of man, and that he had created the reprobates for one purpose and the elect for another. So that this opinion, though it seem desirous of having predestination to take its commencement only from the fall, comes back in substance to the first which it is desirous to avoid. Thus far, then, may these two opinions be accounted one.

"But the third opinion is that of the Fathers who flourished prior to the age of St Augustine; It is also the opinion of St. Augustine himself before his contest with Pelagius, at which period he changed some of the sentiments which were entertained by the Ancients, as is apparent from his Retractations and others of his works. These changes excited very great clamours in the Church, which although he afterwards endeavoured to allay, this on Predestination always became from that period a subject of litigation. Those in the Reformed or Protestant Church who have espoused this third opinion and defend it, are, Philip Melancthon in Germany, Nicholas Hemmingius in Denmark, Gellius Snecanus in Friezland, and not a few of other Divines in various countries. Its tenour is this: Since God, who is in his nature good, created man for what is good, that is, for a life of blessedness, and, after his fall, promised his Son to him as a Deliverer, by whom he might bruise the serpent's head, and therefore imposed this law according to which he will form a final judgment concerning every man, Whosoever believeth in Christ, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned;' he likewise every day truly calls and invites ALL MEN, without any definition, to repentance, faith and salvation.'—Since these are its terms, it is manifest that Christ is the stone of probation, by which the elect may be discerned from the reprobates; and that no other secret decree of God respecting the salvation and destruction of men has been revealed and made known to us in the written word of God, than this, 'Whosoever believeth, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.' Wherefore God has predestinated such as he from all eternity foreknew would believe on Christ, (who is the only way to life eternal,) that they might be made conformable to him in glory. But he hath likewise from all eternity reprobated all rebels, and such as contumaciously continue in sin, as persons unfit for his kingdom.

募

"That this is the opinion of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, is attested both by their writings, and by those likewise who have declined from them in this matter. This is confirmed by Beza, who, when writing on the second verse of the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the ROMANS, God hath not cast away

his people whom he foreknew,' produces this remark, Nor are we on any account to listen to the Fathers, who refer this to FAITH FORESEEN.' Beza therefore entertains no doubt respecting its being the opinion of the Fathers; but he thinks his own opinion is to be preferred to it. But his opinion is denied by others, who, choosing in preference to adhere to the Fathers, believe, that God determined to create the first man and all his posterity for a participation of eternal felicity; that he was prepared to bestow upon every one of them all the aids both of nature and grace, that were necessary for obtaining that blessedness, and to remove out of the way those hindrances which might prevent them from obtaining it; and that he has not willed concerning any man, to exclude him from the society of the blessed, or to be consigned to eternal torments, without having previously taken his sins into consideration.

"The third opinion agrees with the two preceding in this circumstance, that it holds the election and reprobation of men by God to be eternal and determinate. It has this also in common with the second alone,-that, (since GOD chose us in CHRIST before the foundation of the world, and separated us from reprobates and unbelievers,) it holds CHRIST to be the cause of election, as we have already observed, and SIN the cause of reprobation,-both which tenets are denied by the first of these opinions.-But these are the only points of agreement of the three severally between each other. For the third differs egregiously and in many points from the two others,— which declare, 'that God had purposely and absolutely decreed from eternity to create the greatest part of mankind for destruction, (according to the first opinion,) or to leave them in the fall of Adam without any hope of pardon, (according to the second,) and, therefore, that Christ hath profited these miserable beings nothing to salvation, according to the decree of God himself and the personal will of Christ: but that Christ has been sent by his Father, or has suffered death, not so much for them, as for brutes, stones, or for even devils themselves, (yet to the latter of these, it is obvious, the benefits of the death of Christ can on no account be extended,) and that it is not therefore possible for these miserable reprobates ever to believe and be saved.' The third of these opinions disapproves of both these dogmas; and the Theology which it inculcates constantly holds the two following axioms as the greatest verities and depending on the plain and manifest word of God: IT IS THE WILL OF GOD, THAT ALL MEN BE SAVED

(1) VOL. I.

H

AND THAT NONE PERISH; and (2) CHRIST HAS DIED FOR ALL: God therefore never has hated or purposed to hate any one in reference to his being a man formed by him, but only in reference to his being a sinner. On the contrary, he has promised and sent Christ to all those who have fallen in Adam and are sinners, that he may bruise the head of the serpent and restore that which had perished. It has also been his will, that the Gospel should be published to every creature, that is, to each of the human race, that all and every one of them may come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved:-this is called, by the ancient Fathers, the antecedent will of God." It is therefore of God and of his mere grace that certain individuals are saved; and it is through their own perverseness and depravity that others are damned:-this is called, the consequent will of God,' because it is a consequence of the impenitency of men who persevere in sin. For they are damned, because they would not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved,' as the Apostle expresses it, (2 Thess. ii, 10.) or in the words of Christ, because they loved darkness rather than light: (John iii, 19.) that is, because they would not obey Christ, when he called them and wished to gather them under his wings, and because, in St. Stephen's language, "they always resisted the Holy Ghost.' (Acts, vii, 51.) So that this declaration, by the Prophet, has become a standing truth, O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF! But IN ME IS THY HELP!" (Hosea xiii, 9.)

