"I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me." (Acts xxvii. 22-25.)

Yet immediately after, we find him saying,

"Except these" (the sailors) " abide in the ship, ye cannot be "saved."

But it is time that we said something of Mr. Mansford's work. His theory is, we suppose, in one respect new; for he unites Baxterianism with Millennarianism. He will not reject the doctrine of Election, for he finds it in the Bible: he will not believe,— nevertheless, that any man is " called," without being quite able to obey the call. But the whole mystery, he thinks, is solved in the xxth of Revelations.

The original difficulty he thus states:

"The Arminian stands upon his freedom of the will; and thinking it necessary in order to maintain this, that a personal election should have no place in his system, denies that there is any such thing; and thus casts a stumbling-block in the way of him who finds in his Bible irresistible evidence in favour of such an election. The ultra-Calvinist, on the other hand, standing on his election, and contending that to the election only belong the invitations and promises of the gospel, throws his, and a far more dangerous stumbling block, in the way of the anxious inquirer. The latter, perhaps, is told that he has no concern with the decrees of God; that it is his part to believe and to act as if there were no such revelations, and to leave the issue to God, who will vindicate his own ways in due time-a pious conclusion, and the best advice which, under the circumstances, can be given, and which has answered the purpose with many a humble mind. But there are minds of an order not to be thus pacified. It is in vain to argue with such, that there must be mysteries in religion; that both in the being and the ways of God there must be things incomprehensible to his creatures; and that he will assuredly make his paths plain, and justify all his ways. Granted, (such a mind as the one I am supposing may answer,) that there must be mysteries in the being and ways of God which finite minds cannot see through, and before which my wisdom consists in bending with submissive faith. Such, for instance, is the mystery of the triunity of the Godhead. My natural reason rises in rebellion at the reception of such a truth; but even reason, when a little subdued by the strength of the evidence, acquiesces in the possibility, mysterious as it is, that three divine persons or essences may, in some way incomprehensible to me, be united in one being. But if, instead of the mystery being presented to me in this shape, it be contended that three make five, and that with three persons only there are five Gods, my reason asserts her prerogative of distinguishing a mystery from a simple incongruity -possible truth from palpable error; and assures me at once that here is, indeed, a flat impossibility. Just so with the common interpretation of the doctrine of election. When I read that God has a revealed purpose of rescuing in an especial manner, independent of themselves, a certain portion of the human race from the ruin incident to all; and when, with this fact strong on my mind, I read further and find that all are invited to come and share in

the salvation provided for all, without exception of any, my reason, as in the case of the Trinity, prompts an act of rebellion against this twofold and apparently incongruous revelation, and asks in what possible way it can be made consistent with itself."-(pp. 49, 50.)

This difficulty Mr. Mansford apparently thinks to have been insuperable, until the xxth chapter of Revelation was written; for there, for the first time, he finds a key. That key is thus described :

"As we come into the clearer light of a posterior revelation, the mists which hang upon it recede, inasmuch as that revelation discloses the existence of two distinct parties, who are to be judged at different times, and in a different manner. If we reject this testimony, the question becomes more vexed, and the difficulties thicken as we approach the closing scene, where, if anywhere, we might expect to find them removed; but where, as commonly understood, they may be said to concentrate. If it is found that there are here indeed two parties placed in widely different circumstances, with just the difference in character and position which may explain all that had been said of both, either separately or conjointly, before this great distinguishing feature and privilege of a first resurrection had been distinctly revealed, the question proposed may be considered as answered in the negative.

The simple fact of the existence of these separate parties thus perspicuously revealed to us, if nothing more were said of them, might help to correct our mistakes, and to relieve our perplexities, respecting the Scripture statements of an election by grace and man's final and impartial judgment. But there is more; and in examining what is here said of these parties, and tracing the correspondence between these statements and the previous ones referred to, I trust it will be found, that nothing which we can reasonably desire is wanting to establish that correspondence; and thus to give increased brightness and distinctness to the revealed purposes of God and the prospects of the assured believer; to clear away a heavy cloud from the inquiring but humble and over-anxious believer; and to strip the scoffer of what has ever been one of his most effective taunts against evangelical truth."-(pp. 16-18.) "If we now go back to see what had been made known by previous inspiration respecting those thus elected and registered in the book of life from the foundation of the world,' or 'before the world began,' we find them to be the chosen,' the predestinated,' and the adopted' (Ephes. i. 4, 5) -the elect' (Titus i. 1, 2)-the 'called according to his own purpose (2 Tim. i. 9);-in other words, the saints, or elect church."-(p. 20.)

