have considered, seem as unwilling to deny as to affirm either the Calvinistic or the Arminian doctrine. They profess to have kept their mind very much in the condition of a blank upon the whole subject of election, while they labour more or less explicitly, and by various processes, to defend "the absence of precision," which they profess to exhibit. The examination of the position of this class of writers would have led us to consider more minutely Mr Bode's attempt to prove "the absence of precision to be scriptural and suitable to a state of probation," and Mr Mozley's desperate efforts to devise excuses for avoiding to make an explicit profession of Calvinism as his creed, while, yet he seems substantially satisfied of its truth. We have no wish to encourage presumptuous speculations in the direction of trying to be wise above what is written; we greatly admire the general character and spirit of many of those who refuse to pronounce in favour of Calvinism or Arminianism, or of any definite doctrine on the subject of election; but we must contend that every one favoured with adequate opportunities and capacities, is bound to have a definite and decided opinion upon this subject, and that this opinion must be, in substance, either Calvinistic or Arminian. The right rule to guide us in our investigations into these matters is, that we should advance without hesitation as far as Scripture leads us, and stop without reluctance wherever Scripture leaves us; and as Scripture surely contains sufficient materials to enable us to decide between Calvinistic and Arminian doctrine upon the subject of election, it is incumbent upon every one, in the fair application of this rule, to have a decided opinion upon this point. And we would have been all the more anxious to have discussed this topic, because, as we have already mentioned, we are firmly persuaded that Arminianism is always sure to get the benefit of any ignorance, or misapprehension, or confusion, that may be going.

These two subjects which we intended to discuss, but have had to postpone for want of space, viz.-1st, the attempt to make a handle of alleged differences among Calvinists, and to excite a prejudice against them by giving prominence to extreme or offensive statements about supralapsarianism and reprobation, and, 2d, the abstaining from forming and expressing a decided opinion on the points controverted between them and their opponents, are intimately connected with each other in fact. For there is good ground to believe, that there have always been not a few of the best men in the ministry of the Church of England, who were substantially Calvinists at heart, but who found reasons? or excuses for declining to form and to express an opinion upon the controversy, in their own misapprehensions and prejudices, arising from defective and erroneous views or impressions on some of the points to which we have now referred.

We are unwilling to quit this subject without some reference, however brief, to the objections by which the Calvinistic doctrine of election has been commonly assailed. The leading practical lessons suggested by a survey of the controversy for guiding men in the study of it, are such as these :-1st, That we should labour to form a clear, distinct, and accurate apprehension of the real nature of the leading point in dispute, of the true import and bearing of the only alternatives that can well be maintained with regard to it. 2d, That we should familiarise our minds with definite conceptions of the meaning and the evidence of the principal arguments by which the truth upon the subject may be established, and the error refuted. 3d, That we should take some pains to understand the general principles at least applicable to the solution (or rather the disposal, for they cannot be solved) of the difficulties by which the doctrine we have embraced as true may be assailed. And, 4th, That we should then seek to make a wise and judicious application of the doctrine professed, according to its true nature, tendency, and bearing, and its relation to other truths, without allowing ourselves to be dragged into endless and unprofitable speculations in regard to its deeper mysteries or more intricate perplexities, or to be harassed by perpetual doubt and difficulty. A thorough and successful study of the subject implies the following out of all these lessons, and this conducts us over a wide and arduous field. It is on the first only of these four points we have touched,-one on which a great deal of ignorance and confusion seem to prevail. Of the others, the most important is that which enjoins a careful study of the direct and positive evidence that bears upon the determination of the main question on which the controversy turns. The strength of Calvinism lies in the mass of direct, positive, and, as we believe, unanswerable proof that can be produced from Scripture and reason, confirmed by much that is suggested by experience and the history of the human race, to establish its fundamental principles of the foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass, and the real and effectual election of some men to eternal life. The strength of Arminianism lies not in the direct and positive evidence that can be produced to disprove Calvinistic foreordination and election, or to establish anti-Calvinistic non-foreordination and non-election, but mainly in the proof, that God is not the author of sin, and that man is responsible for his own character and destiny, and in the inference that since Calvinism is inconsistent with these great and admitted truths, it must be false. This view of the state of the case shews the importance of being familiar with the direct and positive evidence by which Calvinism can be established, that we may rest on this as an impregnable foundation. But it shews also the importance of being familiar with the way and manner of dis

posing of the plausible and formidable difficulties on which mainly the Arminians found their case. These difficulties, that is, the alleged inconsistency of Calvinism with the truths, that God is not the author of sin, and that man is responsible for his conduct and fate, lie upon the very surface of the subject, and must at once present themselves even to the most ordinary minds; while, at the same time, they are so plausible, that they are well fitted to startle and to impress men, especially if they have not previously reflected much upon the subject. We can do nothing at present in the way of producing the direct and positive evidence in support of the Calvinistic doctrine; but a few brief hints may help a little to shew that the difficulties attaching to it, are, though not admitting of a full solution, yet by no means so formidable as at first sight they appear to be, and at any rate furnish no sufficient ground in right reason for rejecting the body of direct, positive, unanswerable proof by which the fundamental principles of Calvinism can be established. The following are some of the most obvious yet most important considerations bearing upon this matter, that ought to be remembered and applied, and especially that ought to be viewed in combination with each other, as parts of one argument upon one important topic.

