communicating instruction, so much as in mental and moral training. The training system, so ably advocated by Mr Stowe of Glasgow, and so well followed out in our normal institutions, has introduced a new era in the history of education. And it is striking to observe how admirably the improvements of the age are found to tally with the institutions of Christianity. The gospel does not adapt itself to them, but they are found, in the course of time, to adapt themselves to the gospel. Infant baptism points, and has always pointed, to infant training. The religion of heaven has been always urging on man its obligation and its importance. It is long since it said, "Train up a child in the way in which he ought to go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." It is long since it was said of Timothy, that "from a child he had known the Holy Scriptures." This training is, in fact, the basis of all sound and salutary learning. Without it, the child may grow up a monster in vice, before he reach maturity in age. Christian parents have always aimed at carrying out this into practice; and the effects have been visible in the wide difference between the children of godly and virtuous parents and the neglected children of our streets. But, after all that has been done by parents, or by Sabbath schools and ragged schools, to supply the neglect of a vicious parentage, much still remains to be done. It is impossible to lay down rules on this subject; much must be left, as Mr Stowe shows in his excellent treatise, to the discretion of the mother, who must be guided by circumstances, and by the natural dispositions of the child. In truth, the functions of maternal solicitude, imposed by infant baptism, have perhaps never yet been fully appreciated. Too many neglect them entirely; others begin them too late; while, in numerous cases, the child is ruined for life by foolish indulgence or cruel severity.

The

But be this as it may, our argument stands unshaken that the child is a disciple of Christ, and capable, from its earliest years, of "godly upbringing." It is vain, therefore, to speak of the incapacity of the child, or to taunt us with the inefficiency and unmeaningness of "infant sprinkling." ordinance is rich with meaning which has not yet been fully understood; the child is susceptible of advantages which have never yet been half realized. Those who deny that infants can be regarded in any sense as members of the kingdom of heaven, or be treated as such, are bound to prove the contrary, if they can-bound to show us when and how long they consider the child unfit to be admitted into the school of Christ.

It might be shown, in conclusion, that infant baptism is as accordant with the dictates of nature as it is with the doctrine of inspiration, or with the improvements of the age. It responds to the best and strongest affections in the heart of man-love to his offspring. It stamps the child as an immortal being, capable of regenerating grace, and of eternal glory. Baptism, indeed, does not of itself, as administered to the infant any more than to the adult, confer that grace or secure that glory; but to believing parents, it is the type of the one and the earnest of the other. To them, when meditating on the sad truth, that their child was " shapen in iniquity,” it is no small consolation to know that such grace has been promised for its recovery; and in the event of its being torn from their arms by the hand of death, to think that it had received theseal of that covenant, the

1

sum of which still is, "I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed." To them it must be gratifying in the highest degree to know, that as circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers," as it was not a ceremonial but a patriarchal institute, belonging to that covenant which was made with faithful Abraham, and " which the law could not disannul, so as to render the promise of none effect;" so baptism, which is a seal of the same covenant, assures the Christian believer that "the promise is to him and to his children." And then, what a blessed thought is it to the Christian mother, that "the child whom God hath given her," or whom it may have pleased him to take away, was actually and truly a❝ disciple of the Lord," having not only been dedicated to him in his own ordinance, and enrolled in his school as one of the "little ones" whom, on their admission, he" takes up in his arms, lays his hand on them, and blesses them;" but that her little one has, in fact, received lessons in that school, having from his birth been "brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Would she deny her poor child the privilege which he cannot plead for himself, but which Christ pleads in his behalf, saying: "Suffer thy little child to come unto me, and forbid him not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven?" Would she shrink from erasing his name from her own testament, and yet keep it out of Christ's testament? No; the mother's heart is not made of such stern stuff. The theory of infant-repudiation is as unnatural as it is unevangelical. It would shut out the mother from all those hopes and consolations of which Christian baptism is the proper pledge, forbidding her to bring her babe as a disciple to Christ, and coldly telling her to wait till some indefinite period, when it may please the Church to pronounce it an adult! Good people may try to get over this natural feeling, and endeavour to compensate for the absence of the holy rite, by a more than ordinary attention to the child whom the Church refuses to recognise as a member; but nature has sometimes taken her revenge on those who, by adopting this principle, have sinned against her laws, and those of heaven. The case of the Baptist converts of Jamaica affords an illustration. Without any other prompter than the parental heart, opened and instructed by the Christian religion, they were not contented with receiving baptism for themselves, but brought their children in their arms and pled that they also might be baptized, and thus acknowledged as the lambs of the flock. This action reminds us of what the primitive converts would naturally do, especially the Jewish converts, who had always been accustomed to have their children "accounted holy," and enrolled in the Church of their fathers. And we may easily conceive what course the apostles would follow; they would unquestionably have "baptized them and all theirs straight way." The Baptist pastors of Jamaica, however, acted a different part. They tried to stave them off, rebuked them, taunted them, threatened them; but all would not do. Nature was hard tugging at the heart-strings; and the infant-repudiators found themselves at last obliged to find some substitute for baptism. They agreed that the parents might bring their children before them, and went through the ceremony of laying their hands upon them and blessing them !*

