is very unaccountable; and though our translation of verse two, chapter eighteen, says, "Saul would let him go no more home," the Hebrew, having no such reduplication, should be simply rendered would not permit him to return, but the translators evidently thought he had returned from Saul's court before. When David offered himself to accept the challenge of Goliah, Saul must have accounted him sent of God for the deliverance of Israel, or it would have been inexcusable rashness to have hazarded the fate of the nation on the courage of a youth; but Saul knew that under the theocracy, God had often delivered his people by persons apparently inadequate to the service, and though the nation had revolted from God in desiring a king, yet Samuel had promised the continuance of divine protection upon their repentance and future obedience. (chap. xii.) Saul's admiration of David was, how ever, soon changed to envy and suspicion by the burden of the songs of triumph which greeted their return. Our version reads, chap. xviii. 9. "Saul eyed David from that day and forward," the word translated eyed should, as Mr. Julius Bate remarks (Critica Hebræa), be rendered humbled, kept him down: in consequence of which it appears, that Saul either sent him back, or David prudently withdrew himself, and it is observable he made no claim to the fulfilment of the royal promise so solemnly given, chap. xvii. 25. This conduct was suited to appease the wrath of Saul, especially as David withdrew to a life of obscurity, for, doubtless, the ground of Saul's displeasure was the apprehension of his being the man whom Samuel had told him God had chosen in his stead, and who was better than him, chap. xv. 28. Hence this displeasure of Saul's was a real opposition to the divine will as declared by the prophet, and it is no wonder that a chastisement from God followed it; for we then immediately read (according to the connection proposed,) and not till then, that "the spirit of God departed from Saul, and an evil spirit terrified him." It had been said before, chap. xviii. 5, that David was accepted in the sight of Saul's servants; it is, therefore, no wonder that they endeavoured again to introduce him, which they do very CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 20.

warily, by the proposal of music as a cure for Saul's malady, and when they had gained his approbation of the measure, David is described (whilst his name is skilfully omitted) as a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters," fitted to attend the king both in the court and camp. Now how can it be supposed that Saul's servants should have this knowledge of David previous to his combat with Goliah? Saul, whose anger was subsided, agrees to their proposal, and sends for David, whose skill in music and humble deportment so won upon the king, that he loved him greatly, and desired he might abide with him. There only remains to be considered the junction of the close of chapter sixteen with the tenth verse of the eighteenth chapter, "And it came to pass on the morrow," which seems abrupt to the English reader; but the objection disappears on considering the word we render to-morrow, to be the same which occurs, Exod. xiii. 14. Josh. xxii. 24. and Deut. vi. 20. in all which places the sense requires an indefinite future time; and then it only implies, that though David's music was, through the favour of God, a means of relief to Saul, yet, that after a time, his jealousy returned, and he gave himself up to the deliberate purpose of taking the life of that man whom he fully believed God had chosen to fill the throne of Israel, (see chap. xx. 30, 31, where he calls Jonathan's attachment to David perverse rebellion, which would produce his own exclusion from the succession). It is no wonder that this im piety of Saul led him into the evils, and brought down upon himself and his house the calamities* recorded, which ended in the utter extirpation of his family, except the line of Jonathan, which was preserved by David in Mephibosheth.

C. L.

By evils as distinguished from calamities I mean those great sins, the destruction of the priests, consequent neglect of God's worship, and, at length, seeking to devils for direction, into which Saul fell, and which awfully terminated in suicide: in the outline of his history (as David was a type of the Messiah,) Saul seems to have

resembled Judas, both in his election and apostacy.

3N

For the Christian Observer.

IN Bishop Sherlock's Discourses on the Use and Intent of Prophecy, Disc. I. on 2 Pet. i. 19. contains a valuable explanation of that text; but the last clause, "until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts,' (which the bishop does not notice) has a difficulty which I have not yet seen satisfactorily removed. I suppose, "until the day dawn," refers to that "coming of the Lord Jesus" mentioned in verse sixteen, whether that coming signifies, as I am inclined to think, the future opening of a period of the visible glory of the Church on earth, or the final judgment. But the difficulty lies in ascertaining what may be meant by the day star, which is to arise in their hearts. If this last clause had not been added, the passage might have seemed to strengthen an opinion entertained by some of the ancient Church, and adopted by others in the Church of Rome, that Elias himself would appear before the second coming of Christ, as John the Baptist did before the first. But St. Peter's expression determines this day star, (which is to usher in the dawn predicted,) to be of an invisible and spiritual nature: may not then the words be prophetical of a special effusion of the Divine Spirit to be poured forth on the Church, that is, on true Christians, either to prepare them as witnesses to the world at large, if the dawn be interpreted to be that of a day on earth; or to prepare them for being caught up to meet the Lord in the air," (1 Thess. iv. 17), if it be referred to that of the final judgment. It is true that the passage will not, in either case, apply to those to whom the epistle was primarily addressed, but neither so did the words above quoted of St. Paul to the Thessalonians; and since the apostolic writings were intended to last till the end of the world, we are warranted in applying to the latter ages any passages which admit not of an earlier reference.

