untrue. I spoke strongly, I fear too strongly; but I felt what I said. Mr. Poynder says that I should have some difficulty in proving what I said. I could prove it; but surely the onus probandi rests on him who makes gratuitously such a statement. I assert that great care is taken at some Public Schools, and I expect at all, to protect boys' morals. And I have no wish to shirk the yet higher question of religious teaching. Doubtless religion and morality are intimately connected, and I wholly demur to the statement, that little attention has been paid either to morals or religion in most of our Public Schools. I may refer to Dr. Arnold's School Sermons at Rugby, to Dr. Vaughan's at Harrow, to Dr. Moberly's at Winchester, to Bishop Cotton's at Marlborough, for a proof that I speak truly. Some of these teachers may, perhaps, not hold precisely similar religious views to those of Mr. Poynder; but it is not therefore true that they neglect the religious training of their pupils; nor do I believe that public school men, as a class, are less religious than those who have been educated at private schools. Clearly no man can prove that they are; and unless it can be proved, it ought not to be stated or suggested.

But I am very unwilling to intrude on your space. I love our Public Schools. They have given to England a fine, noble, manly, and I believe a moral and religious set of sons; and I confess that I do not like to see them attacked in a wholesale way without an attempt to defend them. I beg pardon if I have written a word calculated to hurt your correspondent's feelings; and I still, with your kind permission, subscribe myself only-Your obedient servant,

Z.

ORIGINAL SIN.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR, That when Adam, as the representative of his race, transgressed the Divine command by eating the forbidden fruit, the whole of his posterity sinned and died in him, in so far as they all inherit his sinful and mortal nature, is a proposition which no sound theologian will controvert. But there are some Christians who maintain that, exclusively of the hereditary taint and its consequences thus transmitted, every descendant of Adam is implicated in the guilt of his first transgression, and that consequently, over and above his responsibility for his own personal misdeeds, he is obnoxious to punishment on account of that transgression, just as if it had been his own personal act. Now, assuming it to be true that the guilt of Adam, in his first transgression, involved the guilt of all his posterity in the sense above intimated, it is equally true that no sooner was Adam justified by faith in the promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, than the guilt of his first transgression, as well as of all his other sins, was at once done away. But, by the hypothesis, the guilt of Adam involved the guilt of all his posterity; therefore the guilt of every descendant of Adam was done away by the same act of faith; unless it can be proved that the posterity of Adam, who had not committed the sin, were in a less favourable position with regard to its consequences, than Adam who had committed

it, which will scarcely be pretended by the most strenuous assertors of imputed sin.

Of course this argument will have force with those only who believe that Adam was justified and saved; but all such-and I believe this description would include the general body of Christians in all ages of the Church-must, I think, consider the argument conclusive.—I am &c. JOHN EDM. CARR. The Oatwoods, near Derby; Dec. 19, 1864.

THOS. SCOTT AND THE DORDT SYNOD.

The following letter is addressed privately to the Editor. We print it with a few omissions.

you can

Wappenham Rectory, Towcester. "DEAR SIR,-I venture to write to you because of a sentence in the new Number, which seems to me perfectly unaccountable. The sentence concerns my late grandfather, and is as follows (p. 74) :— "Thomas Scott was at least an honest commentator, and upright in controversy, but he knew nothing of the Synod of Dordt; he thought the Remonstrants were the Calvinistic party." Is there any ground whatever for this charge? I only possess his History of that Synod, as it stands in the collected edition of his works; but there scarcely find a page without the word Remonstrants occurring in it, and I fancy always in the sense opposite to that asserted in the Christian Observer. Surely there must be a mistake somewhere. Still I may be the person mistaken after all, and reference may be made to something in an earlier part of my grandfather's life. I am not at all jealous for his fame; but for a man to pretend to write a history of the Synod, and to make so preposterous a mistake, would seem contrary to the good sense for which he certainly was remarkable. If there is known to yourself any evidence for the charge, I should really be greatly obliged by one line of reference to enable me to understand it.—I remain, yours very truly,

"THOMAS SCOTT."

