cussion is a serious one, Doubtless, this is the light in which it would have been viewed by Calvin. In disproof,

1. We observe that none of his contemporaries, foes or friends, so far as we have been able to discover, ever breathed the charge. It is well known, that through life and after death he was surrounded by a crowd of enemies-that a multitude of accusations of all kinds, even the most improbable, were preferred against him. It would have been of importance to controversialists of his day, and of subsequent times, to have been able to say, "Calvin, on his death-bed, changed his faith on a great article of religion, to the very reverse of what he maintained throughout life." But not a whisper of this nature was ever heard. How did none of his keen and unscrupulous Popish adversaries ever hear of so important a change? Their ears were sufficiently open to hear; they had as good opportunities as othersfar better than men of the present day. Successful in establishing such an allegation, they would certainly have discredited the memory and influence of the reformer among multitudes; and yet they are silent. There is no explanation, in so far as they are concerned, but one; and that is, that no change ever took place-that the accusation is a recent fiction, to help a weak cause by disparaging a great

name.

As enemies are silent, equally so are friends. In the kind providence of God, and possibly the better to falsify subsequent charges, there were peculiar facilities for knowing the sentiments of Calvin. He may be said to have died in public; he saw large bodies of friends. His life, too, was written, not by a stranger, at the distance of centuries, but by his brother and colleague, Beza, and was published in the very year of the reformer's death. The closing scene is given with fulness and detail. If there had been any doctrinal change Beza could not but have known it, and would have felt bound, writing, as he did, under the eye of Protestant Europe - deeply interested in the subject of his narrative-to have announced it; but there is not a trace or surmise of change. Melchior Adamus, who published a Life, extending to some fifty closely-printed Latin pages, about eighty years afterwards, and who had an opportunity of hearing all that Popish or Protestant controversialists alleged for and against Calvin, meanwhile, does not breathe a whisper about doctrinal change, or give the smallest intimation that such change had ever been imputed. On the contrary, in marking the striking features of the reformer's character, he notices "constans in doctrinâ," and adds: "In doctrinâ quam initio tradidit ad extremum constans nihil prorsus immutavit, quod paucis nostrâ memoriâ theologicis contigit"-"The doctrine which he taught at the beginning he held to the very last, without change-a circumstance which can be alleged of few divines in my remembrance." What can be stronger or more comprehensive than this?

2. There is no intimation of change on the part of Calvin himself. It must be remembered that the reformer and his brethren were not loose or latitudinarian in point of doctrine like many in our day; that they attached the greatest importance to Scripture truth, so much so, that they thought error punishable with civil pains and penalties. It is to be considered too, that the particular doctrine in question, the extent of the Redeemer's atonement, was a doctrine on which the [reformer had written often

| and powerfully, and that it is an essential part of the system of divine truth which bears his name. Moreover, that he was the most unlikely of all men to change; being, though moderate and couciliatory in his judgment on indifferent matters, a perfect stranger to the fickle or changeable in temperament-a very rock of stability in his doctrinal convictions. Then, it is to be considered, that, unlike Luther, who died unexpectedly, when from home engaged in matters not directly religious, Calvin had the most ample and favourable opportunities of announcing any change which had come over his views in his latter days. His death was foreseen for three months before-was familiarly spoken of. He saw leading friends;-the pastors of Geneva, in the beginning of March-the magistrates and clerical friends, separately, in the end of April. He spoke to them largely upon religion in the immediate prospect of meeting with God. On the first visit, he asked the opinion of the ministers upon some translations of the French New Testament, which he was correcting. No opportunity could have been more propitious for informing them of any change of his doctrinal views. Then, whatever were his infirmities, he was noted for his integrity and uprightness. His conscientiousness was so great, that he was facetiously called the " Accusative Case." If any important change, or even slight modification of his sentiments had taken place, he would have felt bound, as an honest man and a Christian divine, to make known the change-as much under obligation as his biographer and colleague would have been bound to record it. Yet we look in vain for any trace of change. It cannot be alleged that he was disabled and confused by sickness from announcing the change of his views. If so, how do modern anti-Calvinists know that any change had passed at all? It is well known, that though the reformer was so prodigious a sufferer, from some ten disorders, shortly before his death, that he was thoroughly collected, as well as admirably patientthat he addressed the varied classes who waited upon him with all the clearness and strength of his earlier days. The truth is, that so far from any change of religious opinion in his last days, there is decided evidence of the reverse. There might not have been such evidence; while we could not have doubted the stability of his former creed; but happily there is evidence. We do not allude merely to the fact, that a few years before his death he published a new edition of his great and first work, "The Institutes," without any change of doctrine, but that on his deathbed, within a few days of his dissolution, he addressed the Syndics of Geneva in these terms:

