state of salvation, which before he possessed; that nevertheless by true repentance, and conversion to the Father of mercy and God of all consolation, he is again reinstated in it; and that, by finally persevering in it, he at length receives the kingdom prepared for every sincere Christian before the foundation of the world (14). Can any man, whom prejudice has not blinded, rank these sentiments with those of Calvin ?

While restoring to the doctrine of predestination, perplexed and disfigured by the vanity of the Schools, scriptural simplicity, they studiously and anxiously preserved every trace of that universal benevolence, by which Christianity is peculiarly distinguished. Let us, they said, with both our hands, or rather with all our heart, hold fast the true and pious maxim, that God is not the author of sin; that he sits not in heaven, writing Stoical laws in the volumes of fate; but, endowed with a perfect freedom himself, communicates a liberty of action to his creatures; firmly opposing the position of necessity as false, and pernicious to morals and religion. God, we may be assured, is no cruel and

merciless tyrant; he does not hate and reject men, but loves them, as a parent loves his children (15).

Universal grace, indeed, was at all times a favourite topic with the Lutherans; nor would they admit of any predestination, except that of a beneficent Deity, who was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; except a predestination, conformable with that order of things, which he has established, and with the use, or abuse, of the means, which he has ordained. The Almighty, they said, has seriously willed and decreed, from eternity, all men to be saved, and to enjoy everlasting felicity; let us not therefore indulge in evil suggestions, and separate ourselves from his grace, which is as expanded as the space between heaven and earth; let us not restrain the general promise, in which he offers his favour to all without discrimination, nor confine it to those, who, affecting a peculiar garb, wish to be alone esteemed pious and sanctified. If many perish, the fault is not to be imputed to the divine will, but to human obstinacy, which despises that will, and disregards a salvation destined for all men (16). And because many are called, but few are chosen, let us not, they added,

entertain an opinion highly impious, that God tenders his grace to many, but communicates it only to a few; for should we not in the greatest degree detest a Deity, by whose arbitrary will we believed ourselves to be precluded from salvation? (1) > Upon the important point likewise of the conditional acceptance of the individual, their ideas were not more distinct, than their language was explicit. If God chose, they argued, certain persons only, in order to unite them to himself, and rejected the remainder in all respects alike, would not such an election without causes seem tyrannical? Let us therefore be persuaded, that some cause exists in us, as some difference is to be found between those who are, and those who are not, accepted (18). Thus they conceived that, predestinating his elect in Christ, or the Christian Church, to eternal salvation, he excludes none from that number by a partial adoption of favourites, but calls all equally, and accepts of all, who obey his calling, or in other words, become true Christians, by possessing the qualifications, which Christianity requires.

After what has been observed, it may seem perhaps almost unnecessary to subjoin, that they held the Defectibility of

t

grace, its Indefectibility being a position supported but by those, who think that the Redeemer died for a selected few alone. He, they stated, who falls from grace, cannot but perish, completely losing remission of sin, with the other benefits which Christ has purchased for him, and acquiring in their stead divine wrath and death eternal (19). Let us execrate, said Melancthon, who, it should be remarked, in his private correspondence expressly termed Calvin the Zeno of his day (20), let us execrate the Stoical disputations which some introduce, who imagine, that the elect always retain the Holy Spirit, even when they commit atrocious crimes; a manifest and highly reprehensible error; and let us not confirm in fools security and blindness (21).

Upon the whole then it appears, that the Lutherans, affecting not in any way to philosophize, but committing themselves solely to the guidance. of Scripture, differed from the Church of Rome in several important particulars. For although on some points they coincided with her, although they inculcated with equal zeal, and upon a better principle, both the Universality and Defectibility of grace, as well as a con

ditional admission into the number of the elect, they nevertheless were entirely at variance with her upon the very foundation of the system. Thus while their opponents taught, that predestination consists in the prospective discrimination of individuals by divine favour, according to the foreseen ratio of every man's own merit, works of congruity deserving grace here, and works of condignity eternal life hereafter, and that in this way it principally rests upon human worth; they, on the other side, disclaiming every idea of such a discrimination, placed it upon the same basis as they assumed in the case of justification, that of an effectual redemption by Christ (22). Instead therefore of holding the election of individuals as men, on account of personal dignity, they maintained the election of a general mass, as Christians, on account of Christ alone; adding, that we are admitted into that number, or discarded from it, in the eye of Heaven, proportionably as we embrace or reject the salvation offered to all, embracing it with a faith inseparable from genuine virtue, or rejecting it by incredulity and crime. For neither in this, nor in the instance of justification, did they exclude repentance and