Mr. Faber likewise adduces Eph. v. 25-27 in proof, that as every member of the church should be holy and without blemish, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, the inconsecutive reasoning which the Calvinists have founded upon the passage respecting election, cannot be tolerated, and must fall to the ground. From whence he has collectively established the identity of the IDEALITY of election both under the Gospel and under the Law.

He next examines the CAUSATION of election, as propounded by the gospel, which plainly appears to be "God's unmerited grace and mercy operating according to God's sovereign will and "pleasure," according to its very principle of abasing all proud notions of human merit, "by describing us as sinners before God, "who at his hands deserve nothing but punishment, and by ex"hibiting our salvation, as a perfectly free gift so far as we are "concerned, though purchased for us by the alone meritorious "death and passion of our Saviour Christ." This definition is clearly substantiated in Rom. xi. 5, 6; 2 Tim. i. 9; for it is said specifically to be not works, and specifically to be grace alone; and in the latter quotation words are piled on words, and declaration on declaration, that every possibility of misapprehension might be precluded. In Rom. ix. 11, the same principle is developed, where the apostle speaks of the future destinies of the descendants of Jacob and Esau, viz. "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." And this the words quoted from Malachi at the thirteenth verse demonstrate, which, according to the figurative genius of the language, correspond to præposui and postposui; since, in the present instance, the notion of hating is but a meiosis of that of loving, as we may collect from the evangelists, one of whom speaks of hating our father and mother, which another renders loving less. Bearing this interpretation in mind, we shall readily see how strongly this quotation supported the

that of the Mohammedans in the present day; and we have seen, that rigid Calvinism can produce Antinomianism. Agamemnon's

ἐγὼ δ ̓ οὐκ αἴτιος εἶμι,

ἀλλὰ ΖΕΥΣ καὶ ΜΟΙΡΑ, καὶ ἠεροφοῖτις Εριννύς.-(ΙL. τ' 86.) is naturally the impious produce of either system. In like manner, the Sufi Hafiz, under the metaphor of a beloved object, speaks of the injustice of the Deity, as the result of Fate.

دلا منال زبیداد جود یار که یار

ترا نصیب همین کرده است و این داد است

Well says Eusebius (Prep. ἐν vi. 238.) τί δε χρὴ λοιπὸν εὐσεβεῖν, καὶ τοὺς θεους προσκυνεῖν, καὶ σέβειν καὶ θεραπεύειν; ........ εἰ γὰρ . . yap.... τίς ἀπαραίτητος ἀνάγκη τᾶς ἀνθρωπίνας ἐκβιάζεται γνώνας, οἰχήσεταί σοι φιλοσοφία, οιχήσεται καὶ εὐσέβεια.

apostle's doctrine, and how completely this version annihilates the silly and restrictive dogmata which have been derived from it. We now have arrived at the consideration of the doctrine of the church of England respecting election, which is viewed negatively and positively. Under both these heads we claim the privilege of being somewhat diffuse. As to the first,-The modern Calvinists rest the justice of their pretensions on our 17th Article; but to these chronology presents no trifling obstacles. For in 1551, according to Strype, Cranmer received an order to prepare a book of Articles, which was in the same year communicated to the Bishops. In 1552 these Articles were submitted to the Privy Council, and in the following September were revised, arranged, furnished with titles, and augmented; in this state they were returned to the Privy Council, and at the beginning of 1553 were ratified and published. But Calvin's first controversy on Predestination did not commence till the close of 1553, and his earliest tract on the subject was not published till January, 1552; consequently, the 17th Article cannot have been borrowed from Calvin. It may however be urged, that it exhibits the scheme of Calvinism; but this is to be doubted, for Melancthon was its REAL parent. Having been consulted by Cranmer, its actual and immediate author, on the subject, he observed in his reply, "At the commencement of our reformation, the stoical disputations among our people concern"ing Fate were too horrible, and they did much mischief to discipline. Hence, I request, that you would think well "respecting any such formula of doctrine."

