Arminius himself.* Cowper also seems to have had a very strange opinion of the corruption of human nature; and, indeed, every religious man must have a strange opinion on that subject. But even if he considered this corruption universal, irrespective predestination would by no means follow. For "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto ALL men ;" and if grace be as universal as corruption, there is an end at once of all arbitrary preferences, and God is, as the Scripture declares him to be, no respecter of persons."

66

I shall now produce my quotations, which, I think, will be quite sufficient to vindicate Cowper from the charge of Calvinism, and to withdraw his authority, such as it may be, from the tenets which it is usually adduced to support; repeating, that, whatever opinions he may have held logically inconsistent with those which he here advances, this can be no objection to his explicit testimonies on the cardinal article of Calvinism, which no man can repudiate and retain the Calvinistic name.

Again:

From "THE PROGRESS OF ERROR."
Plac'd for his trial on this bustling stage,
From thoughtless youth to ruminating age,
FREE IN HIS WILL to choose or to refuse,
Man may improve the crisis, or abuse;
Else, on THE FATALIST'S UNRIGHTEOUS PLAN,
Say, to what bar amenable were man?
With nought in charge, he could betray no trust,
And, if he fell, wWOULD FALL BECAUSE HE MUST;
If love reward him, or if vengeance strike,
His recompense in both UNJUST alike.

Man, THUS ENDUED WITH AN ELECTIVE VOICE,
Must be supplied with objects of his choice.

From "TRUTH."

Grace leads the right way; if you CHOOSE the wrong,
Take it and perish, but restrain your tongue;

Charge not, with light sufficient, and LEFT FREE,
Your WILFUL suicide on GOD'S DECREE.

Again:

NOT that the Former of us all in this,

Or AUGHT he does, is GOVERNED by CAPRICE;

The supposition is REPLETE WITH SIN,

AND BEARS THE BRAND OF BLASPHEMY BURNT IN.

Not so-the silver trumpet's heavenly call

Sounds for the poor, but sounds alike for ALL

Kings are invited, and would kings obey,

No slaves on earth more welcome were than they:
But royalty, nobility and state

Are such a dead preponderating weight,

* Arminius was too good a logician to separate regeneration from baptism; had he done so, his theory of predestination would not have been tenable for a moment. But in his discourses on the Sacraments, and on Baptism, the "inward and spiritual grace" is directly recognised; so that there is no room to doubt his opinions. Yet he elsewhere constantly speaks of regeneration, meaning thereby change of heart, renewal, &c.

Again:

That endless bliss (how strange soe'er it seem)
In counterpoise, flies up and kicks the beam.
"Tis open, and ye cannot enter-why?
Because ye will not, Conyers would reply;
And he says much that many may dispute
And cavil at, with ease, BUT NONE CONFUTE.

Is virtue then, unless of Christian growth,
Mere fallacy, or foolishness, or both,
Ten thousand sages lost in endless woe,
For ignorance of what they COULD NOT KNOW?
That speech betrays at once A BIGOT'S TONGUE;
Charge not a God with SUCH OUTRAGEOUS WRONG.
TRULY NOT I-the partial light men have,
My creed persuades me, well employed, may save,
While he that scorns the noonday beams perverse,
Shall find the blessing unimprov'd a curse.
Let heathen worthies, whose exalted mind
Left sensuality and dross behind,
Possess for me their undisputed lot,

And take unenvied the reward they sought;
But still in virtue of a Saviour's plea,
Not blind by choice, but destin'd not to see.

From "HOPE."

Ethelred's house, the centre of six ways,
Diverging each from each, like equal rays,
Himself as bountiful as April rains,
Lord paramount of the surrounding plains,
Would give relief of bed and board to none
But guests that sought it in the appointed one:
And they might enter at his open door,
E'en till his spacious hall would hold no more.
He sent a servant forth by EVERY road,

To sound his horn and publish it abroad,

That ALL might mark, knight, menial, high and low,
An ordinance it concern'd THEM much to know.

If, after all, some headstrong, hardy lout
WOULD disobey, tho' sure to be shut out,
Could he with reason murmur at his case,
Himself sole author of his own disgrace?
No! the decree was just and without flaw,
And he that made had right to make the law;
His sovereign power and pleasure unrestrain❜d,
The wrong was his, who wrongfully complain'd.

