again referring to the party who have so complacently inscribed brother on the grave of Heber; as their peculiarities, and his differences thereupon, will open, perhaps, on the whole, a more intelligible view of his opinions, than any other method with which we are acquainted. The points, then, on which the so-called Evangelical party have separated from their brethren, are principally these: 1. Unconditional election and reprobation, with final perseverance, and the concomitant mysteries, commonly called, collectively, Calvinism; 2. Nonbaptismal regeneration, consequent on the former, and necessarily implying it; 3. Severe and peculiar modes of life, condemnation of amusements, &c.; 4. Lax notions of Church unity, symbolization with dissenters, &c. An examination of Heber's opinions on each of these subjects will afford us a tolerably comprehensive understanding of his general views.

1. As regards Calvinism, this has always been kept in the back ground, as often as it has been found convenient to mystify the public mind on Heber's religious predilections; and, very necessarily, since we see already that he signed himself an Arminian, and has written a very elaborate and demonstrative confutation of Scott's Calvinism, in his "Force of Truth." We recommend our candid Calvinistic or semi-Calvinistic friends to turn to the seventeenth chapter of the "Life," and by no means to admit Scott's assertions for Scripture truths, till they have read Heber's masterly exposure. We cannot, however, withhold from them the following perfect demolition of Scott's principal argument, with which so many pious, but enthusiastie persons, have been converted to Calvinism.

He [Mr. Scott] reasons throughout his work, particularly in the conclusion, to this effect: I have examined these doctrines carefully; I have prayed diligently to God the Holy Ghost to show me the truth; I believe he has heard my prayers; and, therefore, I am sure that all which I have written is true.” He professes, indeed, (in p. 64 and 80,) to make a distinction between doctrines absolutely necessary, and those which are peculiar to Calvinists. But, on the other hand, he tells us that the system of true Christianity is " incomplete without them," (p. 62.) He tell us, (p. 71,) that he has been led to adopt a system (which in p. 72, he explains to be "every doctrine of the despised system of Calvin,")" under the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit," and, therefore, it is plain that he has expected as a right, and as the promised return to his faithful prayers, not only the sanctifying and purifying graces of the Holy Ghost, not only grace to perceive the things which were absolutely necessary to his salvation-but power to determine between the opposite arguments of Calvin and Episcopius.

Now this arises from a misconception of the promises made to prayer, and an inattention to what passes within and around us. It is, indeed, as certain as God is true, that whatever He has authorised us to ask of Him, He will grant to our faithful prayers, through Jesus Christ. But when we ask for more than He has promised, we ask for what we have no right to expect; we presume beyond His offered mercy; and so far from being bound by His promise to hear our prayer, it is well for us if He does not send chastisement or blindness instead of the prosperity or knowledge for which we are over-anxious. But it is certain that God has only promised us necessary things; and all the passages in Scrip

ture which Mr. Scott quotes (pp. 75, 77, &c.) are understood by all parties as referring to necessary things only. Thus, if a child asks bread of his father, a good parent will not give him a stone; but if he asks for a fine coat, for a costly toy or an unnecessary (to him, perhaps, an unwholesome) dainty, his father will refuse his request, and possibly punish him for making it; and if I should pray to be made a bishop or an expert mathematician, I should fall under the same censure. In like manner, in spiritual gifts, placed as we are in the lowest rank of spiritual beings, and sentenced for the present to "see through a glass darkly," it is plain that the promises of "the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him," of being "guided into all truth," and having "by the same Spirit a right judgment in all things," must be limited to such aids and particulars as may ensure our salvation through Jesus Christ; and that we may as well ask for the wings of an angel as freedom from error in whatever doctrinal point may chance to attract our attention. Were it otherwise, there could be no such thing as difference of opinion among those who are really God's children, while it is plain that such difference exists among men who are likely to have prayed for the help of the Holy Ghost as earnestly, (though with somewhat different expectations of the manner in which their prayers were to be heard,) as Mr. Scott himself. Nor can we decide under how many or how great circumstances of error God may allow His children to remain, or how small a measure of light is sufficient, in His hands, to bring them to Him.

Many of the leading doctrines of popery are, to all appearances, subversive of some of the plainest and most essential articles of the Christian faith; yet I cannot read the lives of Bellarmine, Charles Borromeo, Vincent de St. Paul, Fenelon, and Pascal, without feeling that they were holy and humble men, incessant in prayer, and devoted to God and to their inquiries after truth; or without a painful consciousness that, with all the clearer views of God's dispensations which I believe myself to possess, I should be happy beyond my hopes, and certainly beyond my deserts, to sit at the feet of the meanest among them in heaven. Nor dare we, as I conceive, deny that men like these, however grievously mistaken in some points, were under the guidance and teaching of that Spirit from whose inspiration only such virtues as theirs could proceed.

