Comparative views of the controversy between Calvinists and the Arminians

:;r" ■■■■/.:,;.

" ,•: .'•'•■■ V<;v;i

if-!.' i i •',' t\i'<\r.

;■■■ • •

to ^ i;< '.''!' \\Wfi

m ;.:v «;:;:.«;

M ^Butli ill* * r t ;

) '' ■':■■ '•' ':

.{!•.''■'■.'* ''■'■■'■■■>. -'■:;..■
IIS ^ I'^Y

: ; !:!$;■:!:! : - ,;

ii

Si;;;
■

lill

■

/■/Jtf^i;t/J^.v.^-.>0,..-.tf».v.^,:.v.

PARISH LIBRARY

Of THE

FIRST CONGREGATIONAL SOCIETY,

BURLINGTON, VT

/

No. // £

& 1)^*11

COMPARATIVE VIEWS

OF THE

CONTROVERSY

BETWEEN THE

CALVINISTS AND THE ARMINIANS.

BY WILLIAM WHITE, D. D.

BISHOP OF THE PHOTESTANT BPI COPAL CHURCH IN THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.

IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I

PHILADELPHIA:

PUBLISHED BY M. THOMAS, 52, CHESTNUT-STREET.
FROM THE PRESS OF E. 8R0NS0N.

1817.

JDisirict of Pennsylvania, to toil:

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the fifteenth day of May, in the fiirty-first year of
the Independence of the United States of America A. D. 1817, The Reverend Jackson
Kemper, the Reverend James Montgomery, John Perot, and Charles "v. Bancker. of the
said district, have deposited in this office the title of a book the right whereof they
claim as proprietors in the words following, to wit:

"Comparative Views of the Controversy between the Calvinists «nd the Arminians.
By William White, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in trie Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. In Two Volumes. Vol. I."

In conformity to the Act of the Congress of trie Unite:', tares, entitled, ' An Act for
the encouragement of Learning, by S' erring the -'fs' Maps. Charts, and Bork' , to the
Authors and Proprietors of sucb Copies, during the times therein mentioned. "—And also
to the Act, entitled, "An Act supplementary to An Act, entitled, •' An Act for the (n-
cOuragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Cnarts, and Books, to the Au-
thors a"d Proprietors of such Copies during the times therein mentioned," and extend:ng
the benefits thereof to the Arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other
prints."

D. CALDWELL.

Clerk of the District of Peimstyvania

N. B. The Copy Right of this worlc is Held in trust, for the applying of the proceeds.,
(if any) towards the establishing or the maintairing of a theological school.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

PREFACE.

PART I.

•>i Comparison of the Controversy between the Cahinists and the Arminiato,

•with the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.

Page

INTRODUCTION *

The Object of the Inquiry — Mr. Locke's Plan of studying the
Epstle— Unity of Design — Overlooked by Dr. Whitby and Dr.
Doddridge — The Epistle argumentative — Respects Nations,
and a Covenant State — But not implying exclusive Possession
of the favour of God.

I. OF PREDESTINATION 19

The Question stated —sense of Oh 8. v. 29, to end of Ch. 9 — Of

ch. 10 and 11 — Connexion of the whole with Ch. 12. v. 1.

II. OF REDEMPTION ...... 51

The Question stated — Nothing to the Purpose of the Contro-
versy — The Sense of the latter part of Ch. 5.

III. OF FREEWILL 53

The Meaning of the Term, as understood by both Parties— who
had no difference concerning it — There arises the question of
Original Sin, on which they differ — The point of difference-
Sense of ch. 3. v. 9 — Sense of ch. 3. v. 7, in connexion with ch.
7, from v. 7 — Interpretation before Austin— and by him.

IV. OF GRACE S3

The question stated.— Nothing relative — Some passages which

may be thought to apply— Relation of the subject to the ques-
tion concerning good works— 4th ch. with resulting consider
rations.

V. OF PERSEVERANCE 91

Opposition of the parties— Sense of ch. 3. v. 38, 39— And ef ch.

11. v. 29.

CONCLUSION 95

The points agreed on — Reasons of the form of this discussion-
Remarks on St Paul's epistles— And on the epistle to the
Romans in particular.

( iv )

Page*
APPENDIX.
ON THE CASE OF THE HEATH F.N ... 106

Calvin and others on the subject — Ca vinistick churches—The
point of difference between Christians and the Heathen— Au-
thorities from the Old Testament — The circumstances of idola-
try— Authorities from the New Testament.

P^KT II. ... 121

A Comparison of the Controv sy between the Calvinista and the
Armmians, -with Holy Scripture generally.

INTRODUCTION. - • ... 121

Dissent from Calvinism—Not en Arrrinian principles — Origin of
Calvinism — Itspr g^ess— Its alliance with PbiRcpphical neces-
sity— Difference between th'S and original Calvinism— Not in
the decrees of the Synod of Don — ^ince embraced by various
Calvinists — Proposal to exclude it from Theology — Result, is
the stating of Scripture doctrine.

I. OF PREDESTINATION . . . - 147
Of the term " decree"- Predestination only incidentally found

in other books— Predestination and Election mean the same
in all — Phrases, thought similar in sense— The situation of St.
Paul—Sundry passages of scripture— A constructive sense-
Useless questions— Rules — The subject being foreign to scrip,
ture, must be judged of. on principles of reason — A point, on
which the parties are agreed — A deduction, from what should
be considered as the point of difference — The result, in relation
to the divine attributes.

II. OF REDEMPTION .... 197
Import of the term— Arminian side adopted — Texts expressive of

universality — Of the same, without mentioning sacrifice for sin
i— Texts of Invitation— Of expostulation— Of promise and threat-
nirg— making especial mention of the world—Which excite to
the imitation of God— Expressive of being within the covenant
—Of temporal mercies— Of spiritual— The whole applied.

III. OF FREEWILL « 222
Doctrine of imputation and a covenant — Radical corruption of

nature Tex+s— Oneness of the church in all ages— What

Christ siid of infants— View of <he apostasy — Consequences of
opposite theory — Objections gturded against.

IV OF GUAi.E ..... 285

The Armioian side aken— Texts declaring the general tenour of
the Christian mission — Texts which make the r.-ffer general-
Texts which suppose the possibility of resistance— Text** ori

(v)

Page

the other side— Would prove the ii- fluerce of ?atan ii resistible
— Unnecessary cons*quen«e drawn by Ci lvinists — Qnns< quen-
ces on the other side — The qnesJ.rco of faith and works — Dis-
tmction of absolute and covenanted merit.

V. OF PERSEVERANCE .... 318

Dissent from the Calvinistick doctrine — The contrary is con-
formable to the human characlei — Passages from the Old
Testament— from the New — Exhortations and dissuasive —
Passages alleged by Calviniits — Dangcious tendency of the
Doctrine.

CONCLUSION ..... 341

The subject should be excluded from theology — Transactions in
the Synod <;f Dort — Dean Hail's sermon— Dr. Priestley's ac-
knowledgment— Late introduction of Calvinism.

APPENDIX No. I.

OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY . . - 851

Consciousness opposed to necessity — Dr. Clarke's distinction be-
tween the mind and a balance — Consequences of supposing the
mind acted on as a lever — Objection of confusion — Necessity
overthrows praise and blame — Lird Kaims — Qp. Derktdey —
David Hume— Restrictions on specilati >n — T)angcr of extend-
ing necessity to God — VIr. Leibnitz — Dr Priestley — President
Edwards — Danger to virtue — Comparative view of Lord Kainas
and President Edwards.

No. II.
An Analysis of the Rev Jonathan Edwards's interpretat'on of
the latt ten verses in th fifth ch of the Ef>. to the Romans 373

General lemarks on mans ruin and redemption— President Ed*
wards's remarks on th 13 and 14, verses — His answers to ob-
jections— Faults found by him with two dissecting ministers-
Instance of his consistency.

PART III.

A Comparison of the Controversy between the Calvinists rind the
virminiam, with the opinions oj the Early Fathers,

INTRODUCTION • - • - , 398

The kind of evidence to be educed from the fathers — The early
fathers, silent on the points denominated Calvinism — This
continued until the time of St. Austin — Calvin acknowledges
the fact.

(vi)

Pa ire
I. OFPREDESTIVATION .... 403

Apostolick Fathers — Accounts of thero by Mr.Toplady, Di .H.-weis,
and Mr. Milner— Succeeding fathers — The time whe1' predes-
tination in the philosophical sense wan introduced— Fathers
later than the above — C- ns-nquence — Change effected by St.
Austin— Interposition of the papal see— The subject purely
melap <ysical.

II OF REDEMPTION .... 461

The question not found in a controversial form, in the early
Fathers— Passages from them — Inadmissibility of evasion.

III. OF FKEEYVILL - - - 470
A Caution.— Sundry fathers— The subject, as it respects original

sin.

IV. OF GRACE ..... 484
The question stated as it respects the fathers— Passages from

them — Of the subject, as ii regards faith and works.

V. OF PERSEVERANCE . . . 491

St. Austin did not extend his system to this point — Sundry fathers
—A concession of Gerard Voss'ms — The opinion of Calvin, not
altogether consistent with present Calvinism — Result.

CONCLUSION 496

Application of authorities to the general question of the five
points — The importance of this branch of the subject to pro-
testantism.

APPENDIX

Containing an Argument against Calvinism, from some drawn-

stances attending the introduction of it into the church. 505

Design— Lale introduction of the theory of St Austin — Its con-
trariety to the precedent faith of the churc!^ — Me a» first agreed
with the early Fathers — His innovation offended many — It
appt-ared in a misshapen form — Opposite positions of this
father — He never censure d as essentially erroneus, the opin-
ions which he had abandoned— A circumstance showing hb
propensity to needless *peculatton — Inference.

P K E F A C E.

On an appearance of such a work as the present, it
seems a tribute of respect due to the publick, to state
the motive of the Author. Accordingly, he avows it
to be the sustaining of what he conceives to be correct
views, in the controversy which is the subject of the
volumes. His station in the Episcopal church, and the
agency to which circumstances have called him in the
conducting of its concerns, may be supposed to have
added to other sources of obligation, in classing the
comprehended questions among the prominent subjects
of his attention. For his wish to give the weight
of the reasons of his opinions — whatever that may be
— to the doctrines which he considers as equally those
of the scriptures, and of the church of which he is a mi-
nister, is what will not be considtred by any reasonable
person as needing an apology.

The first part of the ensuing treatise, was drawn up
without the design of further progress. But the Au-
thor having, at the desire of a friend, consented to the
publishing of it in a Periodical Magazine, it was a cir-
cumstance prompting to the draft of what makes
the second part: which was also published in the same
form. While this was in the press, the Author was

( viii )

sensible of an incitement, to extend his disquisitions
through the third and fourth parts: Which would also
have appeared in the Magazine, but for its discontinu-
ance. On the occurrence of this, the prospect of fur-
ther publicity would have been closed, if there had not
been, subsequently, the excitement of an extraordina-
ry degree of interest in the discussed subjects, both in
England and in the United States of America; and if
they had not been treated of, with an especial relation
to the Episcopal church: the doctrines of which are
here thought to have been in many instances misrepre-
sented. The stating of them in a correct point of
view, will of course be a principal object in this work.

The Author, in Unfolding what he understands to be
the doctrines of his church, is not without sensibility
of the danger to which he exposes himself, of being
understood as assailing the institutions of other bodies
of professing Christians. This is not his object: But
in accomplishing what he declares it to be, there occurs
the necessity of incidental reference to principles in
contrariety to those sustained.

Although he is not disposed to censure any tempe-
rate investigation of religious truth; nor to the taking of
occasion for this from the circumstance, that what is con-
ceived to be erroneous, has been published to the world
by any, whether society or individual; yet, he thinks
he perceives too zealous a disposition in some professors

( ix )

of religion, to construe as an attack on their re-
spective systems, what others publish for the explain-
ing and the sustaining of their own. This is a bias to
hostility; which, if it were earned to its consistent ex-
tent, would describe the published standard of any re-
ligious body, as an attack on all dissenting from them:
an idea which places every religious society in a posi-
tion like that of Ishmael, who had "his hand against
every man, and every man's hand against him."

In one respect, hpvvever, the present performance
may wear a stronger appearance of designed contro-
versy, than that of merely exhibiting the Author's views
of the institutions of his church; since he has cited and
commented not only on the works of known Authors
of other communions, but even on the authorized
standards of their belief, and of their publick adminis-
trations. Let it then be noticed, that this is^ never
done, merely for the sake of calling in question the pro-
priety of them. The form of their introduction, is
explanatory. Contradicted positions could hardly have
been treated with precision, without adverting to the
documents, in which they are the most authoritatively-
established. And the institutions of the church of
England, as framed at the reformation, would have
been but imperfectly explained, without reference to
other institutions, framed either in opposition, or tor

the professed purpose of melioration. In bhort, it
VOL. i. a

(X)

is here conceived, that there should be a mutual
bearing of different religious societies with one ano-
ther, in this respect; in regard to liberties taken with
candour, and free, alike from misrepresentation and
from uncharitableness. How far the Author has, in
those respects, submitted to laws laid down by the holy
genius of the Christian calling, it must be for others to
judge: but in him it will be allowable to say, that this
has been an object of his endeavour. When Cal-
^inistick churches are spoken of, it is not intended
to insinuate, what would not be true, that they have
taken their name from Calvin, or explicitly adopt-
ed his opinions as their standard: but it is because they
are such in common estimation, and so spoken of by
their members and others. The explanation applies
to the naming of Calvinistick divines.

