agent, and as such declared to him the testimony of God; so did Calvin.

Tell it not to the world, lest the uncircumcised triumph, that such has been or is the course pursued by any who have professedly enlisted under the standard of the cross. But tell it we must, lest the unsuspecting, ensnared in their wiles, think themselves safe till their error is without remedy.

In view of evidence, we are compelled to believe that Arminius was subtle and ambitious; that he perverted revealed truth to sustain a false philosophy. That his system of theology is a plausible opposition to the doctrines of grace, and leads to a doubtful religious experience. Do any of similar characteristics covet a fame like his? They may justly calculate upon the most flattering success. But success in such an enterprise be it remembered ensures the decline of sound philosophy, evangelical preaching, and spiritual religion.

ART. III. CHARACTER OF JOHN CALVIN.

EARLY in the sixteenth century, Luther and Zwingle, the first reformers threw off the impositions of Rome, and multitudes gathered around the standard of the cross. But every thing remained for a time unsettled. There was still wanting some common bond of union in doctrine and discipline. To supply this deficiency seems to have been a leading object with the great Head of the church in raising up John Calvin. He was born at Noyou, in France, in 1509. From childhood he gave evidence of uncommon powers of mind. Possessing an intellect clear and comprehensive, a memory quick and retentive, he greatly excelled the companions of his early studies; and soon became master of mathematics, philosophy, and the learned languages. And he is generally acknowledged to have written the Latin with the ease and elegance of the Augustan age.

Being remarkably serious, his father early devoted him to the service of the Catholic church. Seeing, however, that his talents gave promise of great distinction, he selected

for him the profession of the law, which then secured the highest honors. But he, having embraced the doctrines of the reformers, chose rather to suffer affliction with the few choice spirits who were striving to restore religion_to its purity, than to enjoy all the preferments which Europe could bestow. Foreseeing the storm which threatened to burst upon the reformed in the progress of the new principles, he endeavored to prepare the mind of Francis I. the sovereign of his country for such an event, by publishing and dedicating to him an elaborate commentary upon Seneca's treatise concerning clemency, a work which gained him the reputation of being, at the age of only twenty-two, the most learned man of Europe.

Viewed in any of the eventful scenes upon which he had now entered, whether as discharging the duties of a preacher, pastor and professor of Theology, or employed as a writer, disputant or adviser, he exhibited the highest order of talents. He always obtained among his fellow-laborers an easy and dignified superiority.

What keenness of discrimination does he show in detecting the hypocritical and wicked plans of the intriguing Charles and the courtly and bigoted Francis. What power of eloquence in encouraging the pious, writing down the turbulent, and forcing the Papist and infidel to surrender or retire from controversy. What wisdom was that which attracted religious statesmen and sovereigns to wait for the counsel of his lips.

With these talents he combined moral and religious excellence no less remarkable. Natural modesty joined with unfeigned distrust of himself, caused him to shrink from the public gaze, and seek the retirement of study. With what reluctance did he assume the responsible office of pastor and professor at Geneva. He came only in obedience to the voice of imperious duty: but it was in the strength of the Lord, and to labor with unremitting faithfulness and zeal. With true Christian prudence he retired from persecution to an adjoining country, when his sufferings could not subserve the cause of Christ. But when the interests of his kingdom demanded it, he returned to breast the storm in all its fury.

While the hearts of others failed for fear of the dangers which hung over them and the church of God, his faith remained firm and his purpose unshaken. Being cast out from

his charge by the Syndics of the city for Christian faithfulness, he said: “ Had I been in the service of men this would have been a poor reward; but it is well I have served him who never fails to repay his servants whatever he has promised."-While the fires of persecution were bursting out in every part of France, he stood unmoved amidst the scene, and by affectionate letters poured consolation into the hearts of those who were thrown into prison for the testimony of Jesus. The Albigenses and all the faithful found sympathy and protection in him under their sufferings.

But his love of truth exceeded his love of friends. How often did he hazard the friendship of Luther, Melancthon, Caroli, and other associates, rather than suffer their errors to remain unreproved. Ever conciliatory and willing to yield minor points for the peace of the church, yet when the doctrines of the Bible were assailed, he was unflinching in their defence. From the history of the church as well as from the Bible he had learned that they are essential to the prosperity of true religion. Rather than surrender them to enemies and temporizing friends, he would give up his life. It was his love of truth which occasioned the treatment of Servetus, for which he has been much calumniated.