The curious facts stated above were brought out in a pamphlet lately published, by the Rev. Mr Blyth, missionary in Jamaica.

Let Christian parents, who are admitted to the | privilege of baptism for their children, lay this matter seriously to heart. Let them remember that Christian privileges involve corresponding obligations and responsibilities. "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of the youth." Let them remember that the morals of the child as well as its mind, depend greatly on them for their formation; that its soul as well as its body has been intrusted to their keeping; and that for its future destiny they must be held, in a vast measure, responsible to God. Baptism is the sacred link of that responsibility; while to the child himself, it stands as the perpetual memento of his " engagement to be the Lord's," and renders him also responsible for the manner in which he fulfils it. The duties of the bond may be neglected, but the link can never be broken; and eternity alone can witness the momentous results of Christian baptism.

QUESTION OF PROVISION FOR LABOUR.

(From a Foreign Journal.)

THE questions relative to our manners and institutions now discussed in France, are so important, they occupy so large a space in public opinion, and may produce such effects that, though I have lately spoken of them in my correspondence, they deserve further consideration.

Every revolution has its motto expressing the general voice. Sometimes a nation awakes at the cry of national independence, and this common sentiment makes them perform prodigies of valour. Sometimes the need of some political reform impels them to take up arms. Again, the exciting cause is hatred against a dynasty, or against a privileged class. In 1789, for example, France proposed especially to break the yoke of the nobles and the priests; the cry was-War upon lordly mansions! war upon convents! At present, nothing of this. The watch-word now is-Provision for labour ! This phrase is constantly repeated in the official documents of the new government, in journals and pamphlets in the addresses of candidates for the National Assembly, in short-everywhere-by everybody.

"Provision for labour!" says the man who seeks popularity. "Provision for labour!" says the ambitious man, in order to secure the votes of his fellowcitizens. Provision for labour!" cries the newspaper editor, to gain the ear of his subscribers. "Provision for labour!" repeats the poor labourer with a triumphant air. It seems as if these words contained the secret of our destiny, and were endowed with magic power. With provision for labour, all men will live in peace and joy. Provision for labour will render us flourishing, contented, happy: it will make earth a paradise!

Mark how indefinite is the meaning of the words. What is, indeed, provision for labour? In what consists this wonderful cure-all? Nobody knows. Ask in turn the statesman and the common

citizen, the labourer and the man of learning: they cannot tell. Each man has a different opinion, or perhaps none at all. But no matter. The more mysterious the expression, the more it is cherished by the common mind. Obscurity adds to its importance, and it would be dangerous at this time in

France to pronounce provision for labour a visionary scheme.

Let us try to throw a little light upon this subject, if possible, and let us consider whether the plans proposed hitherto can lead to useful results.

First of all, it must be admitted that the state of our lower classes is very miserable, and deserves the deepest sympathy. A reader in the United States can hardly form a correct idea of the debasement and degradation in which the mass of our labouring people are sunk. M. Michael Chevalier says, in his "Letters upon America," that the food, lodging, clothing, and even the discourse of labourers, in the United States, is incomparably superior to what exists in Europe, for the same classes of persons.

Bring before you, then, millions of human beings in Paris, Lyons, Malhouse, Rouen, who, by excessive and exhausting fatigue, hardly gain the necessaries of life. Most of them must spend twelve to fifteen hours a-day in unhealthy workshops. They are clothed in rags. They live in damp unwholesome houses. They have almost no education. They are obliged to send their wives and children to factories, because the wages of their father are insufficient. They have but a scanty nourishment: little meat; no coffee nor sugar. When they fall sick, or are out of work, they even lack bread. Under the influence of this bad living, the population degenerates; men of middle age are bowed down like old men. Many die in youth. Thus, body and mind, physical constitution and intellect, all suffer.

