 Internal weakness of Protestantism, _---___ 03 
 
 Sectiox I. — The Justice of God. 
 Doctrines of the Scotch Confession subversive of the divine Justice, - - 97 
 
CONTEXTS. 237 
 
 PACil! 
 
 1. Because they charge God with conduct towards his creatures 
 
 which is both unjust and tyrannical, - - - - 97 
 
 Defence of Calvinists considered. The justice of God differs 
 not in its nature from that by which He retjuires men 
 to direct their conduct, ___--- 9 
 
 2. Because thej' teach tliat God punishes men for failing to do what 
 
 He himself makes impossible for them ; and for doing that 
 which He had determined them to do, - - - - 108 
 
 Section II. — The Truth of God. 
 
 The truth of God annihilated by the Doctrines of the Westminster Confession, 115 
 Designs of God in the creation of man. Dealings of Providence with 
 
 sinners. God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, 115 
 Doctrines of Westminster Confession incompatible with the supposi- 
 tion of God's sincerity, - - - - - - -118 
 
 They attribute to Him deceit in his dealings with both just and 
 
 reprobiite, --------- 123 
 
 Calvinism makes the ministry and all the institutions of Christianity 
 
 mere instruments of deception, - - - - - 124 
 
 It attributes to God a double and self-contradictory will, - - 120 
 
 Calvinism makes prayer an unmeanhig and profitless form, - - 128 
 
 It results in the denial of all eihcacy to the Atonement, - - 131 
 
 Section III. — The Saxctitv of God. 
 
 Ideas of Pagan antiquity on the origin of evil. Persians, Grecians, Maniclicans, 1 38 
 Two eternal principles of Manes, - - - - - - - -141 
 
 Remarkable resemblance between the systems of Manes and Calvin, - - 142 
 Calvinism makes God the author of sin, - - - - - - -146 
 
 1. By its doctrine of Predestination, ------ 148 
 
 2. By its doctrine on Providence, - - - - - -154 
 
 3. Sentiments of Calvin, - - - - - - -156 
 
 Calvinism goes still farther, and directly annihilates the Sanctity of God, - 160 
 Views of the different Reformers on this subject, - - - - -101 
 
 Fruits which the world has reaped from the Reformation, - - - - 163 
 
 CHAPTER III.— ON MAN. 
 
 Reformation originated in avarice and lust : came not from' God, - - 168 
 
 Protestantism not a system— a mere collection of heterogeneous opinions, 
 selected by casualty, or at the caprice of the different 
 Reformers, - - - - - - - - -169 
 
 Section I. — IMas's Ri sroxsiuiLiTV. 
 Cahdnism denies the first principles of reason, - - - - - -1/6 
 
 Denies free-will, and therefore ]-esponsibility, ------ 
 
 1. Every movement of INIan's will said to be absolutely determined 
 and controlled by God, ------- 
 
 177 
 
238 CONTENTS. 
 
 rAOK 
 
 2. Man's acts thus not bis own, - - - - - -179 
 
 3. All agreed that no man can be held responsible for necessarj- acts, 179 
 
 4. Testimony of Westminster Confession to this truth, - - 180 
 Doctrine of A\'estminster Confession of justification drives Calvinists to the 
 
 denial of Libeitj', - - - - - - - - 180 
 
 Contradictions of Calvinism, -------- 180 
 
 Man said to be justified by tlie grace of faith alone, without an}' act 
 
 on his own part, - - - - - - - -181 
 
 Said again to be justified by his own act, and not by the grace alone, 185 
 
 Examination of Cahanistic Predestination. This doctrine destroj'S Liberty, 187 
 Examination of reasons by which Calvinists attempt to justify tlie condemna- 
 tion of the wicked, - - - - - - -193 
 
 Section XL— Sanctification. 
 