66

66

Although at first Melancthon was a Predestinarian, he had not only abandoned, but even reprehended the system in very strong terms, in the year 1529, stating nunc mihi bellum inferunt STOICORUM PHALANGES. Consequently, as by Stoical or Manichæan necessity he designated Calvinism, and by the Zeno of Geneva Calvin himself; and as he expressly says, "non sum stoicus," it is an absurdity to suppose his opinions accordant in any way with those of that school; and since it was in 1548, long after his renunciation of all Calvinistic notions, that Cranmer consulted him, it is impossible that he could have given any advice respecting the 17th Article on the principles of Calvin and Augustine.

The Article itself has also internal evidence of this fact. Had it proceeded from the school of Geneva, it would have contained THE CAUSE of election according to their scheme; but for Predestination it assigns no CAUSE whatever. Besides, the Calvinistic party soon finding it inadequate to their views, used their influence with the court to repair the deficiency. Accordingly, in 1595, Dr. Whitaker drew up, in explanation of it, those nine arbitrary and intemperate articles, which are usually called "The Lambeth Articles," in which both the IDEA and CAUSE are

Calvinistically propounded. They were, however, rejected; but the attempt to engraft them on the Articles of the Church shows that the 17th was not considered Calvinistic.

Although chronology will prevent the allegation, that the 17th Article was borrowed from Arminius himself, yet his statement bears so close a verbal resemblance, that it is difficult to avoid the suspicion of an intentional mutuation. "But whatever "claims Arminius and the Arminians may have made to the countenance of the English Church, neither the 17th Article "itself, nor any part of her authorized documents, gives the slightest warrant for the validity of such a claim.”

66

66

As to the second-to obtain the true key to the 17th Article, we should ascertain the sentiments of the individual under whose influence, and in accordance with whose advice it was composed. We have seen that Melancthon reprobated the Calvinistic doctrines which, in the way of merely unauthorized private exposition, sprang up from a neglect of simple and sincere christian antiquity; therefore he would have theologized reversely to the way which he condemned. In this Cranmer quite concurred, who is stated by his Protestant successor Parker, to have been also diligent in reading the oldest Greek and Latin Fathers, and in investigating ecclesiastical archæology up to the times of the apostles. Such a process could not have failed to convince Cranmer and Melancthon that "the doctrine maintained and taught by primitive antiquity 66 was, in point of IDEALITY, the doctrine of ecclesiastical indi"vidual election." Accordingly, Melancthon is full and unambiguous on this topic. Such likewise was the system which Cranmer, acting by the advice of Melancthon, and verifying by his researches into the same antiquity, embodied in the 17th Article of the church of England.

Thus, in point of IDEALITY, the 17th Article teaches" an election of certain individuals into the church catholic, in order that then, according to the everlasting purpose and morallyoperating intention of God, they may be delivered from curse and damnation, and thus, INDIRECTLY and MEDIATELY, may be brought, through Christ, to everlasting salvation,* agreeably to God's promises, as they are GENERICALLY, not SPECIFICALLY, set forth to us in holy Scripture." That this is the doctrine of the church of England follows from the circumstance, that while her 16th Article hints the possibility of the elect individually departing from grace given, her Homilies and Burial-service distinctly state, that the elect, in her sense of the word, may individually fall away utterly, and thus perish finally. Now, as this belief is exactly contrary to Calvinistic predestination, it is plain, that the predestination to life, in the 17th Article,

*Or, as he elsewhere writes, "through sanctification of the Spirit. " and belief of the truth in Christ Jesus.”

cannot be Calvinistic. It is not, as Calvin's, a DIRECT and IMMEDIATE, but an INDIRECT and MEDIATE, predestination of individuals to eternal life.

An examination of the works of Melancthon will exhibit to the inquirer his assisting hand; for the Article is in remarkable harmony with them. The language of it is studiously GENERICAL: it teaches ALL the members of the Church, that this godly consideration confirms our faith of eternal salvation, and vehemently kindles our love to God, which more fully appears from the Latin; but this language would be highly improper, unless every member of the church Catholic were himself one of the elect of God.

