by a system of despotic controul over the
rights of conscience; but he would sooner
meet the great evil directly at once. The
more deeply he felt on the subject, the
rather would he prefer to strike a blow
at the system altogether; to call on this
Society to unite their efforts to open their
way where they were unjustly proscrib.
ed, than thus mitigate and palliate the
evil by supporting the new institution.
He would say, with Mr. Hankey and Mr.
Collins, with perfect good-will to the
London University, that the merit of that
institution was not the point before them.
For himself, he was one of the first to
join in and support that University. He
hoped, and would earnestly recommend
to all in their individual characters, to
support so laudable a work; but as a
member of this Deputation he asked, what
was the advantage to those civil rights
which they were there to support, to be
derived from co-operating with such an
institution? It appeared to him, that
there were many reasons against it arising
out of matters of detail, but it was suffi-
cient to shew that it was not necessary to
press this plan forward on such a Society
as this. Gentlemen should recollect that
this was, after all, only a joint stock
company, and brought with it all the lia-
bilities of such undertakings. He had
that day seen individuals torn from their
homes and families for the engagements
of such companies, and how could they
then ask persons to take upon themselves
such risks as their Trustees? The pa-
tronage never could be of any value. As
many pupils, they might be sure, would
be taken as could be sent or come from
any quarter. But his great objection was,
that there was no obvious unity of design
between this Society and the proposed
University. It was not a Dissenting in-
stitution. As connected with it, he
should strongly deprecate such a patro-
nage as injurious to it. It would be in-
jured rather than advanced by the pub-
lic assistance of Dissenting bodies. If
they were to give money to institutions
of the sort, let them give it to their own
Dissenting Academies. The unity of
purpose of those institutions with this
Society was obvious, but he could see
none in the present case.

Mr. RICHARD TAYLOR was sensible at how great disadvantage any one must follow the eloquence of the last speaker. But eloquence, however splendid, was sometimes a dangerous talent. It might lead its owner into gilded sophistry and adorn views which were only founded in fallacy. Let them take two of the learned gentleman's eloquent pictures, for instance, and he was much mistaken if they did not completely answer one

another. He had painted in the most gloomy colours the dangers to which a person taking a share in the University as Trustee for a Society like this, where there was £10,000 to back and indemnify him, might be exposed of being torn from his family and home, and consigned to a prison; yet another highly ornamented part of his speech had called upon all those who had the means to enter singly and individually, at their own risk, into this undertaking, so fraught with ruin and dangers. Eloquent as were the two pictures, he had only to observe, that they were both equally so, and therefore were an exact answer one to the other.

Mr. WILKS explained. He thought it was a very different thing for individuals to run hazards in a meritorious pursuit, and for a society to ask persons to expose themselves to the risk as trustees.

Mr. R. TAYLOR left it to the meeting to estimate the alleged distinction at what it was worth, and would proceed to notice another objection made by the learned gentleman. The object of the Univer sity, he had contended, was foreign to those civil rights and interests of Dissenters which this Deputation was appointed to support For his part, since both reason and scripture taught us that knowledge was the most precious of our possessions, he considered the right of obtaining knowledge, and of obtaining it in the best and most effectual manner, by a public education, to be the most valuable of all rights. Of the enjoyment of this right, as regarded existing English Universities, Dissenters were unjustly deprived. They were deputed to protect the civil rights of Dissenters; the right of all to public education was therefore one of the most legitimate objects of their care. How then was this right, whose value was admitted, to be attained? The learned gentleman himself had dwelt long and cloquently on the classic shades of academic groves; but how were we to get there? He had advised them to unite in some effort to take these retreats by storm. For his part, he was content to take the more easy course of providing as good a substitute as he could. But then it is said, You are Dissenters; do not therefore subscribe or assist this University, for it is not intended for Dissenters alone. Why this, he contended, was the very reason that it deserved their support. He liked it because it was not sectarian. Because it was not so, and because it did not adopt a system of exclusion for opinions, this Deputation, whose object it was to protest against proscriptions of this sort in every form, ought above all things to countenance it. It was one of

the great misfortunes resulting to Dissenters from the existence of a Church Establishment, and the connexion between the Church and the Universities, that they were forced to acquire a sectarian character, But ought they to cherish such a character? Young men, instead of associating with others, were classed by religious systems, and became Darrow and bigoted in their habits. It was the abolition of this mischievous resuit that gave the plan of the new University its value, and entitled it to support in preference to the limited, exclusive academies maintained by the several religious denominations.

