“ jam ob talem duntaxat corruptionem damnati merito “ convictique coram Deo tenemur . . . . . Atque ideo in“fantes quoque ipsi, dum suam secum damnationem af“ ferunt, non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti.” Institut. lib. ii. cap. 1. sect. 8. The same words are repeated lib. iv. cap. 15. sect. 10. These passages, with others which might be quoted of a similar description, seem to prove, that Calvin expressly denied the doctrine of Imputation. Notwithstanding, however, their evident tendency, Turretin attempts to shew, from other parts of his writings, that he even approved of it, although cautious and wary in bringing it forward. The words of Turretin are these: “Quia tamen sub“ inde viri docti, cum quibus hic agimus, gravissimorum "theologorum, et Calvini imprimis, Martyris, et Cha"mieri authoritatem ostendere solent, quasi illi hanc "imputationem silentio suo tacite vel etiam aperte et di"sertis verbis improbaverint; non abs re futurum est, si "paucis, quam a vero aberrent, probatum dederimus. "Hanc fuisse Calvini sententiam multa probant. Li❝cet enim non ubique imputationis mentionem faciat, "quando de peccato originali loquitur, sive quia non"dum illa in controversiam vocabatur, sive quia ad"versus Albertum Pighium et Ambrosium Cathari"num disputabat, qui totam peccati originalis naturam "sola imputatione primi peccati definiebant, nullam "inhærentem corruptionem agnoscentes, ubi proinde “non illi laborandum fuit in probanda imputatione, 66 quam solam agnoscebant adversarii, sed tantum in “ asserenda labe inhærente; facile tamen est ostendere "non ignotam fuisse, sed probatam summo viro istam "doctrinam." Instit. Theolog. loc. ix. quæst. 9. §. 40, 41. Vol. i. p. 691. It should be observed, that Turretin was a Calvinist; and that, anxious to represent the founder of his favourite system as acquainted with every perfection, which he himself supposed to belong

to it, he laboured to prove Calvin the supporter of a tenet, of which, by his own confession, learned men had been accustomed to consider that Reformer as an opponent. On all sides however it is granted, that whatsoever Calvin's sentiments might have been, he did not directly inculcate the doctrine; while more surely must be admitted by those, who examine his writings with an impartial eye.

Page 71, note (14).

Commissioners were appointed, both in the reign of Henry and Edward, to draw up a reformed code of ecclesiastical laws, of whom Cranmer was the first in rank, and not the least in the labour of composition. This production, although never sanctioned by authority, was published in the year 1571 by Archbishop Parker. Besides the brief system of ecclesiastical laws comprehended in it, it contains a reference to the doctrine of our Church, almost in the language of her Articles, sometimes abridging, and sometimes paraphrasing them. In the chapter De Baptismo, the passage referred to occurs: "Illorum etiam videri debet scrupu"losa superstitio, qui Dei gratiam et Spiritum Sanctum "tantopere cum Sacramentorum elementis colligant, "ut plane affirment, nullum Christianorum infantem "salutem esse consecuturum, qui prius morte fuerit "occupatus, quam ad baptismum adduci potuerit; "quod longe secus habere judicamus.”

Page 72, note (15).

The prayer here noticed is the first in our Baptismal Service. It is not to be found in the ancient offices of the Church of Rome, but seems to have been originally composed by Luther, in whose form of Baptism it was first introduced, (Opera Germanice Witteb. vol. vi. p. 165.) and afterwards transferred into the reformed Service of the archbishopric of Cologne, in the year 1543. The words in the German are, "in der

.

"heiligen Arca der Christenheit, trocten und sicher be"halten:" in the Latin of the Cologne form, "in "sancta Ecclesiæ tuæ Arca tutus servari possit:" and in our own Common Prayer, "received into the Ark of "Christ's Church, and so saved from perishing." That Luther meant not, by these equivocal expressions, (if we give them no harsher appellation,) to exclude unbaptized infants from salvation, at least, if he so meant when the prayer was written, that he afterwards changed his opinion upon the point, is manifest from what has been already stated upon this subject; surely then he would have acted with more wisdom and liberality, had he adopted the line of conduct pursued by the English Reformers, and discarded them altogether. Page 72, note (16). ·

