I.

CHAP. concerning predestination, and the like topics." All competent judges must admit, that "here," or in such a connexion, they would be misplaced.

It would seem also not to admit the doctrine of final preseverance. At least it says, (Art. X.) "We condemn the anabaptists, who deny that persons once justified can lose the Holy Spirit again.' "The subject of the sacraments likewise appears to be slightly treated in the Confession, as compared with our Articles.

With all its zeal, also, against justification by works, or dependence upon our own works, it is less scrupulous in the use of certain terms, than almost all have now learned to be. It hesitates not to say of repentance, " meretur remissionem peccatorum ;" of good works, (those of the justified believer,)" merentur præmia." Mereri, however, though usually rendered to deserve, the lexicographers tell us, means to gain, "whether by desert or otherwise: "2 and such is evidently its sense in the writings of the reformers.-Luther himself, two years after this, in his lectures on the Sermon on the Mount, expressly admits the use of the word merit (meritum) in a qualified sense; namely, "if it be used for the gracious reward, or gratuitous recompence, which God hath promised to piety and patience."3 What we

1 It is remarkable that this doctrine, on which I confess it seems to me extremely difficult to arrive at any absolute and universal decision, on scriptural grounds, appeared to Arminius the most difficult to be rejected of all those commonly denominated Calvinistic. A very short time before his death he declared himself "not yet able to answer the testimonies of scripture which stood for it:" and the question is avowedly left undecided in the "Five Articles" of the Remonstrants.See Scott's Works, vol. viii. pp. 478, 488, 489.

2 Ainsworth.

3 In Seck. iii. 35, 50.

are to learn from this is, not to revive so abused and dangerous a term, but never to make a man" an offender for a word.” 1

Further like a few incidental passages in our Homilies, it seems sometimes to approach too near to confounding faith with the assurance of personal acceptance-which must be rather the consequence of believing, than believing itself; an inference drawn from comparing what is wrought in us, with what is declared to us in the holy scriptures.-We must however remember, that the reformers had so much to contend against those, who, on principle, or to answer their own interested purposes, kept men in perpetual suspense, and distressing uncertainty, respecting their acceptance with God; and they had themselves felt so forcibly the bondage and unprofitableness of such a state; that it cannot be matter of surprise, if occasionally they verged a little to the other side while in general their doctrine concerning the proof, as well the ground, of acceptance is perfectly clear and scriptural.

2

1 Melancthon brands the term strongly enough, in the year 1520: "Whence comes that profane term merit-than which nothing could be devised more audacious, or more impious?" Seck. i. 109.

Melancthon, in some theses which he wrote about the year 1545, clearly expresses the sort of limitation which is, no doubt, to be understood in all that he and his brethren have elsewhere delivered upon this subject :-" The doctrine concerning faith, by which God commands every one that repents to assure himself, that his sins are actually forgiven for the Redeemer's sake, and not on account of any other propitiations." In Seck. iii. 625. This implies that our repentance is to be ascertained, before assurance is assumed. Luther also, though he at times seems to go to the utmost length in making assurance of acceptance to be of the essence of saving faith, yet at other times shews more distinctly of what it is that we are to be assured, and how our

A. D. 1530.

CHAP.

1.

But the point, on which I should be inclined to judge the Confession most defective, is the work of the Holy Spirit; particularly that part of it which relates to "the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will," and not only "working with us when we have" that good will. Of this I find no explicit mention: certainly, at least, it would seem to be of those things which are "justo mollius prolata"-too much softened down.

I notice this especially for the purpose of remarking, that the fashionable way of speaking of the grace of God assisting our endeavours, and of branding every thing beyond this as fanatical, is a mere cover for practically excluding the grace of God altogether. When we speak of assisting a man's endeavours,' it implies that he is already willing and active himself: but is this the state of fallen man with respect to the service of God, previously to the influence of divine grace upon his mind? Prevenient grace must go before, and " work in us to will," or assisting grace will find nothing with which to cooperate.-The language now frequently in use also implies, that any thing beyond assisting grace must be a compulsory influence. But it has been justly observed, that there is much said in scripture, and in

personal acceptance is to be known. "Above all things we should assure ourselves, and undoubtedly believe, that God is merciful, loving, and patient "-and therefore ready to forgive us. Again: "We exercise ourselves in the fear of God, and avoid sin as much as we may. If we sin, we sin not of purpose, and we are sorry for it.... We confess Christ and his word, at the expence of great sacrifices.... We ought not to doubt therefore whether the Holy Ghost dwelleth in us or not." "By these signs, as by certain effects and consequences, we are fully assured and confirmed that we are in God's favour." On Galatians iv. 6.

all our best divines, of an influence inclining the heart, though not forcing it; all which is thus overlooked.'-Nothing can be further from my intention than to admit, that the Confession of Augsburg countenances any such system as this: it has merely omitted to guard against it so clearly and distinctly as our Articles have done.

But these are only specks in the sun. As a whole, the work is admirable; a noble monument of what the reformers contended for,namely, Christian truth, liberty, and spiritual worship, as opposed to "will-worship" and mere outward observances, to intolerable burdens imposed upon conscience, and to the prostitution of every thing high and holy to subserve the purpose of acquiring gain or power. 2

A. D. 1530.

the Con

We now turn to the proceedings adopted Proceedings after the reading of the Confession. The respecting legate, with the other papal emissaries, had been fession. anxious that the protestants should not at all be heard, but that a decision should at once be pronounced against their tenets, as already condemned by Leo X; and that force should be resorted to to put them down in short, that

1 Scott's Works, vol. vii. pp. 136-145. See 1 Kings viii. 57, 58; Psalm cxix. 36; cxli. 4; Phil. ii. 13. “Incline our hearts to keep this law," &c.

2 Melancthon justly says, "Evidence shall exist to all future ages, that we think piously and religiously, and have laboured in setting forth the true doctrine of the catholic church, and promoting the glory of Christ. This is the reasonable service, which is most acceptable to God-to teach and handle his word in sincerity and truth." Epist. i. 120, de Conventu Augustano.

CHAP.

I.

the edict of Worms should be strictly executed.' As this could not be carried, the legate absented himself when the Confession was read, that he might not even seem to compromise the rights of the church, by allowing a hearing to that which she had condemned. 2 The emperor, however, desired his advice respecting the Confession, and he accordingly read it in private, with the divines who accompanied him; and thought, says Father Paul, “that a censure of it ought to be published in his name:" yet, "forseeing that this would give occasion to greater tumults, and saying plainly that the difference for the most part seemed verbal, and it imported not much whether men spake after one manner or another; and that it was not reasonable that the apostolic see should take part in the disputations of the schools; he refused to have his name used in these contentions." On the whole, however, he concluded,

that, the doctrine of the Lutherans having been read, to remove prejudice," that is, to efface the impression which had been made in its favour, "a confutation of it should be read likewise-but not published, for fear of opening a way to disputations; and that means should be used, by proposing favours and threats, to prevent the protestants from going further."3 This statement, from the pen of a discerning and independent Romanist, presents a curious display of the public policy of the papal church, in combination with the private feelings of many leading churchmen of that communion-mere worldly, and perhaps scep

1 Seck. ii. 171. Melanc. Epist. i. 4, 9.

2 Such were the instructions which he had received from the pope. Seck. ii. 210. 3 F. Paul, 52.