A DEPUTY (we believe a solicitor) said he came prepared to ask several questions which the production of the accounts had rendered unnecessary. But be still wished to know something as to the origin of the fund; whether auy of It came by will, or how? He was very doubtful, especially after what had fallen from Mr. Wilks and Mr. Collins, whether they had legally or equitably any right so to appropriate the money. He suggested that a case should be stated for counsel's opinion.

Mr. YoCKNEY did not presume to argue with legal men on legal subjects, but considered it perfectly competent to the Society to vote the money entrusted to it by voluntary contributors, for any purpose which in its discretion it considered consonant to the great principles they had in view. He was confident that they would do great credit to themselves in coming to such a vote.

The CHAIRMAN did not intend to take part in the debate on the propriety of the vote, but as questions had been asked as to the objects of the Society and the origin of their funds, he would give a short explanation on those heads. On referring to the printed history of their proceedings, it would be seen that the objects of the Deputation were declared to be in the most general terms, "for the management of the civil affairs of the Dissenters;" and the Deputies and Committee had always attended to any matters which they thought connected with the rights, interests, or civil situation, of the Dissenting body. With regard to the fund, not one penny arose from any bequest, donation, or specific appropriation of any sort. The object of it was therefore as general as the objects of their association. The Committee had from time to time made appeals to congregations and the public for subscriptions for their general purposes, and the money which was sent was disposed of at the will and pleasure of the Deputation and their Committee. No

doubt the principal object of pursuit was always considered to be the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts; but this had only been prosecuted at intervals, and balances had from time to time remained in their hands, which they had disposed of as seemed best for the promotion of the interests of Dissenters. Meantime, for convenience, the balance had been invested in stock. They had, it was clear, adopted a wide discretion in disposing of their money; as, for instance, they had embarked large sums in suits not affecting general principles, but the private property of congregations, as in the Dudley cause. They had in other instances employed the money in prose. cutions of offenders. In short, the Society had always freely exercised the discretion freely reposed. If then there was that unity or consonance of purpose in the proposed University with their principles and interests as Dissenters, which some thought, and on which it was the province of the meeting to decide as a fair matter of opinion and discussion, he could have no doubt that such discretion must be the law and rule. It was the sole question, he must think, to be decided, and those who thought the object not consonant with their views would of course negative the motion. On that question he did not intend to offer any opinion either way.

A DEPUTY observed, that it did not appear to be necessary to sell any of the stock at all. They had a balance of cash in hand, and could pay future calls out of their dividends.

Mr. THOMAS WILSON had taken no part in originating this motion, but must, as he trusted he always should do, take the liberal side and support it. He considered it quite clear that they could do it if they wished. The money was in no way appropriated to any specific purpose; it was merely money subscribed for them to apply as they saw best in the civil concerns of the Dissenters. They lay under restrictions from holding certain offices, and they were going to petition against such laws. They lay under similar restrictions as to educa tion; here was a plan for obviating that grievance. Could any one doubt that it was an object for their support if they thought proper? The London University wanted support from every quarter, and it deserved it. It offered education to all, and it was of the utmost importance, particularly to Dissenters, to encourage such a principle. In so doing we were remedying as far as we could the worst infringement on our liberties, and he was sure our ancestors would have gloried in such an opportunity.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Several articles intended for the present Number have been unavoidably postponed. -Clericus Hibernus will appear in the next Number.-The Conductors will be glad to receive the remaining portion of the article from Chesterfield.-Mr. Holland's request has been complied with.

THE MONTHLY REPOSITORY

AND

REVIEW.

NEW SERIES, No. IV.

APRIL, 1827.

ON A RECENTLY-DISCOVERED WORK OF LEIBNITZ, ALLEGED TO PROVE HIS ADHERENCE TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

AMONG the mass of manuscripts in the hand-writing of Leibnitz which are preserved in the Electoral (now Royal) Library at Hanover, it had been rumoured that there was one entitled Systema Theologicum, in which he had defended the doctrine of the Romish Church. During the existence of the Westphalian government, a Frenchman of the name of Emerg, who had heard of this report, obtained the manuscript and transcribed it with a view to publication; but he died before he had accomplished his purpose, and it was edited at Paris with a translation, after his death, in 1819. From some cause or other, the original was not sent back to Hanover in the general restitution of French spoliations after the overthrow of Napoleon; at least in the summer of 1820 it still remained at Paris. No reasonable doubt exists as to its genuineness. It has been re-published in Germany with a translation by two Professors in the episcopal seminary at Mentz, and a preface by a former professor at Heidelberg, tending to prove that Leibnitz was at heart a Roman Catholic; and has excited some interest among the members of the Lutheran Church, to which Leibnitz always professed to belong. At the present moment, some notice of it may not be without interest to the English reader. We must premise, however, that we know the work only through the medium of an article in the Jenaische Allgemeine LitteraturZeitung for November, 1822,