"From this chain of Scripture testimony is to be gathered,-1. That by comparing Rev. xx. with Dan. vii. the first resurrection saints are not confined to those of a specific epoch, or to a particular mode of death, and that the saints of both correspond in the leading feature of judging or reigning over the kingdom. 2. That the king-priests of St. John are the same as the royal priesthood of St. Peter. 3. That both answer to the regenerate and the chosen or elect people. 4. That these are the redeemed by the blood of the Lamb out of all nations and in all ages,-'the prophets,' as well as the New Testament saints. 5. That these all, receiving their reward at the coming of Christ, correspond with the resurrection saints of the Apocalypse. "To these, that is, to those of the elect who had passed into the state of death before the resurrection, must obviously be added those who, if they had died before this event, would have been raised with their brethren, but who alone, of all the earth, will enjoy the privilege of not tasting death at all, and who, by a momentary change, as in the twinkling of an eye, will be transformed into the same glorious state reserved specially for the elect. And it is to be remarked, that in that sublime account of the resurrection given by St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xv., these two parties of beatified saints are the

only ones who are brought forward as partakers of it. Here is not a single word respecting the wicked, who, as we cannot suppose by an omission with no significance, are left to be understood as no parties concerned in it. This was the resurrection which the same Apostle expressed himself as so desirous of attaining (Phil. iii. 10, 11.) He, of course, knew that there was a resurrection which he, in common with all men, was sure to attain; but this he could not mean there would be nothing peculiar, no special privilege in this. But there was another resurrection in his eye, the subjects of which should alone attain to that higher condition of honour and glory to which he aspired -the resurrection by emphasis; that resurrection of which he himself had given so glowing a description to the Corinthians.

"Having traced the correspondence intimated, and, I trust, established the connection required, between the resurrection-saints of Rev. xx. and the elect saints of prior revelation, we pass over the events of the thousand years to arrive at the great concluding scene-the general resurrection. And here the first thing to be remarked is, that whereas in the former resurrection nothing is said about the wicked, here nothing is said about the saints; and the next is, that whereas in the first resurrection all are raised to one and the same destiny,-eternal life and a royal priesthood,-here, the congregated dead of all the races of mankind since the Fall are divided into two opposite classes, of very different destiny. The third, and most important thing to be noticed is that here too is a BOOK OF LIFE, and with this remarkable distinction, that the names of those found therein are not said to have been written in it BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.

"I have omitted to include amongst these distinguishing marks, the statement respecting the subjects of this resurrection-that they shall be judged according to their works; as the same is said of all in a manner which must include even the elect saints. Taking, however, this judgment according to works, twice stated in conjunction with the post-millennial book of life, here is much to engage us.

"So far as appears, no man's name is found in this book, but as the result of the things written in those other books in which has been kept an exact register of his character and conduct during life. Or rather, perhaps, none will be found to be omitted but the reprobate-the finally obdurate and impenitent; those without any meetness for the heavenly society, or totally disqualified for it. Here, then, we have standing before us, at their final account, all those of the ransomed from eternal death, to whom, as to free agents, the general invitations and promises of the Gospel were made; who had closed with the one, and now receive the other; and of whom we have no contemporaneous evidence to show that all this, as with the elect, had been foreordained and fixed before the foundation of the world."(pp. 21-24.)

Thus, according to Mr. Mansford's plan,-the first resurrection may be called the Calvinistic resurrection; for it will consist of "those who are specially marked out by sovereign grace in the "eternal counsels of the Godhead, and in due time, as they seve"rally appeared in the successive ages of the world, gathered from "amongst the crowd of human beings by the same special grace, "as the first-fruits unto Christ, are characterized by such terms "and descriptions as his brethren ;' as God's elect;' as the ""church of the first-born;' as fashioned like the glorious body ""of Christ;' as 'reigning with him;' as 'kings and priests "" unto God;' as being the same as the angels of God in heaven;' "as judges of the world' and of angels."--(p. 27.)

While the second, or Arminian resurrection, follows at a distance of 1000 years :

66 Nothing of the kind being said of the saved of the second resurrection, all that can be predicated respecting them is-that their names being found in the book of life, they are delivered from the second death, and will share in the immortality of those who had been raised from the dead before them; and that they will have a place, though a subordinate one, appointed them in the new kingdom. And it is scarcely stepping beyond what is revealed to us, to conclude, that the difference between the two will, in some way, be of the nature of princes and subjects."-(pp. 27, 28.)

