gerous extreme. The senses are an inlet to knowledge and feeling; but cannot of themselves originate knowledge or spiritual emotions. And there is the greater fear of delusion here, from the known disposition of man to rest in the sensuous, rather than seek the spiritual, in matters of experimental religion. How is it probable then-we had almost said how is it possible, that a poor, ignorant Catholic should escape this errour? With a faith so erroneous and unscriptural-under preaching so defective, not to say worse of it-and surrounded now, weekly and daily, with ceremonies that address themselves so imposingly to his senses, would it not be next to a miracle, if he did not rest in these, or in the mere animal impressions which they are calculated to make? Let us look at his case. He sees before him a gorgeous temple, where all the power of architecture, sculpture and painting, seems to have been exhausted to fascinate the eye. Pictures and images almost without number are before him, and offered as vehicles at least of the blessings he comes to seek. He beholds a consecrated priesthood, habited in gorgeous and antiquated attire. He listens to a service in an unknown and venerated tongue. Mysterious movements and unexplained airs mingle and give a ghostly influence to the whole service. The smoke of incense ascends: candles are burned at noon-day: masses are said for the living and the dead: and music that is almost unearthly resounds "through long drawn aisles." The poor worshipper is taught to consider the very ground on which he stands as holy-that relics have consecrated it, or miracles been wrought there by their efficacy. At certain seasons, splendid processions are made, and set off with all the stirring accompaniments, of crosses and holy sprinklings, of banners and martial music, of bayonets and plumes, and the thunder of artillery. He is taught to believe in no less than seven sacraments, all of which confer grace. He invokes the saints: he adores the virgin Mary: he relies on indulgences to abate punishment. "He has no doubt of the efficacy of priestly absolution; and should he be so unhappy as to die in sin after all, he fully expects that all but infidelity and mortal sins, will be purged away by the fires of purgatory, or removed by the masses secured to be said for his soul." And now we ask, how it is supposable, that the mind of such a worshipper should not be turned away from the faith of the gospel, and dreadfully deluded

as to the only way of salvation? Whether it invariably is so, and that there is no true piety in these deluded votaries, we do not say; and it is well that it is not ours to determine. We are speaking only of tendencies and probabilities. In our view, this system is chargeable with this tendency. And there seems more reason to regard it as unfit for exhibition to the minds of men now, than the system of Jewish sacrifices, with all the imperfections of its latest

state.

It is no answer to be told here, that Christ is exhibited in these ceremonies. We know that a sculptured or a painted Christ is exhibited, but not the doctrine of Christ. It is in vain to say that all these may be so explained as to lead to Christ: but the charge is, that they are not so explained, and that they cannot be in consistency with established dogmas. We should expect, and we do fear, that the far greater proportion of worshippers under the varied influences of this whole system, will be found ignorant of the merits of Christ, and trusting to a fatal delusion.

We have only to say a word in conclusion. We are aware that much of our argument has been of the nature of proving a negative, inasmuch as we have aimed to exhibit the system of Romanism more in its defects, than in its transgressions. If we have failed or erred here, we shall willingly be corrected. We are conscious of no unfriendly feelings to any persons holding this faith and if we have failed in our authorities, or stated any thing unfairly, if it can be shown that Catholics do preach Christ crucified, or if they will now do so, in spite of their dogmas, or by reforming them, we shall willingly retract and hail them as fellow Christians.

With Protestants our object has been of a different nature. It was to show what we consider the principal errour of Romanism-its relation to justification. It was to guard against its detractive, rather than its aggressive influence; and to indicate, if it is to be assailed, the point d'appui, so to speak, by which it can best be done.

ART. IX.-ON THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE LUTHERAN AND CALVINISTIC THEORIES ON THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION.

By Da. F. SCHLEIERMACHER.

Translated from the German, with an Introductory Notice, by THE EDITOR.

THE following treatise, which is regarded as among the ablest and most effective of the productions of its author, was first published in 1819, as the Introductory Article of the "Theologische Zeitschrift," a journal conducted jointly by Schleiermacher, De Wette and Lücke. The close of this journal was signalized by the equally celebrated treatise on the "Contrast between the Athanasian and Sabellian Theories of the Trinity," which has been translated by Prof. Stuart, and presented to the public in the pages of the Biblical Repository. The first article will be found, we think, equally deserving a place in our language with the last. The subject of it relates more directly to the questions about which the church is now agitated; and the treatment of this subject exhibits at least in an equal degree that extent of learning, that accuracy of discrimination, that strength, consistency, and originality of thought, so conspicuous in the last named treatise, and indeed in all the productions of this author.