C. L.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

In my last letter I endeavoured to shew, from a consideration of historical facts, how strong a presumption exists that the Dean of Peterborough

must be very erroneous in concluding, that the liturgy and articles of the Church of England were drawn up, either in whole or in part, with a view to exclude doctrinal Calvinists from officiating as ministers of her worship. Common sense and experience revolt at the inconsistent supposition, that a body of venerable divines and confessors, a great number of whom may be incontestably proved to have been Calvinistic, as well in their public teaching as their private sentiments, should unite to compose a body of articles and a liturgy so worded, that no conscientious or intelligent Calvinists could possibly either make public use of the one, or ex animo subscribe to the other. The supposition is diametrically opposite to the known principles of human conduct, and there fore not to be admitted without the most decisive evidence of the fact. Even admitting that a majority of Anti-calvinists, in that celebrated convocation, had succeeded in procuring the establishment of an Anti-calvinistic confession of faith and liturgy, would the Calvinists of that same convocation have given their unanimous signature? or would they not, in some public manner, have protested against a proceeding whereby even their own claim to the character of honest and consis ent churchmen would have been completely annihilated? Until such a protest can be proved to have been made by them, or satisfactory proof brought that those of the bishops and clergy who, notwithstanding their subscription to this supposed body of Anti-calvinistic doctrine, continued to preach and publish Calvinistic tenets, did publicly complain of the injury which they had thus sustained from their brethren, Dr. Kipling must not be surprised if many of his readers are totally at a loss how to reconcile the avowed practice of those divines, with the conclusions which he has attempted to draw. Nor must he wonder if they entertain a strong suspicion, that by some means or other he has been led to draw inferences which are altogether unjust. Had the Dean confined his object to the shewing that Arminians as well as Calvinists might be conscientious members of the Church, I should not have troubled you with any remarks on his publication; but as he has thought proper to hurl his anathemas with a papal vehemence against Calvinists,

maintaining that they cannot honestly ubscribe our articles or use our liturgy, truth and charity require that the erroneousness of such a conclusion should be made manifest.

Waving any farther remarks of a collateral nature, I come to the examination of the pamphlet itself. Of this the two leading features are, the excessive virulence which he expresses against the objects of his attack; and the uninterrupted self-complacency with which he advances as new, many of the oldest and most common objections against the Calvinistic system, without so much as noticing the replies which have been repeatedly made to them by various authors.

With respect to the Dean's virulence, though it does not necessarily prove the weakness of his reasoning, it certainly proves the weakness of his temper, and his consequent unfitness to come forward as a theological controversialist, an office which unquestionably requires a more than or dinary portion of meekness and placability of the wisdom that is from above, "which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy."

The triumphant manner in which Dr. Kipling advances as new discoveries, very old arguments and objections, seems to prove that in common with several other modern writers, he cannot be very conversant with the writings of our early divines, nor with the controversies carried on between them and the Papists. The study of the former would have taught him to a demonstration, that many of the best and wisest men have been Calvinists and yet orthodox pillars of the English Church; witness the names of Jewell and Noel: and an attentive perusal of the latter would have shewn him what was the real state of the argument between the Protestants and the Papists, at the time of the reformation; and also that he himself has, on several points in the course of his pamphlet, adopted and defended the very same opinions which the Papists of those days maintained, in opposition to the unanimous voice of cotemporary Protestants.

