our minds in rising from the study of this truly valuable volume.

The first is the great importance of genuine ecclesiastical history the history of good and great men: of their times, their services, their principles; the errors into which they fell, or against which they contended; their holy temper and frame of heart; their temptations, their struggles with enemies within and without the spiritual church; their blessed and triumphant deaths. If it were only from the pleasure which interesting narratives inspire, and the common instruction they convey, the study would be delightful. But the development of the Divine mercy in carrying on the work of salvation--the exposure of the artifices and snares of Satan-the vindication of the great and good from the calumnies of the day in which they lived the illustration of the main commanding doctrines of vital Christianity, as the grand means of blessing mankind-the confirmation of our faith when we see the same Gospel, and the same doctrines, and the same efficacy of grace, and the same objections of the wicked, and the same perversions of the unstable prevail, are additional sources of benefit. The vindication of Melancthon in the last volume of our author, and of Zuingle and Calvin in this, is of eminent service to the cause of Scriptural truth. How much is there to edify in this study of ecclesiastical annais, thus impartially conducted; how much to quicken, how much to humble, how much to instruct, how much to keep one stable and moderate, and to guard against the extravagancies into which so many run on every side. We more than ever value that which has stood the test of ages. In reading the history of such men as are presented to us in these volumes, we see how much more is really required for the decision of

important questions than modern smattering self-sufficiency ever imagines. We rise above the times in which we happen to be cast, and the fashion of the day, and imbibe the scriptural, broad, universal, permanent, beatifying truths, which the saints in all ages have in substance held, and which alone God blesses to the awakening, the consoling, and the saving of mankind.

pop

Our second reflection was, they admirable succession of eminent men whom God is pleased to raise up for different services in his. church. Calvin was only one; but what a man, take him for all in all! Abating a little for a severity which undoubtedly ran through his cha racter, and for that overstatement of a particular doctrine to which we have adverted, what a majestic mind did he display; what vigour of thought, what genuine force of intellect; what a commanding leading spirit of deeply rooted pie ty; what self-denial; what supe riority to petty ends, what wis dom, almost oracular, in his coun sels; what noble, dignified, and simple disinterestedness under po verty; what love to the Savion and for the souls of men. W quite agree with Mr. Scott, tha he was not like Melancthon and Ecolampadius, one of those at tractive loveable characters whic seduce an historian to pourtray them in the most favourable light But neither Melancthon nor co lampadius, no, nor Luther, could have done what Calvin, at the par ticular moment of his labours, and in the peculiar sphere in which he moved, and, we may add, in the pe riod at which the Reformation had arrived, achieved. Each filled his. assigned post. From Luther's no ble magnanimity we would detract nothing; from Melancthon's learned sweetness, and Ecolampa dius's mild perseverance, and Zuingle's heroic boldness, we would detract nothing; rather we

would recognise and admire that succession of men of various powers and endowments prepared for the different scenes of service to which they were brought. Two things were common to them all -a profound reverence for the Holy Scriptures soundly interpret ed, and deep personal piety. They had all emerged from the darkness and uncertainty of human traditions into the light and authority of the word of God; they had all tasted of the bitter cup of superstition, idolatry, and torment of conscience, which the antichristian harlot had put to their lips, and had found peace in the arms and grace of Jesus Christ, the one and only Sacrifice for sin, and the one and only Mediator between 1 God and man. To them Protestantism was the holy Book, and the Holy Spirit applying it profoundly to their own hearts. The cause they opposed was human error and opinion, and Papal formality and superstition. They rested on God and his inspired word and the holiness it taught; and they resisted sin and vice, whether under the guise of Popery, or in the more plausible form of a pretended Protestantism.

May God raise up such men in our own day; and the Gospel will flourish yet again; error and folly will be put to shame; missions and Bible Societies will be more largely diffused; the Christian church will be purified from its secular spirit, from torpid orthodoxy and fanatical excesses; and God our Saviour will be known, trusted, loved, and adored, from the rising to the setting sun.

The Reviewer Reviewed. We have in our last number expressed our opinion of the general fairness and candour of the foregoing review. Indeed, if we had not entertained this opinion of its character, we should not have ad

mitted it into our pages. But we have also said, that we should "contest some of the Observer's assertions, in regard to the doctrines of Calvin, and that if we were not greatly in error, should show that he is so, in at least one point of no inferior importance." We proceed to redeem our pledge.

We think that the "reflections on particular points in the character and theology of Calvin," which are contained in the first two paragraphs of that part of the review which appears in our present number, are not well founded. Nay, it seems to us, that the reviewer, after making his statement in the paragraphs referred to, immediately adds what invalidates the whole.

1. He states explicitly, that the doctrines of Calvin, which he had just been censuring, "upon the deep and difficult subject of the Divine purposes were, upon the whole, no peculiarities of his." Again-"Calvin, though he reduced the truths he held on this head to a more regular system, and sometimes carried them, as we have remarked, to a faulty extreme, yet he invented none; he has said nothing which St. Augustine had not said eleven hundred years before he was born. And what is more important, he rather softened than aggravated what had previously been taught by Luther, Melancthon, Zuingle, and others, in the earlier period of the reformation." Again-" On free will, he is far more moderate than Luther and Melancthon in their early writings."