I am aware that the same sophistry which endeavours to pervert the clearest testimonies of Scripture, may be exercised here—AND WITH EQUAL SUCCESS. Cowper, as a logician or a theologian, would be no very powerful accession to the ranks of Calvinism; but let truth be heard and justice done; and if he was no Calvinist, let him not be called so. The fact appears to be that Arminianism (as regards its distinguishing tenet) was Cowper's DOCTRINE, and Calvinism his INSANITY.

Your obedient Servant,

H. T.

It

ROMANISM.

No. I.

REMARKS ON THE LATE FRENCH ECCLESIASTICAL CODE.

In a former number of the Christian Remembrancer was announced our intention of bringing before our readers some interesting details respecting the laws and privileges of the Gallican Church; an undertaking which we have been obliged to defer, from the pressure of more immediate claims. Having made arrangements for this purpose, we now offer the first of a series of papers on the subject, drawn up with immediate reference to the digest of those laws recently published in France, intending to follow it up with a more particular examination of the minutiae of the Code, than we can now afford. may be as well to state, that the ecclesiastical laws of France, many years ago, were collected and published by d'Héricourt; but that collection is so voluminous, and withal so ill-arranged, that it is an almost hopeless task to gain from it a clear idea of the subject it treats. To say nothing of the confusion in the decree of Gratian, the decretals of Gregory, and the compilation of Saint-Raimond de Pégnafort; of the works of Sextus, who abridged the Acts of Alexander, Innocent, and Boniface; of the references made in later ecclesiastical writers to the council of Trent, or of the bulls of Popes, there are so many novel obstacles continually arising from the changes of years, that a work more concise and better adapted to the indolence of the time appeared somewhat necessary; and M. Mathieu Richard Auguste Henrion, advocate of the "Cour Royale" at Paris, has supplied the deficiency. From his work, entitled" Code Ecclesiastique Français," &c. &c., and some other equally authoritative sources, we have derived our materials for the following observations; and we confidently commit them to the civilities of such as may be interested in inquiries of the kind.

it

At a time when Romanism has been actively employed in endeavouring to re-usurp authority over the thrones of kings, and the consciences of their subjects, when, as a bribe to the wardens of our Church, she holds forth the specious pretext of having relaxed in her intolerance, and of having conformed, in some manner, to the spirit of the age, may be useful to consider the real nature of the case, under circumstances as favourable as possible to the assertion of the Papists. We know not how better this can be done, than in referring to the laws and constitutions of that branch of the Romish communion which has, in some measure, separated herself from the parent stem, and which boasts not only a greater liberty of belief and self-management, but also a greater purity of evangelical doctrine. We have, therefore, been desirous of putting into the possession of our readers some curious particulars extracted from the ecclesiastical code of the least bigoted of Romish churches-the late established church of France. Previous, however, to completing our purpose, we will just show, from other authorities, how the Gallican Church acquired that freedom and semi-independence which it possesses.

