66

"love for me is so great, that he is absolutely resolved to "make me his heir: There is therefore no necessity for my earnestly striving to yield him obedience; for, according to "his unchangeable will, I shall become his heir. Nay, he will "by an irresistible force draw me to obey him, rather than "not suffer me to be made his heir." But such reasoning as the latter is diametrically opposed to the doctrine contained in the following words of John the Baptist: "And think not to say within yourselves, WE HAVE ABRAHAM TO OUR FATHER: For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matt. iii, 9.)

2. But the CHRISTIAN RELIGION also has its superstructure built upon this two-fold love as a foundation. This love, however, is to be considered in a manner somewhat different, in consequence of the change in the condition of man, who, when he had been created after the image of God and in his favour, became by his own fault a sinner and an enemy to God. (1) God's love of righteousness [or justice] on which the Christian Religion rests, is, First, that righteousness which he declared only once, which was in Christ; because it was his will that sin should not be expiated in any other way than by the blood and death of his Son, and that Christ should not be admitted before him as an Advocate, Deprecator, and Intercessor, except when sprinkled by his own blood.-But this love of righteouness is, Secondly, that which he daily manifests in the preaching of the gospel, in which he declares it to be his will to grant a communication of Christ and his benefits to no man, except to him who becomes converted and believes in Christ.-(2) God's love of miserable sinners, on which likewise the Christian Religion is founded, is, First, that love by which He gave his Son for them, and constituted him a Saviour of those who obey Him.-But this love of sinners is, Secondly, that by which he hath required obedience, not according to the rigour and severity to which he was entitled by his own supreme right, but according to his grace and clemency, and with the addition of a promise of the remission of sins, provided fallen man repent.

The [Supralapsarian] doctrine of Predestination is, in two ways, opposed to this two-fold foundation: FIRST, By stating, that God has such a great love for certain sinners, that it 'was his will absolutely to save them before he had given satisfaction, through Christ Jesus, to his love of righteousness, [or justice,] and that he thus willed their salvation even

6

in his own fore-knowledge and according to his determinate 'purpose.' Besides, it totally and most completely overturns this foundation, by teaching it to be God's pleasure, that satisfaction should be paid to his justice, [or righteousness,] because he willed absolutely to save such persons:" Which is nothing less, than to make his love for justice, manifested in Christ, subordinate to his love for sinful man whom it is his will absolutely to save.-SECONDLY, It opposes itself to this foundation, by teaching, that it is the will of "God absolutely to damn certain sinners without any consider⚫ation of their impenitency;'-when at the same time a most plenary and complete satisfaction had been rendered, in Christ Jesus, to God's love of righteousness [or justice] and to his hatred of sin: So that nothing now can hinder the possibility of his extending mercy to the sinner, whosoever he may be, except the condition of repentance: Unless some person should choose to assert, what is stated in this doctrine, that it has 'been God's will to act towards the greater part of mankind ⚫ with the same severity as he exercised towards the devil and 'his angels, or even with greater,—since it was his pleasure that neither Christ nor his gospel should be productive of 'greater blessings to them than to the devils, and since, ' according to the first offence, the door of grace is as much ' closed against them as it is against the evil angels. Yet each of those angels sinned, by himself in his own proper person, through his individual maliciousness, and by his voluntary act; while men sinned, only in Adam their parent, before they had been brought into existence.

But, that we may more clearly understand the fact of this two-fold love being the foundation of all religion and the manner in which it is so, with the mutual correspondence that subsists between each other, as we have already described them, it will be profitable for us to contemplate with greater attention the following words of the Apostle to the Hebrews: "He that cometh to God, must believe that HE is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek HIM."—In these words two things are laid down as foundations to Religion, in opposition to two fiery darts of Satan, which are the most pernicious pests to it, and each of which is able by itself to overturn and extirpate all religion: One of them is Security, the other Despair.-SECURITY operates, when a man persuades himself, that, how inattentive soever he may be to the worship of God, he will not be damned, but will obtain salvation.

