before; but as Mr. Whitefield is below in the parlour, we'll have him up, and let him answer for himself.' Upon his coming up into the drawing-room, Lady Huntingdon said, Mr. Whitefield, these ladies have been preferring a very heavy charge against you, and I thought it best that you should come up and defend yourself: they say, that in your sermon last evening, in speaking of the willingness of Jesus Christ to receive sinners, you expressed yourself in the following terms,—' that so ready was Christ to receive sinners who came to him, that he was willing to receive even the devil's castaways.' Mr. Whitefield immediately replied, 'I certainly, my Lady, must plead guilty to the charge; whether I did what was right or otherwise, your Ladyship shall judge from the following circumstance. Did your Ladyship notice, about half an hour ago, a very modest single rap at the door? It was given by a poor, miserable-looking, aged female, who requested to speak with me. I desired her to be shown into the parlour, when she accosted me in the following manner :- I believe, Sir, you preached last evening at such a chapel.' 'Yes, I did.'' Ah, Sir; I was accidentally passing the door of that chapel, and hearing the voice of some one preaching, I did what I have never been in the habit of doing, I went in; and one of the first things I heard you say, was, that Jesus Christ was so willing to receive sinners, that he did not object to receiving the devil's castaways. Now, Sir, I have been on the town for many years, and am so worn out in his service, that I think I may with truth be called one of the devil's castaways: do you think, Sir, that Jesus Christ would receive me?' Mr. Whitefield assured her there was not a doubt of it, if she was but willing to go to him. From the sequel it appeared that it was the case, and that it ended in the sound conversion of this poor creature; and Lady Huntingdon was assured, from most respectable authority, that the woman left a very charming testimony behind her that, though her sins had been of a crimson hue, the atoning blood of Christ had washed them white as snow."-p. 509–511.

One parting word to Mr. Philip. Although he belongs to a school widely different from our own, we are profoundly convinced that the cause of religion, pure and undefiled, is close to his very heart. We would, therefore, respectfully request of him to consider whether, on one or two occasions, he has not, for a moment, lost sight of the seriousness and the sobriety demanded by the sacred realities which his theme involves. For instancewe hope not to be condemned for morbid or fastidious sensibility, touching such matters, if we express a grave doubt whether one of the most awfully impressive representations in Scripture ought to have been exhibited in combination with an image approaching to the ludicrous, as in the following passage. Speaking of the Orphan-House in Georgia, he says, "It compelled him (Whitefield) to travel, and it inspired him to preach. It was his hobby, certainly. But, by riding it well, he made it, like the "White Horse of the Apocalypse, the means of going forth

conquering, and to conquer." If Mr. Philip will only turn, once more, to the 19th chapter of Revelations, and read from verse 11th to verse 16th, inclusive, he will instantly perceive how much that tremendous description is degraded by the above association. Again, we suspect that Whitefield himself, if he were now living, would remonstrate with his encomiast for speaking of him as "the Peter of England's Pentecost." He may, like other mortals, have had his weaknesses. He may have had his occasional fits of rather proud humility; as when he exclaimed, "Why me, Lord, why me?" He may, at times, have been impatient for the honours of such persecution and martyrdom as were to be had in an age of freedom and toleration. But, unless he was much more inflated with spiritual arrogance than we ever supposed him to be, he would, we should imagine, have been ready almost to rend his garments, on beholding himself thus elevated to a level with the Apostles! We feel, however, no satisfaction in dwelling on inadvertencies like these. We shall accordingly finish, by declaring that, whatever may be Mr. Philip's qualifications for the task of a philosophical historian, he has, at all events, in our humble judgment, done the office of a faithful and interesting biographer.

ART. II.-1. The Primitive Doctrine of Election; or an Historical Inquiry into the Ideality and Causation of Scriptural Election, as received and maintained in the Primitive Church of Christ. By George Stanley Faber, B.D. &c. Crofts: London, 1836.

2. The Doctrine of Election, and its Connection with the general Tenor of Christianity, illustrated from many parts of Scripture, and especially from the Epistle to the Romans. By Thomas Erskine, Esq., Advocate. Duncan: London, 1837.

THERE is no surer guide to the discovery of the true doctrine of Scripture, so far at least as that doctrine depends upon the proper meaning of words, than an intimate acquaintance with the opinions of the Primitive Church. As the language of the New Testament bears a reference, more or less direct, to the institutions of the older economy, as held by the patriarchs and expounded by the prophets, it might be presumed, on that ground alone, that the terms employed by Jewish converts, such as constituted the first flock of Christ, would be best understood by those to whom the doctrines of the Rabbis, at the era of the

Advent, were most familiar. It is a remark of the learned Dodwell, that the writings of St. Paul cannot be fully explained, except by assuming the principle that he often expressed himself ex mente Pharisæorum; and that his views concerning predestination, foreknowledge, election, and the Divine decrees, in general, must be considered through the medium of the school in which he received his education. But without laying too much stress on this observation, it will be readily admitted by every competent judge, that the Primitive Church is its own best interpreter; that the proximity of the first believers to the times of the Apostles, gave them great advantages for becoming acquainted with the import of words, as used by those inspired servants of the Redeemer; and hence, if a doctrine was unknown to the faithful, in the beginning of the second century, we may conclude that it was not taught either as an article of belief or as a motive to good living.