There is another description of persons, who may
perhaps disapprove of what is here presented. They
are those, who, being of the same communion with
the Author, may materially dissent from the views taken
by him, of the sense of its institutions. It ought to
be sufficient in regard to such, that there having been
certain differences, for a long course of years, within
their common church, there arises from this a motive
to mutual forbearance. It would not have been disa-
greeable to him, to have continued to esteem the insti-
tutions of the church, to be as favourable to a latitude
of sentiment here in view, as they once were in his con-

( xi )

ceptions. He is free to confess, that there was a
time, when he thought the articles in particular to have
been drawn up, with an accommodation to the opposite
opinions treated of in this work. Further inquiry con-
vinced him, that in part he was mistaken; that the re-
formers of the church of England did indeed accom-
modate to an opposition of opinion, existing as early as
the fifth century of the Christian church; but that subse-
quently to the period of the reformation, there arose
on one of the sides referred to very important superad-
ditions; which could not have been contemplated in
the institutions of the church of England, and to which
they are directly in opposition.

There is still another class of people, to whom the
Author may be thought answerable, on the question of
the propriety of the present measure. They are those
who censure every publick discussion, of what they con-
sider as mere speculation; disliking all argument on it,
and thinking it fertile of mischief in society. Such per-
sons seem not aware that there are various junctures,
in which the declining of the field of argument, is an
abandonment of ministerial fidelity. Doubtless it is
to be lamented, that occasion should have been given
for censure, by those whose zeal, outrunning their cha-
rity, make faith, or what they think such, the mean of
exciting depraved passion, and of impelling to all its
pernicious consequences. But however this is to be
disapproved of, in whatever cause called forth; it is far

( x» )

from being an evidently correct position, that religious
speculation is as irdifferent as some suppose it to be,
to the essential interests of society. Religion is one of
the operating- principles, which exercise a discipline over
the mind, and tend to the forming of the inward char-
acter. If this be not demonstrated by experience, it
is no matter how little there be paid to it of attention
of any sort, nor how soon all regard to it be dismissed
from the concerns of men. But on the supposition of
the truth of what has been above affirmed; it cannot be
denied, that while some opinions tend to harmonize;
and, in every way, to give an amiable habit to the dis-
position; there are others, which not only have no such
tendency, but have the opposite one, of putting into
motion the worst properties of the human frame, and
of* sanctioning them to the miseuided conscience. The
obviating of unqualified censure of theological argu-
ment, is the only object of this remark. It is not the
less true, because of the known fact, that a propor-
tion of mankind act in contrariety to what seem the evi-
dent consequences of their opinions: some doing worse
and others better, than it is natural to look for from the
connexion between a cau£e and its effect. So long as
there shall be an interest taken in religion, it will be
fruitful of controversy: And according!) , it is not the
suppressing of this, but the moderating of the manner
of conducting it, to which the friends of humanity
should direct their efforts. When more is undertaken*

( xiii )

it seems a symptom of indifference to all religion; which
deceives the possessor of it, under the appearance of
the love of peace; as, in the other extreme, furious
passion carries with it the imposing pretensions of godly
zeal. If the author could perceive any thing in what
he has written, the tendency of which is to add to the
mass of religious animosity and intolerance; he does
not foresee any advantage likely to arise from his pro-
duction, which would prevent his committing of it to
the flames. On the contrary, having endeavoured to
cherish a different spirit in himself, and to avoid the
exciting of it in others; and having executed, to the
best of his ability, a work which seemed to him to be
dictated by his relation to the church of Christ; and this,
not without looking up for guidance to the source from
which all good desires, and thoughts, and works pro-
ceed; he commits it with confidence, not of the suffi-
ciency of the execution, but of the integrity of the
motive, to the implored blessing of God; and to the
serious attention and the candid construction of those,
who may happen to peruse it.

NOTE. — In the progress of the work, the Author perceived
that there were some relative points, entering materially into dif-
ferent branches of his subject; but requiring mors discussion,
than was consistent with the continuity of argument. This is
the reason of their being attached, as appendices to the several
parts, or as a General Appendix to the whole.

i

ERRATA.

Page 53, 10th line of note for " avrffyo-tav" read «« ctvrtlvrut"
87,10th from hot. for " any," ead " Another "
135, 4th line from top, the word " author's" ough to come in be.

fore the first word of the preceding line,
156, 17th line from top, before " much" read " something"
161,12th do. before "last" read "are"

175, 15th do. for " his" read " this"

ib. 16th do. for " fuerunt" read " fuerant"

190, 6th do- for " rescience" read " prescience"

209, 2d. do. for "by" read "on"

248, 3d. from bottom after " much" read " alive"

249, 2d. do. for " unregenerate" read "regenerate"
252, 15th. do. for " attachment" read " abatement"
312, 2d. line of 2d. paragraph, for " included" read "include"
412, 2d. line of 3d. paragraph, after •• time" read " of."

I

I

I .

PART I.

A Comparison of the Controversy between the Cahinists
ana the Arminians with the Epistle of St, Paul to
the Jiomans.

INTRODUCTION.

The Object of the Inquiry — Mr. Locke's Plan of Studying the
Epistle — Unity of Design — Overlooked by Dr. Whitby and
Dr. Doddridge — The Epistle is argumentative — Respects Na-
tions— And a Covenant State — But not implying exclusive Pos-
session of the Favour of God.

EVER since the writer of this, supposed himself
possessed of an understanding of the Epistle to the
Romans, it has appeared to him an extraordinary fact,
that, in the controversy between the Calvinists and the
Arminians, the book should be constantly appealed to,
on both sides; and, by the former, more than any other
book of Scripture; when, according to the opinion here
entertained, the Epistle contains nothing directly to
the purpose of the matter at issue between the litigants.
To prove this, is the end of the present undertaking.

The first satisfactory knowledge of the Epistle which
the author received, was from the perusal of the expo-
sition of Mr. Locke. This eminent person was not
ashamed to confess, that, after having been long con-
versant in the Epistles of St. Paul, he made the dis-
covery, that he had not understood the doctrinal and
discursive parts of them. The most prominent expe-
dient adopted by him, for the obtaining of a right know-
ledge of the Epistle, was the studying of it under

VOL. I. B

2 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

the recollection of the continued series of its general
argument. But be ides this, so evidently agreeable to
the dictates of right reason, he noticed in the composi-
tion some properties which have had their effect on his
whole commentary; but which had been overlooked
or else regarded slightly, by the commentators who
preceded him.

Under impressions similar to those of Mr. Locke,
but in a form accommodated to the design of the pre-
sent work, the author of it goes on to notice, as the first
property of the Epistle to his purpose, its being not
didactick,* but argumentative. Under this remark,
however, there are included the first eleven chapters
only: so that all beyond them is foreign to the design.
The twelfth and thirteenth chapters are a beautiful de-
lineation of Christian morals. The fourteenth is admo-
nition, not without a degree of censure; probably de-
signed to apply to some of those, whose cause St. Paul
had been advecating; although not relatively to the
same subject. The fifteenth chapter is partly personal;
and partly contains miscellaneous remarks, on the sub-
jects which had gone before. The only remaining
chapter is devoted to Christian and friendly salutation;
not without a glance, in the conclusion, at the subject
which had filled the body of the Epistle; and which
seems to have still pressed on the Apostle's mind. But

«

* The author uses the word "didactipk" in what he supposes
to be the ordinary sense, as the same with preceptive. This notice
is given, on finding, that Professor Michaelis uses the same
word, as synonymous with "doctrinal:" correctly affirming, in
this sense, that the Epistle to the Romans is « didactick or doc-
trinal."

with the Epistle to the Romans. 3

as to the first eleven chapters, they are entirely argu-
mentative: and if so, when such a man as Mr. Locke
pronounces St. Paul to be a coherent, an argumenta-
tive, and a pertinent writer, it must be rash, in any other
man, to suppose him continually falling into a kind of
disputation, which an understanding of an ordinary size
would reject. For instance, when he quotes a passage
from the Old Testament; to imagine that he makes a
use of it, quite foreign to its sense in the place from
which it comes; or to suppose that he reasons from
any matter, as a dictate of common sense and not itself
requiring proof, while yet the truth of it is more doubt-
ful than the position which it is brought to prove; is
not to impute to him a conduct to be looked for, from
such a reasoner. And especially, it should be consider-
ed, that he was writing to an infant Church, consisting
of two descriptions of persons, neither of whom he had
seen; and further, that one division of them were far
from viewing what might come from him with a par-
tial eye; while yet these were the very people, whose
prejudices were to be opposed; who would therefore
not be likely to overlook any part of the argument,
which might be untenable. Under these circumstan-
ces, would St. Paul — would any of the Apostles —
would anv man of a common share of reason, sustain
a disputed truth, by a medium of proof more likely to
be contradicted, than that which was to be established
by it? We may presume, that they would not.*

* Mr. Locke considered the subject and the design of this Epis-
tle, as much the same with that to the Galatians. But Dr. Taylor
— the learned and ingenious Disscnling Minister of that name of
Norwich — conceives of the striking difference, that the former was

4 Comparison of the Controversy, Esfc.

Next, it is to be remarked concerning this argumen-
tative Epistle — the view being still confined to the
first eleven chapters — that there is a unity of design in
the argument of it; the Apostle labouring to prove, from
the Jewish economy, that the Gentiles were to be par-
takers with the Jews of the benefits of the Christian
covenant, without submitting to the ordinances of the
Levitical law.*

opposed to Judaism entire, and the latter, to an intermixture of it
with Christianity. It is a matter of delicacy, to decide between
two such men. But as the author of this work finds it necessary
to his design, he declares his opinion in favour of Mr. Locke; there
being understood, however, this difference in the Epistles; which
would doubtless have been allowed by Mr. Locke; that in the
Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle advocated the liberty of the
Gentile Christians; whereas, in the Epistle to the Galatians, he
censured the same description of people, for being seduced from
that liberty, into legul bondage. It must also be acknowledged,
that unbelieving Jews are especially the subjects of discourse, in
the second and part of the third chapters; and afterwards, in the
ninth, tenth and eleventh; yet still, as falling in with the principal
design, in favour of the Gentile converts and against the believing
Jews. It does not appear, on what ground the unbelieving Jews can
be supposed to have interested themselves in the question, con-
cerning the terms of Christian communion, whether it should be
accompanied by subjection to the institutions of the Law; or for
what purpose the Apostle should to them reason from the extent
of the consequences of Adam's sin, to a similar extent of the bene-
fits of the death of Christ; when, in regard to the latter, they had
no belief of any benefits resulting from it. It seems alike foreign
to the conviction of the same description of persons, that there
should be a reasoning from the justification of Abraham by faith,
before the giving of the Law, to establish the like justification,
without the deeds of the Law, under the Gospel.

* The Dr. Taylor, mentioned in the preceding note, makes an
allusion to this effect, in favaur of the property of the Epistle here

with the Epistle to the Romans. 5

This unity of design, if conspicuous on an attentive
examination of the Epistle, must be a characteristick of
it, to be kept in view in the explanation of every part
of its contents. For that so close a reasoner as St. Paul,
in a composition in which he is confessed the most
perse veringly to regard the purpose of his writing, and
having before him a controversy known to have existed
at the time, should run into speculations, — concerning
which there is not the least historick evidence, that they
then gave occasion to difference of religious sentiment
among Christians, — must be seen, on the first view of
the subject, to be altogether improbable. Under such
circumstances as those stated, there may, indeed, be in-
cidentally introduced truths, not bearing directly on the
point at issue; yet having relation to one or another
medium of proof, brought in by the writer for the es-
tablishing of it. But authorities, originating in this
manner, are an unsure foundation, on which to erect a
complicated theory; because the writer, contemplating
them in the single point of view in which they relate to
his design, cannot be expected to express himself con-
cerning them as perspicuously, as if they were pro-
fessedly the subjects of his disquisition. But if, to the

stated. He supposes a person to have left him an estate by will;
and that some other person disputes the donation; alleging an en-
tail, and that he is heir at law. The legatee has occasion for an
advocate, to disprove this claim. St. Paul, says Dr. Taylor, is that
advocate.

If, as is here believed, the preceding comparison be correct;
how erroneous might be any interpretation of the will, which 6hould
rest on passages in the pleadings, not taken in immediate connexion
with the points to which the pleader had applied them, particu-
larly the entail!

6 Comparison of the Controversy, £s?c.

passages thus incidentally introduced, there be given
interpretations, making them quite foreign to the pur-
pose of the writer, there needs not be any better proof
— still keeping in view that the writer is St. Paul—of
the incorrectness of such interpretations.

That there is in the Epistle the one design here af-
firmed, and that it is carried on without reference to
other matters, any further than as they contributed to
it, must depend for proof on such internal evidence,
as, it is hoped, will appear in the investigation that is to
follow. There may be propriety, however, in stating
in this place, such evidence as is obvious on the most
cursory reading of the Epistle.

