11,

favour that system. Among those who subscribed and attested its articles, are found the names of George Carleton, Bishop of Landaff; John Davenant, Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and afterwards Bishop of Salisbury; Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney College, Cambridge: Thomas Goad, Precentor of St. Paul's; and Walter Balcanqual, a Scotch presbyter. Davenant was the author of a very able defence of the Calvinistic system, in answer to Hoard, an Arminian. Although the accordance of the decisions of that Synod with the doctrines of Calvin, cannot be questioned, yet, Mosheim is incorrect in representing that the Geneva Confes sion and the creed of Calvin were what the opposers of Arminius wished to impose, and the Remonstrants resisted. The Confession and Catechism of the Belgic Churches alone were appealed to in the contest; and Arminius was accused of deviating, not from the opinions of Calvin, but from the Confessions to which he was bound to adhere. The only way in which Calvin is ever mentioned in the "history" published by order of the States General, is, along with others, as an eminent doctor of the Reformed Churches. Thus, Arminius is accused of having vehemently attacked the reputation and authority of the most illustrious doctors, Calvin, Zanchius, Beza, Martyr, Ursinus, and others; and his disciples are represented as glorying in the profession of an entirely new theology. It was not then supposed,' remarks Mr. Scott, that there was any essential difference between the doctrine of the Church at Geneva and that of the other Reformed Churches.'* The opinions attributed to the Synod of Dort by Heylin after Tilenus, in his abbreviations of the articles, are chargeable neither on the, Belgic Churches, nor on Calvin himself: they are a gross and shameless misrepresentation. This Mr. Scott has clearly, proved by confronting them with the real articles of that Synod, from which they differ, not only as an unfair abridgement, but as containing interpolated clauses to which there is nothing answering in the original. Dr. Copleston could not surely have seen this publication, or he would not, after this exposure of. the unprincipled conduct of Heylin or his authority, have printed these spurious conclusions' in his appendix, as the most moderate and impartial account of the proceedings' of the Synod.

On the same ground, then, that the Church of England Articles are denied to be Calvinistic, because Calvin had no hand in them, it might fairly be argued that those of the Synod of Dort are not chargeable with Calvinism. The word Calvinist is never once used in the historical preface. Nor did the con

Scott's Synod of Dort. p. 13.

troversy turn upon those points only which Dr. Copleston has thought proper to exhibit as the distinguishing tenets of the Geneva school. The main dispute was, not about Election and Reprobation, but about Justification. In the conference between Arminius and Gomarus, in 1609, the former was particularly anxious that the article of Predestination should be first discussed, while the latter urged, that, because the article respecting Justification seemed more necessary,' the beginning should be made with that. And when, three years after, the Count of Nassau earnestly recommended the heads of the contending parties to see whether some honourable way might not be found out of composing so deplorable a schism, Festus Hommius de clared, that if the Remonstrants differed from the rest of the pastors in no other articles than those five concerning predes⚫tination and the heads annexed to it, he thought that a way might be found out, in which some peace might be established between the parties, until the whole controversy should be settled by a national Synod;' but that there were weighty ⚫ reasons which led the churches to believe, that most of the Remonstrants dissented from the doctrine of the Belgie Churches in more articles, and those of greater importance! This, though disclaimed by Utenbogardus for himself, was notoriously the case with Vorstius, Venator, and several others of the Remonstrant party. The opinions of Vorstius differed but little, if at all, from the Socinian system; and yet, the Remonstrants expressly declared, that they had nothing against him, nor had they detected in his writings any thing repugnant to truth and piety. This circumstance, Mosheim admits, rendered the Arminians particularly odious;' and our own James I. thought himself called upon to admonish the States General, 'as well by letters as by his own ambassador, not

to admit a man infamous by so many and so great errors and ⚫ blasphemies, to the public office of teaching in the University.' In the conference held at the Hague, Feb. 1613, the orthodox pastors again declared their readiness to come to an amicable adjustment of their differences with the. Remonstrants, provided the latter would assure the churches, by a sincere and open declaration, that they thought differently from those reformed churches in no other heads of doctrine except the five articles.' That is, as the Editor of Mosheim expresses it, pro 'vided they would renounce the errors of Socinianism.' • But ⚫ since the Illustrious the States, two years before, (Dec.3, 1611) had by name expressed six heads of doctrine, concerning which they forbad to be taught otherwise than it had been ⚫ hitherto delivered to the Belgic churches: namely, concerning the perfect satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ for our sins,

the justification of man before God, saving faith, original sin, the assurance (or certitude) of salvation, and the perfection of man in this life; they in the first place demanded, that they ⚫ would declare concerning these articles, that they embraced the opinion expressed in the Confession and Catechism of these churches, which they the other pastors had comprised from the same in certain written theses; and that they res jected the contrary opinion, proposed in certain anti-theses, from the writings of Arminius, Bertius, Vorstius, Venator, and others.'* This the Remonstrants declined. So far is it from being the fact, that these differences mainly respected ab solute Predestination, or any thing peculiar to the Calvinistic system, or that the Synod of Dort, how objectionable soever the mode resorted to for terminating the controversy, was convoked for party ends, or for the purpose of imposing on the Remonstrants the creed of Geneva.