The Calvinistic notion of election has often been most triumphantly refuted on the ground of scriptural interpretation, and even by an appeal to those feelings of truth, justice, and mercy implanted in the human breast, which, in their unsophisticated state, constitute at once a revelation of the Divine will, and a law whereby are sanctioned the original determinations of the intellect as to moral good and evil. But there was still wanting the historical proof that the tenet in question made no part of the evangelical system once delivered to the saints, and that it cannot be traced beyond a certain period to which the authority of apostolical teaching did not come down, and where of course it must rest exclusively upon the professional knowledge or ingenuity of an individual author. This desideratum is supplied by Mr. Faber, who, after minutely examining the works of all the Fathers prior to Augustine, affords to his readers the most perfect assurance that, down to the fifth century, the Church of Christ never gave any countenance to the strange system of opinions advanced by the Bishop of Hippo. The primitive Christians, he reminds us, must have annexed some ideas to the scriptural terms Election and Predestination; and when we recollect that they must have received their doctrinal instruction either from the Apostles themselves, or from those who were taught by the Apostles, "it is difficult to believe, that they could have annexed to them any other ideas than those which were annexed to them by their inspired, and therefore infallible teachers." What these primitive notions really were he sets forth at great length, and with much strength of argument; but before we can undertake to make our readers acquainted with the train of thought along which they are conducted to the important con

clusions wherein the reasoning terminates, it will be necessary to explain two or three of his phrases.

This laborious and learned work professes to be an "Historical Inquiry into the Ideality and Causation of Scriptural Election." Suffice it, then, to say that Ideality expresses the import of the privileges, benefits, or blessings which are comprehended in election; and that Causation refers to the motive or object in the Divine Mind whence the act of election proceeds. The one, in short, denotes the thing, and the other the moving cause which led to it. Again, the author divides the hypotheses which have been entertained on the subject of Election into three classesCalvinism, Arminianism, and Nationalism. The two former require no explanation; and, as to the last, it may be enough to say, that it designates the theory of Locke, Whitby, and Taylor, who assert that the term election, in the Old Testament as well as in the New, applies only to the choice or separation of a whole people or large bodies of men, to constitute a visible Church, and to enjoy the privileges attached to it. Mr. Faber declares that, in the early ecclesiastical writings, "neither Calvinism, nor Arminianism, nor Nationalism could, as systems combining severally a well-defined scheme of Causation with a well-defined scheme of Ideality, be anywhere discovered."

"While in the course of my researches I was struck with perceiving negatively that, in the early writings of the Church, not a vestige of those systems, as systems, could be discovered; I was also struck with perceiving positively that yet a fourth system, essentially different from all the three, in point either of Ideality or of Causation, or of both Ideality and Causation, was, by the earliest Church Catholic, received and delivered, as exhibiting the true sense and manner in which the scriptural terms Elect and Predestinate, or Election and Predestination, ought to be explained and understood. At what precise time the system now denominated Arminianism arose, I am unable to say. It was received among the schoolmen anterior to the Reformation; but in point both of Ideality and Causation, it was utterly unknown to the strictly earliest Church, or the Church down to about the end of the second century. As little am I able to specify the commencement of the system which I have distinguished by the appellation of Nationalism, if Locke were not its original author. Some specious passages in its favour, by which I mean in favour of its ideality, may doubtless be produced from the writings of the ancient Fathers, though Locke does not profess to avail himself of their evidence; but when these passages are carefully examined, they will prove to give no support to the system in question. Calvinism, on the contrary, has its commencement marked with an uncommon degree of precision. Wishing fairly to come to the bottom of the matter, and well aware that Augustine had taught the system long before the days of the celebrated Calvin, I employed my first season of leisure in carefully perusing the whole Pelagian contro

versy of that eminent Father; during the course of which, and specially toward the conclusion of it, he is known to have copiously stated, and to have vigorously maintained, the system now under consideration. The result was precisely what I had anticipated from my previous reading of the earlier Fathers. When Augustine fully propounded his own views of Election and Predestination, he was immediately charged with innovating upon the ancient doctrine of the Church; he was assured by the complainants that they had never before heard of such speculations; he was referred to the current system of the existing Catholic Church ; and he was challenged to produce evidence that his new opinions had ever been advanced as the mind of Scripture by any of his ecclesiastical predecessors."

The method adopted by Mr. Faber in the prosecution of his argument, resembles that of which Bilson set the example when reasoning with the Puritans on Church government. Cartwright, following in the steps of his master Calvin, thought proper to maintain the Divine institution of a lay eldership, relying on the accuracy of the exposition hazarded by the school of Geneva, as applied to the often-quoted passage in the first epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." From these words it was inferred, that the Apostles had authorized an order of men to govern the Church who had no commission to administer the word and sacraments. Their function was supposed to be confined to ecclesiastical discipline. Archbishop Whitgift, who wrote an answer to Cartwright's" Admonition," knew not how to get over this apparent authority drawn from the Scriptures, and therefore frankly acknowledged that, in the days of the Apostles and for some time after, the Church was under the government of these lay elders. Dr. Bilson, regretting this concession on the part of a prelate who held so distinguished an office in the Anglican Establishment, resolved to reconsider the grounds on which the conclusion was made to rest. Upon recurring to the first ages of Christianity, he found that, in no time or place mentioned by any class of writers, was there any evidence that there ever had been an order of lay-presbyters. It seemed strange that, if such a class of men everywhere governed the Church under the Apostles, no council, history, or father, should ever so much as name them, or allude to them, or even give to the words of St. Paul the meaning which Calvin claimed for them. He found that many learned and ancient Fathers had examined and sifted the import of the words, 1 Timothy, v. 17, and not one of them ever so much as surmised that any such thing was in the mind of the inspired author. Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Theodoret, Primasius,