6

"Such are the points in which these three opinions agree and disagree among themselves; so that the first and second include within them and impose upon men the necessity both of damnation and salvation. The third opinion has not that tendency: For though it allows Predestination to be immutable in the Divine Mind, yet it denies that such Predestination renders the wills of men immutable, and imposes necessity on them, lest by such conclusions it should cause God to appear as the Author of sin and of man's destruction. From these statements it is evident, that the whole of this controversy respecting Predestination turns upon this hinge, Is Beza's opinion, to which we have assigned the first place, and into which the second merges, to be preferred to this last which was patronized by the Christian Fathers?" Beza declares, that 'this is a point on which these Fathers can on no account be heard: This assertion is denied by those who espouse the third opinion. We consider it lawful for us to enquire into the truth, and

especially when it relates to an important matter, in which the eternal felicity and the eternal misery of mankind are concerned. Nay, we contend, that it is not only lawful, but that we ought with the greatest diligence to institute and continue such a necessary enquiry; and that we must not recede from the opinions of the Fathers, until we have some determinate and plain reason for such a departure. But since all these three opinions are entertained in different parts of the Protestant Church, of which it is not possible for more than one to be true, let every one consider and seriously reflect which of the three he ought to reject and which he ought to embrace; and let no man addict himself to the author of one of these opinions or of that which is contrary to it, or adopt the sentiments of either, without a previous diligent exercise of his judgment, if it be his wish to have a proper regard to his own salvation.

"I repeat it therefore, that two of these opinions rest on the foundation, that God, by an immutable and irrevocable decree, has, without any reference to sin, but by his own absolute will which no man is able to resist, determined within himself from all eternity to reprobate by far the largest portion of the human race, and (according to the first opinion,) to create them for eternal destruction, or (according to the second,) to desert them from the time when Adam sinned; that some of those who are of the number of the reprobate are every day necessarily and inevitably coming into existence and perishing, -they being persons to whom God has never vouchsafed his grace; or, if in his word or sacraments, he makes an offer of it to some of them, as to those who have some connection with the Church of God, such an offer is not made by him with seriousness as though they should be saved by that grace, but, on the contrary, it is made that they may be rendered less excusable, and may at last be more grievously punished; that the advent and the death of Christ have not been undertaken on their account; and that the benefits of his death have no more reference to men of this description, than to stones, brutes, or even devils themselves, because they have been from all eternity reprobated by God and purposely created, or (which bears the same import,) have been left in a lost mass, that they might be consigned to eternal destruction.- This is the foundation on which the first and second rest, but which is rejected by the third as a falsehood, and contrary both to the Sacred Scriptures and to the goodness of God. The two others object against the third, but very undeservedly, that it is Pelagianism. For

among the Pelagians neither were those Fathers numbered who flourished before the time of Pelagius, nor were St. Jerome and St. Augustine prior to their contest with the Pelagians; and yet all of them openly professed this third sentiment: Nor are those Reformed Churches that embrace it in the present age, in the least inclined to Pelagianism,-for instance, the Churches in the greater part of Germany, and in the whole of Denmark and Norway. Philip Melancthon, who composed the Augustan Confession, of which the other Protestant Churches have expressed their approbation, was not a Pelagian; nor yet are different good and learned men in various countries Pelagians, because they think the third opinion which has been adduced on this subject is preferable to the two others.-Banish then such an illiberal calumny as this, which has been invented for the purpose of overpowering truth; nor let it operate as a hindrance on any one in diligently and repeatedly prosecuting an inquiry into the truth of this question."

CONTINUATION OF THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF ARMINIUS.

A brief history of the progress of CONDITIONAL PREDESTINATION and GENERAL REDEMPTION prior to the time of Arminius, has been given in the preceding paragraphs. Let us now resume the personal History of this great man, whom we left (page 63). possessed of some correct and scriptural views on PREDESTINATION, and resolved to publish them to others from the pulpit, prudently and in season.

A most favourable opportunity presented itself to Arminius in the beginning of 1591, when, in the regular course of exposition which he had adopted, he came to the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, For we know that the law is spiritual: But I am carnal; sold under sin.” He thought that the interpretation generally given to this passage, as if it applied to a man that was really and fully renewed by the grace of the gospel, was an egregious imputation on the efficacy of christian regeneration, and manifestly tended to abate that intense desire for kindred piety which it is the province of grace invariably to excite. By such an interpretation, the entire exercise of Divine worship, all the obedience required by the gospel, and that " new creature" which the evangelical writers so frequently and earnestly inculcate, would be forced to encounter this formidable difficulty,-they would seem to consist only of affections and desires, instead of effects and realities. Having,