Truly, this condition is more wretched than can be expressed. For these poor creatures are our kindred. They have the same faculties, the same rights as ourselves. They have claims to a share of earthly good; and yet, they are disinherited almost entirely, and from the cradle to the grave drag out a

painful existence! Poverty becomes hereditary among them; it is the sad patrimony which the father leaves to his children. Privations, ignorance, degradation of soul, a joyless infancy, a helpless old age-what a lot!

It may readily be conceived, then, that the humane have anxiously desired to elevate the condition of labourers. What Christian, what charitable man, does not ask with sorrow, if there is no means of amending the moral, intellectual, and physical condition of so many unhappy persons? Would God we could find an effectual remedy! It would be a duty to point it out-to apply it immediately. But I fear that what has been devised hitherto serves only to aggravate the burden which it is designed to relieve.

After the Revolution of last February, one of the first laws published by the provisional government secures to all Frenchmen the right to labour: the meaning of which is, that the State shall furnish employment to those who need it. This is very well. The healthy man who wishes to employ his strength ought to be in a situation to do so. But to proclaim unqualifiedly the right to labour, is to come under an obligation which it will be impossible always to fulfil. Take, for example, an idle, dissolute, immoral labourer; he has been successively shut out of all the workshops on account of his vices; he takes no pains to gain an honest livelihood. This labourer, being without employment, turns to the government and says: "Give me work, furnish me means of subsistence; for you proclaim the right to labour!" Is it not plain that such a man will not

earn, unless he alter his habits, the wages he is paid, and that he thus becomes a burden upon the public treasury? The consequence is inevitable: steady and active labourers must make sacrifices for the idle and dissolute. This right to labour holds out a premium in favour of the intemperate and knaves.

But this is not all. When the people became masters of Paris and of France, they asked for two things: 1st, higher wages; 2d, diminution of the hours of day-labour. They grounded their demands on these considerations, namely, that the present wages were not sufficient, and that they needed more time to cultivate their minds. These were good enough reasons; but look at the consequences. A diminution of labour and an increase of wages, enhance the expense of production. Hence the manufacturers, whose calculations are based on the former order of things, see that they must suffer a loss. So what do they do, but close their factories; and now the labourers will get no salary, great or small: they earn nothing. This was foreseen. How can you force a manfacturer to keep his establishment open, when he is lessening instead of increasing his wealth? Can the law oblige a citizen to ruin himself? There are now in Paris, Lyons, and elsewhere, thousands of workmen out of employment.

True, the State comes to their aid, to execute the law for providing labour. It establishes national workshops. But what follows? The expense is enormous, while the products are little or nothing. All these labourers, not accustomed to work, poorly acquit themselves in their new occupation. They are dissatisfied, and spend more time in talking in clubs, than in trundling wheelbarrows, or carting stones. The treasury is in debt; taxes are increased, and public confidence is destroyed. How can such an unnatural state of things last?

A new plan of providing for labour has been proposed by M. Louis Blanc. I will try to explain it clearly and briefly.

M. Blanc asks that the government be considered as the great regulator of the products of labour. Let them make a loan to erect social workshops. Let the State become the chief manufacturer in the country. What is now performed by the enterprise of private persons should be done by the government. Let them have large shops for manufacturing cotton, silk, linen, hemp, flax, and iron. Let them monopolize gradually all private labour, so that after a while, they may remain sole possessor of all the nation's earnings.

Let the workmen receive at first the lowest wages; then allow them a part in the profits, a yearly account of which should be kept. Besides, let a certain amount be laid by for the support of the aged, the sick, the infirm, and to meet times of stagnation in business.

This plan is fine in theory; but is it practicable? and if it were executed, would it not be the restoration, under another name, of the slavery of ancient times? Where is the government capable of undertaking so vast a task? What! the government to be cotton-spinner, silk-weaver, manufacturer of woollen goods, owner of buildings !-to be carpenter, joiner, mason, glazier, hatter, shoemaker, tailor, blacksmith, and the whole list of trades! The State to carry on all the commerce; to keep all the shops; to direct the whole business of thirty-five millions of men; to be the only merchant, the only proprietor of

all manufactories and all machines and instruments of labour! How visionary! Never would a government, if it had the least good sense, consent to take upon itself so heavy a burden; for it would be sure to succumb under it in a fortnight.