Thus, finally, Mr. Mansford's general conclusion is as follows:"I am constrained to believe that the general invitations of the gospel are sincere, and that all who come within their sound must be in some way capable of accepting them. On the other hand, I am also constrained to believe that man, as the consequence of his natural depravity, and the opposition of his spiritual foes, is incapable of doing even this without divine assistance. I cannot refuse my belief to the one, without impeaching the sincerity and the veracity of God. I cannot disbelieve the other, without unhinging the whole scheme of mercy, and separating that which God has joined together. To whatever people the gospel is sent, and faithfully preached, that people are thenceforward amongst the called; and, whether they listen to the message or not, will be accounted with as those who have been called. It may also, perhaps, be assumed, that wherever the gospel is thus faithfully presented, there are amongst the rest some of the chosen, who, whatever becomes of the others, will be gathered out and secured. These the Spirit will take care of as his special charge. And has He no care for the rest? According to the rigid predestinarian, He has not: the message was not sent to them, and He has nothing to do with them. Backed by the me. taphysical theologian, he not only insists that such is the Scripture doctrine, but that man, by the necessities of his mental and moral constitution, is incapable of receiving it: being destitute of the freedom of the will upon which its reception must depend, and being equally destitute of that special influence of the Spirit (vouchsafed only to the predestinated) which can bring him to receive it. That man is naturally averse to the things of God, and will never of himself think them of sufficient value to seek them, and that he is so blind to his condition that the gospel has no charms for him, are melancholy truths with which the Bible is replete. But if his case be such as the metaphysical predestinarian requires, then Scripture language is vague and nugatory, and it will be impossible for us to be certain that we receive rightly any portion of divine truth; the promises are vain, the threatenings bugbears, and the invitations a mockery; and the whole of them, for any certainty attached to their meaning, may as well be read backwards.

"Here, then, in opposition to the dogmas of a narrow theology, and the subtilties of metaphysics, is the ground on which the Christian philosopher may take his stand. The gospel is never sent to any without such a measure of grace, that is, in this instance, such a measure of the influence of the Holy Spirit accompanying it, as shall effectually counterbalance the natural indifference or hostility of the heart, together with every physical or satanic hindrance, and place the persons addressed, as to the freedom of the will, in at least as favourable a situation as though they were not the inheritors of a fallen nature. To suppose otherwise is, on the one hand, to make man morally sound as well as free; or, on the other, to charge God with deceiving him.

Thus it is, that some must, and all may. The called everywhere have both the freedom and the power to accept the offered salvation. But within every such body is a lesser body of the chosen, who are the subjects of a more

special and determining grace, by which they are sealed unto the day of redemption. Take the state of the called and the chosen in this view, and all is intelligible and harmonious; reject it, and all is perplexed and conflicting: the parts of the gospel scheme stand self-repelled and wide asunder, and in the gulph between them fall charity, peace, and truth."-(pp. 44-46.)

Intelligible and harmonious!"

Is this so? According to Mr. Mansford's view, the human race is divided into four classes ;

1. The chosen-those who by sovereign, irresistible, electing grace, are taken out of this ungodly world, and saved, not from any regard to their own works or deservings, but of God's free grace and mercy. These are to be raised at the commencement of the millennium; and are to reign with Christ as kings and priests.

66

2. The called who have obeyed the call. Those, as Mr. Mansford speaks," to whom, as free agents, the general invitations "and promises of the Gospel were made; who had closed with the one, and now receive the other; and of whom we have no con"temporaneous evidence to show that all this, as with the elect, "had been foreordained and fixed before the foundation of the "world." (p. 24.) "Here, in this impartial judgment, the ways "and the justice of God will be fully vindicated. While the "ransomed child of Adam hears with rapture his name read from "the book of life, and after the solemnity of his own judgment, "which must nevertheless be passed through, is welcomed, still professing his own unworthiness, into the joy of his Lord-it " will, at the same time, be made apparent to all, even to the sinner "himself, that if his name is not found written in that book, he "will have only himself to blame."-(p. 25.)

3. The called who have not obeyed the call. These, having had, according to Mr. Mansford's view, "only such a measure of grace as may assist without controlling their determination,". have fallen, as Adam fell, the tempter having succeeded to their destruction.

4. Those who have not received the gospel-call in any wise.

Such is Mr. Mansford's scheme. To him it appears to offer an entire and easy solution of all difficulties. To us it rather seems to combine all the "hard questions" of all other schemes, without replying to any of them. The "harmony and intelligibility" of it is not perceptible to us. All that arbitrariness which the carnal heart dislikes, in the doctrine of sovereign, distinguishing grace, is left unremoved. There would still be, on this system, those who would be saved because it was God's eternal purpose to save them, and those who would be not saved,-He having no such eternal purpose of saving them. The offensive part of the Calvinistic scheme is left unmitigated.