Scarcely in a single feature or circumstance. The only difference was in the outward conditions of its administration. It was without the sanction of public law, and was placed beyond the protection of the State. It was liable at any moment to the challenge of the bishops, and to the terrible compulsitor of the High Commission and Star Chamber. It could not therefore be exercised under the public eye, or openly in facie ecclesiæ. It was founded and maintained in secrecy; it grew and spread through the land under constant danger of discovery and persecution. Yet it grew rapidly; it spread far and wide. It kept pace with the multiplication of learned and godly ministers; and these for twenty years after 1572 were supplied in great numbers from both the universities, especially from Cambridge; Cambridge, indeed, in that period was acknowledged by the bishops themselves to be "a nest of Puritans." The leaven which Cartwright and Travers had introduced there in the years immediately preceding 1572, continued to ferment till it had leavened almost the whole lump. There is in the State Paper office a petition to Lord Burleigh, signed in that very year 1572 by no fewer than 167 regents and non-regents, directed against a body of new statutes obtained through the influence of Whitgift and a few other anti-Puritanic heads of houses, with the view of checking the influence and power of the new Presbyterian party. This accounts for the rapid multiplication of Presbyterian ministers in the country in the face of all the pains and penalties which Bishops Parker, Whitgift, Sandys, Aylmer and others never ceased to inflict upon the Nonconformists. Between 1583 and 1590 the number of such ministers was reckoned to be as high as 500, and wheresover they exercised their ministry they laboured to introduce the Presbyterian discipline. In 1590, one of their own number, Mr. Johnson, of Northamptonshire, informed the High Commission that "this device" (meaning the Presbyterian platform) was commonly received in most parts of England, as he had heard in sundry of their meetings, but especially, beyond his own county, in Warwickshire, Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, &c. Provincial Synods were repeatedly held in Cambridge, under the roof of St. John's College. As early as 1584 there was a remarkable assembly of a similar kind convened in Oxford, which was attended by some of the Scottish ministers then in exile on account of the troubles arising out of the attempt of the Scottish Court to force Episcopacy upon the national Church. Mr. Gellibrand of Magdalen College, and the other Oxford brethren, gave the Scottish exiles "great entertainment," and discussed along with them what Bancroft calls a notable question, viz., "Concerning the proceeding of the minister in his duty, without the assistance or tarrying for the magistrate." In 1588 Mr. Snape, the zealous Presbyterian minister of Northampton, affirmed, in presence of several witnesses, who afterwards testified to his having done so :

"That there were three or four small classes of ministers in every shire where there were any learned preachers, who did use in their meetings to debate of the discipline, and that the said several small classes did send their resolutions and opinions to the greater Assemblies at Cambridge and at London, which did meet together also for the same purpose; and that if the said great Assembly did like

of that which was done by the smaller classes, then was the same generally concluded to be that which ought to be or stand in the Church."

Of all the counties in England the most fully organized in a Presbyterian sense was that of Northampton. It had three Presbyterian centres, Northampton, Daventry, and Kettering. Each of these was the seat of a classis, and the three classes sent two delegates every month to a county Assembly at Northampton, and by means of this Assembly the whole kept up a stated correspondence with the provincial and national Synods. As Fuller quaintly remarks:

These classes were more formally settled in Northamptonshire than anywhere else in England; for as the west part of the shire is observed to be the highest place of England, as appeareth by the rivers rising there and running thence to the four winds, so was that county a probable place, as the middest of the land, for the Presbyterian discipline there erected to derive itself into all the quarters of the kingdom."

