inals; it will give a vocabulary; if persisted in, it will familiarize the student with the style of the different writers of Scripture; and, though this does not fall properly within the scope of the present discussion, it will give the general outline of the logical development of the several books of the Bible. If wisely conducted this work will not be a drain upon the student's time. The professor will here supply the words to the student as he reads.

4. Constant drill in the memorizing of consecutive portions of the Hebrew and Greek text. This is not merely nor chiefly to cultivate the verbal memory, or to secure a vocabulary. These important ends will be accomplished, and so good results secured. But what is of equal, if not greater importance, is that this is the best way to make the Hebrew and Greek feel at home in one's mind, and one's mind to feel at home in the Greek and Hebrew. If it is important for the eye, the ear and the tongue, to be upon terms of familiarity with the Greek and Hebrew, it is no less important for the mind to be upon the same footing. It wants to see, with the eye of the body shut, each word standing out before it clothed in its own individuality. Not only so, it needs to have them march in orderly array before it, and to put them through their evolutions until it has them well at command. Thus, and thus only, can it best learn their "several" and their "joint powers."

5. We may add finally, that there should be constant exercise in logical analysis to evidence and develop the student's knowledge of the force of the particles. The relation of this to the ends sought is sufficiently obvious. It is hard to overstate the amount of attention the particles demand and deserve. They are numer ous and constantly recurring. The same particle will have several distinct shades of meaning. They are to discourse, not only what joints and sinews are to the body, but what coloring and tone are to a picture. The proper study of them calls into play the highest powers of the mind-yes, and all the finer sensibilities of the heart. The student who masters them is in a fair way to become himself a master of style. The relation which a knowledge of the particles sustains to scholarship and grammatical interpretation is too obvious to require comment.

Now the writer ventures to think that any method that em

braces these features will secure the end for which the originals are studied in the seminary, and any method which overlooks any one of them will so far fail in securing that end. The following facts, however, should not be overlooked:

1. This method will demand severe application upon the part of the student. This ought not to surprise any one, nor ought it in the least to discredit the method―nulla palma sine pulvere. Those who are unwilling, or for any reason unable to endure hard study, should study their Bible in their mother tongue and adjust the matter as best they can with their Presbyteries and their consciences.

2. The method as outlined above gives the place of chief prominence to grammatical interpretation. It does not by any means exclude attention to other branches of interpretation. On the contrary, it opens the way for them, and constantly calls them. into use. It gives all needed opportunity for a rigid drill in the principles of exegesis. But for all this it does centre attention upon grammatical interpretation. Surely this cannot be urged against it as an objection. The man who understands the principles of architecture, who has a knowledge of building materials and access to them, who knows how to temper mortar, to keep a corner square and a wall plumb, can, with the proper assistance, in the way of bricklayers, hod-carriers, etc., erect any kind of structure that may be needed. So the student well grounded in the principles of exegesis, if skilled in grammatical interpretation, may hope, with the aid of lexicons, grammars and commentaries, to build up or to defend, as the case may be, a sound system of theology.

3. But again, this method, while requiring much labor, will take the student over but little ground, except in the way of "Sight Reading." This is sometimes disappointing to students. They are apt at first to regard the results as disproportioned to the effort. Whereas, in a sense, the true measure of the results is the effort. Not only so, but it would be a mistake to judge a miner's progress by taking a horizontal measure of the mouth of the mine. The true measure here is the depth of the shaft, or better still, what comes out of it.

W. M. MCPHEETERS.

VI. CALVINISM; AND CALVINISM AND INFANT

SALVATION.

The subject is of interest to all thoughtful men. It touches the whole line of human thought; is an essential factor in the statement and discussion of Christian faith; and both as doctrine and polity exerts controlling influence upon civil and ecclesiastical government. Christian charity and interdenominational courtesy, as well, suggest that it is incumbent upon believers to endeavor to understand the system of doctrine held by any considerable body of fellow Christians, and, in understanding recognize it as the formulated faith of men who love truth and not error.

Under the guidance of the Divine Spirit there is an advance. towards a broad and withal a scriptural liberalism, and we believe that true Christian union consists largely, if not altogether, in an honest effort to understand the real tenets of others, and in according to those who hold them, the sincerity one claims for himself.