That such is the subject, and that such is the one
design under which it is conducted, is continually con-
firmed by the several parts of the composition; the sub-
jects of which, even when apparently wide of the main
subject, are not dismissed without an application to it.
For every reader may observe, that it is not in this
Epistle of St. Paul, as in the Epistles of some of his
fellow-Apostles, for instance, that of St. James, in
which the writer, having sundry subjects intended by
him to be the groundwork of instruction, passes from
one to another, without aiming at a connexion. The
same may be said of some of the Epistles of St.
Paul himself; for instance, the first Epistle to the
Corinthians; in which, however closely he applies to
each subject, while it is immediately before him, yet
he passes from one subject to another, without any no-
tice of the transition. But in the Epistle to the Romans,
from the time that the subject of Gentile communion
is introduced, in the sixteenth verse of the first chap-

with the Epistle to the Romans. 7

ter, it i:-i again and again brought up; and not after-
wards lost sioht of, until the end of the eleventh: nor
even altogether then; for there is a short retrospect to
it in the twelfth, and again in the fifteenth. What great-
ly adds to the weight of the present consideration, is
the circumstance, that the one design supposed, is the
determination of a known difficulty of the day; in re-
gard to the terms on which Gentile converts were to
be admitted to Christian communion. They who,
from Judaism, had embraced the Gospel, contended
stiffly, that it was incumbent on the others to con-
form to the institutions of the law of Moses; to which
they challenged perpetuity. Since then the composition
is in a controversial form, why should it not be thought
confined to the only known controversy, which shows
its head in the course of the Apostle's argument?

Of the many commentators who do not support this
unitv of design, it is here conceived, that the circum-
stance has an unfavourable effect on their interpreta-
tions, however excellent they may have been in other
respects. There shall be named two only; one of them
Dr. Whitby, reputed an Arminian; the other of them
Dr. Doddridge, a Calvinist, although not in the ex-
treme. Dr. Whitby states two great doctrines, as
within the contemplation of the Apostle; one of them,
that of justification by faith alone; and the other, the
mystery of the calling of the Gentiles. Now, although
the former is largely treated of, as may be said of some
other subjects; yet, there seems an errour in under-
standing any of them to be treated of in any other point
of view, than as aiding to the second point in the state-

8 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

ment of Dr. Whitby. And had that learned man con-
sidered this as the one point, kept in view always in
the Apostle's argument, and claimed the other points
as tributary to it, the circumstance would probably
have added to the usefulness of his judicious com-
mentary.

Dr. Doddridge, who is here named with respect,
states, as the leading subject of the Apostle, the excel-
lency of the Gospel; which he represents as establish-
ed by five prominent arguments. That the Epistle,
immediately after the introductory salutation and ex-
pressions of regard, makes the declaration — "I am not
ashamed of the Gospel of Christ;" and that this is a
modest way of glorying in it; is very evident. And fur-
ther, that not only the general design of the Epistle,
but the tendency of each distinct part contributes to the
asserted use, may be amply conceded. But the opinion,
that the Apostle sat down to indite, under the view of
sustaining the sentiment, as the leading one of his in-
tended composition, represents it not only as contain-
ing less of argument than of digression; but as presu-
ming a controversy not existing. For surely, the Ju-
daising Christians, whatever disturbance they had oc-
casioned to their less scrupulous brethren of the Gen-
tiles, would not have admitted the imputation, that
they were arraigning the excellency of the Gospel; ac-
knowledged alike by the one party and by the other.
Dr. Whitby elevates a subordinate design, to a rank
that makes it co-ordinate with the principal: while Dr.
Doddridge not only depresses the principal design from
its proper station, and puts another in its stead; but
does not even include the former among the five rea-

with the Epistle to the Romans. 9

sons in his preface, by which the latter is supported:
allowing it no further consequence, than that of a pos-
teriour discussion in the last three chapters, which
have a relation to this, or to any other of the subjects
within our view.

The difference between the excellency of the Gos-
pel, contemplated in the Epistle, and the same subject,
as assumed by Dr. Doddridge, may be illustrated thus.
Let it be supposed, that a man were to propose to write
a book, the subject of which were to be the excellency
of the common law of England. This would brin^ be-
fore our minds a range of very great extent. But if

there were added to the proposal words to this effect

As relative to the equality which it establishes between
the nobleman and the commoner, and between the rich
man and the poor, in every question involving security
of person and of property — there would be a limitation
of the subject, which must be expected to have great
effect on the disquisitions of the proposer. Now it is
here conceived, that just such an effect should be pro-
duced, not only by evidence pervading the Epistle, of
the limited design asserted; but by an intimation of it in
the beginning; when the Apostle, after glorying in
the Gospel as "the power of God unto salvation," im-
mediately adds — "To the Jew first and also to the Gen-
tile." He was, indeed, about to prove the excellency of
the Gospel; but it was with an especial relation to the
point stated.

It is next to be remarked, concerning this argumen-
tative composition; that the one subject of the argu-
ment, already described as affecting Jews and Gen-
tiles, is intended of them in their collective, and not in

vol. i. c

10 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

their individual capacities. For although a community
is composed of individuals, yet it is evident, that there
may be predicated a matter of the former, which does
not apply to every of the latter. What shows, in a
very strong point of view, this characterisiick of na-
tional designation, is, that the Calvinistick writers ge-
nerally, who disregard it until they reach the eleventh
chapter, are obliged to admit it there; although applying
it to the very expressions, to which they had denied it in
the preceding chapters. The distinction here sustained,
may be made the more clear by the following compa-
rison. It has been affirmed, of the French writers and
of the English, that the former are the most distin-
guished by sprightliness, and the latter by solidity of
thought. Now, it might be expected of any person,
who should engage to demonstrate this characteristick
difference by writing or by discourse, that he would
occasionally speak of the Frenchman and of the En-
glishman, as if individually designated; and again make
use of general terms, including, literally and strictly
taken, all Fre-ich nen aud all Englishmen in the posi-
tion, although nothing would be further from his in-
tention. As far from the Apostle's intention is a simi-
lar universa ;ty, when he introduces the Jew on one
hand, and the Gentile on the other; and when he seems
to affirm of all Jews and of all Gentiles, what the con-
nexion shows to be true of each description of persons,
no further than collectively and nationally.

Another property of the Epistle, in relation to the
collective bodies of men comprehended under the ar-
gument of it, is its speaking of their respective privi-
leges, as belonging to a state of covenant with God in

■with the Epistle to the Ro?nans. 11

this world; and not to a state of reward and punishment
hereafter. No doubt, the kingdom of God on earth be-
ing instituted with a view to a better kingdom in the
heavens, it is natural to expect of a writer, especially of
one under the influence of inspiration, that, in unfolding
what belongs to the former, he should have his heart
warmed and his thoughts elevated, by the contem-
plating of the more transcendent glories of the latter.
Accordingly, we find such an effect of the foretaste of
heaven, in this Epistle of St. Paul. Still the subjects,
although kindred, are not the same: and therefore the
Apostle never loses sight of his proper subject; which
is the Messiah's spiritual reign on earth, over a people
calling on and called by his name. It may not only be
remarked under this head, as under the preceding, that
the Calvinistick writers, generally, are sure to adopt, in
the eleventh chapter, what they had rejected in the
chapters preceding; but of Dr. Doddridge in particu-
lar, that although he had rejected the other allied prin-
ciple of national designation, as supported by Mr.
Locke; yet, so early as in his interpretation, in the ninth
chapter, of the expressions applied by Calvinists to the
conditions in another life of the persons mentioned—
such is the candour of the man — he gives some of
them the construction here contended for; and avoids,
in regard to others, the awful emphasis which his sys-
tem seems to call for.

The distinction he-e affirmed, may be elucidated in
the following manner. If we were asserting the com-
mon right of a coheir, with another coheir, to an in-
terest in a large estate; and if both of them were mi-
nors, it would be natural, to have some reference in our

12 Comparison of the Controversy, %?c.

discourse to the great value of the possession; and to
the honours and enjoyments hereafter to be attached to
it, in the tenure of him for whom we claim. And yet
there could be no absolute certainty, that, if there
should be an acknowledgment of his right, he would
live to enter on the inheritance. In like manner, there
may be contemplated a connexion between the cove-
nant state on earth, and the blessedness of heaven, to
which it is introductory; although it may happen of
any present subject of the former, that he shall not
reach the latter.

The last particular of the Epistle to be stated, is the
implication in it, of a distinction between the state of
covenant with God, affirmed under the preceding head;
and the exclusive possession of the divine favour, in
reference to another life, while that covenant continued;
a distinction which will of course apply, under the
Christian economy also: that is, neither in the one nor
in the other, is salvation limited to a state of visible co-
venant. As the passages of the Epistle, on the ground
of which the affirmation is here made, will not come
under review in the comparison that is to follow, there
may be a propriety in offering them in this place.

There are the first two verses of the third chapter,
from which the position to be now maintained is an obvi-
ous inference. The Apostle had been asserting the ad-
mission of the Gentiles within the pale of the Gospel,
on equal terms with the Jews. These are supposed to
object — "What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what
profit is there in circumcision?" Had there been no
possibility of salvation, during the existence of the
Jewish economy, except to those who were the sub-

with the Epistle to the Romans. 13

jects of it, this would have been their pre-eminent ad-
vantage; although to be enjoyed henceforward by the
Gentiles also. But the answer of the Apostle rests on
a very different foundation — "Much," says he, "every
way; chiefly because unto them were committed the
oracles of God." Great had been the benefit to the a
of the deposite here mentioned, as a manifestation of
the divine perfections; as a directory of life; and as fi-
gurative, in a variety of ways, of a promised seed, in
which all mankind were interested. But had the Apos-
tle conceived of the legal covenant, as the only dispen-
sation of providence admitting of salvation, there
would seem an inconsistency, in the assigning of so li-
mited a sphere, to the advantage of having been exclu-
sively in the possession of it.

Another passage, is in the fourth and fifth verses of
the ninth chapter; in which the past pre-eminence of
the Jews is more amplified, thus — "Who are Israelites,
to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of
God, and the promises; whose are the Fathers; and of
whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; who is over
all, God blessed forever; Amen." All this might have
been more briefly and pointedly given in the remark,
that the Jews only had been the proper subjects of sal-
vation, were it applicable. But no: they had been the
chosen people of God, for the accomplishing of a pur-
pose, which runs through the whole series of his dispen-
sations to mankind, from the creation to the consum-
mation of all things. They and all others will be respon-
sible for an improvement of whatever light has been
afforded them.

14 Comparison of the Controversy^ &rc.

But the passage in the Epistle speaking the most
strongly to the point, is in the second chapter, from the
eighth verse to the sixteenth. The Apostle, having de-
nounced the threatening of " indignation and wrath, tri-
bulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth
evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile," adds —
" But glory, honour, and peace to every man that work-
eth good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile."
There is no plausible way of evading the application of
this, except by supposing, that the Apostle speaks of
the converted Gentiles. But this is inconsistent with
the evident tenour of the passage, taken in connexion
with what went before; in which it had been said of the
divine Being — " Who will render to every man accord-
ing to his deeds." There may, indeed, be taken ano-
ther course; the supposing that the Apostle speaks of
a perfect obedience, not paid by any: but this would
be to represent him as speaking to no purpose. By
well-doing, he must have meant a good life and con-
versation, according to the ideas annexed by common
use, to the expression. He goes on — " For there is no
respect of persons with God:" that is, say some, no
respect to any man, on account of his riches, or of his
station, or of any other of the advantages of life; inti-
mating, that the proposition is intended of these sub-
jects only. But this does not consist with the sense,
which respects morality of action; and that of men un-
der different dispensations of providence. The words
must have the same meaning here, as when used by St.
Peter, in the tenth chapter of the Acts; where this Apos-
tle, after saying — "God is no respecter of persons,"
adds — "for in every nation, he that feareth him and
worketh righteousness is accepted with him."

with the Epistle to the Romans. 15

That the same is the sentiment in the place before us,
is evident in what follows — " For as many as have
sinned without Law shall also perish without Law;
and as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged
by the Law." There is no reason, why there should be
different rules of judgment in the different cases; unless
on a principle, which shall establish different standards
of duties respectively required. The thread of the dis-
course is continued thus — " For not the hearers of the
Law are just before God, but the doer; of the Law
shall be justified." " The doers of the Law;" meaning
in a sense, in which alone such a description of persons
could have been introduced; that is, as applying to
every upright and religious person under the Law; and
not doers in the sense of sinless perfection; there having
been no such persons. In what follows, a question
may arise, whether the words by " nature"* should
be attached to the second clause of the sentence, as in
the present translation, or to the word "Gentiles" in
the first clause; which will make it descriptive of the
converted Gentiles. But this is going very far back,
for a verbal connexion; besides that the purpose for
which it is done is inconsistent with the Apostle's de-
sign, demonstrated throughout the passage. It is there-
fore here concluded, that the passage should be agree-
ably to the translation — " When the Gentiles who have
not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the
Law" — by nature, not as distinguished from grace,
but as descriptive of their condition, without the benefit
of revelation;"! "these, having not the Law," that is,

+• The expression " by nature" is used in this sense in Gal. ii. 1 5.

16 Comparison of the Controversy, Esta

the Mosaick, "are a Law unto themselves:" not that
it is less the Law of God than the other, although de-
scribed as a part of themselves, in respect to its being
an inward and not an outward Law: "Which show the
work of the Law written in their hearts;" their con-
formity to it being the result of their judgment and the
object of their desire: " Their conscience also bearing
witness," on a comparison of their actions with that in-
ward Law; "and their thoughts the meanwhile accu-
sing or else excusing one another," by mutual reason-
ings on the innocency or the guilt of their conduct.
The passage concludes thus — " In the day when God
shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, accord-
ing to my Gospel:" these words being connected with
the twelfth verse; for the intermediate verses are a
parenthesis; which is so evident, as to permit no colour
to the absurd sense, imagined by some, that, in the great
day, the Gospel will be the rule of judgment indiscri-
minately laid on all.