Still the two chief centres of influence were at Warwick and London; at Warwick, because that was the home of Cartwright during the last twenty years of his life, in the Mastership of the Leicester hospital there, and Cartwright was the acknowledged leader of the whole party-its head and heart both; and at London, by reason not only of the high character and talents of many of its ministers-men like Field, Wilcox, Travers, Egerton, Gardner and Barber-but by reason also of the large extent to which the highest classes of the capital were leavened with Presbyterian ideas and predilections. It was a striking proof of this important fact, that in 1572, when a proclamation was issued by the Queen prohibiting the sale of the Admonitions to Parliament, and commanding all copies to be brought in without delay to the Bishop of London, it remained utterly without effect; and such was the demand for these tracts, that instead of being suppressed they were rapidly multiplied in four editions within two years. Cartwright himself, the author of the second Admonition, was entertained as an honored guest by several of the best families of the city; and to a large extent this feeling of the capital was also the feeling of the House of Commons. In the State Paper office is to be seen a letter, dated 20th May of the same year, 1572, written by Robert Bell of the Middle Temple, then speaker of the House of Commons, in which he informs Lord Burleigh, the Queen's chief adviser, that a Bill had been brought that day into the House, the effect whereof was, that every bishop within his diocese should have power to give liberty to any authorized preacher to use other rites and ceremonies than those set forth by the Book of Common Prayer-so as the said alteration did not differ from the order which is now. allowed and set forth in the French and Dutch Churches; which (be it remembered) was a Presbyterian order, the order either of Calvin or of John Alasco. The Bill itself has been preserved in the form in which it was read a first time on the 24th of May, and is a highly interesting historical document. It is indorsed with the names of Mr. Treasurer (Sir Francis Knollys), Mr. Attorney of the Duchy, Mr. Popham, Mr. Yelverton, and eight other influential members of the House. Mr.

Neal relates that the Bill "passed smoothly through the Commons, and was referred to a Select Committee of both Houses." It came indeed to nothing in the end, for the Queen interposed her prerogative to quash it. She demanded that it should be given up to her by the House, and she never returned it. The despotic powers of the Crown were still too strong for the free, reforming and progressive spirit of the House. But the House was the true representative of the spirit of the nation, which was undoubtedly, even at that early period, much more on the side of the Puritans than of the bishops and the Queen. It was on this very occasion, and in this very year, that the long constitutional war between the House and the Crown began— the war which ended in the great overthrow of despotic government in the following age. The brave Sir Peter Wentworth made a noble and patriotic speech on the occasion, for which he was sent to the Tower.

"It grieved him," he said, "to see how many ways the liberty of free speech in Parliament had been infringed. Her Majesty has forbid us to deal in any matter of religion unless we first receive it from the bishops. This was a doleful message. There is then little hope of reformation. I have heard from old Parliament men that the banishment of the Pope and the reforming true religion, had its beginning from this House; but not from the bishops. Few laws for religion had their foundation from them, and I do surely think (before God I speak it) that the bishops were the cause of that doleful message."

These

It was a speech of evil omen both for the crown and the mitre. deep, half-suppressed growls of discontent were the first mutterings of the coming, though still distant, storm. They were the first tremors of that great political earthquake whose intermittent vibrations went on increasing in intensity for the next seventy years, till at length the last explosion and grand upheaval came, and a yawning chasm suddenly opened its mouth and swallowed up at once crowns and sceptres, with all the bishoprics and archbishoprics of the three British kingdoms.

Art. X.-DR. FORBES ON ROMANS, vs. DR. HODGE.

Analytical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the train of thought by the aid of Parallelism, with Notes and Dissertations on the Principal Difficulties connected with the Exposition of the Epistle. By JOHN FORBES, LL.D., Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK. New York: SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & Co. 1873. This volume, faultless in paper and typography, came into our hands after matter for nearly all available space had gone to the printer. Some weeks in advance of it, we received the following note from the respected publishers.

The Editor of

THE PRINCETON REVIEW. \

DEAR SIR:

SEPT. 24, 1872.

In our first parcel we will send you a copy of Professor Forbes' Commentary on the Romans. The author desires us to say with his compliments,

"that with feelings of the highest respect for Dr. Hodge, he had yet felt constrained to controvert some of the leading views of his (Dr. Hodge's) school, particularly on Forensic Justification and the interpretation of Romans v. 12-21, and on Free-will and Predestination, and his Supralapsarian interpretation of Romans ix.; and that his (Dr. Forbes') sole desire being the establishment of the truth on these points for himself and others, he feels anxious to hear what can be said in reply to his arguments, and to be put right where he is wrong."

We are, sir, faithfully yours,

T. & T. CLARK.

We regret that our limited space and time render impossible that full response to this call which it would be a pleasure to give. Of course, it would be easy to fill a volume in answering a volume, and it requires great condensation to do full justice, alike to Drs. Forbes and Hodge, within the usual limits of a review article. Nevertheless we will do the best we can in the limited space and time at command-a task less difficult, because as we think will soon appear, Dr. Forbes so largely answers his own criticisms of Dr. Hodge, who, by the way, has neither seen the book, nor had any thing to do with our observations upon it.