In the often repeated prayer for Christian union, probably more is included than an ingenuous effort to know one another better, but certain it is in any union that is vital and not formal, such prayer comprehends this spirit as an essential element in its realization. And when, after the fashion, there is an expressed desire for a creed, broad enough for one's own catholic spirit, the Christian man at once commits himself to a candor which will abhor all misrepresentation of the tenets held by others.

The term Calvinism is used to designate, not the opinion of an individual, but a system of religious doctrine, of which the person whose name it bears was an eminent expounder. Calvin did not. originate the system known by his name; the system antedates the great reformer by centuries.

Augustine, of the last part of the fourth and the first of the fifth centuries, was an expounder of the general tenets of this system. Calvin in concise and classic language formulated it as Protestant doctrine. The system known as Calvinism, however,

is not most satisfactorily found in the writings of Augustine or Calvin, but in the Confessions of those churches known as the Reformed, and drawn by the several leaders of thought in the sixteenth century, together with the formularies immediately succeeding them.

It refers to Augustine as an interpreter, but does not accept all that was taught by the great man of Hippo, neither does it subscribe to all the tenets, either in their substance or the mode of expression, advanced by the prophet of Geneva.

Popular apprehension of Calvinism embraces much to which, interpreted by the standards, the system is not amenable. Whatever defects may be supposed to attach to a few points of this doctrinal system, the bulk of it is simply what all evangelical Christians believe. Thus it happens that declamations aimed at Calvinism oftentimes antagonize Christianity, as it is held by all believers. Doctrines characterized as the hard doctrines of Calvinism are, upon examination, found only to be the essential doctrines of a common faith. In the age of fierce controversy, as is to be expected, the defenders of the Calvinistic system "swung" between the extreme and moderate method of statement of the divine decrees, and to this day the objections urged by Arminian divines, against these doctrines, are mainly directed against the extreme theory which, however, is not now held, and has never been held, by any large proportion of Calvinistic teachers. Weapons used against it were forged to attack another system. A generous foe should be ashamed to use them. Quotations, many of them garbled, which have done service for generations, are still appealed to. The scholarly polemic of the nineteenth century should be honest enough to admit that they have been shown a hundred times to be irrelevant to the subject under discussion. The majority of that public which regard these doctrines as an "enormity," and understand "Calvinism," "fatalism," and "infant damnation," to be well nigh synonymous terms, have received the impression from caricatures drawn centuries ago.

To such an extent has detraction been carried in some localities that if one holding these tenets does not preach the so-called "horrid" doctrines expected of him, he subjects himself to the

charge of suppressing his convictions. The charge is unworthy, and should be carefully weighed before repetition. It alleges moral cowardice, or studied dishonesty, in those who occupy Calvinistic pulpits. These men are the peers of other ministry, and such charges can but render the general public suspicious of all who preach the gospel. "He does not preach the distinctive doctrines of his system," says one. The rejoinder to this silly assertion suggests itself. How is it possible for any man, worthy the name, to preach at all, unless it be subject to a real or supposed system of truth. No one can be qualified to teach others until the truth held by him has been formulated in his own mind. This having been done, every sermon will present more or less fully that system that has now become a veritable part of himself.

Further: to honest and capable men should be conceded the privilege of interpreting their own standards. There is, and has been for ages, a widely marked distinction between the two great systems of Calvinism and Arminianism, running through all human thought, philosophy and theological teaching. They have faced each other for centuries, and now confront each other as diverse and contrasted systems; but enough has been done, enough borne and suffered, and enough withal has been accomplished by each of them to prove that those who hold them subscribe to them not as error, but as truth. Each, after centuries of controversy recognizes the difficulty of removing to the satisfaction of the other, objections as earnestly and honestly urged as they are denied. The believer in his own system may not consider the objections urged against it as formidable, but of this he is aware, that men just as candid as he, do so consider them, and thus he is taught to concede to his brother the right claimed to himself of interpreting his own faith.

As long as reasor is limited and logic imperfect, charity demands that each body of defined faith be conceded the right of self-interpretation.

At this point another preliminary demands attention. There exists in many minds the grossest conception of what is claimed to be, the narrowness or illiberality of Calvinistic creeds and practice. This has long been a fruitful theme for declamation.