་

nema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of "the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that “believe and are baptized; yet the apostle doth confess, "that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature "of sin."

་་

"ART. X. of Free Will."

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and "calling on God. Wherefore we have no power to do "good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without "the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we "may have a good will, and working with us when we "have that good will."

I may be permitted to add, that expressions equally strong and explicit, are to be found in all the confessions of the Reformed Churches, with which I am acquainted, including those least favorable to the peculiarities of absolute Predestination. Quotations from these would show, that however the Reformers may have differed on some mysterious and metaphysical points, yet that on this they were of one consent. But I must be content with referring the reader to the documents themselves.2

II. It is too much in fashion at present, both among Predestinarians, and their opponents, to study only one side of this controversy. Were they to give that fair

2 Corp. et. Synt. Confess. Genev. 1651. Lib, Symb. Lips. 1827. Corp. Lib. Symb. Elberf. 1827.-Syll. Confes. Oxf. 1826. See also, on this point, Extracts from these Confessions translated by Scott; in the Appendix to his answer to Tomline.

consideration to each, that a love of truth would suggest in every case of difficulty, but above all, in the awfully important topicks of religion; they might form not only more accurate conceptions of the doctrines, but more charitable judgments, of the motives and feelings of those from whose opinions they dissent.

Thus, with regard to the essential doctrines just quoted from our articles, the Predestinarian is too apt to deny, that his opponents either do, or can believe them. In fair reasoning, however, they have no legitimate connexion with the fundamental point of difference between them, viz. the doctrine of Absolute or Irrespective decrees. For, the admission of the fallen state of man, can in no way (that I can perceive) help to suggest or discover the method, by which Omniscience and Omnipotence, might in mercy determine, to restore him to holiness and favour. The divine pleasure, in this matter, must either be conjectured (for it could be no more than conjecture) by analogy, from God's manifest dealings with man in temporal cases of a similar character; or be definitively collected from revelation.

If both these lines of argument be rejected; and the mere naked admission of man's apostacy, be considered as a sufficient ground, from whence to argue, that some men are the subjects of Irrespective Election, and some of Irrespective Reprobation: I know not why, the still greater apostacy of the fallen spirits, might not, by a parity of reasoning, lead to the conclusion, that some of them also, are elected to future glory, without any respect to their present unrepenting sinfulness.

On the other hand, many Anti-predestinarians, and chiefly those inclined to Pelagianism, with a still more lamentable ignorance of both sides of the controversy, indiscriminately class amongst absolute Predestinarians,

all those, who sincerely and unequivocally admit, the above important truths.

The fact is, that these doctrines are not peculiar to the Predestinarian scheme; but have been as zealously, and as effectually supported, by some of its most strenuous opponents, as by any of its ablest advocates.

This mistake on the one side, and this mistatement on the other, are not only prevalent, but calculated, where prevalent, to prevent in both parties, candid inquiry, reciprocal concession, and mutual aproximation to the truth. To obviate this, as far as it arises from misconception, I shall here quote the sentiments of some, whose opposition to the doctrine of Absolute Decrees, cannot be doubted.

And first, as to the opinions of the much persecuted, and still more misrepresented Arminius. In his declaration and defence of his opinions, before the states of Holland, he thus expresses himself, concerning Free will: “In "his primitive condition, as he came out of the hands of "his Creator, man was endowed with such a portion of "knowledge, holiness, and power, as enabled him to "understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform "the true good, according to the commandment deli"vered to him; yet none of these acts could he do,

except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But "in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of "and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that "which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be "regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections, "or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ, "through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified consider, will, and

66

66

66

rightly to understand, esteem, perform whatever is truly good.

When he is made

a partaker of this regeneration, or renovation, I

66

"consider, that since he is delivered from sin, he is "capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is "good, but yet not without the continual aids of Divine "Grace." Again, speaking of Divine Grace, he says, "In this manner I ascribe to grace the commencement, "the continuance, and the consummation of all good. "And to such an extent do I carry its influence, that "a man though already regenerate, can neither con"ceive, wil, nor do any good at all, nor resist temptation, "without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly ~66 appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to "to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too "much to man's free will; for the whole controversy "reduces itself to the solution of this question; Is the 66 grace of God a certain IRRESISTIBLE force? That "is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or "operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I " acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely "to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or "not; with respect to which, I believe, according to "the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy "Spirit, and reject the grace that is offered."4

I might here produce the private opinions of many other able and well known authors. But I confine myself to those of the Remonstrants, presented to the Synod of Dort. Because, they exhibit the deliberate and united testimony of several of the most learned, talented, and pious ministers, of those remarkable times. A testimony, which is the more valuable, because it was opposed, to 3 Nichols' Trans. of Arminus' Works. Lond, 1825. V. i. p. 595.

the prevailing fashion, and prejudice of the day; and delivered, in the face of misrepresentation, and persecution.

"Touching the Grace of God in the Conversion of Man. What the Remonstrants hold."

66

TENET I.

They hold, that a man hath not saving faith of him"self, nor from the power of his free will; seeing, while "he is in the state of sin, he cannot, of himself nor by "himself, think, or will, or do, any saving good, (in "which kind, faith in Christ is eminent,) but must needs,

66

by God in Christ, through the power of the Holy "Ghost, be regenerated and renewed, in his mind, "affections, will, and all his powers, that he may aright "understand, will, and meditate, and do that which is "savingly good."

TENET II.

"They hold, that the GRACE of God is the beginning, proceeding, and fulfilling of all good; so as even the "regenerate man himself, without Grace preventing, "exciting, following and co-working, cannot think, will, "or do good, or resist any. temptation to ill: so that "the good deeds and actions which any man can conceive, "are to be ascribed to the Grace of God in Christ.5"

These few extracts are abundantly sufficient to show; on the one side, how ignorantly and groundlessly, modern Predestinarians lay claim to the Doctrines, that maintain the corruption of unregenerate man, and the gift of the free Grace of God through Christ, as peculiar to their own system: and, on the other; what unjust and undeserv

5 Nichols' Armin", and Calv", compared. Part I. p. 121,

122.