"Touching the doctrine you have heard from me, I take God to witness that I have not rashly and ungroundedly, but carefully and purely taught the Word of God intrusted to me, whose wrath I should otherwise now perceive hanging over me. But I am certainly assured that my labours in teaching it have not been displeasing to him. And I testify this the more willingly, both before God and yourselves, because I doubt not but the devil, according to his custom, will raise up wicked light, and giddy-headed people, to corrupt the sincere doctrine which you

have heard from me."

Surely this is not the utterance of a mind which was conscious that its doctrinal views on an important subject had undergone a change. Surely it is the utterance of a mind deeply penetrated with the solemnity of religious truth, testifying its continued

adherence to all that it formerly taught, and almost prophetically anticipating a corruption of the faith.

3. We observe that the expressions employed by Calvin on his death-bed, and on which, we presume, the proof of his change of sentiment is founded, do not bear out the charge. The only expression which we have been able to find, on which it may be supposed that Arminians and semi-Pelagians rest, is contained in his will, drawn up a few weeks before his death: "I testify also," says he," and declare that I suppliantly beg of him (of God) that he may be pleased so to work and purify me in the blood which the sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race (sanguine effuso pro humani generis peccatis), that under his shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat." We are not aware whether modern parties found upon anything else. We have not been able to discover in the records of the reformer's death any other expression which could be twisted to an Arminian or Pelagian sense. The correspondent who first directed my attention to the allegation states, that in conversation the semi-Pelagian gives the substance of the reformer's belief on his death-bed, thus, "Because Jesus Christ died for all, therefore I know he died for me." There is no such statement either in the will or in his addresses, whether to the ministers or magistrates of Geneva. I suspect, therefore, that this is a semi-Pelagian paraphrase of the words which I have quoted. Do, then, these words warrant the inference that Calvin had changed his views of the doctrine of particular redemption which he had all along so ably and consistently maintained? No. The reformer does not indicate any consciousness of change, which he would certainly have done, had the words been intended to mark the change. The words are casual and incidental, no stronger-not so strong as various expressions which are to be met with in Scripture,andwhich Calvin understood and interpreted in a limited sense. It is not even said that Christ died for the whole human race, and far less that he died for all the members of that race equally-those who are saved and those who perished, in the same sense. Had the reformer given expression to the last sentiment, which is the semi-Pelagian doctrine, there would have been some ground for the charge, though even then it would have been indispensable, in common fairness, to have taken in the whole of his teaching | on the extent of the Redeemer's death. As it stands, the expression denotes no more than that Christ died for the human race, as distinguished from the angelic race. All Calvinists allow that there is a general sense in which Christ may be said to have died for all men. He has died for all, in such a sense that, in consequence of his death, divine long-suffering is exercised towards wicked men, and they share, in many outward benefits-to all of which the apostate angels are strangers. A similar expression is employed by John Knox on his death-bed-a death-bed whereupon so many of its circumstances bore a remarkable resemblance to that of Calvin, his great friend and father. "He then protested," says Dr M'Crie, "as to himself, as he had often done before, that he relied wholly on the free mercy of God manifested to mankind through his dear Son Jesus Christ." If such expressions as these are to be held as declaring the doctrine of universal redemption, it will soon to be impossible to find a Calvinist at all. Knox will be set down as well as Calvin, as holding Arminian tenets.

But

It is so obviously unreasonable and absurd to attempt to make out a serious death-bed change from such an expression as has been quoted from the will of Calvin, that it is scarcely necessary to do more than exhibit it. This is a sufficient refutation. were further proof needful, we might appeal to another expression in the same document, which is fatal to the forced interpretation which has been attempted. "I testify and declare," says he," that it is my intention to spend what yet remains of my life in the same faith and religion which he has delivered to me by his gospel; and that I have no other defence and refuge for salvation, than his gratuitous adoption, on which alone my salvation depends." Here there is not only a plain intimation that Calvin meant to remain in the same creed which he had professed all along. There is no hint of change and modification, but his salvation is distinctly traced to the sovereign, free, electing love of God. This is the obvious meaning of God's "gratuitous adoption;" and where the consistency of this with the doctrine of universal redemption-redemption equally for the lost as the saved? This sentiment occurs in the same document in which the expression is introduced respecting Christ dying for the human race, showing how that expression was meant to be understood.

