Him for Himself_—the price was of course paid to another. Much misunderstanding has arisen from the careless interpretation of these and the like passages, whose phraseology has become obsolete along with the practice of buying and selling slaves, at least in this country. {95a} Matt. xvi. 27. {95b} Matt. xviii. 14. {96a} Vide Exod. xxxiii. 14, et seq. {96b} According to the Calvinistic doctrine above stated, character has no concern whatever with their call; ergo, if this is right, St. Paul is wrong, and mankind _are_ called with respect of persons. {96c} “This system (Calvinism) by setting aside the idea of a human will, leaves the doctrine of Divine Will barren and unmeaning; the idea of a personal ruler disappears, and those most anxious to assert the government of the Living God have been the great instruments in propagating the notion of an atheistical necessity.” _Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ_. {98a} Hopkins on the New Birth. {98b} 1 John iii. 7–10, see also v. 21 of the same chapter, where our confidence towards God is shown to depend on the judgment of our own consciousness of wrong or well doing. The whole chapter is well worth the study of every Christian. {102} I take this from books, not having personal acquaintance with the Presbyterians of Ireland: and such is the confusion generally made by authors between Arianism, Socinianism, and Unitarianism, that it is difficult to know which is meant. As a large proportion of the modern Presbyterians have embraced Unitarian doctrines, it seems improbable that the Irish should have adopted those of Arius, though my author uses the term Arian as applied to the doctrine of the seceders. {106} See “The Use and Abuse of Creeds and Confession of Faith,” by the Rev. Charles James Carlile, Dublin, 1836. “The Irish Church and Ireland,” p. 66–68, and “A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Associate Synod in Ireland and Scotland in the affair of the Royal Bounty,” by James Bryce. Belfast, 1816. {122a} Although the excellent Bishop Heber’s mind was deeply imbued with devotional feelings, he considered a moderate participation in what are usually called worldly amusements, to be allowable and blameless. “He thought,” says his biographer, “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 amusement so participated in, may be perfectly harmless, and no way interfere with any religious or moral duty.”