it is seen that the discovery of it is occasionally no subject of exultation to his affections, whatever it may be to his understanding. But to an infinitely Greater than the greatest of finite minds, such a sight is not without interest: God has himself formed the mind of man for the reception of truth; and when that lovely object is offered to the mind at the same time with other attractions,-to prefer truth to the rest, is a sacrifice with which He is well pleased.

The free-thinking BAYLE says, in the first volume of his General Dictionary under the article ARMINIUS: "It were to be wished, that he had made a better use of his parts; for although it is very probable that his intentions were good, we may say, He made innovations without any necessity, and under circumstances in which innovation was a source of disorders, that ended in schism." As some elucidation of his meaning, he adds in the notes:-"St. Paul, that great Apostle, inspired of God, and guided by the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit in all his writings, started to himself the objection which natural reason might raise against the doctrine of ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION: God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. This is St. Paul's maxim. Now, see the difficulty which he proposes to himself from it: 'But thou wilt then say unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will?" It is impossible to urge this objection further; nor could the most subtle Molinists in twenty pages have said any thing more to the purpose. For what is the most they could have concluded from it, but that, according to the hypothesis of Calvin, it is agreeable to God's will that men should sin? Now this is exactly the objection, as St. Paul has stated it. But how does he answer it? Does he call to his aid any nice distinctions, or endeavour to qualify it by any forced interpretations? Does he deny the consequence, or strive to evade any part of it? Does he enter into any series of arguments, or take away the equivocation of the words? No: he does nothing of all this. He only has recourse to the sovereign power of God, and to the supreme right which the Creator enjoys to dispose of his creatures as seemeth good to himself: Nay but, Oman, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? He acknowledges here an incomprehensibility, which ought to put an end to our disputes, and impose a profound silence on our reason. He breaks out, ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and

knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!' All Christians ought to look upon this as an irreversible decree, as the dernier resort from which there can be no appeal touching disputes upon grace. Or rather they ought to learn, from this conduct of St. Paul, never to dispute at all upon Predestination, but at the first to oppose this as a barrier against all the subtleties of human wisdom, whether they arise in our minds while we meditate on this great subject, or are proposed to us by others.—Had Arminius done this every time his reason suggested to him any difficulties against the hypothesis of the Reformers, or whenever he saw himself called upon to answer his antagonists, his conduct then would have been truly sage and apostolical, and he would have made a proper use of his intellectual faculties. If he met with any knotty points which his reason could not untie in the ordinary doctrine, or if he found himself better disposed to cherish a less rigorous opinion, he was at liberty to give his private sentiments their full scope; but then here he ought to have stopped, and to have enjoyed the benefit of them in silence,-I mean, without attacking the rights of possession, seeing it was not possible for him to do that without raising terrible tempests and hurricanes in the Church."

Whenever I read such passages as these in the writings of Philosophical Deists, I feel thankful to Providence that almost all that race, including the cognate tribe of Socinians, shelter themselves beneath the doctrine of FATALITY, of which Calvinian Predestination is nothing more than a specious modification. Had the mass of these men held any opinions in common with us on the subject of Predestination, ARMINIANISM would have had more dreadful consequences imputed to it, than it is now possible with any semblance of truth to invent. -How plausible is the whole of Bayle's tirade, till it be subjected to a critical examination! Arminius is here accused of not acknowledging, with St. Paul, the incomprehensibility of the Divine counsels, and of having no recourse to the sovereign power of God for the resolution of his doubts respecting Predestination. Now, the fact is, Arminius most unequivocally subscribed to St. PAUL'S DOCTRINE in both these relative cases: But his great crime, in the eyes of the FATALISTS to whatever school they belong, is, that his understanding could not concoct the subtle and unscriptural refinements of CALVIN, which, Bayle ought to have known, had, only some fifty years before

that period, been invented and imposed on the people of Geneva, who in return felt desirous of imparting them to others. No portion of these Calvinian subtleties was known in the ancient Church, till the days of St. Augustine. Like a judicious Rhetorician, (which was formerly his profession,) this very eloquent father, after defeating the Manichees with one weapon of excellent temper, invented another to meet the attacks of the Pelagians; and he experienced the same complete success with the latter as with the former. But, it is worthy of note, that this question has yet to be settled,—“ Is St. Augustine against the MANICHEES, or St. Augustine against the PELAGIANS, the sounder Divine ?" All the most learned among the Arminian writers quote him in the former capacity, more frequently than any other Christian Father; while the Calvinists adduce his authority, in the latter capacity, far more sparingly than any one would imagine who is not aware of the fact-that Augustine against the Pelagians is not sufficiently high in doctrine for modern Predestinarians. Several of Mr. Bayle's remarks would be perfectly in point, were they applied to that prying into the mysteries of God's mind which is practised by the Calvinists, "as if they had been at the Divine council-board" when these "secret things" were enacted. Thus the niceties of God's secret and revealed will, and of common and special grace, unnecessary distinctions to which the scriptures of truth give no countenance, are inventions of the Calvinistic school with which all the initiated are quite familiar. But Bayle's observations on this subject, and others about which he seems equally ill-informed, prove to the world, that he knew-just nothing at all about the labours or the spirit of Arminius: Had he known both of them a little better, he would have uttered a true saying by declaring, that No

MAN EVER DEFERRED TO THE WILL OF GOD WITH MORE SINCERITY AND REVERENCE THAN ARMINIUS. In his works will be found abundant proofs of his teachable disposition and profound humility; and many of the letters which I shall quote in the Appendix, will contain testimonies equally potent. in confirmation.