The reader will now judge what weight is due to the assertions, that the great Genevan reformer changed his sentiment on a most important doctrine on his death-bed-changed it to the opposite of what he had held and maintained for a life-time. Surely never was a serious conclusion hung upon a more doubtful and precarious premise. It surpasses even the celebrated brass pin, on the strength of which a modern Prelatic historian would fain make out that John Knox was a murderer! It is a old device for getting rid of a troublesome opponent, to allege a death-bed change-but probably the present is the most violent fiction of the kind which was ever attempted. We may smile at its absurditity. those, however, who ought and might know the truth in the case, it has a serious aspect. We see from the whole

Το

(1.) The gross injustice which is done to the memory of great and good men by parties who claim an almost exclusive love of truth and practice of charity.

(2.) The false principle of interpretation on which they proceed in seeking to learn an author's meaning. The garbled, one-sided application which they make of an expression in Calvin's will, is a not unfair specimen of the manner in which they interpret the Word of God on the distinctive points of their faith; and

(3.) The leaning to human authority in divine things, while professedly disclaiming it. No party speak more disrespectfully of confessions of faith, or talk more of the exclusive authority of the Word of God, than the advocates of semi-Pelagianism, and yet many belonging to it eagerly grasp at a supposed countenance to their opinions from an expression in the writings of Calvin-a countenance which is not only signally slender at the best, but which, when examined, turns out really to have no existence.

With earnest prayer for the counteraction of error, and the universal spread of the entire truth of God, I remain, &c. ̧

Glasgow, 1848.

JOHN G. LORIMER.

...

The subjects of discourse are most methodically laid out and elaborately handled. So much so, that it is our version (with the Vulgate, Beza, Luther, and Calvin) translates literally, "Who hath begotten us again unto a lively hope to an inheritance incorruptible," the new version gives it thus," Who hath anew made us his children, so as to give us a living hope. so as to make us heirs of an inheritance incorruptible." In ch. ii. 22, where the apostle is comforting servants under sufferings inflicted by their masters for no fault of theirs, by reminding them of Christ's sufferings for the sins of others, not his own-our version says, with beautiful literality," Who did no sin;"* while the new version, unhappily aiming at something more precise, decidedly lowers the sentiment, as we think, by saying, "Who committed no fault." On the same principle, where our version has," If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" Dr Brown would so tie down the reference to the temporal judgment (the destruction of Jerusalem, primarily in view, it may be supposed) as to exclude, to an English ear, all reference to the final judgment, by rendering it, "If the righteous scarcely be delivered." the Holy Spirit on ground that cannot be maintained. "Elect" (says the apostle, in our version)" according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit," &c., Dr Brown has it "by a spiritual separation," observing, in his discourse, that it means this," as opposed to external or bodily separation:" in other words, the term " Spirit"

In ch. i. 2, Dr Brown's version excludes the reference to

here is used to denote the nature, and not the author, of sanctification. In a foot-note he reminds us that the article is wanting before "Spirit,"+ as proof, we presume, of the Holy Ghost not being meant by the term here. But the under-noted passages are sufficient to show that the Holy Ghost may be meant where the article is not used; and the structure of the verse decidedly favours this personal reference.+

In ch. iii. 1, a whole clause is omitted in the new version, its place being supplied by the next verse, which is woven into the first sentence instead of appearing as a supplementary explanation of it. Our version, with every other which we have consulted, follows precisely the order jof the Greek, thus: "That if any obey not the word, they may without the word, be won by the conversation of the wives, while they behold your chaste conversation (coupled) with fear." Dr Brown translates thus: "That if some of them are disbelievers in the doctrine, they may without the doctrine, be won over by contemplating your pious, chaste behaviour." Thus, "won over by the conversation (or behaviour) of the wives, contemplating," is compressed into "won over by contemplating."S There are a few improvements, however, which we could like to have set over against these, if this note were not already long enough. They are such as the following