It is well known to those acquainted with the ecclesiastical history

of the fourteenth century, that the contest between Urban VI. and Clement VII. for the papacy, involved the party-spirits of all Europe. France adhered to the fortunes of the latter. It was not a question of faith, but of legitimacy; and like most questions of the kind, was of too obstinate a nature to be quietly arranged. France, by the mouth of her university, and backed by the other nations of Europe, urged a fresh election. The conclave refused, and after much trouble and disturbance, three pontiffs took the seat of Urban at Rome; whilst the cardinals at Avignon elected, as successor to Clement, Peter de Luna, under the title of Benedict XIII., a self-willed, obstinate, cunning, and deceitful priest, who continued that schism which he ought to have closed. In consequence of this, France, for a time, withdrew her allegiance. The council of Pisa, in 1049, placed Alexander V. in the chair, against the consent of many; and his successor, John, to settle the dissension, called the council of Constance five years after, by which he was himself deposed. France encouraged the freedom of principle by which this was brought about; and, finally, by her influence, established the decrees on which the liberty of the Gallican Church was founded. By these the Pope himself was made amenable to councils. Had France persevered, there is little doubt she would eventually have destroyed papacy altogether. But the war with England weakened her; and the council of Basle, in 1433, was not at the time turned to the account which it might have been; although afterwards it encouraged her to more strenuous efforts. For Charles VII. in an assembly of the States at Bourges, published a decree, acknowledging the authority, under certain modifications, of that council, enacting what is technically called the PRAGMATIC SANCTION. By this, the autocracy of the Pope was denied; the right of electing Bishops vested in the crown; reservations were removed; and papal dues abrogated. Louis XI. in his madness, repealed the Sanction; but the parliament refused obedience, and thus matters remained in an unsettled state, till Francis I. entered into the first French concordat with Leo X., by which the King was allowed to elect, and the Pope to collate. This, however, did not settle affairs agreeably to the wishes of the Gallican Church; still it united the different parties, who, though not exactly agreeing amongst themselves, were, nevertheless, united in their opposition to the Roman Pontiff. The liberty thus established may be comprehended under two heads; first, that the Pope has no temporal authority whatever, neither directly nor indirectly (sur le temporel des rois..... Vid. Libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane, Art. 4, 18, 15.) Secondly, that, although his authority extends to all spiritual matters, France does not consider his power either absolute or infinite; on the contrary, that his power is limited by the canons, by the decrees of the councils, and by those of his predecessors which are approved in the kingdom. (Vid. Libertés, &c. Art. 5, and Art. 3, Declarat. Cleri. Gallicani convent. 1682.) The concordat between Leo X. and Francis I. is regarded as a perpetual treaty for terminating the contests to which the Pragmatic Sanction gave rise; so that against it, neither party can do any thing. The principle upon which this is established is as follows. To the Pope the determining of all questions of faith is granted; his decrees on

this point concern all churches; but as it is not to the Pope, but to the body of Pastors, that Jesus Christ granted infallibility, they only become rules of faith when confirmed by the consent of the Church (Code 211); and as a general council, legitimately assembled, possesses authority immediately from God, it represents the univeral Church, and, consequently, submits the Pope, nolentem aut volentem, to its authority. (P. S. 12.) By this Pragmatic Sanction and concordat (the Gallican Magna Charta and Bill of Rights) the Church of France was governed for more than three centuries. But it is in the decrees of the council of Trent that she finds her articles of faith.

By a concordat entered into at Paris, in 1801, between Buonaparte and Pius VII. it was decreed that "no bull, brief, rescript, decree, mandate, grant, patent (signature servant de provision), nor other despatch from the court of Rome, not even concerning individuals, shall be received, published, printed, nor otherwise put into execution without the authority of the KING." (Concord. 1801. Art. Organ I.) By a decree of Feb. 28, 1801, briefs from the penitentiary court at Rome are excepted from this resolution. Other regulations have been since made; but the concordat of 1817, between Pius VII. and Louis XVIII., although not yet converted into a law by a sanction of the three estates, is the nearest and most authoritative assertion of Gallican independence. It declares the concordat of 1801 null and void, and refers to that of Francis I. It is not in our province here to explain, or comment on, these provisions of the Gallican Church; we have merely stated them historically. And we may add, that in accordance with the Charter (the palladium of modern French liberty), the Chambers at times exhibited a fearless contempt of papal supremacy, more than commensurate with the spirit of the old decrees, and carried their animosity not only to a great length against the incursions and stratagems of the modern Jesuitical party, but, it is to be feared, against the interests of Christianity, as involved in the growing corruptions of the Gallican hierarchy. A remark may be ventured here, that the present state of things in France, the pride of the Clergy, and the indifference to religion, as emanating from the members of the revolutionary faction, not yet quite extinct, which is every where apparent, appear to warrant the hope, that a change will, ere long, take place in the principles of that Church; and that Protestantism, which already has entrenched itself amongst the fastnesses of the frontiers, and even in the heart of the capital, will take the place of purifier and restorer, and, completing what Louis XI. left undone, and what all good men desire to see accomplished, shake off the hold which Rome yet has on the Bourbons, and bring in one other flock of wanderers into the fold of the good Shepherd.* At

*The above was written more than a year ago: events of recent date have rendered it an ex post facto undertaking. Nevertheless, we let it stand as it was originally composed; for our readers, in comparing our remarks with those events, may form a fair opinion of our judgment with respect to those occurrences which were then future, but are now no more so. The recent political change in France does not put out of consideration the errors of Romanism; it only proves their extent and fatal consequences. It proves to a demonstration that the would-be Catholic religion of Rome is not only opposed to the religion of heaven, but to the fruits of that religion upon earth; and that,