Notwithstanding, therefore, Mr. Scott's prayers and sincerity, he may be in error of the most pernicious kind, though God in His mercy may, through mists and darkness, conduct him to Himself. And how much or how little of his views of religion is erroneous, must be proved by argument and the test of the Holy Scriptures, not by the sincerity of his conviction, the intensity of his devotion, or, what he himself lays so much stress on, the strength of those prejudices, those hopes and fears which he had to encounter in his progress to Calvinism. -Vol. I. pp. 535–537.

It was not probable that a mind which could take so clear and comprehensive a view of this subject should ever take any other. Nor was the probability violated in the instance of Heber. He was a consistent Arminian to the very last. In his sermons on "the decrees of God," and on "God's dealings with Pharaoh," the Calvinistic doctrines are admirably dissected and impugned; and in a discourse preached at Madras, less than a twelvemonth before his death (Sermon X. of the "Sermons in India,") we read :

In thus maintaining God's absolute sovereignty, I am NOT maintaining the doctrine of ABSOLUTE DECREES. I CANNOT CONCEIVE that God ever uses His sovereignty in that manner; though grace is free, it will not follow that it is employed IRRESISTIBLY; and, for all which appears to the contrary in the present parable, the labourers who were sent into the vineyard might, as well as the guests who were invited to the marriage supper, have refused to go, and have preferred their previous idleness, or the service of a different master. But

with such as accept the call, with such as persevere in their labours, with such as, on account of these labours, have reason to expect everlasting life from their Heavenly Father, with all such the calling has been of God; and for that calling, and all its blessed consequences, they owe to God unbounded thankfulness, and have reason to ascribe to His goodness alone even the covenanted rewards which they receive from Him.-P. 170.

2. Heber's mind was of too logical a cast to associate the rejection of fatalism with the acceptance of nonbaptismal regeneration. Many who have revolted in just horror from Calvin's predestination, have yet become converts to the latter opinion. Yet it is impossible to disunite the two. No man can be regenerate except by the Spirit of God. This is generally allowed. Then, if men become not regenerate by water also, we immediately are compelled to admit a selection, or (as its own advocates term it) an arbitrary election on the part of God. As all who are not born again cannot enter into his kingdom, those who are not thus regenerated must be reprobated. The connexion of this doctrine with the "horribilis doctrina" of Calvin, did not escape the observation of Heber. Accordingly he is, on this point, plain-spoken and decisive. Let us hear him, in his "Critique on Scott." That writer, with perfect consistency, degrades the ordinance of baptism from its sacramental efficacy, contemptuously terming it "water baptism;" forgetful, however, that "water and the Spirit" are associated in the very Scriptures on which his own sect profess to lay the foundation of this dogma. Heber replies-

What he says respecting "water baptism," is founded in misapprehension. Nobody, I apprehend, ever supposed, that "being born of the Spirit" was the same thing with water baptism. What we maintain is, that it is a SPIRITUAL grace, quite distinct from the outward sign, but given by God, according to his promise, to those who receive that sign. We believe, that in baptism, a MIGHTY WORK IS WROUGHT ON THE SOUL BY THE HOLY GHOST: that the person thus devoted to God is placed in a state of adoption and salvation; and that a seed of life is then sown, which the subsequent favour of the Holy Ghost (as displayed in His various ordinary and providential visitations, both internal and external,) like the genial influence of the sun, invigorates, renews, and calls into action. WITHOUT THIS BELIEF, BAPTISM WOULD BE AN IDLE PAGEANTRY.-Vol. I. p. 540.

In a sermon preached only a very few months before his death, for the benefit of the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, (tenth of the "Sermons in India") we read—

The promise, CONSEQUENT ON BAPTISM, of remission of sins, and the GIFTS AND COMFORTS OF GOD'S SPIRIT, was not only to them and to their children, but to as many as God should call from the furthest regions of the earth, and the nations previously most estranged from the knowledge and worship of Jehovah.—

P. 180.

In the very year of his death the Bishop preached, at Cuddalore, a sermon, before preached at Oxford, in which occurs the following:Though it is certain that in many passages of St. Paul, justification, adoption, and final salvation are employed as convertible terms, inasmuch as they are all constituent parts of one great benefit, and the last is the natural and (so far as

God's share in the transaction goes) the certain consequence of the former, it is plain that the justification of which he had been here speaking (inasmuch as he had spoken of it as already begun in the persons whom he was addressing, and, in the sense of our Church, as the cause, not the consequence of holiness) is distinct, as occurring in this life, from our final acceptance and salvation in the life to come; and is conferred, in fact, in that BAPTISM by whose typical form he illustrates its obligations. It is the same with that REGENERATION of which baptism is the outward symbol, and which marks out, wherever it occurs (THAT IT ORDINARILY OCCURS IN BAPTISM I AM, FOR MY OWN PART, FIRMLY PERSUADED), our admission into the number of the children of God, and the heirs of everlasting happiness. It is the commencement of that state of salvation in which, if a man continues, death has no power over him, inasmuch as the grave, which our nature so greatly fears, is to him no extinction of life, but a passage to a life more blessed and more glorious.—Sermons in England, pp. 365, 366.