[NOTE. We cannot recall the precise authority on which we depended for the charge against the venerable Thomas Scott; and therefore, after this letter, we are anxious to withdraw it; but we are satisfied that the charge has been made by his Arminian opponents. We have a general impression that we met with it in Nichols's "Life and Works of Arminius," but we cannot verify it by a reference to chapter and page. It is possible, however, that the charge of ignorance refers to an early period of his public life.

The probability is however, that, trusting to some unfaithful writer, he was drawn into statements which were unfair, without himself intending it, or being conscious of any wrong. The history of the Synod of Dordt is one of the most perplexed in ecclesiastical annals. The doctrines discussed were very imperfectly understood in this country; and the heat and passion which inflamed both parties were great. Bishop Hall, who appeared in the council with two others, as the representatives of the Church of England, gives the highest praise to the assembly, as eminently wise and good. Richard Baxter speaks of it as partaking more of the character of a general council, of

whom the majority were moved by the Holy Spirit (which, our Article reminds us, has not always been the case), than any which have been held since Apostolic times. By other historians every epithet of contempt and scorn has been heaped upon it, till we come down at length to the following piece of scurrility, which is quoted from Mosheim, who on his part quoted it from Neil; who says that "the verses were made in England with a desire to pour contempt upon the Synod, and to turn its proceedings into ridicule.”

"Dordrechti Synodus, nodus; chorus integer, æger:
Conventus, ventus; sessio, stramen. Amen!"

We will only add, that the Arminianism chiefly known in England has been that of the school of Laud, which is widely different from that of Arminius himself, of which Wesley and his friends were the only representatives. His works contain many doctrinal statements which might very well pass for the sentiments of Calvin, so nearly do these great theologians often touch each other on the grand essentials of the Gospel; though on others we think Arminius partial and defective. In fact, Wesley himself passed for a Calvinist amongst the theologians of his day. In a dissuasive from Methodism, of which an English bishop was the author, Calvinism is charged upon him as the greatest of his errors. The tract remained on the list of the Christian Knowledge Society until about the time when Nichols's translation appeared; its unfairness was exposed in these pages; and it was in consequence of the efforts of the editor of those days that it was finally removed.

Editors and critics ought to be especially careful not to bring forward statements affecting either the living or the dead, without having good reason for doing so. But we cannot subscribe to the canon, that they must be always ready at a moment's notice to produce their authorities. The only authority in many cases must be the editor's reputation, and this he is not likely to throw away. All of us in daily life make a hundred assertions for which we can give no authority, and we are seldom required to do so. An Editor can often do no more. We were acquainted with Mr. Nichols, who was a Wesleyan Methodist. He was a self-taught man, and occasionally consulted us in his translation.-EDITOR.]

POETRY.

HYMN FOR SUNDAY EVENING.

KING of Grace and King of Glory,
Thou whom heavenly hosts adore,
We would bow the knee before Thee,
And Thy covenant grace implore.
Now another Sabbath's ended,

We our grateful voices raise;
Thou this Sabbath hast befriended,
Lord, accept our song of praise:

Vol. 64.-No. 326.

X

Praise for Thine abundant blessing,
For Thy Gospel's joyful sound;
Praise that we, Thy truth professing,
May within Thy courts be found;
Praise Thee for our sins forgiven,
Through a dying Saviour's love;
Praise Thee for a hope of heaven,
And a heritage above.

Lord, we love Thy habitation,

Lord, we love Thine house of prayer,
Love to meet the congregation,

And present our praises there:

And we wait in expectation
Of a nobler rest above,
Endless as Thine own duration,
Everlasting as Thy love.

And when Sabbath suns are smiling
On the turf that wraps us o'er,
And when Sabbath bells are chiming,
And we hear the sound no more,
May our spirits be before Thee,
Hymning Thine eternal praise;
Strike our golden harps in glory

Through the course of endless days.

M. S.

[The above hymn was written by one to whom part, and we humbly hope the whole, of the last verse has just become applicable.]

NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

The Ways of God; or, Thoughts on the Difficulties of Belief, in connexion with Providence and Redemption. By T. R. Birks, M.A., Rector of Kelshall. London: Seeley & Co. 1864.-Scripture teaches two things, with equal plainness and decision, which may for a moment appear to contradict each other, but which are, in truth, entirely in harmony. The first is, that man "cannot by searching find out God:-it is high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know ?" (Job xi.) "There is no search

ing of His understanding." (Isaiah xl.) The second is, that to seek to know God is our duty-our plainest interest. The promise is, "I will give them a heart to know me" (Jer. xxiv.); and the golden days yet to come are thus described, "All shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (Jer. xxxi.) The condemnation of the unbelieving is, "He that loveth not, knoweth not God" (1 John iv.); and "eternal life" is declared to be, "to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John xvii.) The union of these two seemingly opposing truths is indicated in Hos. vi. 3:— "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord." The ocean of the Divine love and attributes is boundless, unfathomable; yet a knowledge in measure begins with the Divine life in man, and will go on increasing through all eternity.

In the numberless and difficult questions connected with the Divine Government of a race of sinful creatures, Mr. Birks is a thoughtful and trustworthy assistant and guide. He follows Bishop Butler, handling with judicious skill various intricate matters respecting which the bishop had only suggested topics for investigation. "The long-continued prevalence of moral evil," is the topic of the first chapter; "the perils of human probation" are reviewed in the second. "The moral anomalies of the Divine Government" furnish the subject of the fifth; and "the supposed failure of Christianity" is considered in the tenth. Here are some of the hardest problems on which the mind of man can be employed. But so calmly and reverently does Mr. Birks conduct the investigation, that the reader feels himself in safety, although traversing paths of more than Alpine peril. The key to this feeling of security is, that never once does the writer let go his firm hold on God's word. "It is written "

is the only final argument to which he pays respect; and hence any one who rightly appreciates the firmness and security of this reliance, climbs, with such a guide, the most dizzy heights, without any shrinking of heart.

A striking instance of this loyal trust in the written word, is given at the very outset. In the opening essay, "On the long continuance of Moral Evil," Mr. Birks thus writes :—

"An excellent and well-known commentator reasons on the present subject in the following way:-'Every dispensation of Providence, and especially the whole plan of salvation, shows that God delights in the happiness and salvation of sinners; and that He has done all which was consistent with His own glory to prevent the necessity, so to speak, of executing vengeance. He could, doubtless, convert and save all men and all devils, but He has wise reasons for not doing it. May He not be allowed to be good, because He has not absolutely excluded all evil from creation, which He doubtless could have done? All such objections are the offspring of pride, unbelief and enmity; and while vain men would be wise, they are often little aware that they are running into direct blasphemy.'

"Now if God had expressly revealed to us that His own Omnipotence includes a power to convert and save all creatures, however perverse and rebellious, by a momentary act of the Divine will, and that for wise and mysterious reasons He forbears to use this power, our duty would be humbly to receive the announcement, however perplexing to our faith in His goodness, and to wait in patience for the clearer revelations of the life to come. But since, in the course of a thousand messages from heaven, no such statement can be found, and a solemn oath seems to imply the exact reverse, can it be wise or safe to assume, as undoubted truth, that our first crude impressions of Divine Omnipotence are its true definition, when they clash with impressions of the Divine goodness no less natural and instinctive, and even seem to destroy the force and emphasis of one of the most solemn and weighty of all these messages of God? Is it just or equitable to make the supposed certainty of our inferences from one Divine attribute, unsustained by a single text of Scripture, the ground for charges of pride, presumption, and blasphemy, against those who think those inferences wholly inconsistent with a true faith in the Divine goodness? The force of the difficulties, a frank admission of which is here so indignantly repelled, rests on the assumption, wholly unproved, which is twice repeated in the course of this brief quotation; an assumption, I believe, of which the inevitable effect, when rooted in the understanding, is to obscure and falsify the whole course of Divine providence for six thousand years." (pp. 3, 4.)

And the conclusion of the whole matter is thus summed up :"The Most High is dealing with a problem of immense difficulty in the control and government of a rebellious world. All the means which infinite love can dictate, or infinite wisdom can devise, are used, from age to age, in order