It should be remarked concerning this passage, for
the sake of the effect of the remark on what will here-
after be observed on the passages before and following,
that, whereas these are descriptive of national depravity
of manners, the intermediate passage speaks of indi-
vidual character and conduct. So that while heathen
communities exhibited evidences of all the enormous
crimes displayed in the first chapter; and while the
Jewish community was chargeable with consenting to
and imitating the heathen practices, which their law
condemned, there were, both among the heathen and
among the Jews, individual characters free from the
prevalent contagion; and not labouring under the judg-

with the Epistle to the Ro?nans. 17

merit which the justice of God had pronounced "against
every soul of man that doeth evil."*

Of the five particulars included in this introduction,
the first four are peculiarly attached to the Epistle,
which is to be a subject of this comparison; and must
depend for proof, on the Epistle only. But the last par-
ticular, if correct, may be expected to appear a distin-
guishing property of scripture generally: And this, it is
here conceived, might be easily proved, if it were with-
in the limits of the design, to travel beyond the bounds
of the Epistle.

* The criticism noticed, of connecting the words "by nature,"
with the word " Gentiles," was learned by the author from a tract
" on the law of nature," in the collection called " The Scholar arm-
ed." When he first read it in that ingenious discourse, he thoughc
he perceived some probability in the point intended to be establish-
ed, that the passage refers to the Gentile Christians. But, on con-
sideration, he judges such an opinion utterly inconsistent with the
ground taken by the Apostle; and accordingly follows the sense
which has been usual.

It is a pleasure to the writer of this, to remark, that Dr. Dod-
dridge's interpretation of the whole passage harmonizes with the
sense which has been here given. He does not, indeed, unequivo-
cally affirm, that there are virtuous heathen, who will be approved
of in the day of final judgment: but what he says seems manifestly
to point to that result. It is true, that, when he comes to his im-
provement, he weakens, in some measure, the force of his interpre-
tation, by saying as follows—" Nor are we concerned to know, how
the heathen will fare in it (the judgment.) Let it suffice us, that
if they arc condemned, they will be righteously condemned; not for
remaining ignorant of the Gospel they never had an opport«nity
of hearing, hut for violating those precepts of the Divine Law,
which were inscribed on their consciences." Even under this
hypothetical proposition, it is here thought, there may be discerned,
in the writer's mind, more than he held it prudent to declare.

vol. I. D

18 Comparison of the Controversy y £sfc.

For the same reason of not wishing to take a wider
range of disquisition than the design requires, the au-
thor proposes, under every point of the contemplated
controversy, to fix the attention on the leading matter
put to issue between the contending parties; bringing
in, however, under the third and fourth points, certain
subjects which they involve; although not explicitly de-
clared in the points, as usually stated. The subjects
here in view, appear to be intimately connected with
large portions of the Epistle.

Perhaps it may be expected of him to deliver, under
each point, his own opinion of the sense of scripture, in
relation to that department of the controversy. But he
is desirous of maintaining, throughout the comparison,
the manner which would become a man having no bias,
either to Calvinism, or to Arminianism; nor yet, any
opinion of his own, on the subject generally; or who, on
the other hand, might belong to either of the two par-
ties; yet conceive of his own cause, that it would be
injured, as indeed every good cause must, by argu-
ments which do not apply. This line of conduct, how-
ever, dictates the requesting of the reader, that he will
not consider the author as objecting, or as indifferent to
any truth of Christian ; y, merely on the ground, that he
does not find it directly taught in the Epistle.

1. OP PREDESTINATION.

The Question stated — Sense of Chapter 8 verse 29, to end of chap
ter 9— Of chapter 10 and 1 1— Connexion of the whole with
chapter 12, verse 1.

THERE is no need to say much, in statement of
the hinge on which the controversy turns, in relation to
this first point of it. The disputants consent in the ac-
knowledging of a predestinating of some to life, while
all others are passed over, say some Calvinists; but,
say other Calvinists, the reprobation of those not or-
dained to life is also directly an object of the decree.
The difference between both these descriptions of Cal-
vinists and the Arminians consists in this; that the latter
found the decree of God in favour of the elect, on his
foreknowledge of their faith and obedience; while the
former make it independent on that circumstance
There does not appear any thing immediately applica-
ble, until we reach the 29th and 30th verses of the 8th
chapter, in which we read as follows: " For whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conform-
ed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first
born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did
predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called,
them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he
also glorified."

Nothing will be here said concerning the meaning
of the word "called," because it will come more pro-
perly in another place. When we take up the words,
" foreknow," and " predestinate," they seem to give
a great advantage to the Arminians, in relation to the

20 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfo.

distinction on which their whole doctrine of predesti-
nation rests. And indeed, if the Apostle could be pro-
perly considered as speaking principally of individual
character, and principally in relation to another life, the
authority would seem decisive.* But, according to the
principle of interpretation here supported, nothing was
further from his thoughts. The spirit of the sentiment
seems to be, that, in contrariety to the opinion of
there being no admission to a state of covenant with
God, except agreeably to the institutions of the law,
he had, before the giving of the law, declared his pur-
pose of extending the covenant to the Gentiles; as had

* Two grounds are taken, in order to avoid the effect of there
being given the first place to foreknowledge, and the second to
predestination, in an enumeration of the divine acts according to
the intended order. It is remarked, first, that the expression is
simply, "whom he did foreknow," without any mention of their
faith and their obedience; and secondly, that the Greek word,
«'^o£yv<s»" often signifies foreknowing with affection; which is
proved by other passages of scripture. Still, on the plan of inter-
pretation adopted in common by the parties, the context seems to
give the advantage greatly to the Arminians. For who are the
persons spoken of ? The answer is, from verse 28 — They who
love God, and for whose good all things work together. These
are they whom God foreknew — whom he foreknew (may the Ar-
minians say) with an affection which occasioned a predestination
of them to eternal life, founded on the character of them which
had gone before. The passage, here noticed, has been called by
Calviinsts a golden chain; the links of which are so connected,
that he who has hold of one is secure of all; and he who is loose
from one, is equally so from the rest. Under this view of the pas-
sage, it would seem, that the station of foreknowledge in the chain
is favourable to the Arminian scheme. Still, this is said under tho
persuasion, that there is no reference in the place to the salvation
of individuals, either predestinated or foreknown.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 21

been shown in a preceding part of the Epistle: that ac-
cordingly, there was a foreknowledge and a predestina-
tion of Gentile converts, disengaged from rituals,
which had not been ordained, until after the declara-
tion of the said purpose and decree; that not only so,
there had been a call given by the ministry of the word;
and a compliance with the call, on the part of the then
Gentile professors; and that, in addition still — for the
Apostle should be considered as now going on, from
the matter in dispute, to an undisputed fact — they who
were called had been justified, or authoritatively decla-
red righteous in the sight of God; and glorified, by a
portion of the Spirit of Glory's resting on them; these
two particulars having been demonstrated, by the mi-
raculous gifts of the Holy Ghost.

The difference between justification and glorification,
as demonstrated, each of them by miracle, seems to be,
that the former relates to the acceptance of persons;
and the latter, to the qualifying of some of them
to work miracles themselves. Such use of the word
makes the passage analogous to many other places of
scripture; one of which is, where it is said: * "How
shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather
glorious?" — The Apostle could not have intended the
glory hereafter, because he spoke of the past; and it is
difficult to devise any meaning, besides that here ascri-
bed to the expression.

The reference supposed gives evident pertinency to
the inference, that the Gentiles, as such, were owned to
be a people admissible to the covenant: And the pas-
sage, placed in this point of view, is analogous to St.
Peter's use of the same argument, in the 8th verse of

* 2 Cor. iii. 8.

22 Comparison of the Controversy, Este.

the 15th chapter of the Acts; where he says — " God,
who knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us." And
what he understood, by giving them the Holy Ghost,
is evident in the transaction with Cornelius, recorded
in the 10th chapter of the same book.

It must be acknowledged, that we have no such for-
mal record of the pouring out of miraculous gifts,*
on the Roman Church, as in the case of cer-
tain disciples at Ephesus, or as in that here refer-
red to, of Cornelius and his assembled friends. But,
the same may be said concerning the churches of Gala-
tia : And yet St. Paul manifestly refers to such an
effusion on them, where he says:f " He, therefore, that
ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles
among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or
by the hearing of faith ?" That there had been, at the
early period when the Apostle wrote to the converts
in the capital of the empire, the same grace bestowed
on them, is not only in itself highly probable, but seems
referred to in several places of the Epistle. The first,
worthy of notice, is in the 5th verse of the 5th chapter;
where it is said — " The love of God is shed abroad in
our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."
— The original wordj being expressive, elsewhere,
of the pouring out of the§ extraordinary gifts,
it is a circumstance, which favours the opinion of
a reference to the subject here. The Apostle, in-
deed, denotes a manifestation to the hearts of the
believers ; and the having of a view to this is also
necessary, to connect the verse with the " hope"
mentioned in the context, which " maketh not asha-

* XxeiG-fistToi. f Chap. iii. 5. \ tx.xe%vTctt. § Xctpitr/txTet.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 23

med." But what could have been more proper, than
that such an outward manifestation to the senses should
be considered as speaking powerfully to the affections,
in a declaration of the love of God, to a people so highly
favoured ?*

In the 8th chapter, there are sundry expressions
tending to the same point. There shall be mentioned
only one of them. It is: " The Spirit itself bear-
eth witness with our spirit, that we are the chil-
dren of God. "t It is not the same with a witnessing
" to our spirit ;" as some delight to consider it, because
of the support which it then seems to give to a favour-
ite fancy ; but " with our spirit." There are there-
fore two witnesses ; one inward, which can be no other
than the consciousness of a holy conformity to the di-
vine will ; and the other outward, which must have
been the sensible effusion of the Holy Ghost, who is still
a witness at the present day, in the testimony of the
word, and in no other way.

The matter is again implied in the 6th verse of the
12th chapter — " Having then gifts, differing according
to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,
let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith."
Commentators consider this, as significative of extra-
ordinary endowments ; although an application of the

* Dr. Whitby and some other commentators consider a sens*
of the love of God, as that which the Apostle affirms to be shed
abroad in the heart. But this is here thought to detract from the
weight of a sentiment otherwise very forcible} and besides, to make
this one of the many places, in which he is represented as reason-
ing from insufficient principles. Any consciousness, existing in
the minds of believing Gentiles, could be no evidence to believing
Jews, of a point denied by them.

t Verse 16,

24 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

same to ordinary edification is the principal subject of
the lesson given. The word " gifts," throughout the
writings of St. Paul, is descriptive of what comes from
the miraculous interposition of the Hoi)' Ghost ; stand-
ing thus distinguished from " the fruits of the Spirit ;"
which are the gracious endowments of the mind, or its
moral habits. And there is probably another reference
tothesame effusion, in the 13th verse of the 15th chapter,
where it is said--'1 Now the God of hope fill you with all
joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope,
through the power of the Holy Ghost." For although
" hope" is one of "the fruits of the Spirit," agreeably
to the distinction already taken ; yet it is not probable,
that the Apostle would have made such an allusion to
its source, if the Romans could have said at this peri-
od, what had been said by certain men in Ephesus, at
a much earlier period — " We have not so much as
heard, whether there be any Holy Ghost."

On the ground of these authorities, there is rest-
ed the presumption, that there had been a miracu-
lous effusion on some persons in the Roman Church ;
that there being among the persons so favoured, some,
of the Gentile side of the question, there is inferred the
impropriety of considering any as inadmissible to a
participation of ordinary privileges, without a condi-
tion dispensed with by God himself, in the recipients
of his highest gifts ; and that, on this account, the
Apostle should be considered as appealing to a past
acknowledged fact, instead of expressing his persua-
sion of what could not be brought to the test of the
knowledge of himself, or of those to whom he wrote.

Unless, indeed, we adopt the construction here given,
we seem to involve ourselves in a very considerable

with the Epistle to the Romans. 25

difficulty. For if the justification spoken of had been some
process in the mind; and if the glorification spoken of
were that of heaven; it might be asked — Had the Apos-
tle a knowledge of the hearts of men, that he could po-
sitively affirm concerning such things as were the sub-
jects of their respective consciousness ? Or had hea-
ven been so opened to his view, as that he could as-
suredly determine, on every question of an admission
to its mansions ? Or supposing him thus informed ;
was he possessed of such evidence, as must be satisfac-
tory to the persons, whose prejudices he was combat-
ing ? For we should bear in mind, that the Apostle is
not addressing those alone, who were ready to receive
what came from him, as the dictates of inspiration.
Far from it; he was opposing, by argument, the errours
of those, who were raising a clamour against his doc-
trine of a free admission of the Gentiles. And to sup-
pose that he brought against those opponents, arguments
more liable to cavil, than the points which they were
brought to prove, is inconsistent, not to say with the
dignity of the Apostleship, but with his personal cha-
racter and accomplishments.

Besides; all that follows to the end of the chapter is
in agreement with the interpretation given ; while it
shows no pertinency to any other sense. For the Apos-
tle, strong in the reasonings which had run through
several preceding chapters and bringing them to a point,
applies them thus: " What shall we then say to
these things? If God be for us, who can be against
us ?"* That is; if he has thus, by a visible in-
terposition of his power, publickly acknowledged us,

* Verse 31.

