certainly deals out to them a large measure of justice and candour, though he does not appreciate fully either their talents or their

services.

Calvin, however, as might be expected, does not fare so well in Dr Tulloch's hands. He was so thoroughly the great representative of all that Dr Tulloch seems most heartily to disapprove and dislike, viz., a distinct and definite system of theological doctrine, and a church organisation upon the model of apostolic precept and practice, that it was scarcely to be expected that the great Reformer would get justice from him. He does not, indeed, so far as we remember, make any direct attempt to depreciate Calvin's intellectual powers, But we or to dispute his right "to take high rank as a thinker.” have a strong impression that he comes far short of a just appreciation even of Calvin's mental powers and capacities. And it should not be forgotten, that it has become very much the fashion now-a-days, even among Romanists, as a matter of policy, to praise Calvin's talents. Even Audin, his latest popish biographer, who is just as thoroughly unprincipled as the champions of popery usually are, has given the appearance of something like candour to his "Life of Calvin," by strong statements about his great talents, his literary excellencies, and his commanding influence. Dr Tulloch, while he makes no direct attempt to depreciate Calvin's talents, does injustice, we think, in several respects to his general character. He says nothing, indeed, against him which has not been said often before. He just repeats what has been so frequently alleged against Calvin, his want of the more amiable and engaging qualities, his pride and coldness, his sternness and cruelty. He does not seem to appreciate the purity and elevation of the motives by which Calvin was animated, and of the objects he aimed at. He does not appear to have turned to good account the greater accessibility now-a-days of Calvin's Letters, which are so admirably fitted to counteract some of the prevailing misconceptions of his character, and to show that there was nearly as much about him to love as to admire, as much to excite affection and confidence as veneration and respect. Dr Jules Bonnet, who has done so much to make Calvin's Letters more widely known, describes, in the preface to the English translation, his letters to Farel, Viret, and Beza, as exhibiting "the overflowings of a heart filled with the deepest and most acute sensibility." It might have been supposed that no one who had really read the two volumes

of Calvin's Letters, to which this statement is prefixed, would have any doubt of its truth and accuracy. But Dr Tulloch it seems has not been able to find anything of this sort, and, accordingly, he disposes of Dr Bonnet's statement in this way*-"Overflowing of any kind is exactly what you never find in Calvin, even in his most familiar letters." We fear that Dr Tulloch must understand the word "overflowing" in a different sense from other men ; for if we had space we could easily produce plenty of extracts from his Letters, which most men, we are confident, would, without any hesitation, declare to be overflowings of the warmest and tenderest feeling, outpourings of the most hearty and cordial kindness and sympathy, and of the purest and noblest friendship. Calvin's character, intellectual, moral, and religious, has been most highly appreciated by the most competent judges; and the collection of testimonies in commendation of him and his works, published in one of the last volumes of the Calvin Translation Society, containing his Commentary on Joshua, is probably unexampled in the history of the human race. But we are not sure if a more emphatic tribute to his excellence and his power is not furnished by the hostility of which he has been the object; often breaking out into furious rancour, and frequently, even when assuming a greatly modified aspect, indicating a strong disposition to depreciate him, and to bring him down to the level of ordinary men. But we cannot dwell longer upon this topic. We must hasten to notice the position which Dr Tulloch has assumed in regard to the theology of the Reformation; and here it will be necessary in fairness to give him an opportunity of speaking for himself. His views are brought out pretty fully in the following extracts :—

"The spiritual principle is eternally divine and powerful. It is a very different thing when we turn to contemplate the dogmatic statements of Luther. So soon as Luther began to evolve his principle, and coin its living heart once more into dogma, he showed that he had not risen above the scholastic spirit which he aimed to destroy. It was truly impossible that he could do so. Not even the massive energy of Luther could pierce through those intellectual influences which had descended as a hoary heritage of ages to the sixteenth century."t

"The Reformation, in its theology, did not and could not escape the deteriorating influences of the scholastic spirit, for that spirit survived it, and lived on in strength, although in a modified form, throughout the seventeenth

century. In one important particular, indeed, the scholastic and Protestant systems of theology entirely differed: the latter began their systematising from the very opposite extreme to that of the former-from the divine and not from the human side of redemption-from God and not from man. And this is a difference on the side of truth by no means to be overlooked. Still the spirit is the same the spirit which does not hesitate to break up the divine unity of the truth in Scripture into its own logical shreds and patches, which tries to discriminate what in its moral essence is inscrutable, and to trace in distinct dogmatic moulds the operation of the divine and human wills in salvation, while the very condition of all salvation is the eternal mystery of their union in an act of mutual and inexpressible love. This spirit of ultra-definition of essential rationalism-was the corrupting inheritance of the new from the old theology; and it is difficult to say, all things considered, as we trace the melancholy history of Protestant dogmas, whether its fruits have been worse in the latter or in the former instance. The mists, it is true, have never again so utterly obscured the truth, but that dimness, covering a fairer light, almost inspires the religious heart with a deeper sadness."*

"While thus claiming for Calvinism a higher scriptural character, it would yet be too much to say that Calvinism, any more than Lutheranism, or latterly Arminianism, was primarily the result of a fresh and living study of Scripture. Calvin, no doubt, went to Scripture. He is the greatest biblical commentator, as he is the greatest biblical dogmatist, of his age; but his dogmas, for the most part were not primarily suggested by Scripture; and as to his distinguishing dogma, this is eminently the case. Like Luther, he had been trained in the scholastic philosophy, and been fed on Augustine; and it was no more possible for the one than for the other to get beyond the scholastic spirit or the Augustinian doctrine. An attentive study of the Institutes' reveals the presence of Augustine everywhere; and great even as Calvin is in exegesis, his exegesis is mainly controlled by Augustinian dogmatic theory."†

