are

unity with Rome. Those who now do him reverence those who reject the title of "Protestant," and delight in that of "Catholic," if it only be applied peculiarly to the Roman fold. Mr. Perry is not of this extreme class. He says, "We may admire Laud for his consistency, zeal and firmness, but probably most persons will admit that he was narrow-minded, impolitic and imprudent. . . . . A union of the policy and talent of Williams, with the learning and character of Andrewes, might have saved much of the troubles which were already darkly looming in the distance. A policy

of repression, coercion and menace was to be tried to the utmost both in Church and State, and its signal and terrible failure to remain a sad warning for all time."--(i., 324.)

The intellectual consequences were humiliating. "In the days of Laud the development of mind was hampered by the civil ascendency of Churchmen."

The clergy "were too busy and managing, to become a literary class. They may have possessed a respectable amount of professional learning, but only in a few instances did they show a conspicuous excellence." Mr. Perry further says, quoting Burton, that the greater part of Laud's bishops thought it best to confine themselves to articles of inquiry and an occasional sermon in praise of themselves and the king. What a fall! In the days of Edward and Elizabeth the higher clergy had set a noble example of studiousness. They were not intellectual giants, but they did their best in theological scholarship. They held to great doctrines, and wrestled to understand them. Only the highest, holiest truths can give Augustines, Anselms, Calvins, Latimers, or Jewells to a period of the Church. With the theory of the Arminian sense, or the ambiguity of the Articles, came a neglect of clean-cut, definite theology. The "Institutes" and "Common-places" were thrust out of the Universities, and nothing so comprehensive was brought into their place.

Not only the quality but the quantity was effected; little was produced, especially of the popular kind. Bishop Ellicot has recently, in the essays entitled " The Church and the Age," complained of this result. "The truth is," he says, "we have far too much neglected the study of systematic theology in this

...

country" (England). Pearson and Jackson produced "our two really great dogmatic works. What we have had since their time have been treatises on the Articles of the Church of more or less merit and usefulness," but the writers had not the knowledge of " speculative philosophy" to meet "the difficulties felt by modern thinkers," nor did they attempt to re-arrange the Articles into a systematic form. Indeed, he thinks, the Articles do not furnish a sufficiently broad basis for a complete system of theology. It is gratifying to find a bishop thus strongly favoring" a true and intelligent system of Christian dogmatics," as a want of the age. It is also pleasing to notice that, in the absence of theological and practical writers equal to the "Dissenters " during the seventeenth century, our Anglican friends prize, and sometimes edit, the works of such grand old Puritans and non-conformists as Baxter and Owen, Flavel and Howe. A living Churchman edits the "Complete Works of John Bunyan. Nor do we fail to acknowledge the merits of Donne and Jackson, Bishop Hall, "the English Seneca," and Jeremy Taylor, "the poet of the pulpit." Thus a fraternal correspondence between our ecclesiastical bodies is conducted through the writings of godly men who were too great and good to be limited to any one branch of the truly Catholic Church, and who being dead yet speak, and amid such company we forget the wars of the past.

The tendency to make the Articles and theology of the Anglican Church appear very equivocal was another deplorable consequence. They certainly were not so regarded in the reign of Elizabeth, when Thomas Rogers wrote the only commentary of the time on the Thirty-nine Articles. It was countenanced by Archbishops Whitgift and Bancroft. It offended only papists and anti-prelatists. It was, says Toplady, "perfectly and judiciously Calvinistical from beginning to end." It gave only one sense to the Articles. The Church was happier with a creed which had a definite meaning. But from the days of Laud we have history enough-Mr. Perry gives enough-to show the endless trouble caused by the theory of an equivocal creed. It fosters the notion that two theologies in a Church are better than one, and has led

some to act as if they thought it still better to have no theology at all.

Mr. Perry's volumes are instructive in the record of precedents. In our day and land there is frequently a local agitation about matters of subscription to articles of ritual and of the use of certain forms. Some almost prophesy that these will finally end in a revision of the entire "Book of Common Prayer," or a retirement of the complainants. But all this is only a repetition of the past. Disaffection has been frequent. Petitions for revision and change have been made. Protests have been offered. And yet the Liturgy remains unchanged. It is long since the canonically disobedient have been severely punished; we do not look for severities now against them. There has been no schism on such grounds; we look for no separation of dissenting parties from the Church, which they love, and which most of them regard as in spiritual unity with Protestant Christendom.

ART. V.-THE ORDER OF SALVATION.*
By DIAKONUS SCHRÖDER.

Translated by Rev. G. W. SHELDON. Instructor in the Union
Theological Seminary, NY.

