"may have been guilty, and continues to sin that grace abound."

'may

But, in the name of wonder-Who entertains that " detestable opinion," which the Doctor here describes? Who is infected with that " dire superstition," which he here exposes? Where is that multitude of wretched and ignorant enthusiasts, which he here denounces ?-He assures us, that these enthusiasts exist at this day, and in these countries. With great respect, I call upon him to point them out. Till this be done, I shall feel myself justified in regarding the whole as a fiction-burlesque on religion— satire on the age and country in which I live.

From these vague defamatory invectives, let us now turn our attention to more particular misrepresentations and calumnies.

A principal object of attack is Calvin.* That great reformer, he assures us, was a Supralapsarian. But this is not true. That Calvin was a Sublapsarian, all his works prove. Those who doubt may consult his book on Predestination, page 978; his Institutes, book iii. chap. 23. sec. 3; and his commentary on Rom. ix. 21. "Hath not the "potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make "one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour." Supralapsarians say, that the lump mentioned in this text. means the lump of created existence; but Sublapsarians maintain that it means the lump of fallen nature. This is Calvin's opinion; and it proves that the Doctor's charge of Supralapsarianism is groundless.

Equally groundless is the assertion, that Calvin said, “I confess that this is a horrible decree." The word "horrible," is a mistranslation. The Latin word “horribile,” has various significations. One of them is awful. In this acceptation it was used by Calvin. Is it not uncandid is it not absurd-to suppose, that Calvin used the word in a sense, contrary to his own acknowledged principles ? But Calvin must be made "an offender for a word." Every word, in which there is the slightest ambiguity, must

"Calumny," says Diderot, "vanishes at the death of an obscure man; but at the urn of the illustrious she is eternally busy; raking his ashes with a poniard, even ages after death." Never was this observation more strikingly verified than in the case of Calvin.

be put to the rack, and a meaning extorted from it, which the venerable reformer never contemplated.*

Another gross misrepresentation of Calvin, we find in the Appendix, p. 307. It stands thus-Calvin denies "that there is any difference between preterition and re"probation. Quos Deus præterit reprobat." Now, Calvin denies no such thing; and the English reader will be astonished to hear, that the Latin quotation proves no such thing. The literal meaning of it is this: Whom God passes by he reprobates..

Now, if Calvin's assertion, "Whom God passes by he reprobates," prove that there is no difference between preterition and reprobation; then the Apostle's assertion, Whom the Lord loves he chastens," equally proves, that there is no difference between love and chastisement. The cases are exactly parallel. The absurdity in both is the same. The person who would draw either the one inference or the other, must either betray his ignorance or dishonesty. With equal truth and justice, Dr. B. might charge the Apostle Paul with denying, that there is any difference between foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification and glorification. "Whom he did foreknow, (Rom. "viii. 29.) he also did predestinate." Therefore, there is no difference between foreknowledge and predestination "Whom he did predestinate them he also called." Therefore there is no difference between predestination and calling, &c. Such is Dr. B.'s logic!

If in the preceding quotation the Dr. has deceived the English reader, the deception is still more flagrant in his statement of the articles of the Synod of Dort. The pretended articles given by Dr. B. (Appendix, p. 305,) occupy only half a page; the real articles would fill a dozen of pages. The real articles will be found in Scott's Remarks on the Refutation of Calvinism. They are a most interesting document, written with great caution and judgment, but too long for insertion. The articles given by Dr. B. are a most shameful misrepresentation of the Synod's doctrines.

*Calvin's "horribile decretum," has met with no mercy.-It has been attacked a thousand times. Bishop Tomline, Bishop Mant, Dr. Millar, Dr. Graves, and almost every writer against Calvinism, assail it. How weak must their cause be, when, in defence of it, they are obliged to wield such weapons.

The first of them is no less than eighteen condensed into In reference to it, I shall here quote the following appropriate observations of Scott.

one.

These eighteen articles concerning predestination, are "abbreviated by Dan. Tilenus, reported by Heylyn, and "deliberately adopted by his Lordship, (Bishop Tomline,) "in the following single article."

OF PREDESTINATION.

"That God, by an absolute decree, hath elected to sal"vation, a very small, number of men, without any regard "to their faith and obedience whatsoever; and secluded "from saving grace all the rest of mankind, and appointed "them by the same decree to eternal damnation, without "any regard to their infidelity and impenitency.'

