assume that because the advocates of certainty say that the will is determined by motives, and therefore, that the motives are the cause why the volition is as it is, they mean that the efficiency to which the volition is due is in the motives, and not in the agent. Thus Stewart says, "The question is not concerning the influence of motives, but concerning the nature of that influence. The advocates of necessity (certainty) represent it as the influence of a cause in producing the effect. The advocates of liberty acknowledge that the motive is the occasion for acting, or reason for acting; but contend that so far from being the efficient cause of it, it supposes the efficiency to reside elsewhere, namely in the mind of the agent," p. 287. This representation has been sufficiently answered above. Motives are not the efficient cause of the volition; that efficiency resides in the agent; but what we, " by a necessary mental law," must demand, is a sufficient reason why the agent exerts his efficiency in one way rather than another. To refer us simply to his efficiency, is to leave the demand for a sufficient reason entirely unanswered; in other words, it is to assume that there may be an effect without a cause; which is impossible.

The doctrine of free agency, therefore, which underlies the Bible, which is involved in the consciousness of every rational being, and which is assumed and acted on by all men, is at an equal remove, on the one hand, from the doctrine of physical or mechanical necessity, which precludes the possibility of liberty and responsibility; and, on the other, from the doctrine of contingency, which assumes that an act in order to be free must be uncertain, or that the will is self-determined, acting independently of the reason, conscience, inclinations, and feelings. It teaches that a man is a free and responsible agent, because he is author of his own acts, and because he is determined to act by nothing out of himself, but by his own views, convictions, inclinations, feelings, and dispositions, so that his acts are the true products of the man, and really represent or reveal what he is. The profoundest of modern authors admit that this is the true theory of liberty; but some of them, as for example Müller, in his elaborate work on Sin, maintain that in order to render man justly responsible for the acts which are thus determined by their internal state or character, that state must itself be self-produced. The consideration of this point would lead us far from our present subject, which is simply the nature and conditions of free agency. It may, however, be remarked on this subject, in conclusion of the present discussion, that the principle assumed is contrary to the common judgment of men. That judgment is that the dispositions and feelings which constitute character derive their morality or immorality from their nature, and not from their origin. Malignity is evil and love is

good, whether concreated, innate, acquired, or infused. It may be difficult to reconcile the doctrine of innate evil dispositions with the justness and goodness of God, but that is a difficulty which does not pertain to this subject. A malignant being is an evil being, if endowed with reason, whether he was so made or so born. And a benevolent rational being is good, in the universal judgment of men, whether he was so created or so born. We admit that it is repugnant to our moral judgments that God should create an evil being; or that any being should be born in a state of sin, unless his being so born is the consequence of a just judgment. But this is nothing to the question whether moral dispositions do not owe their character to their nature. The common judgment of men is that they do. If a man is really humble, benevolent, and holy, he is so regarded, irrespective of all inquiry how he became so.

A second remark on the principle above stated, is, that it is not only opposed to the common judgment of men, but it is contrary to the faith of the whole Christian Church. We trust that this language will not be attributed to a self-confident or dogmatic spirit. We recognise no higher standard of truth apart from the infallible word of God, than the teachings of the Holy Spirit, as revealed in the faith of the people of God. It is beyond dispute the doctrine of the Church universal, that Adam was created holy; that his moral character was not selfacquired. It is no less the doctrine of the universal Church, that men, since the fall, are born unholy; and it is also included in the faith of all Christian Churches, that in regeneration men are made holy, not by their own act, but by the act of God In other words, the doctrines of original righteousness, of original sin, and of regeneration by the Spirit of God, are, and ever have been the avowed doctrines of the Greek, Latin, and Protestant Churches: and if these doctrines are, as these Churches all believe, contained in the word of God, then it cannot be true that moral character, in order to be the object of approbation or disapprobation, must be self-acquired. A man, therefore, may be justly accountable for acts which are determined by his character, whether that character or inward state, be inherited, acquired, or induced, by the grace of God.

ART. III.-The Works of John Robinson, Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers; with a Memoir and Annotations by ROBERT ASHTON, Secretary of the Congregational Board, London. 3 vols. 12mo, pp. 471, 506, 516. Boston: Doctrinal Tract and Book Society. 1851.

WE hold ourselves under lasting obligations to the Congregational Union of England and Wales for the republication of these works; and to the Congregational Board of Publication in this country, for their introduction here. It is one of the signs of good which we are ever ready to hail from New England.

Among all Congregationalists or Independents, there is perhaps no name that stands higher than that of John Robinson. "Both English and American Independents look with affectionate interest to Leyden as the refuge and home of their predecessors, and to Mr Robinson as their father and friend.”* "The father of New England Congregationalists," is a term by which he is continually recognised among us.

