nor that, by which he

to any state of man.

tainly saved, must be

saved, not that, by which salvation would be possible, if indeed any state of man might require the application of such grace, would be saved, if it should be applied But that grace, by which a man is cermodified and restricted. For he is saved either by the grace of preservation, or by that of restoration, by one or the other, of necessity. If he is saved by one, he does not need to be saved and he can not be saved, by the the other; if he is not saved by one, he must be saved by the other, or excluded from salvation, and that, by which he is saved, is prepared in predestination, and the other, by which he is not saved, is absolutely excluded.

You affirm that "there is variety in the object and in its mode. But we here treat of that variety in the object and its mode, which variety is so great that grace end glory must be modified and restricted to this or that variety of the object; the grace of preservation in the state of integrity and glory, by means of it, are suitable to the object, considered in its original state; the grace of restoration and glory, by means of it, are suitable to the object, considered in sin and misery. Grace and glory, considered absolutely and universally, can not be decreed or bestowed, in predestination, upon various objects. For predestination has reference, necessarily, to a uniform and univocal object, that is either to one absolutely not a sinner, or to a sinner, and it bestows grace only on a subject, of one mode and univocal. It saves one, absolutely not a sinner or absolutely a sinner; it does not adapt itself to this one or that one, of this or of that character, but it adapts itself absolutely to an object of this character, and not otherwise considered. The grace of preservation saves, absolutely, the angels, for the grace of restoration was never ordained concerning them or bestowed upon them. The grace of restoration absolutely saves human beings, for the grace of preservation, in their original state of integrity, was never ordained for them or bestowed upon them. Grace is, indeed, as you say, one in itself, and in its essence, as, also, is glory, but each is variously applied according to the mode and relation of the object; and, between the application of grace and the mode

,

and relation of the object, there is this reciprocity that, from the application of grace, the relation of the object may be inferred, and from the mode of the object, reciprocally may be deduced what grace it may be necessary to apply to that object. The same is true of glory.

The illustration of the light of the Sun, introduced at the end of your answer, may also serve my purpose. The light of the Sun is one and the same, whether it is shed upon and renders more luminous a body already illuminated, or it is shed on a dark body and drives away the darkness, and renders that light which was before dark. If only the same difference existed between an illuminated and a dark body, as exists between a man in his original state and a sinner, then rays of the Sun, sufficient to illuminate the body already light, would not suffice to illuminate the dark body, unless they were greatly increased and multiplied.

TWENTY-SEVENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS.

I will not now touch the theory of Augustine, because that would be a futile task, if the theory of Aquinas, of prior consideration, can be sustained to my satisfaction. These, then, are the matters which I would present to your consideration.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE TWENTY-SEVENTH PROPOSITION.

I have always thought, and yet think, that the theory of Augustine was substantially consistent with the two theories which have been considered. You will see that this is the fact, if you make allowance for certain modes of expression used by him, and for a single diverse circumstace.

I have thus, my brother, in this subject, used the diligence and promptitude which was possible, in view of the duties which have, not rarely, interrupted me. Receive my effort

with kindness, if it may not answer your expectation. May the God of truth and peace seal on your mind that saving peace, more and more, and graciously guide both of us and all His servants in the way of truth to His own glory, and to the edification of His church in Christ Jesus our Savior. AMEN.

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE TWENTY-SEVENTH PROPOSITION.

The theory of Augustine is very different from both the preceding theories, as may be seen from this whole discussion, on account of the circumstance, added by him to the object of the decree, concerning which we treat. For, if the circumstance of sin was, of necessity, to be considered by the Deity, in the act of decree, and was definitely considered in that very act, then it must be true that those discussions and explanations of the same decree, err greatly from the truth, which state that there was no necessity of the consideration of sin, and no actual consideration of it by God, when He ordained the decree. The remark may be added, with propriety, that, by the mere addition to the object of the decree and right explanation of the circumstance of sin, all the absurdities and blasphemies, which are usually alleged against the decree of predestination and reprobation may be repelled and clearly refuted, not being logical consequences of that decree.

I have thus presented my objections to your answers to my propositions, not so much with the thought of refuting them, as with a desire to elicit from you more extended answers and explanations, by which I might perhaps be satisfied and my mind might be freed from its difficulties on this subject. I, therefore, beseech God, that, if I have written any thing contrary to the truth, He may pardon me concerning it, and may reveal the truth unto me; if I have advanced any thing

agreeable to the truth, that He will confirm me in it, and that he will grant to me yourself, assenting to my views, and aiding me, that, by means of you, the truth may daily gain greater authority, and may be more and more propagated to the glory of the divine name, to the advantage and increase of the church, in our Lord Jesus Christ. AMEN.

APPENDIX.

THESES OF DR. FRANCIS JUNIUS,

CONCERNING DIVINE PREDESTINATION, COMPOSED, IN THESE VERY WORDS, BY HIMSELF, AND PUBLICLY DISCUSSED, UNDER HIS DIRECTION, BY WILLIAM CODDAEUS, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN, IN THE YEAR 1593-ALSO SOME BRIEF ANNOTATIONS OF

JAMES ARMINIUS.

As we have frequently referred to the Theses of Doctor Francis Junius concerning Predestination, we will here insert them, and make some brief annotations upon then.

THESIS I.

Predestination is properly, according to the etymology of the word, a determination to an end, but in common usage, it is equivalent to the Greek word #porayn, and signifies the relation of the whole arrangement to the end, and thus we use it.

Destination is a determination of an existing object to its end; the particle prae, prefixed to the word, denotes that the act of destination is antecedent to the actual existence of the object.

THESIS II.

Predestination, therefore, is an act of the divine goodpleasure [beneplaciti], by which God, from eternity, prepared