1. Supralapsarianism. Dr. Hodge expressly rejects it and maintains Infralapsarianism. Systematic Theology, Vol. II. pp. 316-20. Also, Commentary on Romans, on Chap. ix. 18-23. We can hardly account for this ascription of Supralapsarianism to Dr. Hodge by Dr. Forbes, unless the latter misunderstands the doctrine. Much that he says gives color to this supposition. He frequently argues as if it were Supralapsarianism, not to hold that the decree of election or reprobation is conditioned on a foresight of consent to, or stubborn rejection of, salvation in Christ. This latter doctrine, however, is not Supralapsarianism but simple Arminianism. Sublapsarianism does not condition election or reprobation upon any foresight of acceptance or rejection of the salvation of Christ, or upon any antecedent consent or refusal to receive the same on the part of the sinner. It simply founds them in the purpose of God according to the good pleasure of his will, irrespective of all foresight of faith or good works. It differs from Supralapsarianism in this, that the latter contemplates men as simply to be created, and, out of such simply creatable beings, elects some to bliss and glory, and the residue to woe and shame, without reference to their fall into sin. Sublapsarianism, on the other hand, makes election and reprobation act upon the race viewed as fallen, sinful, already deserving and bound over to perdition. Election is an act of special mercy and grace which chooses some to be rescued out of this doomed mass and made heirs of glory, and ensures all the requisites to the fulfilment of this purpose. Reprobation, otherwise called Preterition, is simply the passing by those not thus included in the purpose of election, and leaving them to go on unreclaimed to merited perdition. It is thus a judicial and punitive, and, in this sense, not a merely arbitrary act.

At times Dr. Forbes seems to adopt this view, which is just that of the

Word of God, our Confession of Faith, and of Dr. Hodge. Thus he quotes (p. 341), with approbation from the Outlines of Theology by Dr. A. A. Hodge, as if the son were in contradiction of his father, telling us "Dr. Hodge, it may be presumed (see Preface), endorses this proposition of his son, and yet interprets Rom. ix. in direct opposition to it." What will Dr. F. say next? A glance will show that Dr. Hodge has interpreted Rom. ix. in strict accordance with this quotation from his son, which is as follows: "This view (the Supralapsarian thecry of Predestination) represents God as reprobating the non-elect by a sovereign act, without any respect to their sins, simply for his own glory. This appears to be contrary to the Divine righteousness, as well as the teachings of Scripture. The non-elect are ordained' to dishonor and wrath for their sins to the praise of his glo-rious justice." Confession of Faith, Ch. iii. Sec. iii., Faith, with which therefore, (says Dr. F.) this (Supralapsarian) view is inconsistent." So also, therefore, is Dr. Hodge's, which is in undeniable accord with the Confession. Dr. Forbes is fond of telling us that "reprobation originates in the free-will of man," which is true in so far as the sin on which it is grounded so originates; also that it is a "judicial act" of God, which is taught by Dr. Hodge.

2. Predestination and Free-will. On this, as well as other topics, Dr. Forbes advances much that accords with Dr. Hodge. We shall only touch on some of the most salient points of difference. These are in the line of a more Pelagian or semi-Pelagian conception of what is involved in freedom of will and responsibility, at their points of contact with Divine predestination and regeneration, and man's enslavement to sin. Dr. F. founds much on that part of the Confession of Faith, Ch. iii. 1, and further in Ch. v. 2, which asserts God's free predestination, "yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." But this decides nothing, for none can hold it more strenuously than Dr. Hodge and his followers. The only question is, against whose view does it militate?

Dr. F. dwells with emphasis on the distinction between necessity and certainty in human actions as related to the Divine causation. This distinction is real and important. The wicked acts of men are at once free and certain, yet God is not the cause, in the sense of being the efficient author of them. The sinner is the true author or efficient of his own sins, and so justly incurs the guilt thereof. Yet, as Dr. F. shows (p. 383), if not always the efficient cause, God is causa sine qua non of all beings and events. Says he, "every act of the creature is also an act of God-even the most wicked [we would not say this]; namely, in as far as he permits it, and gives power for its performance. But it is wicked only in so far as man's will and intentions are concerned; on the part of God it is good, being permitted only as made to issue in the wisest and best ends. Thus the most heinous exhibition of man's depravity ever perpetrated, the crucifixion of our Lord, was on the part of God the highest manifestation of his love and goodness ever made to the universe, and, as such was permitted and predestined by