64

"This appeal to an earlier catholicity on the part of the reformed theologies-this support in Augustine-beyond doubt greatly contributed to their success in their day. For few then ventured to doubt the authority of Augustinianism, and the theological spirit of the sixteenth century hardly at any point got beyond it. It was a natural source of triumph to the great Protestant confessions against the unsettled unbelief or more superficial theologies which they encountered, that they wielded so bold and consistent a weapon of logic, and appealed so largely to an authoritative scriptural interpretation. Calvinism could not but triumph on any such modes of reasoning or of biblical exegesis as then prevailed; and so long as it continued to be merely a question of systems, and logic had it all its way, this triumph was secure.

"But now that the question is changed, and logic is no longer mistress of the field; now, when a spirit of interpreting Scripture, which could have

hardly been intelligible to Calvin, generally asserts itself—a spirit which recognises a progress in Scripture itself—a diverse literature and moral growth in its component elements, and which at once looking backward with reverence and forward with faith, has learned a new audacity, or a new modesty, as we shall call it, according to our predilections, and while it accepts withal the mysteries of life and of death, refuses to submit them arbitrarily to the dictation of any mere logical principle; now that the whole sphere of religious credence is differently apprehended, and the provinces of faith and of logical deduction are recognised as not merely incommensurate, but as radically distinguished the whole case as to the triumphant position of Calvinism, or indeed any other theological system, is altered. An able writer in our day (Mansel, in his Bampton Lectures), has shown with convincing power what are the inevitably contradictory results of carrying the reasoning faculty with determining sway into the department of religious truth. The conclusions of that writer, sufficiently crushing as directed by him against all rationalistic systems, are to the full as conclusive against the competency of all theological systems whatever. The weapon of logical destructiveness which he has used with such energy, is a weapon of offence really against all religious dogmatism. What between the torture of criticism, and the slow but sure advance of moral idea, this dogmatism is losing all hold of the most living and earnest intelligence everywhere. And it seems no longer possible, under any new polemic form, to revive it. Men are weary of heterodoxy and of orthodoxy alike, and of the former in any arbitrary and dogmatic shape still more intolerably than the latter. The old Institutio Christianæ Religionis no longer satisfies, and a new Institutio can never replace it. A second Calvin in theology is impossible. Men thirst not less for spiritual truth, but they no longer believe in the capacity of system to embrace and contain that truth, as in a reservoir, for successive generations. They must seek for it themselves afresh in the pages of Scripture, and the ever-dawning light of spiritual life, or they will simply neglect and put it past as an old story."*

These extracts fully justify the statements we have made in regard to the scope and tendency of this book, and in commenting upon them in order to show this, we shall speak of the theology of the Reformation and Calvinism as substantially identical, not meaning by Calvinism the personal opinions of Calvin, but the leading features of the Calvinistic system of theology, as distinguished from the Arminian and Socinian systems. In this sense Calvinism may be fairly called the theology of the Reformation, as it was certainly, though with different degrees of accuracy and fulness, maintained by the great body of the Reformers, and professed in most of the Confessions of the Reformed churches. We

* Pp. 167-9.

never hesitate to call ourselves Calvinists, though there are some of Calvin's opinions which we reckon erroneous; and in adopting this designation, we mean simply to convey the idea that we are firmly persuaded that the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system of theology, as generally set forth in the symbolical books of churches usually reckoned Calvinistic, are taught, and can be proved to be taught, in Scripture, as the revealed truth of God. And here a practical difficulty at once arises in dealing with Dr Tulloch. If we were to judge of him solely from the statements contained in this book, we would have little hesitation in saying, that he is not a Calvinist, in the sense above explained. But of course we are aware that he has, like ourselves, subscribed a Calvinistic creed, and that he holds an office, the chief duty of which may be said to be to expound this creed. We have, therefore, scarcely a right to say that he is not a Calvinist, unless he had said so more explicitly, perhaps, than he has done. And in anything we may say bearing on this point, we wish it to be understood that we make no categorical assertion as to what Dr Tulloch's theological opinions in point of fact are, and that we intend merely to set forth what seem to us to be the scope and tendency of the views indicated in this book. With this explanation, we have no hesitation in saying that we are unable to comprehend how any intelligent Calvinist could have published the statements we have quoted; and that they are plainly fitted to lead to the conclusion that the author has renounced, if he ever held, the theology of the Reformation. It is a significant fact, that Dr Tulloch, though a professor of theology, has not, from the beginning to the end of his book, given any distinct indication that he is a Calvinist, or made any profession of regarding the Reformers as having succeeded in the main in bringing out God's truth from His word. There are several statements which look like a profession of Calvinism, but which, when carefully examined, are clearly seen to come short of this. But we are not confined to negative materials. We are plainly told that Calvinism once triumphed, but that this triumph was temporary, and is long since over, that no theological system can now occupy a triumphant position, since we have at last reached a demonstration of the incompetency of all theological systems whatever.

Dr Tulloch's position is pretty distinctly indicated in the somewhat enigmatical deliverance, "The old 'Institutio Christianæ Reli