Vol. i. f

26 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

Gentiles, to be of his people — for the Apostle, in this
place, as elsewhere, often speaks of himself as if he
were one of those Gentiles, whose Apostle he had been
divinely designated — who shall intervene between us
and the gracious effects of this dispensation of provi-
dence, in our behalf? " He that spared not his
own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he
not, with him, also freely give us all things ?"* Here
the Apostle, transported by his subject, combines it
with the beneficent tendency of the Gospel generally.
Thev against whom he wrote did not deny, that Gen-
tiles might be admitted to Christian communion, al-
though they contended, that it should be through the
gate of legal ceremony. But, says the Apostle, when
God has manifested his impartial goodness, in so signal
a display of it, as that of his Son's dying for Gentile as
well as Jew, what wonder is there, that he should
bestow on the former, as well the gifts which have been
noticed to be already theirs, as any other which have a
relation to their Christian calling ; and this freely, with-
out their being encumbered with the burthensome en-
tailment of the Levitical law? He goes on — " Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?"f
Chosen as we have been, under the publick evidence of
a divine designation, what mortal shall presume to ac
cuse us, on the account of our not conforming to what
they erroneously imagine essential to the profession of
his name? " It is God that justifieth:"J " Who is he
that condemneth?"§ It is the sovereign Judge, who
has signified the acceptance of our persons, by to-
kens evident to sense: who then shall oppose his pre-
rogative by the opposite judicial sentence of our
* Verse 32. t Verse 33. \ Verse 33. § Verse 34.

•with the Epistle to the Romans* 27

condemnation? " It is Christ that died, yea, rather that
is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God,
who also maketh intercession for us." It would have
been in vain to have called the attention to these en-
couraging truths, had it been still uncertain, whether
they were interesting to those whose cause was plead-
ed. But this being demonstrated by indisputable fact,
the foundation of all Christian faith and hope is con-
sistently introduced, as having been by that fact assur-
ed to them. The Apostle, becoming still warmer on
his subject, passes from those whose arguments drew
aline of separation between Christian communion and
the condition of uncircumcised professors of the faith,
to another description of persons, meaning the com-
mon persecutors of them both: And then he enumerates
the variety of trials, to which men were at that time
exposed, by the profession of Christianity. There is
no need to comment on the affecting passage, because,
although it will come in properly under another depart-
ment of the present work, it is not to the purpose in
this place, any further than as a foundation of a remark,
for the pointing out of what adds as well to the orna-
ment, as to the argument of the passage, that the Apos-
tle seems to insinuate to the Jewish disturbers of the
peace of their Gentile brethren, a lesson to be drawn
from the courage and the constancy with which they
were enabled, by divine grace, to sustain the worst dif-
ficulties of the Christian warfare. This was, in itself, no
small evidence of their being within the authorized
pale of the profession, especially as those difficulties
arose from the prejudice here contested, the opinion
which the Jews entertained of the perpetual obligation
of their law : the persecutions heretofore sustained hav-

28 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

ing been brought on, principally, by the instigations of
that people, and not, as afterwards, by heathen persecu-
tors.

It would be rash to affirm, that a correct judgment
has been expressed in every particular, as to the sense
of the preceding passage. But there can hardly be an
errour in believing, that the Apostle, through the whole,
contemplates persons of one description, opposing, cen-
suring, and condemning those of another; that he occupies
himself in sustaining the rights of the latter, and that he
appeals to some interposition of Heaven, in their behalf.
Now, it seems impossible to imagine of whom the former
character was designed, unless of the Jewish converts to
Christianity; of whom the latter character was designed,
but of the Gentile converts; and of what the divine deter-
mination of the controversy was affirmed, but of that bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost, which was to give beginning to
the Church. If these things were so, the controversy
must have been, the terms of the admission of the Gen-
tiles; they must have been contemplated and spoken of
collectively, and the whole must have related to a visible
fellowship on earth. If we abandon these points, for
those of any other theoiy, ti ere are no documents which
can give us information, of one party setting up preten-
sions to the prejudice of another; or of any dispute, in
which either side would have found it determined against
them, by St. Paul's teaching of Calvinism, in contrariety
to Arminianism; or this, in preference to the other. In
short; on any other hypothesis, he would seem to have
given his Epistle a controversial form, when it ought
radier to have been didactick. But as the former suppos-
es the writer to have taken in matter quite foreign to his

•with the Epistle to the Romans. 29

purpose, if he indeed treated of the subjects of modern
controversy here in view, we must presume, that it was
a plan which could not have been adopted by such a wri-
ter as St. Paul.

The whole subject of this work was entered on with
awe; on account of the variety of opinion, which has
prevailed on it. But there is felt an increased measure
of that affection, on passing to the 9th chapter of the
Epistle; which has puzzled so many men, much abler
than the present writer; and, what is far more to be de-
plored, has been the occasion of dejection and of de-
spair to many: this, as is here thought, in consequence of
interpretations which have no foundation in the passage.
It is not the design to notice the various senses, which
have been ascribed to the different verses in the chap-
ter. Far from this, there will not be reviewed or recon-
sidered, to any considerable extent, what the author has
heretofore taken the trouble to peruse; of the much
greater proportion of which, he judges it better to be
ignorant than to be informed.

The interpretation of part of the 8th chapter, makes
a clear connexion of it with the 9th; and it is difficult to
devise any other interpretation, under which the con-
necting circumstance shall be seen. For if predestina-
tion, in the usual sense of the word, had been treated
of in the latter part of the 8th chapter; and were to be
resumed and more largely treated of in the 9th; it was
foreign to the subject of those passages, to mix it with
that of the rejection of the Jews as a nation; since the
predestinating act must still be understood to have in-
cluded individuals from among them, as well as from
among the Gentiles. But let the view be confined to

30 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

national character and designation; and then, all is per
tinent — all is sound argument.

The Apostle begins with a declaration, exciting the
expectation of some afflicting truth to be disclosed.
For, after professing his own sincerity in this solemn
form — " I say the truth in Christ; I lie not, my con-
science also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost"* —
he adds — " That I have great heaviness and continual
sorrow in my heart, "f The cause of this great heavi-
ness and continual sorrow was confessedly the rejection
of the Jews, declared soon afterwards. Here was great
cause, it must be confessed; although in the estimation
of a mind susceptible of sympathy, nothing in compari-
son of the more dreadful and extensive reprobation,
which it has been thought the object of this very chapter
to affirm. Still, all for whom the Apostle feels in this
place, are his countrymen, the Jews. The passage, al-
though partly given in the introduction, is here repeated
at full length for the connexion: "For I could wish that
myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my
kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites, to
whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the co-
venants and the giving of the law, and the service of God,
and the promises; whose are the Fathers; and of whom,
as concerning the flesh, Christ came; who is over all,
God blessed for ever. Amen."| There have been many
ways thought of, to soften the harshness of this wish.
The tense of the Greek verb$ admits the translation —
I could have wished: meaning if it were right to do so.
Even with this softening, it seems impossible to sup-
pose, that the Apostle admitted the idea, in relation to

• Verse I . t Verse 2. \ Verse9 3 4, 5. § vt^o/op.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 31

the subject of his eternal damnation. But if we apply
it, as the whole spirit of the composition warrants, to an
alienation from Christian communion; which, it should
be remarked, might have consisted with circumstances
excusing, in consideration of ignorance of the subject
and want of opportunity of benefiting by it; under such
a construction, the Apostle's saying that he could have
wished this, if it were lawful, is within the reach of an
emotion, descriptive of a mind not vehement to ex-
cess, yet vehement as that of St. Paul was; evidences
of which are found in various parts of what he has
written.

Of the passage the last recited, it ought to be no-
ticed, that it speaks of an adoption, and of covenants,
contemplated as comprehensive of a whole nation: so
that there may be an adoption, and there may be a cove-
nant state, under which the temper and the life of the
individual may be alien from the dispensation.

But even taking the privileges enumerated in the
4th and 5th verses, according to the construction given,
it might occur to the advocate of Judaism, that, on the
ground of the foregoing argument, the promises of God
h#d now failed. But not so, says the Apostle — for this
must be the meaning of the three verses following —
since the promise is to have a more liberal construc-
tion, than to be confined to descent by natural genera-
tion. For if, as he goes on to show, it be clear concern-
ing certain branches deriving their pedigree from the
stock to which the promise had been made, that they
were cut off from all interest in it, at a very early period;
it may the easier be believed, that, agreeably to some
intimation given in the promise itself, and to more ex-

32 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

press prophecies kept in reserve by the Apostle, to be
produced in their proper places of this epistle;>even per-
sons, not claiming by descent, may attain to an interest
in the promise.

Here, it is worth the while of every reader to make
a pause, and seriously to ask the question, whether,
consistently with the connexion, there can be any thing
to follow in regard to Ishmael and Esau, that can have
respect to them personally, rather than to their posteri-
ties; or to the one or the other, as to what is to happen
to them in a future life? To the writer of this, there
seems nothing more unconnected with the past reason-
ing of the Apostle, than any matter relative to everlast-
ing salvation under the Gospel. The question is of
the description of persons, capable of being within its
bounds.

As the connexion points out this distinction, so it is
further conspicuous in the terms in which the cases are
brought before us, when compared with their correla-
tive places in the Old Testament. For whereas
it is stated, that there had been given to Abraham
" the word of promise, At this time will I come,
and Sara shall have a son;"* the same promised son
is declared, by the Apostle, to have been preferred to
Ishmael, another son of Abraham — preferred to him,
.savs the Calvinistick system, as an heir of immortality.
Now let it be remembered, that the Apostle is framing
his argument, to the apprehension of persons acquaint-
ed with the Old Testament and believing in its divine
authority; and further, that he bestows no pains to
prove to them, that such was the sense of the record
there found, concerning the setting aside of Ishmael.

* Verse 9.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 33

Was it then so clear to every reader of the Pentateuch,
or is there any evidence of such a discovery made by
Jews, either of ancient or of modern times, that Ish-
mael is described in their sacred books, as having been
cursed to all eternity? Let the narrative be examined;
and let any trace of such an infliction, if found there,
be produced. Abraham prefers the modest suit to
God — " Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!" God
answers, that, although Abraham should have another
and more favoured son, yet, in regard to Ishmael, it
should be as had been desired. Oh faithful Abraham!
Httle didst thou imagi ^e, when thou receivedst this
promise, from him who knew thou wouldst " com-
mand thy children after thee," that, in the discrimina-
tion here made between Ishmael and his brother, there
was contained the sentence of the eternal condemnation
of the former. And little would it have consoled thee,
under such an understanding of the allotment made to
him, to have heard it added, that he should "beget
twelve princes and become a great nation!"*

* It is probtbly owing to the evident designation of the posteri-
ty of Ishmael in Genesis, that there has been invented by some, as
applicable to the passage in the Epistle, the distinction of a typi-
cal rejection, which was that of Ishmael and his posterity from
an inheritance in Canaan; and an antitypical, which was of Ish-
mael himself from the possibility of salvation. Whatever ground
there might have been for this, had individual election and repro-
bation been the subject of the Apostle, the national complexion
of his argument does away all pretence for it. There has been
pressed in to the service of the distinction stated, the allegory drawn
by the Apostle, in the latter part of the 4th chapter of his Epistle
to the Galatians. But that allegory runs a comparison between
Sarah and Hagar, as representative, not either of individuals or of

VOL. I. F

34 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

From the case of Isaac and Ishmael, let us go to
that of Jacob and Esau; concerning whom, " being
not yet born, neither having done any good or
evil, that the purpose of God, according to election,
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;" it
was said — " the elder shall serve the younger;"* and
" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, "f
or esteemed him less.J That the elder's serving
of the younger had reference to the present life only,
must be evident on the face of the words. And that
the hatred extended no further, is equally evident from
the interpretation given to the word by the prophet
Malachi; where he introduces the Most High speak-
ing thus — "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau; and
laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dra-
gons of the wilderness. "$ And to show further, how
foreign this is from the use made of it by some, it re-
fers to the fortunes, not of the persons, but of their
posterities. For when did Esau serve his brother Jacob?

nations, but of two covenants, the legal and the evangelical. Even
what is said of Ishmael — (Gen. xvi. 12) "He will be a wild man,
his hand will be against every man and every man's hand against
him," has been brought in proof of the position of his reprobation.
But does not the history of all succeeding ages harmonize with
the idea, that this must have been designed to be descriptive of
the national character of his descendants? And is not the accom-
plishment ot what was predicted of them continually appealed to by
Christians, as a prominent proof of the spirit of prophecy in the

scriptures?

* Verses 1 1, 12. f Verse 13.
\ That the word "hate" may be understood in this lax sense,
may be gathered from St. Matt. vi. 24, and from St. Luke xiv.
26; besides many other places, as well in the Old Testament, as
in the New. § i. 2, 3.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 35

Or what evidence is there, of the wasting of the heri-
tage of the former, in his own day? Every thing record-
ed of the brothers has a contrary appearance; especially
their interview described in the 33d chapter of Genesis,
and the account given in the 36th chapter, of the
splendour of Esau's progeny, just before the mention
of the incidents in the family of Jacob, which ended in
his retreat to Egypt, where he lived and died depen-
dent. The construction thus given to the 12th verse
of the 9th chapter of the epistle, is much confirmed by
a reference to the 23d verse of the 25th chapter of
Genesis, which the Apostle could never have intended
to misquote, or to bend to a sense wide of the true
one, but in which, what is said to Rebecca is expressly
of" two nations and two manner of people," who were

in her womb.*

If we put out of view the national complexion of the

composition here affirmed of it, what the Apostle says
is much in favour of the Calvinistick, and in contrariety
to the Arminian scheme. For he grounds the fortunes
of the brothers, not on their faith and their works fore-
seen, but on sovereign will. The advocates of the lat-
ter system seem to have no way of getting over the
difficulty, but by the help of the truth here sustained,
that individual character and everlasting life are not the
direct object of the argument. Indeed, if they be,

* As in the case of the other two brothers, so, in the case of these,
it has been contended, that, although there is a reference to their
respective descendants, yet, that being the stocks of their families,
they were parts of them and included in what is affirmed; and fur-
ther, that the rejection of the family of Esau was typical of repro-
bation. And this is said on the presumption, so contrary to fact,
that individual and not national allotment was the professed sub-
ject of the Apostle.