This treatise on the doctrine of Election was called forth by the attempt to effect an union between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches-an object which Schleiermacher, in common with the greatest and best men of both churches, ardently desired and laboured to promote. The doctrine of Election, as is well known, was one of the few points on which the two churches had divided, and with regard to which a bit. ter controversy had prevailed between them. The Lutheran church had adopted the theory, that Election proceeds on the ground of faith foreseen; the Calvinistic, that it is irrespective of faith, or of any thing good in man, and from the mere good pleasure of God. With regard to these different theories, Schleiermacher takes the ground, that they are by no means such as to authorize an ecclesiastical separation between those who hold them, or to forbid their cordial reunion. And yet he maintains that they are far from being unimportant either in themselves or in their

bearing on the whole Christian system, and that therefore they deserve a careful reconsideration. In inviting a new discussion, he distinctly avows his belief of the Calvinistic theory, and points out the inconsistency of the Lutheran theory with a doctrine regarded by the Articles and the theologians of his own church as fundamental, viz., the doctrine of man's entire inability to all goodness. To show the indissoluble connexion between this doctrine and the Calvinistic theory of Election, is the principal object of that portion of this treatise contained in the present number.

The

This connexion had been previously seen and acknowledged by Dr. Bretschneider in his "Aphorisms." And he knew of no way of escaping from the "decretum horrible" of Calvin, but to deny the doctrine of man's entire inability, of which it seemed to be a necessary inference. great body of Lutheran theologians could not however, as Dr. Schleiermacher supposes, ever be brought to abandon a doctrine so fundamental, in their estimation, as the inability of man, in his natural state, to do any thing good; and hence had no alternative left, but to join with him in embracing the rigid theory of Augustin and Calvin, respecting the unconditionality of the divine decree of Election.

The boldness of the position here taken by Schleiermacher, in face of the prejudices of all his theological associates, the able manner in which he maintains his ground, together with the influence of his name, conspired to produce a great sensation throughout the Lutheran Church. Numerous replies from the most distinguished Lutheran theologians shortly appeared, in which an attempt was made to vindicate the consistency of the Lutheran Articles. Their inconsistency, however, is fully conceded to Schleiermacher by De Wette, in a reply to this treatise published in the next number of the same periodical, as will be seen by extracts from it which will be subjoined in a note.

Dr. Lücke remarks, in his Recollections of Schleiermacher, that to most persons the publication of this treatise appeared to be ill-timed, since, by defending the logical consistency of the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrine of Election, it seemed adapted rather to injure, than to promote the union of the two evangelical confessions. "But when I suggested this to him," says Lücke," he explained his purpose of furthering this union by introducing a fresh discussion on a point which, to a superficial view, might seem

already exhausted, but which, if the union was to be completed with reference to the developement of a scientific theology, must sooner or later be made a question." "It is the merit of this treatise," as Lücke proceeds to say, "that it has excited a more thorough and accurate discussion of this difficult problem, and has given a new direction to the doctrinal discussions on this subject."

The argument contained in this article, though particu larly appropriate to those to whom it was originally addressed, will be found not inapplicable to several portions of our own theological public. We shall here speak of the application of only that part of the whole argument which is contained in the first portion of the treatise, and published in the present number. This argument, as has been before said, relates to the inherent connexion which subsists between the doctrines of the entire inability of man and absolute election. Now this connexion deserves to be particularly considered by two classes belonging to the American Church. The one hold to the entire inability of man, and yet, like the great body of the Lutherans, deny the doctrine of unconditional decrees, which, according to our author, necessarily flows from it. The other class subscribe to our Calvinistic Confessions, and to the doctrine of unconditional Election among the rest, and yet deny the entire inability of man-the doctrine upon which, according to Schleiermacher, the whole Calvinistic system rests.

To the former class belong the followers of Wesley in the Methodist connexion, and those of the Episcopal Church who adopt the Arminian construction of their Articles. And it would seem, that the charge of inconsistency, here proved against the Lutherans, might for the same reasons, be substantiated against this whole class, since they agree in admitting the doctrine of inability, and in rejecting the doctrine of absolute Election. This inconsistency is not, indeed, chargeable upon the Articles of the Episcopal Church, as it is upon the Lutheran symbols; since the Calvinistic theory of Election, though not distinctly expressed, is yet, according to general consent, allowed by the former, while in the latter it is decidedly condemned. But the charge of inconsistency will not be easily escaped by those who, in their creed and litany, devoutly acknowledge the entire inability of man, and his native repugnance to holiness, and then, in their preaching and writing, reject and denounce the doctrine of uncon