DESPAIR is in operation, when a person entertains a persuasion, that, whatever degree of reverence he may evince towards God, he will not receive any remuneration. In what human mind soever either of these pests is fostered, it is impossible that any true and proper worship of God can there reside.Now both of them are overturned by the words of the Apostle : For if a man firmly believes," that God will bestow eternal "life on those alone who seek him, but that He will inflict on "the rest death eternal," he can on no account indulge himself in SECURITY. And if he likewise believes, that "God is truly a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him," by applying himself to the search he will not be in danger of falling into DESPAIR.-The foundation of the former kind of faith by which a man firmly believes, " that God will bestow eternal life on none except on those who seek Him,” is that love which God bears to his own righteousness, [or justice,] and which is greater than that which He entertains for man: And, by this alone, all cause of security is removed.—But the foundation of the latter kind of faith,-" that God will undoubtedly be a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him,” -is that great love for man which neither will nor can prevent God from effecting salvation for him, except HE be hindered by his still greater love for righteousness or justice. Yet the latter kind of love is so far from operating as a hindrance to God from becoming a rewarder of those who diligently seek HIM, that, on the contrary, it promotes in every possible way the bestowment of that reward. Those persons, therefore, who seek God, can by no means indulge in a single doubt concerning his readiness to remunerate: And it is this which acts as a preservative against DESPAIR or distrust.-Since this is the actual state of the case, this two-fold love, and the mutual relation which each part of it bears to the other and which we have just unfolded, are the foundations of religion, without which no religion can possibly exist. That doctrine, therefore, which is in open hostility to this mutual love and to the relation that mutually subsists between them, is, at the same time, subversive of the foundation of all religion.

It is at this point that the author of the Historical Preface to the Acts of the Synod of Dort, gives the following account of this Declaration: "When Arminius perceived, that the Churches thus pressed him to a declaration of his sentiments, he shewed to their Lordships the States, in one of their usual sessions, what were his views concerning Divine Predestination, the Grace of God and the Free Will of man, the Perseverance of Saints, the Certainty of Salvation, the Perfection of man in this life, the Deity of the Son of God,

XX. LASTLY. This doctrine of Predestination HAS BEEN REJECTED both in former times and in our own days, BY THE GREATER PART OF THE PROFESSORS OF CHRISTIANITY.

the Justification of Man before God, and concerning other Articles of doctrine. On the same occasion he endeavoured to persuade the Illustrious States, that a doctrine was delivered in these Reformed Churches concerning Divine Predestination, which was at variance with the nature of God,-his wisdom, justice, and goodness, with the nature of man and the freedom of his will, with the work of creation, the nature of life and death eternal and of sin; and which took away Divine Grace, was inimical to the glory of God and injurious to the salvation of men,-which made God the author of sin, hindered contrition for sin, removed all pious solicitude, diminished the desire of performing good works, extinguished the ardour for prayer, took away the fear with which we ought to work out our salvation, produced despair, inverted the gospel, obstructed the ministry of the word, and, lastly, not only overturned the foundation of the Christian Religion but of all religion whatever." The Rev. Thomas Scott in his recent publication, (page 510,) sagely observes on this passage: It is probable, that in all the volumes which ever since that time have been written by Arminians, or Anti-Calvinists, in Refutation of Calvinism, there is no objection of any plausibility urged against the doc'trines designated by that term, which is not here briefly and fairly and em'phatically stated, (as used by Arminius, before the States of Holland,) in this History written with the express purpose of sanctioning the decisions of the Synod of Dort. Perhaps, no where else can so compendious a list of ' these objections be found. The compilers [of the Historical Preface,] evi'dently did not consider them as unanswerable or very formidable: Nor were 'they afraid of having the whole cause fairly tried and determined according to the WORD OF GOD.'—He then quotes the words of the Apostle, 'Who art thou that repiest against God?' which are generally thundered forth by Calvinists in terrorem to all those who presume to question the horrid and unscriptural decree of Reprobation which they have artfully invented, and which they audaciously attempt to ascribe to the GOD of Justice and Mercy ;—one of these attributes being as much impugned as the other, if men be predestinated from all eternity to everlasting punishment without any regard being had to their sins or unbelief!

Now if this compendious mode of answering an adversary were always practised, the strange work of controversy would be reduced to an admirable system of despatch, which would soon obtain patrons. The powerful arguments which Arminius has here, with great force and elegance, diffused through SEVENTY CLOSELY-PRINTED Octavo PAGES, are by means of this "brief and emphatic" device, answered in TEN LINES, according to the complaisant computation of some people! What a pity that this ingenious contrivance had not been discovered when the present Bishop of Winchester (formerly of Lincoln) wrote his Refutation of Calvinism,-a term which seems to disturb Mr. Scott's quiet as much as the echo of a troublesome ghost,-the verbose and ponderous Remarks on that publication might then have been spared, or their essence might at least have been compressed into two duodecimo pages!