"I have long been aware," says Scott," that there is no "new thing under the sun;' and that' speaking all manner "of evil falsely,' of the disciples of Christ, is no exception "to this rule; and that misrepresenting and slandering "men called Calvinists, has been very general, ever since "the term was invented: but I confess, I never before met "with so gross, so barefaced, and inexcusable a misrepre"sentation as this, in all my studies of modern controversy. "It can only be equalled by the false testimony borne

against Jesus and his apostles, as recorded in holy "writ. But, is that cause likely to be in itself good, and "of God, which needs to be supported by so unhallowed દ weapons ?"

That Scott's remarks are by no means too severe, the following observations will clearly show. In the forged article, on which Scott animadverts, and which is the same with that given by Dr. B. we are told, "That God, by an "absolute decree, hath elected to salvation a very small number of men." In the genuine article it is, a certain number of men. In the forged article we are told, that the rest are appointed to eternal damnation, without any regard to their infidelity and impenitency. In the genuine article the Divines declare, that the non-elect God hath passed "by and decreed to leave in the common misery, into which "they had, by their own fault, cast themselves, and at "length, not only on account of their unbelief, but also of "all their other sins, to condemn and eternally punish, to "the manifestation of his own justice."

The forgery says, "without any regard to their infidelity "and impenitency; the true article says, 66 on account of "their unbelief and all their other sins!”

The second of the spurious articles given by Dr. B. omits the following important statement of the true article. "This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect "sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and "price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the "whole world."

The third spurious article given by Dr. B. is one tissue of forgery and falsehood.

66

It asserts, first, that " by Adam's fall his posterity lost "their free will;" the genuine article asserts no such thing. The spurious article asserts, "that Adam's posterity are put to an unavoidable necessity to do or not to do, what"soever they do or do not, whether it be good or evil;" the genuine article asserts no such thing. The spurious article adds: " being thereunto predestinated by the eternal "and effectual secret decree of God." The genuine article asserts no such thing. No Calvinistic article asserts, that mem are predestinated to sin by an effectual decree.

I might thus go over all the spurious articles; but the remarks made are sufficient to prove, that they are an infamous fabrication.

Shameful as this forgery is, it appears, that others still more injurious were published by the enemies of Calvinism. For the truth of this charge I appeal to themselves—I appeal to a late celebrated Anti-Calvinistic writer, the Lord Bishop of Lincoln. His words are these: "This is the shortest, and withal the most favourable summary, which I have hitherto met with, of the conclusions of this Sy"nod; that which was drawn up by the Remonstrants in "their antidotum being much more large, and comprehending many things by way of inference, which are not positively expressed in the words themselves."

66

From this declaration of his Lordship it appears, that the summary, or rather forgery, on which we have been animadverting, is not the worst—that the antidotum was still more injurious.

I would ask in the words of Scott. "Would not the "very articles published by the Synod itself, being produ"ced or commented on, have been far more like a fair and

equitable conduct toward it, than any abbreviation or an"tidotum, drawn up by its avowed opponents? I trust

"such would have been the conduct of most Calvinists, in "recording the proceedings of an Anti-Calvinistic Synod: "but it seems, Calvinists are exceptions to all rules, and "have no right to expect fair and equitable treatment from other men.

دو

If Tilenus, Heylyn, and the Bishop of Lincoln deserve such censure and no candid reader will deny that they do-how much more reprehensible is the conduct of Dr. B. The articles recorded by the Doctor were acknowledged by Tilenus, Heylyn, and the Bishop, to be only an abbreviation; but Dr. B. makes no such acknowledgment. He inserts them as the real and genuine articles of the Synod of Dort! Scott exposed the fraud: Scott detected the forgery and, after all, Dr. B. comes forward, and endeavours to palm it on the world, as the genuine doctrine of that celebrated Synod!

Having witnessed the Doctor's treatment of the Synod of Dort, let us now see how he treats the Westminster Assembly. To misrepresent their confession, being a book in general circulation, one would suppose somewhat hazardous. The Doctor, however, has made the experiment on the third, fourth, and fifth sections of the third chapter. In P. 172, he exhibits the following mutilated, transposed, and scandalously garbled account of them.

66

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, "some men and angels are foreordained to everlasting "death, and others to everlasting life, without any foresight "of faith or good works, or perseverance in either; or any "other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes, "moving him thereunto."

By thus garbling and transposing, the Doctor succeeds in creating an ambiguity. He then avails himself of the ambiguity which himself has produced, and palms upon the Westminster Divines a sentiment which they never entertained nor published. Page 174, he writes thus: "He

(Christ) proclaims, that whoever believeth on him shall "not perish, but have everlasting life-but here we learn, "that the smallest number have been ordained to life, and "the greater part to endless perdition, without any fore"sight of their faith or perseverance. And again (P. 181)The majority of Christians are foreordained to "everlasting death, without any foresight of faith and good "works.' ""

In these quotations, he makes the Divines assert, what