 Calvinistic doctrine on this subject fatal to the immortality of the soul, - 197 
 
 The sanctification acknowledged by Calvinism neither personal nor real, - 198 
 
 The elect said to die still defiled by sin, ------- 2ul 
 
 "Westminster Confession in reality establishes the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, 203 
 By denying the same doctrine, in exjjress t&i'ms, it is driven to denj' a future 
 
 state of happiness, ------- 200 
 
 Consequence of this, that the Calvinist is compelled also to deny the immor- 
 tality of the soul, - - - - - - - 20G 
 
 Other consequences of the Calvinistic doctrine on Sanctifying grace, - - 207 
 
 1. God made a moral partaker in sinful acts, - - - - 210 
 
 2. Either His omniscience or His sanctity must be denied, - - 211 
 
 3. Protestant idea of Indulgences — correct as a representation of 
 
 their own doctrine, but essentially contrary to Catholic 
 
 theology, --------- 213 
 
 4. Assurance of Salvation. Its origin and nature. Infallible assur- 
 
 ance of anything an absurdity in Protestantism. Assurance 
 
 of salvation a mischievous delusion, - - - - 21;") 
 
 Summarv nnd Conclusion, ____----- 220 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 The reader is requested to correct the following errors ; for which it may be a 
 sufficient apology, that the author, residing on the Continent, was unable personally 
 to superintend the correction of the proof sheets. 
 
 Page 6, line G,yor immediately by miracles, read mediately. 
 
 " 6, " ll,yor admit a witness, reacf admit her as a witness. 
 
 " ^, " -^,for convinces, read convinced. 
 
 " 11, " 1 7, ybr important, rearf impotent. 
 
 " 12, " 29, _/br falsity of that system, read falsity of Presbyterianism. 
 
 " 13, " 12, ybr ingeniously, reot^ ingenuously. 
 
 " 1-i, " 4 from foot,_/(w were receiving, read were ruining the evidence. 
 
 " 18, " .3 from foot, ybr evidences, read evidence. 
 
 " 21, " 17, ybr Ca'sar Augustus, &c., read C;Bsar, Augustus, and the 
 
 glories and infamy ; also, Julius, 
 
 Celsus, &c. 
 
 " 22, " 30, _/or power of their errors, ?'eafZ poison of their errors, 
 
 " 23, " o,J'or have never yet been, 7-ead had not yet been. 
 
 " 23, " 2 from foot, inspiration. 
 
 " 25, " 18, ybr record of St. Peter, read Second Epistle of St. Peter. 
 
 " 31, " 37, ybr only conclusive, read only inconclusive. 
 
 " 37, " 10, ybr passed the canon, read framed the canon. 
 
 " 38, " 30, ybr Cyprus, j-ead Ephesus. 
 
 " 41, " 29, ybr profess the canon, read possess the canon. 
 
 " 43, " 9 from foot, ybr Septimus, read Sophonias. 
 
 " 44, " 13 from foot, ybr guidance of, 7-ead giudance by. 
 
 " 45, " 20, for means so auxiliarj^ i-ead means an auxiliary. 
 
 " 47, " 9, ybr thus prove no church, 7-ead thus have no church. 
 
 " 53, " 9, ybr Nicobites, read Nicolaites. 
 
 " 56, " 18, ybr this rule, read his rule. 
 
 " 65, " 2, ybr exclusiveness, ?'end conclusiveness. 
 
 " 65, " 10, /or objected truths, read objective truths. 
 
 " 68, " 7, ybr investigations. None, read investigations, he act, &c. 
 
 " 71, " 32, yb?- these requisites are but, read these are but. 
 
 " 80, " 28, /cw- supernatural are, read supernatural objects are. 
 
 " 85, " 8 l,yb»' precious declaration, reod previous declaration. 
 
 " 94, " 21, ybr in consequence, 7'ead inconsequence. 
 
 " 109, " 21, ybr their own doctrines . . . their own terms, read its own 
 
 doctrines ... its own terms. 
 
 " 113, " 3 from foot, ybr ftitism of the, read fatum of the. 
 
 " 114, " 5 from foot,/or This everlas., read His everlasting. 
 
 " 115, " 4, ybr propositions, rend proposition. 
 
 " 126, " 8, /or humiliating force, j-ead humiliating farce. 
 
 " 128, " 12,/o7' habernus confitentum, read habemus confitenteni. 
 
 " 128, " 5 from foot, /or decemata qua-, read decemat quai. 
 
 " 183, " 23, /or movement, ?-ead moment. 
 
 " 196, " 33, /or sign, read sigh. 
 
 " 205, " 5, /or probability, read possibility. 
 
Theological Seminary-Speer Ltbr 
 
 1 1012 01012 7779 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NOV 1 '? IS 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 iv^FC ■ 
 
 r . ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K'U 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45230