1st, When the same objections were advanced against the same doctrines as taught by the Apostle Paul, he manifested no very great solicitude about giving them a direct or formal answer, but contented himself with resolving the whole difficulty into God's sovereignty and man's ignorance, dependence, and incapacity. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" He knew that the doctrines were true, because he had received them by inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and we know that they are true, because he and other inspired men have declared them unto us. This should satisfy us and repress any great anxiety about disposing of objections based upon grounds, the full investigation of which runs up into matters, the full comprehension of which lies beyond the reach of our natural faculties, and of which we can know nothing except from the revelation which God has given us.

2d, It is utterly inconsistent with right views of our condition and capacities, and with the principles usually acted upon in regard to other departments of Christian theology, as, for instance, the doctrine of the Trinity, to assume, as these objections do, that we are entitled to make our actual perception of, or our capacity: of perceiving, the consistency of two doctrines with each other, the test or standard of their truth. We do not pretend to be able to solve all the difficulties connected with the alleged inconsistency between the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, and the truths that God is not the author of sin, and that man is respon

sible for his character and conduct, so as to make their consistency with each other plain and palpable to our own minds or the minds of others; but we cannot admit that this affords any sufficient reason why we should reject one or other of the doctrines, provided each separately can be established upon competent and satisfactory evidence.

3d, The difficulties in question do not apply to the Calvinistic system alone, but bear as really, though not perhaps at first view as palpably, upon every system of religion which admits the moral government of God, the prevalence of moral evil among his intelligent creatures, and their future eternal punishment. Indeed, it is easy to shew, that in truth the leading difficulties connected with every scheme of doctrine, virtually run up into one great difficulty, which attaches, and attaches equally, to them all, viz., the explanation of the existence and prevalence of moral evil, or (what is practically the same question in another form, the exposition of the way and manner in which God and men concur (for none but Atheists can deny that in some way or other they do concur) in forming men's character, and in determining men's fate. This subject involves difficulties which we cannot in our present condition fully solve, and which we must just resolve into the good pleasure of God. They are difficulties from which no scheme of doctrine can escape, and which every scheme is equally bound, and at the same time equally incompetent, to explain. Men may shift the position of the one grand difficulty, and may imagine that they have succeeded at least in evading it, or putting it in abeyance or obscurity, but with all their shifts and all their expedients, it continues as real and as formidable as ever. Unless men renounce altogether, theoretically or practically, the moral government of God, the prevalence of moral evil, and its eternal punishment, they must in their explanations and speculations come at length to the sovereignty of God, and prostrate their understandings and their hearts before it, saying with our Saviour, "Even so, Father, for so it hath seemed good in thy sight;" or with the great apostle, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor ? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.' (Rom. xi. 33-36).

دو

[In consequence of the unexpected length to which this article has extended, the Critical Notices have been considerably curtailed.]

X. CRITICAL NOTICES.

The Book of Job Translated, Explained, and Illustrated. By Rev. C. P. CAREY, M.A., Incumbent of St John's, Guernsey. London: Wertheim, Macintosh, & Hunt. 1858.

THIS is a very useful contribution which, with none of the ostentatious parade of learning, furnishes some of its most useful results. Though not fulfilling the conditions of a formal commentary, and professing to be only a translation with illustrative notes, yet these, along with a carefully executed analysis of the book, may be said to, furnish most of the materials of an exposition, however isolated they) appear at first sight. We have uniformly met independent thought and investigations at once, replete with learning and highly suggestive, while they are controlled and supported by Anglo-saxon sobriety and good sense.

The chief defect of this book, appearing in 1858 is, that the author does not seem to be acquainted with the more recent continental commentaries on this part of the sacred volume; and has contented himself with those of the generation which has passed away. We regret this all the more, because the writer has so ably maintained the early date of this book, as well as its historical character, with-, out being acquainted with those ingenious but unsubstantial reasons by which Delitzsch and others have recently endeavoured to support the theory, that it is a tragedy with truth and fiction intermingled, having no earlier a date than the times of Solomon. The English and German cast of thought are strikingly contrasted in the grounds which they severally adduce for the date which they assume. Thus Delitzsch maintains that no competent criticism can suppose Hebrew literature to have begun with a work constructed with so much reflective art, and with such a regular plan, thus seeming to forget that Greek literature similarly opens with the Iliad of Homer.

;

As we cannot in detail consider the elucidation of single words and passages, or the illustrations drawn from Egyptian antiquities, with which the volume is enriched, we may allude to the author's discussion of the theology of the age of Job. He devotes to this a separate dissertation; and distributes the whole under the usual divisions of theology, viz., God, angels, men, morals, man's final destiny. This classification, correct as far as it goes, obviously omits one important element-Christology. That the theology of Job's age, or of any age, was destitute of a Christology, it is impossible a priori to admit just as we could not conceive of renewed nature in any age without a conscious relation to the personal Redeemer, however various might be the degrees of dogmatic knowledge. With this presupposition, we shall certainly not be indisposed at least to find a Christology in an Old Testament book, if a sound philology succeed in legitimately finding it. The opposite predisposition cannot be affirmed of Mr Carey, who affirms his belief in the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness (p. 357). But certainly he has yielded to a too rigid exclusion of a Messianic reference in two passages where divines have