spontaneity and contingency, where every action is determined by an impulse disconnected with any governing bias, and the will riots in boundless and unintelligent liberty. But then, one of the necessary conditions of free agency-intelligence, being destroyed, although the will is left entire, accountableness is gone. Nevertheless, in the absolute contingency of such a man's spontaneous actions, we see nothing that excludes as incompatible with it, the most absolute foreknowledge on the part of God, or the controlling power of a Divine providence. We see only the suspension of the individual's free agency, by physical causes, of a nature entirely distinct from the moral causes which determine the actions of intelligent agents, and which are resolvable into rational motives and previous inclination.

3. We have left ourselves no room to enter at large upon the more directly theological part of the controversy. If, however, we have succeeded in exposing the fallacy of Dr. Copleston's general reasonings, we need not stay to combat their application to the doctrines of Calvinism. We must take another opportunity, also, of pointing out the very serious objections which lie against Archbishop King's hypothesis and mode of philosophising. We are glad to perceive that even the Quarterly Reviewers* express their dissatisfaction with Dr. Copleston's reasoning, in the note to the third Discourse, which is principally taken from the Archbishop's treatise, as well as with his strange notions of Providence. Yet, they pass an encomium on the work, which will probably procure for those incorrect and dangerous notions an extensive currency. With equal inconsistency, they speak of the volume as breathing a spirit of moderation as well as of piety, while they admit that the doctrines of the Calvinists only then become a fit subject for reprobation, when they assert one truth to the utter exclusion or practical annihilation of the other; when. they press the doctrine of predestination beyond what is necessary for the comfort and encouragement of all true believers, and disparage, in the hearing of those whose religion must be chiefly practical, the necessity (we will not say the efficacy) of a holy life.' Had this enlightened and liberal principle been adhered to by Dr. Copleston, ours would have been a far more pleasing task. But in the false and extravagant charges he has brought against the Calvinists, he appears to us to violate even the decencies of controversy; and our disappointment with the volume in this respect, is aggravated by the

Quarterly Review. No. li. p. 101.

high opinion we had previously been led to entertain, of his learning, his temper, and his religious character.

There is one more point, which, on account of its practical importance, must not be passed over: we allude to the Author's views of prayer. Were there the least justice in his represen tation of the character and tendency of the Calvinistic doctrine of Providence, as bordering upon fatalism, it would be wholly inexplicable how it comes to pass, that the Calvinist lays peculiar stress on the duty of prayer, and is even prone, in Dr. C.'s view, to over-estimate its efficacy. He believes that every thing is absolutely predetermined, and yet, he prays as if nothing was determined. No attempt is made to solve this apparent contradiction, which goes, indeed, very far to wards disproving the Author's whole argument. His own notions of prayer necessarily partake of the erroneousness and embarrassment which attach to his hypothesis of Providence. If the controlling power of the Almighty be kept in reserve to act upon occasions,' if it only form the plan and the outline,' while the subordinate parts are delegated to minor agents,'-it is unreasonable to expect that its special interference should be perpetually vouchsafed in answer to prayer, since every such interposition would be a departure from general laws. Thus, the efficacy of prayer is, according to Dr. Copleston, a very doubtful matter.

6

As creatures of God,' he says, ' and acting under his superintendence, our reason informs us, that to maintain an intercourse with him, and to preserve a sense of our dependence upon him, must be a part of our business here, Prayer and meditation on his attributes are the obvious means of effecting this-and accordingly it is a universal practice, wherever any sense of religion is entertained among men. In the mode of preferring their petitions as well as in the things they pray for, a thousand differences and a thousand errors prevail: but in all cases the act itself implies a belief that the Deity is not inflexible, and that things are not absolutely so determined as to render our supplication fruitless. We sup pose indeed that the government of God is carried on by general laws: and therefore prayer should always be accompanied with a disposition to acquiesce humbly in a refusal, on the ground that our petition might have. interfered with the good of others or of ourselves. But that system of laws by which the world is governed, is not understood to be so fixed, as that to pray for any modification of it should be improper-nor yet, on the other hand, is it reasonable to expect that this system should bend and yield according to the particular wants of each individual.' pp. 62, 3.

Is this the blessed result of our incomparable Liturgy? Are such the notions of prayer cherished by the recital of forms? To be just, they are not less at variance with the spirit of the Liturgy, than they fall short of the doctrine of Scripture.

Prayer, as an acknowledgement of our dependence upon God, is a reasonable service; and its practical influence illustrates the Divine wisdom in authorising such a means of intercourse with himself. But on neither of these grounds is the duty of Prayer enforced in the Scriptures. In them, we are every where taught to entertain a firm persuasion of its positive efficiency, as the appointed means of our obtaining the blessings we ask for. Nothing can be more unequivocal than the lan guage of our Saviour on this head, or, if Dr. Copleston be right, we speak it with reverence-more calculated to mis lead. We admit, that we have no warrant in the Scriptures for expecting, that the system of the universe should bend and yield according to our particular wants; that is, that our wants should be supplied by miracle; nor is this what any Calvinist, how ignorant' or sanguine' soever, expects. We admit, that with regard to all temporal things, our prayers should correspond to the conditional nature of God's promises, which are the law of our prayers; and that a disposition to acquiesce in the Divine wisdom, is essential to the intelligent and acceptable performance of the duty. But Dr. Copleston forgets, that the chief end of prayer is, to obtain communications of a spiritual nature, which, as being absolutely promised, we are taught absolutely to ask for, and which cannot possibly inter fere with the good of others. And if prayer be not an efficient means of our obtaining these blessings, it is impossible that our prayers should be what the Scriptures term the prayer of faith. This, however, although its chief end; is not its only purpose. We are taught, as the sovereign antidote against worldly carefulness, " in every thing by prayer and supplication "with thanksgiving, to make known our requests unto God; "casting all our care upon him, because he careth for us." Would it afford the Christian any adequate motive to a compliance with this exhortation, to believe that there is a controlling power kept in reserve to act upon occasions,' which, nevertheless, he must not expect to be interposed, to the dis turbance of general laws, for his particular accommodation? Will it yield him any encouragement under his trials, to be told that the Deity is not inflexible?' Miserable philosophers! Miserable, still more miserable comforters! Behold the genuine results of the anti-Calvinistic theology the creed of the Pe lagian grafted on the philosophy of the Stoic!