Robinson was born in the year 1575. The precise place of his birth is uncertain. It was probably in Lincolnshire. He was graduated at Cambridge, and commenced his public labours in the Church of England. Dissenting from the ceremonies, the vestments, &c., of the Church, he was suspended. It was for a time his desire to remain in the Established Church. This, however, he soon yielded, and fully joined the Separatists. His subsequent judgment of the Establishment was very severe. In parts of his works he argues earnestly and at length, to demonstrate that the Church of England is no church of Christ. His arguments are such as these:

(1.) She was not gathered according to the word of God. (2.) She is not constituted according to the word of God, being a national and ungodly body.

(3.) The truth is not taught according to the word of God. (4.) The sacraments are not administered according to the

word.

Entire and absolute separation was, of course, the logical conclusion from these premises. How far it was lawful to hold any communion at all with that body, formed a subject of controversy between Robinson and some of his brethren. It should be stated, that he finally modified some of his sternest conclusions in reference to the Episcopal Church.

After labouring a while as a Dissenter in England, the violence of the Episcopal party forced his removal with his friends to Holland. This was in the year 1608. He went first to

* Vol. i., page 5.

Amsterdam, and then to Leyden, where he was ordained pastor of the church which had chosen him for their guide. William Brewster, a name celebrated in the history of New England, was chosen " ruling elder" of the church. While Robinson was at Leyden, the Arminian controversy was raging violently there. He threw himself earnestly upon the Calvinistic side, and engaged in a three-days public discussion with Episcopius himself. After the meeting of the Synod of Dort, he wrote a "Defence of the doctrine propounded by the Synod." This is one of the most important of his works.

The church at Leyden finally resolved to remove to America. Permission was obtained for their settlement in Virginia. It was decided that a part of the church should go first and prepare the way for the remainder; if a major part would go, then the pastor was to go with them, and the elder remain ; if a minority should go, then the elder was to accompany them, and the pastor remain. A minority only went in the first company The pastor gave them his charge, and waited to rejoin them The history of the May Flower and of Plymouth Rock is familiar. What would have been the result to the country and the church, if the May Flower had struck Virginia instead of Plymouth Rock, we leave the thoughtful to conjecture.

Robinson never saw his church united again. As good old Cotton Mather would say, he was not allowed to take New England on his way to heaven. He died suddenly in Leyden, March 1. 1625, aged fifty years. Four or five years after his death, provision was made for removing his family to this country, where many of his descendants now live.

It is, however, with the theological and ecclesiastical views of Robinson that we have been particularly interested; and we do not know that we can render our readers a more acceptable service than to present a brief outline of these views as contained in the volumes before us.

The first volume gives us a series of essays on various moral and religious topics, and the defence of the Synod of Dort; the second is occupied with a justification of separation from the Church of England; while miscellaneous treatises, letters, a catechism, &c., fill the third.

In

The style of Robinson's writings is the style of his time. controversy, he is sufficiently intelligible and sufficiently pointed to be understood by his adversaries. He was aware of the hazards of controversy as well as of its obligation. "Disputations in religion are sometimes necessary, but always dangerous; drawing the best spirits into the head from the heart, and leaving it empty of all, or too full of fleshly zeal and passion, if extraordinary care be not taken still to supply and fill it anew with pious affections toward God, and loving towards men. **

He that strives for error strives for Satan against God; he that strives for victory strives for himself against other men ; but he that strives for truth against error helps the Lord against God's and his own enemy, Satan, the father of lies."*

*

As there is probably no passage in all Robinson's writings that has been as much quoted, and as much used by a certain class of New England theologians, as one that is said to have occurred in his farewell address to the portion of his church that embarked at Delft Haven, it is worthy a moment's examination. The passage is this: "He charged us before God, and his blessed angels to follow him no further than he followed Christ; and if God should reveal anything to us by any other instrument of his, to be as ready to receive it as ever we were to receive any truth of his ministry; for he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to break forth out of his holy word. Also he puts us in mind of our church covenant, at least that part of it whereby we promise and covenant with God, and one with another, to receive whatsoever light or truth should be made known to us from his written word," &c. This passage will be recognised at once as a watchword by which place has been demanded for almost every kind and degree of theological error. Doctrines which good old Robinson's soul loathed as the gates of hell, have been thrust forward behind this covert of his authority. Even Unitarians have not hesitated to claim him for themselves as a progressive man," and certainly with as much right and reason as some others who reject their claim.

But there are several things to be said in respect to this passage.

First, it does not prove at all that Robinson did not regard the great doctrines of the Scripture as known and fixed. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence, as we shall shew, that he did so regard them. If there were some things that were not known, it is plain enough that he supposed some things were known-if there were some doctrines unsettled, it is sufficiently clear that he regarded some as settled. As the editor of the volumes under review, in defending him from the Unitarian claim, admirably remarks, "They imagine he would sympathise with themselves, who, discarding not only all 'creeds,' but the peculiar doctrines of the gospel, and retaining only a few elementary truths of revelation, are striving to form thereon a basis of catholic unity and charity among all Christians! Such an amalgamation of heterogeneous parties, Mr Robinson would most surely have denounced. He contended earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, as his defence of the Synod of Dort abundantly proves; and while he believed that * Vol. i., pp. 36, 37.