without which this office could not be well executed, both to guard against the frauds and impositions of those who, though less destitute, might eat up what the poverty of other brethren required, and against the calumnies of those who, even without occasion, would not cease to complain. For that office is not only laborious, but exposed to murmurings and complaints."

Can any man who reads this passage entertain a doubt that Calvin held, first, That those who were to fill any public office in the church should be elected by the common suffrages of the people; and, secondly, That the election of the deacons afforded an evidence of this?

Sir William's assertion, which he plainly adduces as a proof or argument,—namely, that "the example, neither of the Diaconate in general, nor the particular example of the election of deacons narrated in the text there commented on, can possibly apply to the election of pastors or bishops, is shown, among a hundred others, by Beza and the London Synod,"-is, in so far as Beza is concerned, untrue. Beza never attempted to show this; and I challenge Sir William to produce any evidence that he did. I know that he asserted that neither the election of Matthias, nor of the deacons, affords a proof that "all things are to be given over to the voices of the multitude,”—multitudinis suffragiis omnia permitti; but this is a very different position, and one in which every Presbyterian will concur. The London divines asserted something like what Sir William has ascribed to them, though not in a way to warrant the very strong language he has employed upon the subject. But supposing that Beza, and they, and a hundred others, had asserted, and even proved this, would this afford any evidence as to Calvin's views upon the point? And does not Sir William's argument plainly require him to prove, not only that Calvin held that no argument could be derived from the case of the deacons in regard to the election of other office-bearers, but also, moreover, that no statement could occur in Calvin's commentary upon the election of deacons, which could prove that he held that the people should choose their pastors, and that any statement occurring there, and seeming to establish that position, must, however plain and explicit its terms, be of necessity perverted to a different meaning?

Is not this sentence of Sir William's a remarkable one? Its three principal assertions are untrue. The substance of the matter

is this: A passage occurs in Calvin's commentary upon the election of deacons, in which it is asserted in the clearest and most explicit terms, that "those should be chosen by common suffrages, who are to fill ANY public office in the church;" but, says the Professor of Logic, no proof can be derived from this statement that Calvin held that the people should choose their pastors, because, not Calvin, but some other persons, have asserted, and, as the said Professor thinks, proved, that an argument derived from the election of deacons "cannot possibly apply to the election of pastors." It is, of course, impossible to say to what species of sophism this belongs, for it has not even the appearance of argu

ment.

In reply to Sir William's second observation upon this subject, based upon the allegation that Calvin and Beza did not regard the apostolic practice in this matter as a binding rule for the church in all ages, I have simply to ask my readers to examine carefully the extracts I have produced from them, and to say whether it be not as clear as words can make it, that they held the apostolic practice to be in substance, though not in its details, the rule by which the church was ever to be governed, and to be a full warrant for the general principle of the right of the people to the choice of their own office-bearers.

Sir William's "thirdly" is just a repetition of his leading doctrine, that "in Calvin's declared meaning, consent, approbation, suffrages, etc. are predicated, when, to a minister proposed to their acceptance, the people can oppose no reasonable ground of objection." The whole controversy, of course, turns upon this point. I am quite prepared to meet Sir William upon this ground, and to refute his position, if, indeed, any intelligent man, after the clear and explicit declarations I have produced from Calvin and Beza, can still believe that it needs refutation. I am well aware that there are some passages in their works which, to hasty and superficial inquirers, may seem to countenance this notion; but I am persuaded that no honest and sound-headed man, after collecting the various statements contained in their writings upon this subject, could spend an hour in a calm and deliberate examination and comparison of these different statements, and yet come to the conclusion that Calvin and Beza assigned to the people no higher place in the election of their pastors than the Church of Rome conceded to them,—namely, a

mere right of stating objections, of which church courts are to judge; or that they sanctioned the idea, that whenever the church courts think the objections of the people unfounded, they are entitled to intrude a minister upon a reclaiming congregation. Sir William has evidently never investigated this subject with care and deliberation. He has just turned over a number of books, collected a good many extracts, and without ever taking the trouble of diligently and deliberately comparing them together, with the view of bringing out what was really the mind of Calvin and Beza as to the place and standing which the people ought to have in the election of pastors, he has winked hard at some of them, given undue prominence and effect to others, and he has thus jumped to certain rash and hasty conclusions, ascribing to these illustrious men sentiments which they have explicitly abjured, and which are opposed not only to their express and specific statements, but to the whole scope and spirit of their leading principles. "It is," says Calvin, "an impious robbery of the church, whenever a bishop is intruded upon any people, whom they have not asked for, or at least approved of with a free voice." This plainly means that the congregation should have the election of their minister, or at least an absolute negative upon his appointment. And nothing certainly could neutralize the proof which it affords, that Calvin held the principles of the non-intrusionists, except an explicit declaration of Calvin himself, setting forth, totidem verbis, that church courts have a right to intrude a minister upon a reclaiming congregation, whenever they think the opposition of the people unreasonable and ill-founded; and no such declaration, or anything approaching to it, has been or can be produced.