36 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

the authority of this passage extends further than is
consistent with the Calvinistick doctrine, and thus
proves too much. For, not being willing to admit, that
th. Divine Being will sentence an innocent person to
perdition, the doctrine represents sin as no part of the
decree, although a permitted mean for the accomplish-
ing of the end of it. But in the case of Esau, the
decree is unconnected with evil works, not only
as foreknown, but as the medium, thought essential
for the vindication of divine justice.*

The Apostle, however, is not done with the case
of Jacob and Esau: for with the view to a preju-
dice which he supposed possible, he asks — "What
shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with

* Philip a Limborch, who is in general a judicious commenta-
tor, has taken pains, to clear this pasiage from the Calvinistick
application ot it, in reference to a future life. But to effect this,
he is obliged to give a strained interpretation, wide of the Apos-
tle's meaning For he contends that the disregard of works spoken
of in the 1 1th verse, is merely to show, that, in respect to the elec-
tion and the calling of any man into the Christian Church, his be-
ing within or without the Jewish economy was of no account.
Limborch may be considered as a standard commentator of the
renonstrant party in the Netherlands. How much must his and
their cause have suffered from the having considered this subject
as at all connected with the reasonings of the Apostle!

The same respectable writer freely acknowledges, that the
choice of Isaac and Jacob was a type of the election of the just;
ad the rejection of Ishmael and Esau, a type of the reprobation
of the wicked. He contends, however, with apparent propriety,
that their having been respective types of these subjects does not
prove, that they were examples of them. But why admit that they
were types? They are only given as instances of the sovereignty
of God, in the bestowing of favours incident to the present life.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 37

God?" answering his own question thu "God for-
bid!"* It i" here evident, that he so far treats the ques-
tion with respect, as to imply, that the mind of man
may lawfully inquire, concerning a mode of proceeding
ascribed to God, whether it be consistent with the
righteousness which must be an unalienable attribute
of his nature. There are, indeed, many places in
Scripture, in which the divine Being condescends to
reason with his creatures, concerning the equity of his
dealings and of his commands. The Calvinistick
scheme itself, as already noticed, does not hesitate to
judge, that God cannot ju tly damn his creatures, with-
out previous sin. It must, then, be a mistake to sup-
pose, that the Apostle treats it as an act of arrogancy
to compare an asserted effect of the sovereignty of
God, with an obvious inference from his justice. No;
it is contended, that there is no interference of the attri-
butes. God mav be more favourable to one than to
another, and yet just to all. But if the subject had
respected everlasting salvation, the result would not
have been so conspicuous, as is supposed in the Apos-
tle's appeal to unprejudiced reason, for the truth of it.f

* Verse U.

f Dr. Doddridge is so impartial as to renounce, explicitly, the
application of this passage to the eternal states of Jacob and Esau

There seems to the writer of this, but one exception to the li-
berality, with which Dr. Doddridge avoided the making of the
9th chapter to the Romans at all tributary to the creed of his pub-
lick profession. Throughout the whole oT what he says before the
22d, 23d and 24th verses, he wot only makes no application of the
subject to a future state, but discharges from any such application
the case of Esau expressly, in a note; and impliedly the case of
Pnaraoh, in the interpretation. But in regard to the said three

38 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

Nothing inconsistent with these sentiments is to be
drawn from the 15th verse of the chapter, where the
Almighty is quoted, saying, inExod. ch. xxxiii. verse
19 — " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have com-
passion." As the English word "mercy" is so much
used in connexion with the forgiveness of sin, it is pro-
bable, that even this circumstance may have some-
verses, there is a note and there are some expressions in the
improvement, which seem to construe them as of the conditions
of individuals. What makes this the more remarkable, he re-
sumes, under the next verse, the idea of national designation; and
continues it to the end of the chapter. This respectable writer, in
commenting on the three verses, pleases himself with the thought,
as was natural for a man of his benevolent disposition, that there
was a difference between the turn of the expression, "fitted for
destruction," and that of the other — "which he had af>re prepared
for glory." He seems to have considered this difference, as har-
monizing with the distinction between the direct act of predestina-
tion, with the effectual grace annexed to it, and the passing by:
under which term, there is supposed to be avoided a direct act of
reprobation. The preparing of the righteous is ascribed to God;
and the fitting of the wicked, is represented as of themselves.
But it is here thought, that there is no foundation for the criticism.
The marginal reading for "fitted" gives the choice of "made up;"
which presumes the act of God. And this is the more strict
sense of "KXTypTte-fAivx." There seems no way of drawing the
words from their subserviency to the belief of a direct act of re-
probation, but by considering them desi^n'id, like all the rest of
the chapters, of national character and condition.

It is the less to be wondered at, that the Caivinistick Dr. Dod-
dridge should fall off, in a particular instance, from an adherence
to the national and temporal properties of the epistle, when even
the Arminian Limborch is found occasionally mixing them with
remarks individually applying.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 39

times contributed to an undesirable association of
ideas, in a reader's mind. But the Hebrew words, in
Genesis, and the Greek words, in the epistle, descrip-
tive of certain affections in the divine mind, express
grace — pity — kindness, without any especial connexion
with pardon. And this makes the declaration the more
harmonize with the sentiment here sustained, of a pecu-
liar designation of favour, relatively to the present life.
The comment of the Apostle on the whole is —
" So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."*
This still refers to the relative circumstances of the
brothers, particularly, to the elder's running in quest
of the venison, and his eagerly coveting of the blessing,
though in vain.

Next, is the case of Pharaoh, concerning whom it
is said, by the Sovereign of the whole earth — " Even
for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that
I might show my power in thee; and that my name
might be declared throughout all the earth, "f To make
it of any use to the Calvinistick scheme, it should have
been — " For this purpose I have brought thee into
being." But r>o; Pharaoh may be supposed to have
been found with a mind regardless of the power of God,
before he was raised up, for the end stated. Neither
is the expression, " raised thee up," exactly expressive
of the words in Genesis; which signify, agreeably to
the translation in the margin, " made thee stand up. "J
Under this construction, which is supported by the
translation of the Septuagint, the sentiment is to this
effect — " I might have cut thee off with thy subjects,

* Verse 16. | Verse 17. \ Exod, ix. 16,

40 Comparison of the Controversy* fcfc.

in my judgments already inflicted before thine eyes;
but I have sustained thee and made thee stable in thy
kingdom, for a heavier judgment still to come." For
although the Apostle uses a word, alike pertinent, in-
d e.l, 'O his own purpose, yet varying in sense from the
Hebrew, he cannot reasonably be supposed to have de-
signed this, in order to give countenance to an hypothe-
sis, not warranted by the original text. Now, that by
the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea,
the name of God was glorified in the Israehtish nation,
is evident in sacred history. And that it was also glori-
fi d in the neighbouring nations, may easily be belie-
ved; although no record of it is to be found, in the
work of the Father of profane history, Herodotus; who
had but little transmitted to him, of transactions so
early as those of the period here referred to. But, that
the name of God had been glorified in the earth, by the
eternal damnation of this wicked prince, does not ap-
p' ar; and especially, it cannot be imagined that there is
the least allusion to it, in the beautiful strains of poetry,
in which Miriam, with her attendant women, gave
glory to God for the temporal destruction of their
proud oppressor. But in truth, it is impossible to infer,
from any part of the narrative in Genesis, or from what
is said by St. Paul in the epistle, that this man died
impenitent, and thus suffered, in another life, for the
crimes which he had committed. Who knows, that,
while the waters were returning to their place, in the
gradual manner which the narrative implies, this wick-
ed prince, hitherto untouched by calamities which
did not affect his person, and beholding his unhappy
end inevitable and near, did not lift up his once stub-

with the Epistle to the JRo?nans. 41

born heart, now subdued and softened, in accepted
penitence, to the Lord of life and death? Be this as
improbable as it may, it must be confessed possible;
which excludes all interpretation of St Paul's reason-
ings, as if grounded on the acknowledged event of his
damnation. And if so, there can be no consequence
unfavourable to our system, in what is added—
" Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have
mercy, and whom he will hehardeneth:"* this harden-
ing being in agreement with other places of scripture,
in which there is ascribed to God that which has its
origin in the wickedness of men, and which he per-
mits, with a view of overruling it to a subserviency of
his designs. And that no more is here meant, we
find confirmed by the circumstance, that in Exodus,f I
God's hardening of the heart of Pharaoh does not
prevent its being also said, that he hardened his own
heart.

Here the Apostle conceives of another contradiction,
on the part of those who would be watching every step
in his process, in order to find a flaw in it. For he sup-
poses a person of this sort lifting up his voice, and
asking: " Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath
resisted his will?"J Well may God find fault with the
wickedness of men, even under the punishments inflict-
ed on its account. But the question seems introduced,
in peevish discontent at the doctrine, in which, as must
have been perceived, the Apostle's argument would
end — the rejection of the Jews, from the privilege of
being a peculiar people. With evident propriety,

* Verse 18. t viii. 32, and ix. 34. JVer6el9,
VOL. I. O

42 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

therefore, the Apostle turns on the opponent,* with a
counter expostulation, as to the replying against God,
and the questioning of the prerogatives of his govern-
ment, for the having made this people or the other
people what they are; as if the clay should deny the
right of the potter, "to make one lump to honour and
another to dishonour." This similitude is taken from
the 6th verse of the 18th chapter of Jeremiah, by which
we ought of course to be governed, in the interpreta-
tion of it. It is there distinctly applied to the speaking
" concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to
pluck up, and to destroy;" and "concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to build, and to plant it."
Will it be said, that Jeremiah had within his contempla-
tion any thing beyond the present life? He surely had
not: And if so, there cannot be any reason to imagine,
that St. Paul strained the allusion to a subject, so differ-
ent as his issupposed to have been, from that of the pro-
phet. There was evidently no ground of analogy be-
tween the two subjects. A truth which was pertinent to
the putting down of one kingdom and the setting up of
another, was not equally evident, concerning the respec-
tive condition of individuals in another life. And yet it
is stated by the Apostle, as a matter in itself evident
and not demanding proof.

Now the Apostle advances to the application of his pre-
ceding reasoning in verses 22 and 23 — " What if God,"
(or more strictly, but if God — meaning, that forbearance
is no relinquishment of purpose) "willingto show his wrath,
and to make his power known, endured with much long
suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And

* Verses 30,21.

•with the Epistle to the Romans, 43

that he might make known the riches of his glory on the
vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. "
In vain shall we look for any reference of these words, to
the argument which had gone before, unless, by " vessels of
wrath fitted to destruction," we understand the unbeliev-
ing Jews collectively considered, who were to be no more
a peculiar people; but to remain under divine displeasure,
for an appointed time: and unless, by " the vessels of mer-
cy prepared for glory," we understand, not only believing
Jews and believing Gentiles, as defined by the Apostle
himself; but such in their collective capacities, and as the
subject respected a state of covenant with God. For in
what is said of" the vessels of wrath," the " destruction "
to which they are fitted must be a completion of the me-
taphor; and mean no more, than the national judgments
figuratively represented, by the breaking of the vessel
spoken of by Jeremiah: And " the vessels ol mercy pre-
pared for glory," being put in opposition, must refer to
the state of being spoken of in the preceding clause. If
there could be any doubt of this sense, it might be clear-
ed up, by what the Apostle immediately proceeds to quote
of two prophecies from Hosea and of two others from Isai-
ah; all of them applicable to the Gentiles as one and to
the Jews as another people, and not to be applied, even
under a plausible appearance, to any persons as individu-
ally interested, or as respecting their condition in another
life. For, after applying the metaphor of " vessels
of mercy," by declaring them to be — " even us,
whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of
the Gentiles;"* he goes on to recite the prediction of this
call by Hosea, where it is said — ii I will call them

* Verse 24.

44 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

my people, which were not my people; and her
beloved, which was not beloved." " And it shall come
to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye
are not my people; there shall they be called the children of
the living God."* So much, for " the vessels of mercy,"
qs a people. And then, showing that " the vessels of
wrath" were designated such, as a people also, the Apos-
tle goes on to quote Isaiah predicting the rejection of the
Jews — -" Though the number of the children of
Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant (meaning
this only) shall be saved;" and — " except the Lord of
Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma and
been made like unto Gcmorrha."! Finally, the Apostle
omitting nothing in this whole department of his Epistle,
that might show the national complexion by which it was
intended to be characterized, winds up his argument thus:
He puts the question—" What shall we say then?"f
He answers, implying it is this which should be said,
that " the Gentiles" — he still speaks collectively, the
privilege affirmed not belonging to those Gentiles only
who at the time believed; but to those also who should
believe after their example — that " the Gentiles," con-
templated in that their descriptive character, "have at-
tained to righteousness;" being in a state of acceptance
with God, in which they had been miraculously owned
by him as a people, and this, through the medium of faith
only; considered, not as devested of its fruits, but as oppo-
sed to the burthensome ceremonies of the laws. This is
one part of his conclusion. The other is, that " Israel,"
considered also as a people, — since otherwise, the affirma-
tion concerning them was not strictly true, there being a
* Verses 25, 26. t Verses 27, 29. J Verse 30.

•with the Epistle to the Romans, 45

considerable number of the nation to whom it did not ap-
ply— that " Israel, which followed after the law of right-
eousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness;"*
being kept back from it by their attachment to the abro-
gated ordinances of their law; the object of which had ceas-
ed, not as destroyed, but as fulfilled by the more exten-
sive dispensation of the gospel.