:

difficult to present the reader with a fair specimen of any one of them. Nearly all the principal topics occupy about a hundred pages each, such as "The Privileges of Christians, and how they obtain them"-the text of which is seven verses (chap. ii. 4-10); and "The Sufferings of Christ (their nature, design, consequences), an Encouragement to Christians suffering for his cause"-of which the text is fire verses (iii. 18-22). The sections, however, are quite distinct, and the headings are so precise, that a complete subject may be embraced in one moderate reading. The following headings, on the words, "Christ also hath suffered for sins; the just for the unjust," will give a tolerable idea of the method in which the whole epistle is taken up. After an introduction of four pages, "I. THE SUFFERER. § 1." Christ." § 2. The Just One." II. HIS SUFFERINGS-Facts of the Case. III. NATURE OF HIS SUFFERINGS. § 1. Penal-" For Sins." § 2. Vicarious "For the unjust." § 3. Expiatory. IV. DESIGN OF HIS SUFFERINGS" To bring men to God"-§ 1. To bring men to the knowledge of God. § 2. To farour with God. § 3. To likeness of God. §4. To fellowship with God." These sections, of which the text is just half a verse, extend over between sixty and seventy pages, embracing a full statement of the principles of the remedial system, and of its holy design and tendency. But distinguished as the doctrinal department is by soundness, judgment, and elevated sentiment, it is in the region of duty that the work is peculiarly admirable; and in so saying, we speak of nearly two-thirds of the whole work. have met with nothing so complete and rich, as a digest of Christian duty. We have doctrinal works in abundance, and of unexceptionable excellence; but of such expositions of personal and relative dutiesas men, as Christians, as members of families, as subjects, as church members, as ministers, as elders, &c. -we have few, very few.

We

i. 17. Call Father, him who," or better, "Call him Father, who."

19. Corruptible things-silver or gold-but by precious blood, [the blood] of Christ."

the verse.

"Excellencies." Our "praises " is not good.

v. 4. "The unfading crown."

12.

"As I judge."

̔Αμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν.

+ ́Αγιασμῷ πνεύματος, not του Πνεύματος, he says.

The

Rom. viii. 9 (bis), verses 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 14; Jude 20. On the same principle Dr Brown translates "Of which salvation prophets have inquired" (instead of "the prophets"); because the article is wanting in the Greek. But the article is wanting in Luke xxiv. 44; 1 Cor. xiv. 32 (bis); Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, although the whole class of prophets is manifestly meant.

Nor do we like to miss the apostle's peculiarities of style, in such renderings as "Your pious chaste behaviour," for "Chaste behaviour in fear" (iv poßw), as Vulg. Calv. Luth.; or "coupled with fear," as Beza and our version. There are other peculiarities, such as beginning a sentence classically with the relative pronoun, which Dr Brown sinks, not for the better, certainly. Thus, in the very next verse, "Whose adorning, let it not be," &c, for which he substitutes "Let your adorning not be." More feebly. in ch. v. 9, Whom resist," for which Dr Brown has "Him resist." "Who shall give account" (ch. iv. 5), for which we have "These shall give account." Peter loves such forms as, "The hope that is in you" (ch. iii. 15); "Who is he that will harm you" (v. 13); "Him that judgeth righteously." (ii. 13.) These disappear in the new version which has it, "Your hope," "Who shall harm you,' "The righteous Judge."

thing else than a collection of unconnected and scarce consistent meanings of the sacred text. At the same time it must be admitted, that in proportion as we miss the one sense of a passage, must our illustration of it be beside the purpose. And we think that Dr Brown's work sometimes exemplifies this remark. For instance, the words which in our version are

Dr Brown shows a laudable attention to the purity of the text; and, on the whole, though a public revisal of the authorized version is neither practicable nor, in the present divided state of religious opinion, and shallowness of religious feeling, even desirable, we highly approve of every effort to embody in the form of translations of particular portions of sacred writ, the results of critical investigation, both into the purity of the text and into the mind of the Spirit therein.

We might have noticed one or two other renderings not particularly happy, in our opinion, such as "not of a perishable race" (ch. i. 23), where our version has "seed" with manifest propriety-but our limits forbid enlargement. One important rendering, in which we think our author has missed the sense, we shall notice above.;