True, Calvin caused him to be apprehended, but it was in obedience to the laws of Geneva, and not for the sake of condemning, but of bringing him to repentance. After a full and impartial trial which proved him to be utterly incorrigible by every moral means, he was condemned to be burnt alive. Calvin tried, but in vain, to have this punishment commuted for one less severe. The sentence was executed and approved by the reformed church without a dissenting voice for half a century. We ask then, even allowing this conduct to be unjust, ought not Calvin to stand acquitted or be condemned with the other reformers? His intolerance was the fault of the age, and instead of bestowing unmeasured censure because he did not entirely emerge from darkness, ought we not to be grateful that in most respects he excelled both his contemporaries and successors?

Another trait nearly allied to the love of truth was his honesty and frankness. Conscious of moral integrity and fully satisfied that his sentiments were those of the Bible, he had no motive for concealment. But on every proper occasion he avowed his belief without reserve or equivocation. He declared it to be unlawful for any Christian to appear

to assent to those doctrines which he in his heart condemns. Rather than do it himself under any pretext, he often chose to be deprived of worldly emolument and subjected to poverty and affliction. Does not this show that dissimulation was repugnant to his heart and foreign from his practice? By these intellectual and moral qualifications, he was peculiarly fitted to explain and defend divine truth.

Disavowing all authority but that of the Scriptures, he investigates with that spirit of free enquiry and independence which is essential to the excellence of the commentator. Superior to all considerations of a party nature, he is not afraid to meet the real sense of any passage, but is truly liberal in his exposition. His own commentaries are characterized by elegance and simplicity of style, the unostentatious results of profound investigations and deep-toned piety. Forsaking the polluted streams of scholastic theology he derived his system of doctrines directly from the fountain of truth. When he was convinced therefore that a doctrine is found in the word of God, his mind revolted not from its mysterious sublimity. His faith staggered not at the declarations (that God hates sin and yet does all his pleasure), (that he exists in three persons and in one essence), that his decrees extend to every event and creature, and yet that moral beings are free and accountable.* These things he believed though utterly unable to comprehend how they can be. In respect to this he distinguished between the providential and the moral government of God, between his purposes which are the rule of his own conduct and the moral law which is the rule of ours. Concerning such mysteries he had like Augustine of a former, and Edwards of a later age, ascertained the limits of safe enquiry. He avoided that double labyrinth, where speculative minds have been lost in infidelity or fatalism. He distrusted specious theories invented by erratic genius or called up from the grave of refuted errors. He well knew that the progress of heresy is from moderate suggestions to bold impieties. Rejecting the claims of philosophy, so called, he presents truth in his Christian institutes in the relative proportions which it holds in the sacred volume. He makes

*That man is by nature depraved, yet that he is responsible for his sins-that he is every moment under obligations to repent, yet that he never will repent until regenerated by the Holy Ghost according to the eternal election of God.

the doctrine of the cross the centre, the key stone of the whole system; the source of the motives and obligations by which he abases man and exalts God. For he regarded religious truths, not as cold speculations, but vital principles, to be exemplified by active obedience. For this end, discipline must be exercised under some form of polity. He rejected the papal hierarchy as utterly destitute of gospel simplicity, and formed the system of Presbyterianism, which whether more consonant to the genius of Christianity and primitive usage than any other system or not, must be acknowledged to be happily suited to the state of Geneva, France, and other European countries where it was established. While it held close the reins of government, it did not annihilate individual responsibility. The churches increased in purity and strength under its influence, with unparalleled rapidity.

Such was John Calvin, who run his race like a strong man armed, and sunk to rest in the fifty-fifth year of his age, every where lamented by the friends of religion and humanity; for distant countries, as well as those within the sphere of his personal labors, mourned their irreparable loss. He had revived sound learning in their institutions, and lighted up the flame of pure religion at their altars. He had assisted in diffusing a knowledge of science and literature through all classes of society, and imparted a resistless impulse to the spirit of civil and religious liberty. What a debt of gratitude do we owe to him, the benign influence of whose writings is still felt in every literary, civil and religious institution of Christendom!

We rejoice that his claims are so extensively acknowledged, and that the Lutheran and other churches are showing their love to the truth by reviving the study of his works.

That he was faultless we do not pretend. But that sound learning and true liberty often have a more efficient advocate, and evangelical truth, a more valiant champion, we do not believe. What if the shafts of obloquy are levelled at him still? Ignorance of his character and hatred of his doctrines may keep alive a strong prejudice against his name. But while talent, and learning, piety, and Scriptural theology are esteemed in the church, she will bless her adorable Lord for raising up the Genevan Reformer.

L.