And then, supposing that the national workshops had absorbed all, what would become of individual liberty? Every man would be constrained to enter these vast laboratories, and to take the kind of employment which was assigned him. No choicenothing voluntary. You desire to engage in some special enterprise! No, you are not allowed to do so; the State forbids you; it has a monopoly of all public and private business! Your disposition leads you to labour alone at home! No, this is forbidden; you must enter the public workshops of M. Louis Blanc ! You are fitted for one kind of occupation rather than another! So much the worse for you, if this occupation happen to be supplied already with a sufficient number of labourers; you are required, in the name of the State, to do work which is irksome to you! You ask for larger pay! No, you will not get it; the government determines the amount of wages, and if you are not satisfied, you may starve! In this system, man would be a mere machine.

The ancient Pharaohs in building the pyramids, ordered all the people to engage in this labour. One made bricks; another brought straw; a third put his hand to construct the walls; a fourth wrought the iron-work, and so on. It was an immense herd of slaves, subjected to one will, obeying one impulse; they could do nothing by themselves, and they received the wages which their master was pleased to give them; often they obtained only a few onions, with plenty of stripes of the rod, if they dared to complain. I believe that Mehemet Ali, the present viceroy of Egypt, practises still this admirable system; all the inhabitants of the country plant and gather cotton for his use. If it suits the viceroy to dig a canal or drain a marsh, he collects a hundred or two hundred thousand men at his pleasure, and orders them to remain there till the work is done. Such, if I mistake not, is M. Louis Blanc's plan! His social or national workshops will be prisons where each will perform involuntary labour? Our age talks much of progress; but this would be a strange progress, to go back to the time of the Pharaohs, or to copy the brutal despotism of a Mussulman pasha ! M. Blanc decries vehemently the free competition of labour. Competition," he says, "is the scourge of society. Competition produces hostility, war, the ruin of the weak and feeble. Manufacturers try to supplant, to crush one another. All means are good with them to surpass their rivals; they use deceit and fraud towards purchasers. Let us have no competition!" These philippics are partly true. We admit readily that the strife between manufacturers has some inconveniences. But competition, after all, is the soul of labour; to it we owe the superior quality and cheapness of all manufactured and agricultural products. Take away free competition, and you immediately produce a state of inactivity and torpor. Rivalry is necessary to sharpen the intellect to exercise all the human faculties.

66

If the State had the exclusive monopoly of national products, what should we soon see? A dull round of labour, wretched sloth, no effort at invention; articles held at a high price, and consequently a diminished consumption, and lastly death to industry. Leave all, then, at liberty! This course has its evils, no doubt;

but it has also its advantages, and the good is more than the evil. Be not like the rash physician, who gives to a person sick with fever, medicine which puts him in his grave! The fever is bad, but death is worse.

Formerly there were corporations which kept all trades under a jealous watch. Strict rules determined the number of labourers in each business, and the processes they must adopt. What was the result? History tells us; all branches of industry withered, and the revolution of 1789 broke these odious fetters amidst the applause of the nation. But now, it is proposed to establish these corporations under another name! Is mankind, then, condemned to imitate the unprofitable labour of Penelope, who undid at night what she did in the daytime?

Another strange idea of M. Louis Blanc consists in establishing perfect equality of wages for all labourers, and even for the superintendents and directors of the national workshops. Be intelligent or stupid, diligent or slothful, active or indolent: no matter; you will receive at night precisely the same sum of money for your time. Here is a workman who has done just twice or thrice as much work as another. I care not, says M. Blanc; he shall not receive a cent more! Equality, absolute equality of wages for all! Overseers, sub-directors even, shall not be paid more than the humblest workman! Such is our system!

Apply this, for example, to the publication of a journal. There are in this business various kinds of persons employed: a chief editor, a sub-editor: then translators, copyists, clerks; then printers and pressmen; lastly, persons to fold and direct the paper, carriers, &c. Well, according to M. Blanc, all, all without exception, should have the same wages. The editor, who is supposed to be a man of superior capacity and intelligence, and of unwearied industry, must be paid the same amount as the newspaper

carrier !

Apply it to the government of a State. Suppose the president of our French Republic, to receive the same salary as the commonest day labourer, to live in one of the numbered chambers of a great common building and when meditating upon state affairs, to have around him, like the labourer, kitchen utensils, and to hear the children's cries! To state such a plan is to refute it.