After the chapter the last commented on, there are re-
maining two of the chapters, which were to come under
observation, in this performance. In the first of them,
the 10th, there appears nothing set up, as applicable to
the doctrine of predestination, either in the sense sustain-
ed, or in that which has been objected to. But there are
expressions, still illustrative of the Apostle's preceding ar-
gument, as here unfolded. It would seem impossible to
read the 11th chapter without being astonished, that it
does not cut short all dispute, on the subject, so far as con-
cerns the question of the collective or the individual con-
templation of the persons spoken of, as also, that of the
period of their existence immediately referred to. So far,
indeed, the chapter has its weight in these respects; as that
the Calvinistick writers, in treating of it, ascribe to it the
very properties, which have been here claimed as belong-
ing to the whole of the epistle. But on this ground, what
an incorrect reasoner do they make of the Apostle of the
Gentiles representing him as directing his attention to a
subject entirely new, when there is every appearance of
its being continued to a branch of the old, and applying
the terms of this, but in a change of senses, to the other.
For, in this 1 1th chapter, we have still a foreknowledge and
an election. But as the latter evidently lightsf on the re-
* Verse 31. t Verse 28.

46 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

jected people, the disregard of the national construction
would be utterly inconsistent with the purpose to which
the epistle is applied by Calvinism. There are also ex-
plicitly announced a " casting away" and a breaking
off;* yet connected with a grafting in again. f Now
as these expressions, in the eleventh chapter, have a retro-
spective view to " the vessels of wrath" spoken of in the
ninth; nothing but the supposition of the entire change of
subject and of style can prevent a direct hostility of the ex-
pressions, against the Calvinistick scheme. There is a
still greater difficulty in its way: For when the Apostle
had compared real Christians from among the Gentiles,
to branches of an olive tree, wild by nature,! now
" graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree," and
partaking of its fatness; it seems irreconcilable with
the doctrine of perseverance, to imply that such persons
may be cut off, and, on that account, to admonish them,
as God spared not the natural branches, " to take heed,
lest, he also spare not thee."§ But to add to the inconsis-
tency,on the supposition of individual interpretation, there
is the assurance, that at last, " all Israel shall be saved;"||
no exception being made of those who were before called
"the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction." The diffi-
culty seems stretched to the utmost, when we find, as the
finishing stroke of the whole argument,that " God hath con-
cluded all in unbelief that he might have mercy uponall:"H
that is, according to the opinion here rejected, if the main,
tainersof it were consistent, on all mankind; none of them
being predestinated in any other sense, than will thus ex-
tend universally. But they properly consider the " all"

* Verses 15, 17. t Verse 23. J Verse 17—24. § Verse 21,
|| Vttrse 25. H Verse 32.

with the Epistle to the Romans, 47

as comprehending both the descriptions of persons spo-
ken of: an idea, which if adopted in the beginning of the
epistle, and permitted to have its just effect on the whole,
would contribute much, as is here conceived, to the
proper understanding of it.

If there were, at last, any thing wanting, to convince;
us of the incorrectness running through the whole inter-
pretation here opposed, it might be supplied by the strains
in which the Apostle, after the conclusion of his argument,
gives vent to the feelings of his heart. His argument had
begun early in the 1st chapter, and closes towards the
ending of the 1 1th. Then looking back, as would seem,
on the whole ground gone over, he breaks out in effu-
sions, which could no otherwise have been prompted, than
by a glow of admiration of the infinite excellence of the
divine Being,which had been displayed; and closes, with
the ascribing of due praise and glory to his great name:
" O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and the
knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are his judg-
ments, and his wayspast finding out ! For who hath known
the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompen-
sed unto him again? For of him,, and through him,
and to him, are all things: To whom be glory for ever.
Amen."*

Had the epistle consisted of such a series of subjects
as Calvinism supposes, a writer disclosing them to the
world under the influence of inspiration, might fitly bow
in submission, under a sense of the fearful sovereignty, il-
lustrating its glory in the damnation of millions of intelli-
gent creatures, appointed to them before their being call-

* Verse J3.

48 Comparison of the Controversy \ &te.

cd into existence, and without any undeservings of their
own, further than as these were the contemplated mean,
by which the last awful issue should be brought about.
But that, in such a writer, the theme should awaken feel-
ings, like those which seem to have possessed the mind of
the Apostle, is surely one of the most extraordinary asso-
ciations that can be imagined. Accordingly, we do not
find, in the Calvinistick authors generally read, any thing
expressive of the same sensibilities, on the same subjects.
They, like other writers, when they discourse of the works
of nature, or of the ways of providence, or of redemption,
not seen in connexion with those parts of their theory
which cast a shade over its beneficence, can indulge emo-
tions, which have their origin in wonder and delight. But
it may be doubted, that there are any of them, in whom
the like are produced by a survey of the peculiarities of
their system: And it is rather to be supposed, that they
deem it sufficient to acquiesce, and not set up their reason,
m contrariety to what they suppose to have been revealed.
Other Christians, indeed, may find the epistle to the Ro-
mans to abound with remarks, resulting from the survey
of human guilt and the punishments entailed on it: While
yet, they may conceive of the composition as giving us, in
relation to those gloomy subjects, no information but what
we might, in substance, have possessed without the dis-
closures of the gospel. At the same time, they may think
they find, not only in this blessed system generally, but
in the book before us in particular, much that has a ten-
dency; to counteract the discouragement, by which the
subjects alluded to might otherwise have been attended.
But for those persuaded that the doctrines of Calvinism
are the doctrines of the gospel, however they may dis-

with the Epistle to the Romans. 49

card the thought of saying to the Supreme — " What dost
thou?" still, for the indulging of emotions of delight, to
be excited by meditation on the effects of his resistless
sovereignty; it is more natural for them to wait until the
time, when we shall no longerknow but in part, and when
there may, perhaps, be given to us sensibilities, different-
ly accommodated to subjects, in which the mind cannot
at present find delight; however it may bring itself to sub-
mission.*

* Although the writer of this has never met, in any author,
transporting views of the subject, Calvinistically understood, as in
the instance of St. Paul, in which it is here supposed to be under-
stood otherwise; yet there is some approach to such a rapturous
view, related in the life of President Edwards. This acute
and respectable author states, that he had been formerly full of
objections to the doctrine of predestination, in his own sense of
the word; but that at some particular time well remembered, he
became satisfied of it, although he could give no account how, or
by what means he was thus convinced, not in the least imagin-
ing at the time, nor for a long time after, that there was any extra-
ordinary influence of God's Spirit in it, He scarce ever afterwards,
however, found so much as a rising in the mind, against God's
sovereignty; in showing mercy to whom he will show mercy, and
hardening and eternally damning whom he will! Then, he goes
on thus — " I haw often since, not only had a conviction, but a de-
lightful conviction. The doctrine of God's sovereignty has very
often appeared an exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet doctriDe to
me:" these words evidently applying to the salvation and the dam-
nation spoken of before!

We cannot wonder at learning,from the writer of the life of this
eminent metaphysician, that he considered those who were trim-
ming offthe knots of Calvinism, as paving the way for Arminianism,
and even Deism. " For if these doctrines," continues the biogra-
pher, in the whole length or breadth of them were relinquished,
he did not see> where a man could set his foot with certainty and

VOL. I. H

50 Comparison of the Controversy > 'd'c.

It was intimated, in the beginning of this work, that
the subject of it ended with the 11th chapter. There
will be no impropriety, however, in casting our eyes for-
ward to its connexion with the chapter succeeding, which
begins thus: " I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the
mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sa-
crifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasona-
ble service." Had the Apostle been laying down a scheme
of general and eternal condemnation, from which a very
few only had been rescued, by a predestinating decree, it
being at the same time impossible to affirm, concerning
the persons to whom the epistle is addressed, that they
were of the predestinated few, until death should make
then "ailing and election sure, there would seem an evi-
dent un^uitableness of the inference, to the premises from
which V; was drawn. But if we suppose the argument to
have been, all along, concerning the breaking down of a
barrier to the covenant, and the laying of it open to all na-
tions, without exacting from them a burthensome obliga-
tion, which had been contended for; it may then be seen,
that the leading feature of the dispensation is beneficence;
and that the Apostle might fitly apply the persuasive mo-
tive of the mercies of God, as an incitement to the sublime
morality which was to follow.

safety, short of Deism, or even Atheism, or rather universal scep-
ticism !" Life prefixed to the Treatise on religious Affections.

OF REDEMPTION.

The Question stated — Nothing to the purpose of the Controversy
— The Sense of the Latter part of Chapter 5ih.

THE difference between the Calvinists and the
Arminians, on this point, may be stated in few words.
The former believe, that Christ died for those only
who are predestinated, agreeably to what they affirm
under the preceding point; and that salvation is not
possible to others; although offered to them, in order
to constitute a ground on which they may be at last
condemned. The Arminians believe, that the satisfac-
tion of Christ was for all mankind, and for everv one
of them in particular; although none reap the benefit,
but those who believe and obey the Gospel.

It will not be necessary, however, on the present
point, to go into an investigation of the sense of the
epistle. Much, indeed, is cited from it by the Calvinists;
but nothing which has not already come under the
first article; or else, which will not come under the
third. All they offer is, as affecting the point, not di-
rectly, but by consequence.

As to the Arminians, it is not here recollected, that
any thing has been alleged by them to their purpose,
unless an exception may be made, of the latter part of
the 5th chapter. In that passage, both Mr. Locke and
Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, make the word "many," the
same with "all," and the word "all," in the place
where it is used, to be intended universally. Not so
Dr. Whitby, or Mr. Limborch, both of whom consi-
der the sense of the place, as confining the,, terms to be-

52 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

lievers. The writer of this considers the passage as
1 implying, that the effects of Christ's death are coexten-
sive with those of Adam's sin. Nevertheless, the uni-
versality of the propositions seems by him intended
concerning the two descriptions of persons of whom
they are affirmed. Whether he judges rightly or not in
this particular, may be left for determination under the
next point, where the passage will come under review.

OF FUEE WILL.*

The Meaning of the term, as understood by both parties, who
had no difference concerning it — There arises the Question of

Original Sin, on which they differ — The Points of difference

Sense of Chapter 3, Verse 3 — Sense of Chapter 8, Verse 7, in
connexion with Chapter 7, from Verse 7— Interpretation before
Austin — And by him.

THE substance of what has been said by Calvinists
and by Arminians under the present point, turns on
the unhappy effect of the fall of Adam, in consequence

* It has been remarked by Mr. Locke, that freedom is predi-
cate of action only. The applying ot it to the will, is conceived
by him to be one of the many modes of expression, which occasion
confusion of ideas: and he aptiy illustrates his distinction by the
case of a man, who, being conveyed (hiring sleep into a room in
which he awakes in agreeable society, willingly remains in his
new situation, whatever hindrance there mav be to his retiring
from it. But independently on the propriety of the word, the con-
troversy turns on the question of power in the will, called by the
Lains "liberum arbitrium," but by the Greeks u<tvrefycrtov" and
"uvroxpciToptx." It has also been called in Latins "ipsietds " When-
ever there may be used he words "free will," in the present work,
it must be understood in compliance with custom; and to mean
the same with what has been commonly intended to be expressed
by the aforesaid Latin and Greek words.

To some it seems, that to concede such a property to man, is
to suppose all nature subjected to his wayward will. But this is
not a consequence. Let the principle be tested in a kindred line.
It is agreed, that the mischief of which he is capable in act, is
permitted by the Creator, under a system which shall render it
finally subservient to his own glory. It is but to transfer the sen-
timent from human action to human will; which cannot be, less
than the other, under the cognizance and the control of the Divine
Mind.

54 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

of which, man, besides becoming mortal, is so changed,
that he cannot of himself begin or accomplish his reco-
very from the state of sin and misery, in which nature
places him.

It would be a great mistake, to confound the loss of
free will, so much spoken of in the controversies occur-
ring in and soon after the era of the reformation, with
the necessarian scheme, which, however much a favour-
ite writh many 'modern Calvinists, was not the doctrine
contended for by their early predecessors, and has not
shown its head in the works of Calvin. Accordingly,
when there is stated, that Calvinists and Arminians
agreed in the loss of free will, the position is to be un-
derstood independently on that metaphysical subtilty,
and only means, that with whatever ability for the
keeping of the law of the Creator man had been origi-
nally clothed, he had become devested of it by the fall:
so that his recovery cannot be either begun or perfect-
ed, otherwise than under the influence of divine aid.

Although this was always presented, by the Armi-
nians, as one of their points, both before and at the Sy-
nod which decided on their cause; yet it does not ap-
pear to have made a part of their early controversy. So
far as it goes, there was nothing against which the Cal-
vinists could object. For the Arminians, however they
may have differed from them as to the extent of the
consequences of the fall, have agreed with them in this,
that nothing but a new act of grace and new aid found-
ed on it, can restore to the forfeited life and immortality.

But if we extend our view to the writings of the Ar-
minians generally, we find in them sentiments utterly
inconsistent with those maintained by the Calvinists, in
relation to the apostasy.

•with the Epistle to the Romans. 55

The difference between the parties, will be seen by a
statement of what the latter superadd to the mortality,
to the depraved nature, and to the utter inability ac-
knowledged by the former.