But the man has displayed some of his usual drollery, I suppose, when he states, that "the conduct of Arminius would have been truly sage and APOSTOLICAL, and he would have made a proper use of his intellectual faculties," had he had recourse to the "irreversible decree every time his reason suggested to him any difficulties against the hypothesis of the

Reformers," which, in another part of the same paragraph he calls "the hypothesis of Calvin," and immediately states the substance of it in these words: "It is agreeable to God's will that men should sin!" How far from "Apostolical" must the conduct of that man have been, who entertained strong doubts respecting the truth of this unscriptural position, and yet consented to sin against his own soul and the souls of others, by ❝enjoying the benefit of his private sentiments in silence,” and by neglecting to warn those who embraced such a desecrating opinion of the imminent peril of their situation! How different from this was the "Apostolical" conduct of St. Paul, when, soon after his last journey to Jerusalem, he met Peter at Antioch, and withstood him face to face, because he was to be blamed (Galat. ii, 12.) for exhibiting a portion of that temporizing spirit which Bayle thus industriously inculcates! What would have become of the Christian religion itself, (leaving out any allusion to the Reformation,) if, at its first planting, the primitive disciples had consented to hide their Lord's talent, when they "met with any knotty points in the ordinary doctrine” of that period, "which their reason could not untie ?" Must they have pursued this empiric's GENERAL SPECIFIC, and "enjoyed the benefit of their sentiments in silence, without attacking the right of possession,-seeing it was not possible for them to do that without raising terrible tempests and hurricanes?" If therefore RIGHTS of this unalienable character are conferred by POSSESSION alone, the world would at this day have been divided between the moral misrule of Judaism and Paganism. But those ancient worthies, instead of adopting "the truly sage conduct" of this weak man, were willing to be "accounted fools for Christ's sake;' and though they were men of peaceable and quiet habits, the greeting with which they were received in some cities was this,Those that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also!”—But, in reference to Arminius, never was a more unfounded charge than this adduced against him by his virulent enemies; for his sentiments, heavenly and scriptural as they were, could have been propounded by no man with greater modesty, prudence, and caution, than they were by him,-as will be evident in subsequent parts of this Appendix.-Such indeed were his humility and circumspection in all things, that this became the constant burden of complaint with the Calvinists, "We are not able to draw any thing from him, which can, by a stretch of ingenuity, be construed into heresy !" And yet, after having

confessed their inability to fasten on a single expression from his lips which might promote their sinister designs, they did not cease for many years to assert, that combustible materials of heterodoxy were pent up within him, and would, in spite of all his caution, produce an early explosion. But their predictions were falsified in the event; for Arminius was gathered to his fathers, without having a single stain of heresy attached to his character. "The combustible materials" were found to be the unsanctified passions of the Calvinists, which, about ten years afterwards, produced a terrible explosion at the Synod of Dort.

6

To give some countenance to this advice, Bayle refers his readers to a letter of eulogy on the pious and learned JUNIUS, which Bishop HALL wrote soon after the decease of the Professor. In that letter, he says, "If I might challenge aught in that your acute and learned ARMINIUS, I would thus solicit and conjure him; Alas! that so wise a man should not know the worth of peace! What mean those subtle novelties? If they make thee famous and the Church miserable, who 'shall gain by them? Is singularity so precious, that it should 'cost no less than the safety and quiet of our common mother? If it be truth thou affectest,-what alone? Could never any eyes till thine be blessed with this object? Where hath that 'sacred verity hid herself thus long from all her careful inquisitors, that she now first shews her head to thee unsought? Hath the gospel shined thus long and bright, and left some 'corners unseen? Away with all new truths! Fair and 'plausible they may be, sound they cannot : Some may admire

6

thee for them, none shall bless thee. But grant, that some of these are no less true than nice points; why do these unseasonable crotchets and quavers trouble the harmonious plain-songs of our peace? Some quiet error may be better than some unruly truth. Who binds us to speak all we 'think? So the Church may be still, would God thou wert ' wise alone!' &c." &c.

This is certainly a very apposite quotation. But however great may be our admiration of the good Bishop's piety, we cannot compliment his judgment, charity, or discrimination for such a production as this, which can only be viewed as an apology for Calvinism, whose craft was then in danger. What would the good Bishop have said, if, when his favourite Calvin first published his improvements on the doctrines of St. Augustine, any one had thus addressed him in the Bishop's own words?

6