But although, at that period, both king James and his bishops discovered this disposition to favour what is generally called Calvinism, it was not long before events, chiefly,' remarks Dr. Hill, of a political nature, occasioned a revolution upon this point in the sentiments of James, and of those members of the Church of England who were attached to the cause of monarchy.' There can be no doubt that the disgust which James early con ceived against the Presbyterian discipline, paved the way for the change in his theological sentiments. His well-known saying, No bishop, no king,' and the king-craft' on which he prided himself, together with his irreligious and licentious character, afford the only satisfactory explanation of his strange and sudden abandonment of his educational principles. In the reign of Charles I., the countenance of the Court was confined to the divines who favoured the Arminian system; and although the controversy was forbidden ground, Archbishop Laud wrote a treatise to prove, that the Articles admit of an Arminian sense. The ideal connexion between the Arminian theology and Episcopacy, the Calvinistic system and Presbyterianism, was rivetted on the prejudices of the nation by the transactions of the succeeding reigns. No person,' remarks Principal Hill, who is acquainted with the history of the factions of that country (England), can entertain a doubt, that political causes have contributed very largely to the disrepute in which CalAvinism has been held by many dignified and learned members of the English Church. But, unhappily, these causes have produced a departure, not merely from the creed of Calvin, but equally from that of Luther and Melancthon himself, from the doctrines common to the German and the English Reformers.

Scott's Synod of Dort. p. 71.

No instance occurs in history, of a deviation from the creeds of the Reformed Churches in those points which are more properly called Calvinistic, that has not issued in a deviation in those doctrines which are more generally allowed to be essential to vital Christianity. Bishop Horsley, in warning his clergy to beware how they aimed their shafts at Calvinism, before they knew what is Calvinism and what is not, admits that a great part of that which is now ignorantly called Calvinism, is closely interwoven with the very rudiments of Christianity." And Dr. Copleston ingenuously confesses, that he has often been dissatisfied with the attempts made to refute the Calvinistic opinions; attempts which seemed to me,' he adds, ⚫ often to retain as much error on their own side, as they exposed on the opposite, and to deprive Christianity of much of that spiritual and vital force which is its main characteristic and essential property.' Into the nature and tendency of his own attempt, we shall presently inquire; but in the mean time, we wish to submit to his consideration this important fact. He virtually concedes, that Calvinism is so closely identified, in the minds of many persons, with all that is spiritual in Christianity, that its opponents have found it difficult to steer clear of attacking Christianity itself. We can assure him that, in the popular mind, this association is too strong and of too long a standing ever to be dissolved. By Calvinism, nine people, out of ten will always persist in understanding the doctrines of Justification by Faith and Divine Grace, as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles; doctrines which are known to be the main subject of the Calvinistic preaching, and which their opponents either consign to silence, or present (for the most part) in a garbled form. What Calvin himself held respecting Ab-., solute Decrees, they neither know nor care. It is enough for the irreligious, that here is an obnoxious term ready to their hand, which it suits their purpose to employ in order to fix opprobrium on any doctrines which, in their opinion, savour of Methodism; while to plain Christians, the knowledge that the reproach of Calvinism is directed against the most essential doctrines of Christianity, naturally leads them to employ that term in designating the fundamental articles of the Reformed Faith. Now, this being the case, how incorrectly soever the word in question may, in the first instance, have been applied to those doctrines, it is not in Dr. Copleston's power to make persons in general understand, that when he writes against Calvinism, he means only one particular tenet, which Calvin held two centuries ago, and that he does not at all mean to speak of the Calvinism of the present day as taught in the writings of

our standard theologians. When they hear that the Thirty-nine Articles are proved by a learned Prebendary to be anti-Calvinistic, they will naturally conclude, if they believe so strange a paradox, that either the evangelical clergy or else the Articles themselves, are all in the wrong. For how can it enter the heads of plain people, that those who have so long gone by the name of Calvinists, are, after all, not Calvinists, because they do not hold a certain notion, which most of their hearers never heard of? By avowing himself, then, an anti-Calvinist, and by employing his talents to strengthen the prejudice against Calvinism, Dr. Copleston will have served the cause of a party, and, although we are persuaded it was not his intention, will have contributed to aggravate and extend the odium which attaches to the name. But he will not have succeeded in doing any thing towards rendering the doctrines of the Thirty-nine Articles palatable to the party who are dissatisfied with them in their obvious interpretation, nor towards reconciling to curious and carnal persons,' what he himself deems vital parts of the Christian system. The doctrines of Predestination and Election and of Justification by Faith, will, under any form, be to the self-righteous a stumbling block, and to the sceptic foolishness. Nothing can render them attractive to the minds of worldly or unregenerate persons. The popular outcry against Calvinism, originates in a deeply rooted disaffection to the humbling doctrines of the Gospel: it is at once an ignorant and an irreligious outcry. Dr. Copleston's work, will, we fear, have the effect of abetting and encouraging this vulgar and indiscriminate hostility. Those who cannot follow him into his reasonings, will be glad to plead his authority. He will be claimed as an auxiliary by men with whom he has little in common in temper, sentiment, or principle. And after all, he may depend upon it, that all that is spiritual and vital in Christianity, even in his own account, will, out of Oxford, go by the name of Calvinism.

2. We proceed to the consideration of the metaphysical inquiries which form the immediate subject of the volume.

The first discourse has for its object, to invalidate the doctrine of Philosophical Necessity, by arguing, that, in proportion as the doctrine is really believed, motives must cease to operate; that consequently, that doctrine being true, the perfection of our knowledge would destroy all motive to action; and thus, that the improvement of our mental powers would lead to the extinction of moral principle.

In the second discourse, the Author labours to shew, that the doctrines of God's Providence and man's free-will, are each