Leibnitz is well known to have wished earnestly for the re-union of the Romish and the Lutheran Churches, and to have been engaged in a long correspondence with Bossuet on this subject. It is not wonderful that such a wish should have been formed by many persons in Germany in the latter half of the seventeenth century, when we reflect what miseries had been inflicted on that country in the earlier part of it by the war of thirty years, the consequence of the Reformation. Leibnitz had previously carried on a correspondence, tending to the same result, with Pelisson, a converted or apparently converted Huguenot, who enjoyed at that time considerable reputation as a fine writer in France; and the Bishop of Neustadt on the part of the Roman Catholics, and Molanus, Protestant abbot of Lokkum, near Hanover, on that of the Lutherans, had proceeded so far as actually to have

agreed on twelve articles as a basis of re-union. (See Butler's Life of Bossuet, Works, Vol. III. p. 242.) Molanus having conducted the negociation thus far, appears to have resigned it to Leibnitz. His views differed in some respects from those of Molanus. Bossuet distinctly declared that the Church of Rome, though she might shew indulgence in matters of discipline, would not yield a single article of faith propounded by the council of Trent; while Leibnitz, aware that there were some of these articles to which the Lutherans could not assent, wished that the re-union should take place provisionally, these points being reserved to the decision of a general council, to which, if fairly constituted, the Lutherans should promise to submit. After a correspondence which lasted ten years between Bossuet and Leibnitz, the plan was ultimately abandoned, and the Catholic writers charge Leibnitz with having caused its failure by his presumption and double-dealing-an imputation from which Mr. Butler, in the passage before quoted, declares that in his opinion he stands free. The correspondence to which we have referred terminated apparently in the year 1701. If we knew the date of a letter of Leibnitz to Ernest, Landgrave of Hesse-Rheinfels, we might be able to decide whether the work of which we are speaking be that referred to in it or not. "Je veux," says he, "dresser un jour quelque écrit, sur quelques points de controverse entre les Catholiques et Protestans, et s'il est approuvé par des personnes judicieuses et modérées j'en recevrai beaucoup de joie. Mais il ne faut pas qu'on sache en aucune façon que l'auteur n'est pas dans la Communion Romaine. Cette seule prévention rend les meilleures choses suspectes." There is every probability that the work lately published is that which Leibnitz here declares his intention of composing. The manner in which the doctrines of the Church of Rome are viewed, is precisely that which would be required for the concealment which he deemed necessary in order to obtain an unprejudiced hearing. The inscription "Systema Theologicum Leibnitii" was not placed on the cover of the volume by Leibnitz himself, (it has no internal title,) but was given by some one who recognized his hand-writing and designated the work according to its contents. We proceed to mention what these are.

In regard to what are called the mysteries of religion, Leibnitz had already declared his opinion in the Discours de la Conformité de la Foi avec la Raison, prefixed to his Theodicie, that the doctrine of the Trinity (to which he adds creation and the distinct knowledge on the part of God of an infinity of things at once) is above reason, but not contrary to it, so that it cannot demonstrably be proved false. In pursuance of the same mode of arguing, he contends in this work, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be false. Original sin he thus defmes: "Peccatum originale genus hominum in primo parente invasit; i. e. contracta est pravitas quædam quæ facit, ut homines sint ad bene agendum segnes, ad male agendum prompti, obnubilato intellectu, sensibus vero prævalentibus. Etsi autem anima pura a Deo emanat (neque enim adhuc animarum [probably impuritas is to be inserted] intelligi potest) tamen vi unionis cum corpore ex parentum vitio prave constituitur, sive per connexionem cum externis peccatum originale seu dispositio ad peccandum in eâ exoritur. Atque ita facti sunt omnes filii iræ et conclusi sub peccato et in exitium præcipites ituri, nisi magnâ Dei gratiâ subleventur; non eo tamen extendenda est vis peccati originalis, ut parvuli, qui nullum actuale peccatum commiserunt, damnentur, quemadmodum multi volunt: sub justo enim judice Deo, nemo sine culpâ suâ miser esse potest." Sins are divided into venial and deadly, under the latter being understood those "quæ malo animo et contra conscientiam ex