Sir William next makes the following statement:-" Dr Cunningham's mode of exegesis is peculiar,—at least precisely the reverse of mine. He flies, as pestilential, all the places in which his author treats a subject of express intent, and when, consequently, the import of his language can hardly remain obscure; but pounces, as treasure-trove, on any isolated clause where the immediate context haply does not peremptorily of itself refute the sense which he would fasten on any ambiguous expression." This statement is untrue. Sir William knows that in my pamphlet I referred to, and more or less fully quoted, all the principal passages in which Calvin and Beza had formally, and of set purpose, discussed the subject of election; and he knows also, that I ad

verted specially to the two extracts from Calvin which were there produced, just because he had found it convenient to omit them.

He has then another statement which is equally untrue :"Nor is there any hope for Dr Cunningham (as he seems to trust) that he shall be able to cover his own mistakes, by fathering —of all imaginable authors-contradictions upon Calvin." I never asserted, insinuated, or imagined, as he here alleges, that contradictions are to be found in Calvin upon this subject; and I never said anything which affords the slightest countenance to the allegation.

Sec. III.-Views of the Reformers.

The only point of any real importance which Sir William has discussed, is the question as to the sentiments of Calvin and Beza in regard to the standing and influence which the Christian people ought to have in the choice and settlement of their ministers. I am rather surprised that, as his leading motive in this whole matter seems to have been an eager desire to show his acquaintance with ecclesiastical subjects, he did not attempt a discussion of the question as to the doctrine of the primitive and early church and of the canon law, in regard to the election of ministers. The testimony of the primitive church in favour of the people's right to choose their ministers, and of the principle of nonintrusion, is sufficiently clear and explicit, so strong, indeed, as to have extorted reluctant concessions from some of the more honest of the Popish and Prelatic writers. But still it is perhaps easier, upon the whole, to get up some plausible sophisms and dexterous evasions, to obscure and mystify the testimony of the primitive church in favour of our principles, at least in regard to election, than that of Calvin and Beza, and the great body of the Reformers. And it is curious, that the leading notion by which the less scrupulous portion of the Popish and Prelatic writers have tried to evade the testimony of the primitive church in favour of the rights of the people, is precisely that by which Sir William, and other defenders of Popish and Moderate notions upon this point, have tried to explain away the testimony of the Reformers.

It is put by Cardinal Bellarmine in this way :-" Cyprian in this passage gives no power to the people in regard to the election of priests, save that of giving their testimony concerning the life

and manners of the parties proposed for ordination; and this is still observed in the Catholic Church. Cyprian says, that the people have the power of choosing and giving their vote, because they can say if they know anything good or evil concerning the party, and thus by their testimony effect that he be chosen or not chosen." And Blondel, in commenting upon this passage, denounces the evasion in the following emphatic and unceremonious statement, which is enough at once to overturn the whole of Sir William's argument:-"This miserable evasion is intolerable in a grave writer, as if, forsooth, he could be said to have the power of choosing and giving his vote, and to be exercising this power, who can only do what a man absolutely wanting all right of choosing and voting can do whenever he pleases; or as if any one could be found so brazen-faced as to venture to deny, that even the worst of infidels may tell whatever of good or evil they may know concerning the person proposed to be ordained, and thus by their testimony effect that he be not chosen. Upon this hypothesis they will have, equally with the faithful, the right of choosing and voting."†

Sir William's leading object is just to prove that Calvin and Beza, and the reformed churches generally, gave no more power and influence to the Christian people in the choice of their pastors, than the Church of Rome concedes to them,-namely, a right of stating objections, of which church courts are to be the judges. This is, in other words, to maintain, that in the judgment of Calvin and Beza, not only had the people no right to choose their ministers, but that their consent was not necessary to the formation of the pastoral relation, and that church courts are entitled to intrude ministers upon reclaiming congregations whenever they think the opposition of the people unreasonable or unfounded. The Church of Rome concedes to the people as much weight and influence in the settlement of ministers as the present law of the Established Church of Scotland, commonly called Lord Aberdeen's Act, allows them; and Sir William has attempted to prove that Calvin, Beza, and the Reformed churches gave them no more. No man who has carefully and deliberately considered the writings of Calvin and Beza can believe this; and yet this is not the first

De Clericis, c. vii. (Disputat., tom. ii. p. 100).

† Apolog. pro. Senten. Hieron., p. 383.