And in his Address on Confirmation, which derives an interest, the deepest as well as the most melancholy, from the circumstance that it was delivered only two hours before the lamented event which deprived the Gospel of its pious and zealous champion, the Bishop remarks

In reliance on these merits, and on the precious promises of our Redeemer, I, lastly, as His servant and in His name, have prayed for you that your faith fail not. In His name and as His servant, and in imitation of His holy apostles, I have laid my hands on you and blessed you, as a sure token that our prayers would not return empty from the Lord of life, but that ye might receive the Holy Ghost whom ye had desired, and might partake henceforward, in a larger measure and by a daily increase, of that HEAVENLY GRACE, which was, in part, bestowed on you in baptism.—Sermons in India, p. 297.

Bishop Heber was not, therefore, a Calvinist, either directly or by implication; either wholly or partially; either consistently or inconsistently.

3. We come now to consider the Bishop's opinions on those amusements and relaxations which the pseudo-evangelists so austerely condemn, and a participation in which they regard as a warrant of final perdition. The following passage is valuable, not only as it importantly illustrates the position already established, that Heber was eminently a non-party man (a subject to which we purpose to return); but also as affording us his own mild and charitable sentiments on the point immediately under consideration. It is from the same "Critique" from which we have already so largely enriched our pages.

I would wish every one to keep in mind the extreme insignificance of most of those points which are made the bones of contention. Calvinism, which makes most noise, and is used as the general watch-word, even the Evangelical party, as they are called, are by no means agreed upon; and the occasions are so few, even in the case of a Clergyman, when it comes in question, that a man might go through a long and useful life, without being called on to confess or abjure it. But the usual sources of dispute and difference are in THINGS TOO TRIFLING TO BE REASONED ON, on the legality of cards, or public amusements, or whether it be allowable to have a hot dinner on a Sunday, &c. &c. Now MY OWN OPINION on these points is, that THEY ARE NO Where forbidden ; that, duly moderated, they are PERFECTLY HARMLESS, and that it is a return to the severity of the Mosaic law to teach the contrary. But on points like these, in God's name, let every man

enjoy his own opinion! "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, neither let him that eateth not judge him that eateth." The appellations of irreligious person or fanatic, are far too serious to be bandied about for reasons like these; and it is better to shun such discussions, than to run the risk of unsettling the mind of our friend by unnecessary scruples, or irritating him by ridicule or uncharitable reflections.-Vol. I. pp. 549, 550.

The following interesting remarks, on the same subject, are from the pen of his relict:

66

It will be seen, as well from the tenour of Mr. Reginald Heber's writings already before the world, as from the present correspondence, that although his mind was deeply imbued with devotional feelings, he considered a moderate participation in what are usually called "WORLDLY AMUSEMENTS," as ALLOWABLE and BLAMELESS. When the editor requested his advice on this subject the year after her marriage, being for a short time without him in London, his answer was, you may go where you please, as I am sure you will not exceed the limits of moderation, except to Sunday evening parties, to which I have a very serious objection." He thought that the strictness, which made no distinction between things blameable only in their abuse, and the practices which were really immoral, WAS PREJUDICIAL to the interests of TRUE RELIGION; AND ON THIS POINT HIS OPINION REMAINED UNCHANGED TO THE LAST. His own life, indeed, was a proof that amusements so participated in may be PERFECTLY HARMLESS, and no way interfere with any religious or moral duty. The Sabbath he kept with Christian reverence, but not with Mosaical strictness. His domestic arrangements were such as to enable every member of his household to attend Divine Service, at least once on that day. After its public duties were ended, he employed the remainder of the evening in attending to the spiritual and temporal necessities of his parishioners, in composing sermons, in study, or in instructive conversation with his family.-Vol. I. pp. 420, 421.

4. We have already said that Heber made a distinction between high Church principles and high Church party principles; just as he did between evangelical principles and evangelical party principles. Heber was both evangelical and high Church in the pure sense, but neither in the party sense. Of his genuine and unfashionable attachment to his Church we shall proceed to adduce a few decisive specimens. And here the admirable " Critique" will again bear its part.

Though perfect charity should be observed towards dissenters, and though we should be ready to co-operate with them in any good work, by which the peculiarities of our Creed or Church discipline are not compromised, this amiable principle should not lead us to support their missions, or attend their places of worship. The first is doing that by an irregular method, for which, in our Church missions, a regular way is open; the second I cannot consider in any other light than SCHISMATICAL, and therefore SINFUL. This point you will see treated of in my ordination sermon.- —Vol. I. p. 550.

We are not sure whether the sermon here alluded to is now before us. There is, however, a very excellent discourse on this subject (Sermon XII. of the "Sermons in England "), which is, not improbably, that which Heber had here in view, as it was written in the same year (1819.) From this we shall produce a few extracts, sufficiently establishing Heber's opinion on the subject of irregular ministrations, and of those who employ them. Speaking of the common error of "the call," he observes—