hand and the Articles in the other, we find that the phraseology of the one is precisely the phraseology of the other, and that what the one positively asserts, that precisely the other positively denies. Who will assert, after observing this singular relation, that it is undesigned? Take the seventeenth Article in particular, and you may say that it does not directly contradict the notions of Calvin on predestination, which I fully allow, for the simple reason that Calvin's opinions were not thought of by the framers of the Article. But all the torture in the world can never make it assert Calvin's doctrines. The utmost which can be said is, that, while the former part holds some doctrine, it is not very clear what, relating to some predestination, it is not very clear what, the latter part is very vehement against some notions on the same subject. But bring the proper light to the Article, and it does not remain, as no true Christian could ever believe it would, in this discreditable state of mist and uncertainty. The Schoolmen held the doctrine-not that God, as Calvin said, foredoomed some from eternity to weal and some to woe, without consideration of their characters; but that he first foresaw what each individual would

be, and so foreknew, and then and therefore foredoomed him accordingly. Now it is this doctrine which our Article directly, clearly, and strongly opposes. The schoolmen teach the predestination of individuals. The Article teaches the predestination of the whole body of the faithful, and speaks of it as of the highest comfort, as beyond all doubt it is, that God, of his infinite mercy, has foredoomed, before the foundations of the world were laid, that all who accept the Gospel covenant shall be rescued from the curse, shall have all done for them which is necessary for their salvation by the free mercy of God, and, after a life spent in his service here, shall enter into his glory hereafter. Greatcomfort indeed it is, as the Article teaches, to those who feel that they are, by God's grace, living as becomes Christians, to know that by his covenant, made before the world began, the everlasting glory of such as die in this faith is sure and certain. Having established this point, i. e. the predestination of all faithful believers by covenant, the Article goes on to warn all men against the evil which must arise from having before their eyes the sentence of predestination as respects individuals, and to show them how certainly such a course must lead them either

to carelessness in vice, or to desperation. It concludes with one of those gentle and calm displays of quiet wisdom which are the glory and blessing of our Church. Knowing how fruitless it is for man to speculate on free-will and predestination as respects individuals, and having giving its warning against the vain attempt, it reminds us that it is our duty and our wisdom (without coming to any decision on what in theory it is impossible, and in practice useless to know) to take God's promises as they are set forth to us in Scripture, by them to regulate our lives, and to leave our eternal interests in the hands of Him who loves us with a love passing the love of any earthly parent, and desires above all things to bring all his children to his home and his bosom.

The simple knowledge then of two points, (1.) Whose opinions the Articles intended to oppose, and

(2.) What these opinions were

would have saved, not only much fruitless controversy, but also much misrepresentation of the Church. It would have saved men from the error of supposing that a great Christian body, a branch of the true vine, could have thus paltered with truth and with men's consciences,

and purposely so spoken that two opposite parties could interpret its words, each in their own

sense.

I will not leave this topic without adding a single word on the remarkable men of whom I have spoken the schoolmen-and of the strange ignorance in which we live about them, although their opinions swayed Europe for centuries, and the marks of them are clear and open in the present day. Many an empty head, as has been truly said, is shaken at Aristotle and Plato, and many a literary quack affects to talk with scorn and pity of the schoolmen, whom he knows only by name. To such a pitch, indeed, is this unworthy method of dealing with great men and great schools carried, that one finds marks of it in the writings of those for whom one wishes to feel and to express respect. No one, I am sure, can read Sir James M'Intosh's History of England without a degree of pleasure and instruction, which make it most painful to find him elsewhere speaking with contempt of the schoolmen, and so speaking as to carry the most perfect moral conviction into the mind of his readers, that he was condemning unheard, that he was despising on hearsay, and passing judgment on works of which he had perhaps never

read a single page or a single line. I am less surprised to find the same condemnation of the Schoolmen in the works of an amiable but feeble man, Mr. Dugald Stewart, or of a more vigorous and powerful but impatient writer of the present day, Dr. Wardlaw. It is vain to suppose that men who speculate on unworthy topics, or speculate feebly on worthy ones, will command the attention and direct the opinions of centuries. And any acquaintance with the writings of the Schoolmen will fully establish that they are not exceptions to this general rule. We may say with truth that we dissent from much of their theology, and that we have laid aside much that was false in their philosophy. But they occupied themselves in no light or ludicrous contests. To go no farther, the great contest between the Nominalists and the Realists, which sprang up among them, comprehends, in point of fact, in itself all the great and important questions concerning the operations of the human mind, which have excited the attention and the thoughts of all metaphysicians since. Who will deny the schoolmen the praise of having discussed these subjects with a labour, a subtlety, and a comprehensive thought which have never been sur