But while Mr. Scott talks about the reasons of Arminius" not being considered as unanswerable or very formidable," he has forgotten to inform his readers, that in this "compendious list of objections," the compilers have astutely kept out of sight the arguments which Arminius adduces for demonstrating, that the doctrine of Supralapsarian Predestination "was not comprised in the gospel,-was "never admitted or approved by any General or Particular Council, or by any ❝orthodox divine for the first 600 years after Christ, was not in accordance "with the Harmony of Confessions, published in one volume at Geneva in "the name of the Reformed and Protestant Churches,-and, that it was con"tradictory to the Dutch Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism." These

1. But, omitting all mention of the periods that occurred in former ages, facts themselves declare, that the Lutheran and

are five of the primary objections, which Arminius urges against Calvinistic Predestination, at great length and with great effect, and which he corroborates by appropriate quotations and references. But though these five are the most important with regard to the doctrine of the Dutch Churches, they are very conveniently omitted in the Historical Preface, because the mere enumeration of them might have endangered the favourite object of the crafty "Compilers," which was obviously to adulterate existing documents and mys、 tify preceding facts, that they might MISLEAD foreign CHURCHES. They commence their "list" therefore at the seventh, instead of the first of our author's objections against the single doctrine of Predestination: How then could Mr. Scott, or any man who has examined the subject, venture to say, that they were not only " briefly" but "FAIRLY stated” by those early fol

lowers of Calvin?

One of Mr. Scott's conclusions, is, "The compilers evidently did not consider them as unanswerable or very formidable:" Yet Mr. S. would himself be amused, if not edified, were I to present him with an extract from the jejune reply of Gomarus. Such a formidable aspect did these positions of Arminius wear, that the ablest Divines of the Synod of Dort never once adverted to them, in the course of their profound and multifarious reasonings. The inference from this fact must be, Either that they accounted his objections absolutely unanswerable, Or that they esteemed his successors to be men of greater talents, and the conquest over them to be consequently far more glorious than that which they could obtain over our author: Which of these inferences is the most correct, that reader will quickly determine who has perused this DECLARATION, and the honourable testimonies quoted in the preceding Appendix X. It is most amazing indeed, that in a Synod which was specially convened to suppress Arminianism, such very slight mention should be made of our author and the heresies of which he had been previously accused. The Theses of Episcopius, Grevinchovius against Ames, Arnoldson against Tilenus, the Answer of the Remonstrants to the Letter of the Walcheren Class, and their own (H. Brandt's) unjust version of the Hague Conference, furnish nearly all the materials for animadversion which engaged the critical attention of the Synodical divines. Those reverend gentlemen found it a much easier occupation to combat a few of the unguarded expressions which they found in the writings of the Disciples, than to grapple with the well-digested meditations and scriptural positions of the Master.

The highly disingenuous and inferential character of the ostentatious remarks of the Synodists on the productions of Arminius, prove him to have been in their eyes a "very formidable" adversary. Beside the two instances quoted page 461, I give the following extract as another proof of their unjust and forced method of implication. It occurs in the judgment of the Divines of the Palatinate, on the Second Article of the Remonstrants; and when it is stated that those divines were Schultetus, Tossanus and Altingius, (the two latter celebrated for their skill in Oriental learning,) it only furnishes an additional instance of the unwarranted lengths to which the passions even of respectable men will sometimes carry them, and shews how frequently reason is obscured by interest or affection. To prove, that the ransom paid by Jesus Christ to Divine Justice, "was not both sufficient and efficacious to expiate original sin and to bring the whole human race into the covenant of mercy," (a figment consisting in a great measure of their own inventions,) they mention, among other arguments, that "those two standard-bearers among "the Remonstrants, Arminius and Vorstius, promise some alleviation, "through the redemption or satisfaction of Christ, to men who are damned in "the everlasting flames of hell; which produces this effect-that God does not impose [or inflict] damnation according to a strict rule, but according to a