[THE Order of Salvation (Ordo Salutis, Heilsordnung) is founded upon Acts xxvi., 17, 18: "The people . .

unto whom now I

send thee" (Calling,) "to open their eyes" (Illumination,) "and to turn them from darkness to light" (Conversion,) “and from the power of Satan unto God" (Regeneration, by which we become sons of God,) "that they may receive forgiveness of sins" (Justification,) "and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me" (Union with Christ through Faith, Sanctification, Preservation in Holiness, and Glorification.)-Hollaz, quoted in Luthardt's Kompendium der Dogmatik, §59. 2.-Tr.]

THE SYMBOLICAL DOCTRINE.

Although Evangelical Lutheran Theology was first led, on account of Pietism, to present an exact " Order of Salvation,"

*Ueber die Lehre von der Heilsordnung. Ein kritisch-dogmatischer Versuch, vom Diakonus SCHRÖDER in Urach im Königreich Württemberg.

i. e., a systematic statement of those steps by which the individual is brought to salvation, or to a participation in the kingdom of grace as well as in the kingdom of glory, yet the conception of an Order of Salvation came into existence, necessarily and by name, with Protestantism itself. Of course, the religious development of believers is various, and we must be on our guard against making something that belongs only to a special leading of grace, a general valid type, and so attempting to prescribe methodically to the Holy Spirit an order which he does not follow. We must state those general characteristics which are found everywhere, because they lie in the essence of redeeming grace and of the guilty man to be redeemed. As surely as the Evangelical Church, in its doctrine of Justification, lays down any different way of salvation, as does the Romish Church, e. g., so surely must it teach another order of salvation. For this reason, the germs of the doctrine of the Order of Salvation are contained already in the Symbolical Books.

The passage in these Books which approaches the nearest to what has of late been called the Order of Salvation is, as is known, the exposition in Luther's Shorter Catechism of the Third Article, [of the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church," etc.]: "The Holy Ghost has called me through the Gospel, has illuminated me with his gifts, has sanctified and preserved me in true faith." Here Luther portrays, in the first place, the preparatory work of the Holy Ghost, viz., Calling; then that by which salvation is communicated, a work that is two-fold, consisting of his entrance into the understanding, as Illumination, and into the will, as Sanctification; finally, the carrying on of this work in those who have already been illuminated and sanctified, viz., Preservation in true Faith, and, we may add, in the Sanctification wrought by Faith. There is a single obscurity in the phrase, "in true Faith." Is the meaning that Faith arises from Illumination, and forms only the antecedent of Sanctification, or that Faith arises from Sanctification, since Sanctification has already appeared in the fact that the man has attained unto Faith? Neither of the suppositions

is entirely correct. The phrase is somewhat ambiguous. As Luther once makes a distinction between Illumination of the undertsanding and Sanctification of the will, he can not attribute the source of Faith either to the one or the other, for it belongs to both, since Faith, as the Defense of the Augsburg Confession says, p. 125, is not merely knowledge in the understanding (notitia in intellectu) but trust in the will (fiducia in voluntate). In his very first negative proposition, he speaks distinctly of the source of Faith: "I believe that not of my own reason or strength can I exercise Faith in Christ Jesus my Lord, or go to him;" while in the second proposition he skilfully pushes in Faith between Illumination and Sanctification, so that, while hanging between them, it is also a bond of union. In reference to the whole symbolic passage it is well to observe that the Catechism does not attempt to describe the development of the state of grace, but the work of the Holy Spirit, and that thus the effects of divine grace, of which it speaks, are to be considered chiefly, not in the passive, but in the active sense, i. e., as the operations of the Holy Spirit, and not as it effects on the hearts of men. Hence the Catechism gives an incomplete Order of Salvation; essential links are wanting, and can be inserted only by doing violence to the definitions of the Catechism. Above all, Justification is lacking, and must be lacking; for although man obtains Justification through the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, Justification is not itself an operation of the Holy Spirit. Nor can Conversion be dove-tailed into the definitions of the Catechism; of one of the elements of Conversion, viz., Faith, it has spoken above, but the other element, Repentance, it does not touch upon at all. Had Luther wished to describe Conversion, he would necessarily have made prominent another contrast, in the work of the Holy Spirit, than that between Illumination and Sanctification, viz., that between its office of correcting and its office of comforting, which leads, subjectively, to the contrast between Repentance and Faith. But the old Catechisms, and the Symbolical writings generally, prefer to treat the doctrine of Conversion in connection with that of the Sacraments, not only on account of the Romish conception of Repentance