allow the name of Calvinists to prevent circumlocution but, if being Calvinists implies having Calvin, instead of Christ, for our master, we indignantly disclaim it. "Was Calvin crucified "for us? Or were we baptized in the name of "Calvin?" Veneration for so eminent a man, and humble consciousness of inferiority, may, and often does, keep us silent, even when we disapprove of some of his positions; but we must speak fully what we think, when thus called to do it.-We' profess a sort of moderate Calvinism; 'purged of its most offensive tenets.' And do we not believe what we profess? We would "prove "all things" by the touchstone of scripture; " and hold fast that which is good," and that only. Our appeal is not to reason and common sense,' to determine what is, and what is not, derogatory 'to the perfections of the Deity,' but to the holy scriptures; to "the law and to the testimony." Nor do we regard whether our views be any longer Calvinism' or not, provided they accord to the oracles of God: but even these are deemed by multitudes liable to most serious objections; and must they also be modified and explained away for fear of these objections]

'Calvinism, in reality, will not bear defalcation, 'or admit of partial adoption. It has at least the ' merit of being so far consistent with itself. Its peculiar doctrines, considered as a system, are 'so connected and dependent upon each other, that if you embrace one you must embrace all; and, ' if the falsehood of one part of the system be proved, the whole falls to the ground. I cannot 'but suspect that many Calvinists deceive them

'selves more than they deceive others. They seem not to take a complete view of their own system. They contemplate certain parts, and keep others entirely out of sight. They dwell 'with pride and satisfaction upon the idea, that they themselves are of that small number whom 'God has predestinated to salvation, without re'flecting that it is incompatible with the charac<ter of an infinitely just and merciful Being, to 'consign the far greater part of his rational creatures to inevitable and eternal torment. They 'flatter themselves that their own conduct is go'verned by divine grace, though it may be denied <to others, who have an equal claim to the favour of their Maker. They cherish the persuasion, 'that the infallible guidance of the Spirit will ultimately lead them to heaven, though they may 'occasionally sin, without considering that irre'sistible grace must be equally inconsistent with 'human freedom, and with the violation of the 'commands of God.'1

Why may not the opinions of Calvin be in part scriptural and in part unscriptural, as well as those of any other uninspired man? Who conferred this most extraordinary prerogative on him, above all other men in any age or nation? No uninspired man can be supposed infallible; and if fallible he may err, and why must his whole system fall to the ground, if the falsehood of some things be admitted? And why are we inhibited from distinguishing between his errors and his well grounded opinions? What evidence from scripture, from reason, from common sense, can be adduced in support of this assertion? Was ever Ref. 569, 570.

any man so erroneous that he maintained no one truth? Must that one truth be rejected because he held it? Does his Lordship hold no tenet in common with Calvin? And, if he does, is he bound on that account to adopt Calvin's whole creed? or to renounce that one tenet?-But it ' has at least, the merit of being so far consistent, ' &c. So said Dr. Priestley. He stated supralapsarian Calvinism: And,' said he, this is consistent, however absurd: but between this and 'rational religion there is no consistent medium.' It is well-known that Dr. Priestley's rational religion fell much below the ordinary standard of Socinianism, and approximated to Deism. Is there then no medium between supralapsarian Calvinism and Dr. Priestley's rational religion? May we class all who depart from the former among the disciples of Priestley? No, we may not: nor ought we, for the very same reasons, to be charged with holding all the tenets of Calvin. Dr. Priestley's assertion was as good an argument as any other man's assertion; but assertion is not proof. Suppose the consistency, spoken of, does actually exist, must we be condemned for inconsistency? Alas! what writer will, on this ground, escape condemnation? Must we be forced, against our judgment and conscience, to embrace all, if we embrace one doctrine of the system?-His Lordship has ranked various doctrines, which have generally been considered as common to Calvinists and Arminians, among those which he has undertaken to refute and must a man either give up all these doctrines totally, or adopt a supralapsarian Calvinistic creed, without the least reserve; under the charge either of prevarication and hypo

crisy, or of self-deception. What may appear to be consistency, however, is not our object, but truth; which, if we can but attain, we shall not fear being found really inconsistent. Metaphysical speculations are often employed to supply the supposed deficiency of revelation, and to make the system appear consistent. As a metaphysician I may approve the logical conclusion, when, as a theologian, I must add, ' It is not a part of revelation, and I must exclude it from my creed, from my public instructions, nay, from my thoughts, as far as possible. For not reason, but revelation, is the standard of truth. "Secret things belong to "God." Not one step dare I proceed, except as the scripture leads the way; and it appears as much an act of submission to the divine teaching, to be willingly ignorant of what God has not revealed, as to receive with the simplicity of a little child what he has revealed.'

6

6

In order to know the mind of the Spirit, the ' communications of the Spirit, and the expression ' of those communications in written language, 'should be consulted. These are the only data upon which the inquiry should be instituted. But, no instead of learning the designs and 'character of the Almighty from his own mouth, 'we sit in judgment upon them; and make our conjectures of what they should be take the precedency of what they are.'-'What thinkest 'thou?' is made the principle of their creed,― Let the principle of 'What thinkest thou?' be 'exploded; and that of 'What readest thou? be ⚫ substituted in its place.'-Who can avoid, in this 'connexion recollecting the frequent recurrence

'Dr. Chalmers.

in the New Testament of the question "What "readest thou?" "Have ye not read?" &c. Man must learn the truth, as it comes from God, by reading, understanding, and believing the word of God; and not by abstract reasoning and speculation.

'As there is a foolish wisdom, so there is a wise 'ignorance, in not prying into God's ark, nor in'quiring into things not revealed. I would know 'all that I need, and all that I may; but I leave 'God's secrets to himself. It is happy for me, if 'God makes me of his court, though not of his 'council.'-It is obvious enough for each party to' suspect,' that those of the other party deceive 'themselves:' but it would be more salutary to suspect ourselves, and to pray earnestly to God to preserve us from the fatal effects of our disposition to" trust in our own hearts," " which are deceit"ful above all things and desperately wicked." It is equally natural to charge one another with 'pride and self-complacency:' but God alone is able to determine on which side pride and selfpreference most predominate; and with him we leave our cause.-If some of us have not a com

plete view of our own system,' it must be owing either to natural incapacity, or to some judgment of God in leaving us to be blinded. The author, for one, has studied theological subjects, and the scriptures especially, (he trusts he may say without arrogance,) most indefatigably, and almost to the entire exclusion of all other subjects and pursuits, for nearly forty years: he has endeavoured to view each part, minutely and separately, and also in conBp. Hall.