But does the Calvinist expect that his prayers are to effect any 'modification' of the system of general laws by which the universe is governed? Assuredly not. It is enough for him to know, that the efficacy of prayer is itself one of those general laws; and that, how absolute soever the predetermination of

events, that predetermination cannot possibly exclude the manifestation of individual character, the means which God has himself connected with moral ends, or the performance of his own promises. • It is not till they involve themselves in metaphysical perplexities, that men regard these things as incom patible.'

Predestination and Election, then, it is sufficiently plain, are subjects too intimately connected with other revealed truths, and are of too great practical importance in themselves, to be abandoned to the metaphysician. The godly consideration' of them is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort;" nor are they attended with either difficulty or danger to any besides the curious and the carnal.' A predestination to eternal life of all who embrace Christ, an election which excludes none but the self-excluded-that is, the unbelieving and the impenitent, how awful soever its bearings on the ungodly, is fraught only with consolation to the real Christian. A liability to abuse is common to all the doctrines of the Gospel. But as to the supposed horrors peculiar to this feature of the Christian system, in relation to those who reject the interposition of the Redeemer, it deserves the serious consideration of every pious mind, whether any metaphysical attempts to mitigate those horrors by representing their condition as less desperately perilous, be not the reverse of benevolent, as tending to weaken or counteract the emphatic warnings of Scripture. Where the Devil thrusts one sinner into desperation, a hundred perish through presumption.

By no class of preachers is the Scriptural exhortation to "flee from the wrath to come," more earnestly reiterated than by the believers in Calvinistic Predestination. Dr. Copleston, if he knows any thing of their practice, cannot deny this fact. But he contends, that the natural tendency of Calvinistic ' opinions to breed a carelessness with regard to moral conduct, not only appears demonstrable by fair reasoning, but is confirmed also by historic testimony.' As to his reasoning, our readers are by this time satisfied that it is perfectly harmless; but we must say one word as to historic testimony. We were pained and disgusted to see the thread-bare anecdote of the Landgrave of Turing again cited by any respectable writer, with Heylin's illiberal comment. Mr. Scott, in his Answer to Tomline, had, we thought, sufficiently exposed the licentious quibble which is ascribed to the Landgrave. It is quite true, that if I am predestinated to eternal life, no sins of mine shall deprive me of the kingdom of heaven; because the sign of my predestination will be, my being delivered from the power of sin, and undergoing a holy change of character. This is the

Prayer, as an acknowledgement of our dependence upon God, is a reasonable service; and its practical influence illustrates the Divine wisdom in authorising such a means of intercourse with himself. But on neither of these grounds is the duty of Prayer enforced in the Scriptures. In them, we are every where taught to entertain a firm persuasion of its positive efficiency, as the appointed means of our obtaining the blessings we ask for. Nothing can be more unequivocal than the lan guage of our Saviour on this head, or, if Dr. Copleston be right, we speak it with reverence-more calculated to mis. lead. We admit, that we have no warrant in the Scriptures for expecting, that the system of the universe should bend and yield according to our particular wants; that is, that our wants should be supplied by miracle; nor is this what any Calvinist, ; how ignorant or sanguine' soever, expects. We admit, that with regard to all temporal things, our prayers should correspond to the conditional nature of God's promises, which are the law of our prayers; and that a disposition to acquiesce in the Divine wisdom, is essential to the intelligent and acceptable performance of the duty. But Dr. Copleston forgets, that the chief end of prayer is, to obtain communications of a spiritual nature, which, as being absolutely promised, we are taught absolutely to ask for, and which cannot possibly inter fere with the good of others. And if prayer be not an efficient means of our obtaining these blessings, it is impossible that our prayers should be what the Scriptures term the prayer of faith. This, however, although its chief end, is not its only purpose. We are taught, as the sovereign antidote against worldly carefulness," in every thing by prayer and supplication "with thanksgiving, to make known our requests unto God; casting all our care upon him, because he careth for us." Would it afford the Christian any adequate motive to a compliance with this exhortation, to believe that there is a controlling power kept in reserve to act upon occasions,' which, nevertheless, he must not expect to be interposed, to the dis turbance of general laws, for his particular accommodation? Will it yield him any encouragement under his trials, to be told that the Deity is not inflexible?' Miserable philosophers! Miserable, still more miserable comforters! Behold the genuine results of the anti-Calvinistic theology the creed of the Pe lagian grafted on the philosophy of the Stoic!

But does the Calvinist expect that his prayers are to effect any modification' of the system of general laws by which the universe is governed? Assuredly not. It is enough for him to know, that the efficacy of prayer is itself one of those general laws; and that, how absolute soever the predetermination of