The validity of Dr. Kipling's attempted demonstration rests upon the assumption, that in the collection of extracts which he has made from the

writings of Calvin, he has drawn a faithful picture of that reformer's system; and that (admitting him to have done so in whole or in part) he has also succeeded in proving the dissonance between the Calvinistic tenets and those which pervade the articles and liturgy of the Church of England. I do not, at present, design to enter into the discussion of the first of these assumptions, though every man who has attentively and impartially studied the writings of Calvin, must see how widely many of the Dean's inferences and deductions, from his own representation of Calvin's system, differ from those which that theologian himself avowed and enforced. Some of Dr. Kipling's statements, however, though certainly clothed in unfair and objectionable terms, are correct; but even in those instances, I apprehend, he has altogether failed in shewing the contrariety of the sentiments of Calvin to those of our English reformers, as expressed in our public standards of doctrine. It is very remarkable that Calvin himself in a tract intitled, "Calumniae Nebulonis cujusdam adversus Doctrinam Calvini de occulta Dei Providentia et ad eas ejusdem Calvini Responsio," accuses his adversary of calumniating his doctrine under nearly the same expressions which the Dean has made use of; and resolutely disavows those inferences and statements as misrepresentations of his system. Every reader conver sant with the writings of Calvin, and' who has also perused the Dean's pamphlet, will be struck with the following complaint, which that learned reformer urges against his cotemporary calumniator. Quum scirent malevoli non esse popularem hanc doctrinam, augenda invidiæ causa articulos jactarunt, partim mutilos, partim detortos, unde imperiti non nisi sinistrum judicium possent facere. Etsi autem prima specie ex illius scriptis fuisse excerptos multi putabant, falsò tamen sibi (nempe Augustino) impositos conqueritur; quia vel concisas sententias de industria conflaverant, vel paucis verbis mutatis pie recteque dicta corruperant suo artificio, ut offensionem gignerent apud simplices. Ejusdem prorsus generis esse, quos ex meis libris articulos proponere te jactas, etiam me tacente, reperient probi sincerique lectores, quibus impuras tuas calumnias cum mea doctrina conferre molestum non

erit. (Calv. Op. tom 7, p. 735, ed. Genev. 1617)

It ought not to pass unnoticed, that the very first article of the aforesaid adversary as stated and replied to by Calvin, is that which appears so very conspicuous in the Dean's pamphlet "Articulus primus, id est calumnia prima. Deus maximam mundi partem nudo puroque voluntatis suæ arbitio creavit ad perditionem," (ib.); and in his answer to this accusation, he says, Etsi enim quid toti humano generi futurum esset Deus ab initio decrevit, hæc tamen loquendi ratio nusquam apud me occurrit, finem creationis esse æternum interritum." " The learned reader will find much information from the perusal of the whole; the above extracts are, however, conclusive as to the injustice of the Dean's charging a sentiment upon Calvin which he has repeatedly disavowed.

With respect to the other point on which the validity of the Dean's demonstration must depend, I should wish to try it by a very simple and unexceptionable mode of enquiry. If the principles and inferences laid down in Dr. Kipling's pamphlet be just and legitimate, they will equally bear to be transferred to the examination of any other system of doctrine, publicly expressed in liturgies, confessions of faith, catechisms, expositions of scripture, &c. as well as to that of our own established Church. If he has succeeded in proving the necessary Anti-calvinism of the English articles and liturgy, his reasoning and conclusions will equally prove the Anti-calvinistic tendency of any other composition which adopts the same or a parallel form of language.

Assuming, therefore, as granted, the soundness of the Dean's mode of reasoning, I shall endeavour to apply it to some different passages from other liturgies, confessions of faith, catechisms, &c. which now lie before me, and from the conclusion to which such an application will necessarily lead, form an estimate of the real value of the Dean's principle and mode of argument.

I. Dr. Kipling (p. 15) having extracted a part of Calvin's definition of original sin, says-"That definition asserts, that every descendant of Adam, solely on account of that corruption of nature which he inherits from his first parent, is actually con

victed and damned. But in the ninth article of our Church, entitled on original or birth sin, it is only affirmed, that this hereditary corruption of nature deserveth damnation. This is not a trifling but a very material difference; for unless the whole of Adam's progeny be actually in a state of damnation, there are no materials to form Calvin's elect and reprobates of— -from whence it follows incontrovertibly that this article is not calvinistic." "The Dean then remarks, that the following phrases are correspondent to his ideas of the meaning conveyed by the article, “liable to damnation,

"

exposed to damnation," merit the wrath of God and the pains of the infernal world, “the curse and damnation due to his fallen nature." He then adds, that those who adopt such expressions clearly consider the damnation spoken of in the ninth and seventeenth articles, not (with Calvin) a "state of actual damnation into which the whole progeny of Adam was brought on account of original sin alone; but means only a state in which whoever is, he deserveth and is liable to condemnation."

In a confession of faith now before me, I find the following article on original sin.