M. Blanc claims that his theory is accordant with the principles of justice and equality. But this pretended justice would be real injustice, and tis equality inequality. Ought not the man who makes most efforts to unfold his intellectual faculties to be best rewarded the man who renders his country important services to be more largely compensated than he who renders hardly any? the labourer who works with skill and diligence, than the unskilful and indolent? Under pretence of treating men alike, M. Louis Blanc would commit the grossest injustice. He would rob some for the benefit of others, and, as I have already said, the good for the benefit of the bad. He would have in the social workshops a herd of idlers who, being sure of having always the same wages, would live at the expense of their companions. This would be fine, indeed, and very honest!

To these objections, M. Louis Blanc replies, that the sentiment of honour, the principles of conscience, self-devotedness, and brotherly feeling, would reign in the new order of things. He cites the examples of Cincinnatus, of Cato, of the martyrs. But does he

not see that these are exceptions,which would be folly to expect the mass of men to imitate! Give us first religious faith, the hopes of martyrs, and then reckon on our self-denial. But with men as they are by nature, do not forget that personal interest is the first, the strongest of all motives. Reward well him who works well; and let him suffer privations who works little or not at all; this is the law of common sense. The motive to duty is the highest principle of action, no doubt; cherish this motive; only remember that in common life most men are governed by self-interest. The human heart is so made, and M. Louis Blanc can not change it.

Is there, then, no amendment to be made in the condition of the labouring classes? and must we confess our utter impotence in view of so great wretchedness? I do not say this; I believe that progress is the law of man, and that successive generations ought to acquire gradually more physical happiness and more intelligence. Though the state of our labourers is yet very wretched, it is much better than that of the slaves of the ancients, or than the serfs in the dark ages. Our fathers have advanced some steps, and we are called in our turn to walk in this difficult path. But let us not expect to gain all at He who runs too fast risks falling. The progress, the true progress of mankind, is slow: it is not the affair of a day: it is the work of ages.

once.

The best remedy for the evils of the people is that which is least discussed in the socialist systems, namely, the religious and moral elevation of men. Propagate the truths of the gospel among the labourers; announce to them God the Saviour; turn their thoughts to invisible things, to the happiness of heaven; try, with the blessing of the Lord, to convert them to the faith, to the life of Christianity: you will at once produce a sensible amendment even in their physical condition. For such labourers will be temperate; they will have regular habits of business; they will be foresighted, economical, industrious; they will provide a good education for their families. "Godliness is profitable for all things," says Paul, "having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (1 Tim. iv. 8.)

The

Besides direct evangelization, there are good means to take to render the lot of the lower classes more tolerable. Thus, let schools be multiplied for children and for adults; and disseminate everywhere books proper to enlighten the mind and awaken the conscience. The growing instruction of the people will be the most solid security for social elevation. Lessen, too, the taxes which weigh directly upon the labourers, and increase the taxes upon the rich. A wise system of public taxes is indispensable to the repose and prosperity of France. The government of Louis Philippe made many foolish expenditures, and this was one of the chief causes of his fall. aged ought to be received into asylums built at the expense of the State; so with orphans and invalids; for it is right that the nation give bread to those who can no longer earn it. Perhaps it would be possible, too, to allow to the best labourers, a small share in the profits of the business in which they are engaged; thus they would be interested to execute faithfully the work which is confided to them. Lastly, what is especially important to the welfare of the people, is the increase of capital, or public wealth; for the richer a nation is, the more each one's portion is enlarged. But this increase of national riches requires order, credit, the return of confidence, liberty of

trade, security of persons and of property; and, unhappily in all these respects, the late revolution has produced disastrous effects. Our country has suffered great losses since last February. The most opulent banking houses have suspended payment, manufac turers have one after another closed their business, commerce languishes more and more; you would say that industry was suddenly arrested, and that we are on the brink of a precipice! It is plain that, in this destruction of national wealth, the labourers have more to suffer than ever.

It is not the dreams of M. Louis Blanc which will save us. It would be better to make less magnificent promises to the labourers, and it is well to repeat to them often these words of the illustrious Franklin: "If any one tells you that you can grow rich other wise than by labour and economy, do not listen to him; he deceives you."

DID CALVIN CHANGE HIS RELIGIOUS
VIEWS ON HIS DEATH-BED?

TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREE CHURCH MAGAZINE.