2. He was not the cause of division among Protestants. How could he be so? when, says the reviewer, "It is remarkable, as Mr. Scott justly observes, that we pass through more than half of the twenty-eight years of Calvin's ministry, without ever hearing of the question of predestination. His sentiments were before the world

3. He was not the blameable originator of those exceptionable extremes, which, since his time, have been denominated Calvinism. For what says the reviewer on this point? "On nearly all the additional points which have been called Calvinism in later times, he took the opposite side to that which his supposed followers occupied." This statement the reviewer afterwards confirms, by a specification of particulars, in which Calvin differed distinctly and avowedly, from those who have since usurped his name, to sanction their indefensible tenets.

4. Calvin did not, in his writings, dwell chiefly, or at great length, on the subject of the Divine decrees. "For," says the reviewer, "instead of these deep questions filling the volumes of Calvin, there is little comparatively on the subject in them. Even in the Institutes, they occupy only about a twentieth part of the work." Again -"The doctrine of predestination was not his great subject; it was not that which mainly engaged his powers, much less that on which he exclusively dwelt."

4. The reviewer says, in the first paragraph in our present number, "He carried his metaphysical deductions from Scripture beyond the statements of the inspired oracles; he employed the word reprobate in a sense in which it does

not occur in the Bible, he alluded too frequently to the secret will and purposes of God, and spoke of men in that point of view so as sometimes to seem to contradict the general tenor of Scripture, and the universal practice of the inspired teachers; and he framed too boldly a system which was drawn, as he conceived, from Scriptural principles, but certainly not found explicitly in the sacred volume." Now let candour say, if this is reconcileable with the fol lowing: "Read," says the review. er, "Read his able and most learned Commentaries from one end of the seven folios to the other-you go: 25 find the most luminous expositions of the Holy Scriptures-a penetra tion that solves almost all difficulties-an honest and good sensee or in that seizes on the main pointfairness and impartiality which th seem to know no system. After d three centuries, the Commentaries of John Calvin remain unrivalled." is We think it must either be main rea tained that Calvin in his Institutes pert pointedly contradicted his owner Commentaries on the Holy Scrip tures, or that there is a palpable.ge inconsistency in the two preceding and contrasted statements of the reviewer. But we have no recol Lite lection of having heard or read that even the enemies of Calvin have charged his other works with being in conflict or at variance with his Commentaries. If there ever was an uninspired human mind, in which truth, and especially theo logical truth, was completely and consistently systematized (whether the system was right or wrong, is not now the question), that mind was John Calvin's. We must think, therefore, that good and can. did men-lovers of the great and fundamental truths of revelation, and yet not willing to be esteemed Calvinists and such the principal writers for the Christian Observer appear to us to be-will find

that the inconsistency is in themselves, and not in Calvin, when they take, as they do, a great part of his system and applaud it highly, and yet reject and censure another part; we mean a part on which he placed any considerable stress, and regarded as an integral part of the whole. We plead, not for Calvin's infallibility, but for his consistency-his consistency in the great features of his system. We are not prepared to swear in the words of Calvin, nor in those of any uninspired man. We think him erroneous in some of his opinions in regard to the Christian Sabbath; and we could mention what we consider as minor errors in other instances. But take his doctrinal system of theology, in its essential or important parts, and we verily believe that you must take the whole, with only an allowance for slips and oversights, or charge yourself, and not Calvin, with being inconsistent.

But we have not yet touched the "one point of no inferior importance," mentioned in our last number, in which we think the Observer altogether in error; and but

for which indeed, we should have suffered all the rest to pass unnoticed. It is contained in the following unqualified assertion. "He [Calvin] did not hold the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity." It does not clearly appear whether this allegation is derived from the work of Mr. Scott, or whether the reviewer makes it on his own authority-we suppose the former. We regret that we have not been able to consult Mr. Scott himself, not having heard that a single copy of his last volume has reached this country. The assertion, moreover, it should be observed, is introduced as relieving Calvin from some objections that have been made to his system. But we are persuaded Calvin himself, if he could have been consulted, would have said -non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis. We think we shall show abundantly and incontrovertibly from his writings, that he did hold and teach "the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity." But this our space compels us to delay till the coming month.

THE BURNING SPRING.

Floyd County, Ky. April 25, 1832. DEAR SIR,-In the prosecution of my Sunday school agency I yesterday reached this place, in the immediate vicinity of which is the celebrated Burning Spring, and truly it is a curiosity. On approach ing it I heard its boiling, with a noise similar to that of a fifty gallon kettle over a hot fire. It is situated near the shore of a small creek, which winds its way through a deep valley between the mountains, and near the road side. There is a hole in the ground about three or four feet deep, and about the same in diameter, which, after a rain, is filled to the top with water that is kept perpetually and briskly boiling, by the gas which issues from a narrow space between two rocks at the bottom. This water is always kept muddy, but never Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

runs over, except by an extra quantity of rain.

After viewing it for a few minutes, a lighted taper was applied to the ascending gas, and instantly the whole surface of the water was covered with a bluish red flame, three feet high, emitting a smell similar to that of burning alcohol, and with an intense heat. Thus it continued to burn for one hour while I remained, and I left it on fire.

This blaze, on a dark night, I am informed, illumes the whole valley and circumadjacent hills, and never goes out, except by the effort of man, or the descending shower.

If nothing interferes to extinguish the flame, it continues to burn until the water becomes heated, and finally evaporates, when the issuing gas, burning with more intense heat, consumes whatever combus

2 L