"De homine ita, scriptura præeunte, sentimus, nempe quod humanum genus per Adami lapsum corruptum sit, quod omnes natura exitio et damnationi obnoxii simus, non tantum, quia Adamus ipse peccavit, sed quoniam peccatores et ipsi simus ab utero: ac Dei judicium ab illo momento meritò adversum nos intendi posse, etiamsi nullum opus nostrum extiterit, cujus merito damnationem nobis accersiverimus." (F.)

The expressions "exitio et damnationi obnoxii," liable to destruction and damnation, and "Dei judicium meritò intendi posse," the judgment of God might deservedly be applied, are accurately correspondent to that interpretation of the English article which the Dean maintains to be Anti-calvinistic, it equally, therefore, follows that the above quoted passage is Anti-calvinistic also.

In another confession of faith, I find the following passage-" Manfalling from goodness and uprightness became subject to sin, death, and divers calamities, and such an one as he became by his fall, such are all his

offspring, even subject to sin, death, and sundry calamities.-By death we understand not only bodily death, which is once to be suffered of all us for our sins, but also everlasting punishments due to our corruption and to our sins." (H.)

In a third confession I read as follows:

"We confess that in the beginning man was made of God in righteousness and true holiness, after the true image of God; but he fell into sin of his own accord, by the which fall the whole of mankind is made corrupt and subject unto damnation." (B.)

From the foregoing premises I am also justified in concluding these artiticles to be Anti-calvinistic, all the three manifestly speaking not of a state of actual damnation, but of a state in which man is only subject or liable to or deserving of it.

II. The Dean of Peterborough, in a note at page 33, has the following passage: Calvin says expressly, that good works are the fruits of grace. In the twelfth article it is expressly said, that good works are the fruits of faith. In this article, therefore, the founders of our Church have flatly contradicted Calvin; which is a plain proof that they were Anti-calvinists, and that this is an Anti-calvinistic article. By grace Calvin means the third person in the trinity. But whatever is wrought and done and performed entirely by a divine person, cannot also proceed from a Christian grace. Faith can have no share in the production of it. So that this is not a mere verbal difference, but a difference in doctrine. A Church of England man's faith is productive, a Calvinist's is barren."

A Protestant catechism, designed for the public instruction of youth, has the following passage:

66

Mag. Quid nobis boni oritur ex hac fide, quum semel eam assecuti sumus?

Puer. "Justificat nos coram Deo et hæc justitia hæredes nos vitæ æternæ facit-

M. "Sed anne sic a bonis operibus seperari hæc justitia potest ut qui hanc habet, illis careat?

P. "Fieri hoc nequit. Nam quum recipiamus fide Christum, qualem se nobis offert, ipse vero, non liberationem tantùm nobis a morte et reconciliationem cum Deo promittat, sed Spiritus Sancti simul gratiam, qua in

vite novitatem regeneremur; hæc conjungi necesse est, ne Christum a seipso distrahamus.

M. "Hinc sequitur, fidem esse radicem ex qua nascantur omnia bona opera: tantum abest, ut ab eorum studio nos revocet?

P. “Omnino sic est.” (G.)

Works, according to this catechism, are the fruits necessarily produced from faith as from a root; this flatly contradicts Calvin's assertion, according to Dr. Kipling; and the faith here inculcated cannot be the Calvinist'sTM faith, for it is not a barren faith, but equivalent to that of a Church of England man, whose good works "do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit."

Again, in a public confession of faith the following expressions occur:

"Wherefore in this matter (of justification) we speak not of a feigned, vain, or dead faith, but of a lively and quickening faith, which doth prove itself to be lively, by lively works. The same faith doth keep us in our duty which we owe to God and to our neighbour, and doth fortify our patience in adversity; it doth bring forth good fruit of all sorts, and good works which are good in deed do proceed from a lively faith." (H.)

According to the terms of this confession, good works are the fruits of faith, we therefore conclude, as in the preceding instance, that the composers of it designedly contradicted the doctrine of Calvin."

III. In page 36, the Dean says, "There is no point of theology on which Calvin has expressed his opinion more openly and with greater vehemence than this, whether in the work of salvation is the grace of God co-operator only or sole operator? He has both positively affirmed, we see, that in every stage of this business divine grace is sole operator and also denied positively, that this grace in any stage of it co-operates only with man. But in the tenth article it is said, 'Dei gratia nos præveniente, ut velimus, et co-operante, dum volumus, ad pietatis opera facienda.' No words can be more pointedly directed against Calvin's system than these are. What he positively denied, this article positively affirms: it is consequently an Anti-calvinistic article."