SIR, A correspondent, who is thrown a good deal into the society of the semi-Pelagians of the day, writes me, in connexion with the little work which I recently published on "The Old Orthodox Faith Superior to Modern Opinions," that a very common refuge of the party, when pushed in conversation with Calvinistic, or rather scriptural, doctrine on the atonement of Christ, is, that the reformer changed his views on these points on his death-bed, and passed over to the camp of universal redemption. He adds, that this plea has been repeatedly published in the writings of the party.

Though the very novelty of the allegation might almost excuse one giving heed to it-constituting itself an evidence against it—yet, considering what is due to the memory of one of the noblest champions of the truth of God who ever lived, the importance of the doctrine which is at stake, both in its direct and indirect bearings, and the absence of opportu nity on the part of many who are assailed with error to investigate and satisfy themselves, we have thought that it would not be unsuitable shortly to examine the point-that in doing so we might be rendering some little service to the cause of truth-might be confirming, even where we could not hope to reclaim.

I presume it is not needful to apprize the reader that though I thus step forward to vindicate the memory of Calvin, I do not receive the orthodox faith in any of its parts on his authority; I rest on a stronger, even a divine foundation. At the same time, I attach a high importance to his judgment as an interpreter of Scripture. And when his authority is pleaded against a Scripture doctrine, I deem it not only fair, but of some consequence, to be able to show that that pleading is mistaken and misplaced.

It may be noticed, as a general presumption against the charge of doctrinal change attributed to the reformer of Geneva, that, like his leading brethren of the Reformation, he was the object of innumerable imputations, altogether unfounded. The Church of Rome felt his weight, and knew no better way of weakening his influence, and that of the cause which he so powerfully advocated, than by starting a multitude of charges disparaging to his character and

consistency. Even Roman Catholics are now constrained to smile at not a few of these allegations. The infidel Bayle represents them as utterly disgraceful. Strange, that semi-Pelagians should be driven to their tactics, and should begin to start charges hitherto unknown.

Nothing could be more unfortunate than the imputations of Popery. She seemed to rejoice in the most desperate contraries. According to Popish adversaries, Calvin was chargeable with some horrible crime; the fact was, that he was noted, and complained of for the sternness of his moral principle. They accused him of ambition; the truth was, that he condescended to the humblest member of the flock, and was ambitious only as the apostles of Christ were ambitious-the leader of others in a great movement. They alleged that he was addicted to the pleasures of the table; the fact was, that he had not dined for ten years together. They said that he was avaricious-amassing wealth; the fact was, he was noted for his disinterestedness. His salary was only a hundred crowns; his whole property, including his books, did not exceed three hundred. They asserted that he died a shocking death, indicative of divine judgment, and that he was buried in a hurry to hide a spectacle of horror; the truth was, that he died calmly and serenely in his bed, amid the utterances of the most elevated devotion, and that an early interment was occasioned by the earnest curiosity of all classes, high and low, to gaze on the countenance of the divine of the Reformation and the patriot of Geneva; and by the anxiety of surviving friends to follow out his own wishes to avoid idle show and magnificence, and all approach to creature idolatry. Ïf opponents have been so miserably at fault in all these general charges against Calvin, is it likely that they will be right in the present instance? Is the presumption not rather a probable one, that this is of a piece with all the falsehoods which have gone before? It is almost incredible what reports were circulated to the disadvantage of the reformer. An account of the death of Luther under visible tokens of divine judgment was printed and circulated in Italy a year before his death! Having reached the reformer, he republished it with a preface, of which the following is the first sentence: I, Doctor Martin Luther, testify under my hand, that I have received this extravagant fiction, this 21st day of March, and read it with great pleasure-except for the abominable lies against the Divine Majesty which it contains." It is no matter of wonder, therefore, to meet with varied charges against the reformer. In this respect the servant is but treading in the footsteps of the Master, and of fellow-servants in earlier times.

But passing from general presumptions, let us notice a few points in regard to the particular charge now preferred against Calvin. Of course, the parties who allege that there was change of doctrinal sentiment, do not view it in the light of an accusation— they rejoice in it as a happiness-they account it a coming to the truth; but supposing it to be false, the reformer would have regarded it himself as an injurious accusation, and there is no doubt that it is fitted to weaken his influence with posterity. A decided change on an important article of a man's creed at the very close of life, after powerfully maintaining the contrary through a life time, naturally shakes general confidence, and awakens the imputation of vacillation-if it do not expose to the charge of inconsis tency and apostasy. The allegation, then, under dis