Any further detail of Luther's sentiments upon this question seems unnecessary. Calvin, whose zeal for the Reformation led him on all occasions to promote unity and concord, but whose vanity induced him on many points to frame a peculiar system of his own, frequently adopted the phraseology, and often, to a certain extent, the very sentiments, of the Lutherans, as well as Zuinglians. Hence indiscriminating readers perpetually confuse together opinions really different, not perceiving that the coincidence is sometimes only apparent, and seldom complete. This is particularly the case upon the topic of Predestination. Nor is it less so upon that which is at present under consideration. The Lutherans contended, that the Holy Spirit "was efficacious in baptism." To this Calvin assented, but doubtless with certain private reservations too obvious to point out. "Convenit," he observes to Melancthon," non inanes esse figuras, (viz. Sacra❝menta,) sed re ipsa præstari, quidquid figurant. In baptismo adesse Spiritus efficaciam, ut nos abluat et regeneret." Epist. Calvin. p. 134. The efficacy how

ever of the Holy Spirit, which the Lutherans believed to be always exerted in infant baptism, they confined not to that sacred rite, except only as to the appointed means of conferring it, but extended to the children of Christians in general, whom they considered not only as within the divine Covenant, but, being recommended to God in prayer, as certainly entitled to its blessings. A similar language was used by Calvin, which it is impossible not to recognize, in the 15th and 16th chapters of the 4th book of his Institute. We cannot however conceive him to have thus expressed himself, consistently with his other opinions, without some tacit qualification. Yet in the following passage he seems to speak generally: "Sed hanc con"troversiam mox nullo negotio dirimet hoc princi"pium, non arceri a regno cælorum infantes, quos e præ"senti vita migrare continget, antequam aqua mergi da"tum fuerit. Atqui jam visum est, fieri non levem in"juriam Dei fœderi, nisi in eo acquiescimus; ac si per

66

se infirmum esset; quum ejus effectus neque a bap"tismo, neque ab ullis accessionibus pendeat. Acce"dit postea Sacramentum sigilli instar, non quod effi"caciam Dei promissioni, quasi per se invalidæ, confe66 rat, sed eam duntaxat nobis confirmet. Unde se"quitur non ideo baptizari fidelium liberos, ut filii "Dei tunc primum fiant, qui ante alieni fuerint ab "Ecclesia, sed solenni potius signo ideo recipi in Ec"clesiam, quia promissionis beneficio jam ante ad "Christi corpus pertinebant. Proinde si in omittendo signo nec socordia est, nec contemptus, nec negli

66

66 gentia, tuti ab omni periculo sumus." Instit. lib. iv. cap. 15. §. 22. Here he something more than hesitates at the declaration of his full meaning; he appears studiously to conceal it. In other parts, however, of these chapters, he incidentally hints the distinction, which he constantly bore in mind, but which

ઃઃ

he was scrupulous of directly urging. In the following passages he collaterally introduces it: "At quo" modo, inquiunt, regenerantur infantes, nec boni nec "mali cognitione præditi? Nos autem respondemus, opus Dei, si captui nostro non subjaceat, non tamen "esse nullum. Porro infantes qui servandi sunt, (ut "certe ex ea ætate omnino aliqui servantur) ante a "Domino regenerari minime obscurum est." Cap. xvi. sect. 17. "Et sane ideo a prima infantia sanctificatus "fuit Christus, ut ex ætate qualibet sine discrimine elec❝tos suos in seipso sanctificaret." Ibid. sect. 18. "Quos "clectione sua dignatus est Dominus, sic accepto regene"rationis signo, si præsenti vita ante demigrent, quam "adoleverint, eos virtute sui Spiritus nobis incompre“hensa renovat, quo modo expedire solus ipse provi“ det . . . . . Quare nihil plus in pædobaptismo præsentis "efficacia requirendum est, quam ut fœdus cum illis "Domino percussum obfirmet. Reliqua ejus Sacramenti "sanctificatio, quo tempore Deus ipse providerit, postea "consequetur.” Ibid. sect. 21.

Hence appears the important difference between the sentiments of Luther on this point, and those of Calvin. The former contended for the certain salvation of all infants, born of Christian parents; the latter of those only, who are discriminated by an inscrutable decree of divine election; a discrimination, which seems to have been painfully contemplated, and reluctantly avowed.

Page 72, note (17).

The liberality of the sentiments entertained by the Reformers in general, respecting the salvation of infants dying before baptism, originated not with the Lutherans. Zuingle was the first who asserted it; and it should be added, that his assertion was made without restrictions of any kind: "Ista in hunc usum 66 argumentati sumus, ut ostenderemus toto errare cœlo,