In

The Liturgy asserts the same doctrine: in the Baptismal Service it is prayed, that the child may ever remain in the number of God's faithful and elect children; and as this prayer is recited over every child, every child so baptized is said, at that time, to be one of God's elect: but who can believe every child thus brought into the pale of the Church elect in the sense of Calvin or Arminius? The same observation will apply to the adult service. So, the catechumen professes to believe in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth HIM and ALL THE ELECT PEOPLE OF GOD: he therefore makes HIMSELF ONE of the Elect. the burial service, likewise, the minister prays that God would accomplish the NUMBER OF HIS ELECT, and hasten his kingdom, that WE, &c. Hence, this generic term WE evinces the church of England to consider every member as one of God's elect people. In the older Burial-service, in the reign of Edward, which was properly abandoned, on account of its vestiges of the superstition of praying for the souls of the dead, the words ran thus:-" Grant, we beseech Thee, that at the day of judgment, HIS soul, and all the souls of THINE ELECT, departed out of this life, may, with us and we with THEM, fully receive thy promises and be made perfect ALL TOGETHER, through the glorious resurrection of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord." Here the statement is, if possible, stronger. To this effect is the prayer in the Litany: "Make THY CHOSEN PEOPLE joyful." "O Lord, save thy people, and bless THINE INHERITANCE!" for the whole context proves THY CHOSEN PEOPLE and THINE INHE

“

* Mr. Faber notices the common error of interpreting the term generally in this article, as usually-for the most part; its sense being that of generally, opposed to particularly. In the Latin it is generaliter, not plerumque. This ambiguity would have been avoided, if the Latin had been rendered GENERICALLY; for the promises of God in regard to predestination and election must be received GENERICALLY, not SPECIFICALLY; that is, "with regard to the whole collective church of the election," not with regard to a certain number of individuals of that church."

66

66

RITANCE to be identical, and as the Liturgy identifies THINE INHERITANCE with THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THY CHOSEN PEOPLE and THE CATHOLIC CHURCH must also be identical. That the elect may fall from grace, and by the grace of God arise again and amend their lives, is taught in the 16th Article; and that they may or may not be so restored, was so clear a doctrine, that the Calvinistic party moved King James to allow the words, "yet neither totally nor finally" to be inserted after fall into sin," in which had they succeeded, the Article would have inculcated assured personal final perseverance. But the Homily on falling from God is so remarkably explicit on this point, so strong and so decisive, that we might consider the question set at rest. When, also, it is prayed in the Burial Service, "Suffer us not, AT OUR LAST HOUR, for any pains of death TO FALL FROM THEE," it is prayed for those, who having been admitted by baptism into the Church, have been declared to be THE ELECT PEOPLE OF GOD; so that the Church believes it possible for the elect to fall away at their last hour, which is equivalent to totally and finally. Here, again, the harmony with Melancthon's words is striking.

Moreover, the church of England, so far from being Calvinistic, holds the doctrine of UNIVERSAL, as opposed to PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. When the catechumen is asked respecting the articles of his faith, he is taught to reply-" I believe in God the Son, WHO HATH REDEEMED ME AND ALL MANKIND,”—which, as Mr. Faber sensibly remarks, does not militate against the ancient primeval doctrine of "ecclesiastical individual election; because, though the 18th Article "condemns those who hold "that every one shall be saved BY the law or sect, which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to "that law, and the light of nature, yet the Church nowhere teaches, that through the infinite though uncovenanted mer"cies of God, a man cannot be saved in a state of virtuous "heathenism BY the alone merits of Jesus Christ." On this question, however, viz. the salvation of those who have never heard the name of Christ, our Reformers, very wisely, do not

66

66

enter.

With respect to CAUSATION, we may expect the views of Melancthon and the church of England to coincide. He pronounces the CAUSE of predestination to be the same as the CAUSE of justification, viz. God's mercy for Christ's sake, operating according to God's sovereign will and pleasure. "Misericordiam in voluntate Dei, qui non vult perire totum genus humanum, sed propter filium colligit et servat ecclesiam." Loc. Theol. p. 473. Now, although the 17th Article is silent on the subject, it apparently alludes to Melancthon's idea, where the elect are declared to be justified FREELY; which in the eleventh is more fully stated, "they be justified FREELY through the alone merits of Christ."