The Calvinists consider the sin of Adam, as made
that of all mankind by imputation; so that they are all,
on this account, obnoxious to eternal misery; from
whicli a determinate number is rescued, by a predesti-
nating decree. It is however acknowledged, that God
cannot condemn to endless misery, a creature innocent
in nature and in act. Accordingly it is expected, that
mankind will be condemned, for sins committed in their
own persons; the result of a propensity to sin, which
cannot be counteracted, but by a divine grace not given.
As to infants, who cannot have committed actual sin,
they are subjected to the same condemnation, by a sin-
ful nature, the principle of all sin in act. Nevertheless,
it is common for Calvinists to suppose — although this
does not seem to arise out of the system — that they who
are exempted by the divine Being from the temptations
of the world, have also been predestinated by him to
salvation. Falling in with the idea of the permission of
sin, for the vindicating of the justice of God, is that
other of a federal headship, in which we were repre-
sented in the first man. For God is supposed to have
established a covenant with him; and in him, with his
posterity also: In consequence of which, as, in the event
of his obedience, they would have inherited the reward
of it, which was to have been everlasting life; so, theirs
also was the forfeiture, which is everlasting misery. In
regard to the stain descending, likewise, Calvinists de-
clare more than the Arminians. For whereas these

56 Comparison of the Controversy, ye,

acknowledge, that man is in a sinful condition, from
which he cannot relieve himself; and, therefore, stands
essentially in need of divine grace, for the accomplish-
ing '>\ the effect; the others pronounce, that until re-
lieved from his state of defilement, all the thoughts
which he entertains, and all the actions which he per-
forms are sins. It may be proper to subjoin, that the
foregoing doctrine of a federal headship and that of the
imputation of Adam's sin, with the consequences at-
tached to them, make no part of the creed of the Arme-
nians.

It is hoped, that a view is given, in substance, of the
difference. If so, there is no need to go into the mi-
nutiae of the dispute; because the matter undertaken to
be established is, that be the one side or the other
right; or be the right of either in whole or in part; there
is nothing in the epistle to the Romans, relative to any
branch of the subject on which the parties are divided.
The writer of the epistle, it is here contended, was
intent on another subject, which very much interested
his mind and the minds of those for whom he wrote.
He does, indeed, make a short digression, to the mor-
tality incurred through Adam; but for what purpose?
The answer is: — Because of its being a fit medium for
the proof of the position, that since the said mortality
affected Jew and Gentile alike, it was a ground from
which to infer, that the counteracting efficacy of the
death of Christ extended to them both. St. Paul has
also, in this epistle, referred to a taint of nature. But
again let it be asked: For what purpose? Again it must
be answered — Not with a reference to the present
point, as though the writer were making it the theme

with the Epistle to the Romans* 57

of his argument; but because it fell in with the purpose
which he had in view. This was the showing of the
insufficiency of an instituted law, to the effect of justifica.
tion: of a law, which far from restraining our bad pro-
pensities, made their sinful nature more conspicuous
than before.

But, to go on to the passages which have been
thought applicable: The first passage to be here men-
tioned, is chapter iii. verse 9. But it is to be taken as ex*
plaining and to be explained by the greater part of the
first and second chapters, and a passage following it in
the third.

The Apostle having, in the context, acknowledged ^/
the pre-eminent advantages of the Jewish nation, and
having guarded against a false inference which might
be drawn from his position, casts his eye back to the
same advantages, and proposes the question — " What
then, are we better than they?"* Or, more literally —
" Have we a preference?"! He answers — " No in no-
wise:" Or, which would seem a better translation—
44 Not altogether;" meaning — We have a preference in
the matter stated above; but not in the matter which
is the subject of this discourse. Why? " Because we
have before charged:}: both Jews and Gentiles, that
they are ail under sin."

Let us attend, then, to this charge; and first, as laid
against the Gentiles. The Apostle, after having stated^
that they had " changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature more than the

* Verse 9. t npocxofuBx.

\ As il is in the margin of our Bibles, by a better translation of
".heGreek word Tponrixe-ei^ee*. § Chapter iVerse 35.
VOL. I. *

58 Comparison of the Controversy, Esfc.

Creator," goes on thus — " For this cause" (that is, as
an effect of this cause, and not as a necessity of nature
laid on them) " God gave thern up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use, into
that which is against nature: and likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their
lust one toward another; men with men, working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompense of their errour which was meet. And even
as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to<a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient: being filled with all
unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetous-
ness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, de-
ceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God,
despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things,
disobedient to parents, without understanding, cove-
nant breakers, without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful: who, knowing the judgment of God, that
they which commit such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that
do them."*

So stands the charge, as it affected the Gentiles:
And the Apostle, immediately after urging it on them,
turns to the Jews, and addressing the nation, through the
medium of an individual character supposed, he says — '
" Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art,
that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou
condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest doest the
same things. "t After amplifying and illustrating this
sentiment, he goes on thus — "Behold, thou art called

* Veise 26, and following, t Verse 1.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 59

a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of
God, and knovvest his will, and approvest the things
that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the
blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructer
of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form
of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou, there-
fore, which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?
Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou
steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adul-
tery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest
idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest
thy boast of the law, through breaking the law disho-
nourest thou God?"*

Thus stands the charge alluded to in the ninth verse
of the third chapter. Now, it is to be remarked, that
since our present subject concerns human nature as
such; and since there are some circumstances in which
it may be placed, not admitting of actual crime; under
such circumstances, the charge is not laid, because it
speaks of actual crime only. But it is further to be re-
marked, that the Apostle is speaking, not of the human
race as such, but of all Jews and all Gentiles, standing
each party in their corporate capacity, and each in rela-
tion to the question of admission to the covenant of
grace. For we run into manifest extravagances, if we
consider the words as applicable to every Jew and every
Gentile. First, it must be seen, that what the Apostle
stated to have been charged, had not been charged on
infants, nor on those who die at too early an age, to
have committed any of the enormous crimes enumera-

* Verse 17—23.

60 Comparison of the Controversy, k?c.

ted. It will not relieve from the difficulty, to say, that
there was a taint of nature. There was so; but it had
not been charged; none but actual sins, and those of a
very high grade, being found in the catalogue. But
further, it is beyond belief, that the Apostle should
have designed to charge all adult Jews and all adult
Gentiles, with having been guilty of the very bad con-
duct, truly affirmed to be prevailing among, and tolera-
ted by, their several communities. In regard to the
heathen, the grammatical construction fixes every arti-
cle of the charge on all and every one of them, if con-
sidered otherwise than in their collective capacities.
Even considered individually, St. Paul would never
have accused a Socrates or an Antoninus, of any trait
of character which he has set down; and doubtless, the
same must be presumed of very many, both named
and unnamed, in historick records. As to Jews, it could
never have been in his mind, to say to every one of
them, that he had committed theft, or murder, or adul-
tery, or sacrilege. And he must, at least, have been
conscious, that himself was innocent of them all, when
he said to the Sanhedrim—" Men and brethren, I have
lived in all good conscience before God, until this day."
But the black catalogue of crimes will receive its pro-
per application, if we keep in view the end of the Apos-
tle's argument, and not otherwise. The question con-
cerned admission to the gospel covenant. The con-
verted Gentiles did not set up a claim to it, on any
other ground than that of mere favour. And therefore,
there appears no motive to the making of mention of
Gentile wickedness, except that it was a conciliating
introduction of what was about to be alleged, for the

with the Epistle to the Romans. 61

abating of the high pretensions of the Jewish converts
— that the same wickedness was prevalent in their own
nation. Accordingly, preference is here given to the
considering of the preposition — " for"* in the begin-
ning of the second chapter, not as illative, but as con-
nective, agreeably to its ordinary signification; although
this is discountenanced by the high authority of Mr.
Locke. Now, the Jews considered themselves as in
covenant with God; which of course they held to be
binding on his part, so long as the terms of it were un-
violated on the other; and this, not in the sense of the
obedience of every individual, or of unsinning obedience
in any, the requiring of which would have been incon-
sistent with every idea of covenant between God and
man, and was certainly not stipulated for in the Mo-
saick, which pointed out a method of atonement for
sins not presumptuous. But when the nation had
showed itself corrupt, in the extent of licentiousness
laid open by the Apostle, it was in vain for individuals
of it to set up a claim on the ground of a covenant, to
which the former had been a party. And this might
happen, while yet there would be many Jews, coming
under the description of the same Apostle, immediately
subsequent to his other description of prevalent iniqui-
ty. What is here alluded to, are the last two verses of
the second chapter, where he says — " He is not a Jew
who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision
which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is
one inwardly; whose circumcision is that of the heart,
in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of
men, but of God." These words must have some

*yxp.

62 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

meaning. They cannot, then, be designed of such a
character, as neither did nor could exist; but must be
descriptive of every pious and conscientious Jew, who
had lived, between the giving of the law, and the age in
which the Apostle wrote.

If the sense here given to the portraiture of Jewish
manners, require any further elucidation; it may be obtain-
ed from what follows the verse, which is more immediate-
ly the subject of the present criticism. For the Apostle,
referring to what he had said of his countrymen, justifies
his apparent severity, by showing, that it was no more
than what bad been said concerning the same nation, by
the Psalmist in his day — " There is none righteous,
no not one, there is none that understandeth, there is none
that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way;
they are together become unprofitable; there is none
that doeth good, no not one. Their throat is an open
sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the
poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full
of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed
blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the
way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of
God before their eyes."*

These words, indeed, taken without regard to the con-
nexion and the design of them, arc indiscriminate. But
we know, that in a quotation, there is more regard had to
the sense and the spirit of the passage quoted, than to the
pertinency of every expression. Now, the words are from
the 14th psalm, in which they are descriptive of preva-
lent and triumphant wickedness, indeed, but not of such
as was universal : For the Psalmist immediately adds,

* Verse 10, 18,

with the Epistle to the Romans. 63

concerning the workers of wickedness described — " Who
eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the
Lord." He goes on to speak of" the generation of the
righteous;" in whose behalf he puts up the devout wish:
" Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion!"
The Apostle's quoting of the gloomy description above
recited, is as if he had said—" What the Psalmist has re-
corded of the prevalent wickedness of his day, I apply to
ours." And the end of his applying of it was, that, as
there could not be any claim on God's part of the cove-
nant, in favour of a nation who had so flagrantly violated
the conditions of it, obligatory on themselves; so, indivi-
duals of the same nation could have no pretensions, ground-
ed on the supposed merits of the body of which they
were a part; and consequently, must come in for their
respective shares of the new covenant, as of grace and not
of debt. And to this refers the Apostle's comment on
the passage, which he had quoted from the Psalmist —
" Now we know, that what things soever the law saith"
(meaning here, by the law, the whole body of Jewish scrip-
ture) " it saith to them who are under the law; that every
mouth maybe stopped, and all the world may become guil-
ty before God." Guilty, more or less, they doubtless all
are in his holy presence, and as such, " subject to his
judgments," as the margin of the Bible more literally
translates. But the Jew claimed exemption, in virtue of
the covenant. No; says the Apostle, it has no virtue, as
to that effect; and therefore the new dispensation contem-
plates all the world, that is, both Jews and Gentiles, as
on a level in regard to pretence of merit.

The next passage to be noticed, is the much litigated
one, and confessedly the most difficult in the whole epistle,

64 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

which we find in the 5th chapter, from the 12th verse to
the 19th. It is unquestionably a digression; but of such
a description as is worthy of St. Paul; and not gone into,
without the design of making it subservient to his purpose.
Its subserviency is here supposed to consist in there being
set forth, that, as the mortality of Adam had an effect on
the Gentiles, as well as on the Jews; it was the more rea-
sonable to expect, that the death of Christ applied on the
like terms to both.

"Wherefore,"says the Apostle,* " as by one man sin en-
tered into the world and death by sin." What is the death
here spoken of? A spiritual death, say some; consisting
in an utter insensibility to good. Be there such a death
or not, it is a pity, from zeal for the establishing of it, to
spoil the Apostle's reasoning in this place. The death
within his view was a known dispensation, passing before
the eyes of all; and not to be involved in metaphysical dis-
quisition. " And so death passed upon all men, for that"
(or in whom, meaning Adam) u all have sinned." Here
may be thought to open on us the doctrine of federal head-
ship; since we are said to have all sinned in Adam. But
it is frequent with St. Paul, to put the cause for the effect;
and he ought to be understood as doing so in this place;
because it else contradicts the sentiment with which the
passage teems, that of the loss of immortality by Adam's
sin, and not our own. The words can mean no more, thaf
that in him all men became subject to the consequences
of sin: And this makes the expression in question analo-
gous to what is said 1. Kings i. 21. "I and my son Solo-
mon shall be counted offenders" — literally " be sinners;"
besides other instances of the same phraseology in the Old

* Verse 12

with the Epistle to the Romans, 65

Testament.* "For until the law," that is, during the ages
which were before it, " sin was in the world; but sin is not
impu ted when there is no law." They who confine St.
Paul's sense alwavs to the letter, would do well to consi-
der, how far, on that plan, the last words go; which is even
to the doing away of all imputation of sin, where there is
no revealed law opposed to it. But this is not the mean-
ing; which is no more, than that as death is the penalty of
transgression against a positive law, and as a great propor-
tion of mankind had not been under any law to which the
said penalty had been attached, it must have been brought
on them by a cause extraneous to themselves. t " Never,
theless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned afier the similitude of Adam's
transgression;" that is, sa\ some, death had extended to
infants. It had so; but they cannot be intended in this
place, because they had not sinned at all. For if, as St,
Paul says in the 9th chapter, the children yet unborn
can do neither good nor evil; the same surely may be
said of them, for a considerable time subsequent to their
births. No, it means those who have sinned against
whatever better information they may have possessed; but
not against a law, given to them under the sanction of
death for disobedience. Such persons are indeed de*
serving of punishment: Yet, as this particular punishment
"s represented in scripture to be the appointed infliction on
the violation of a positive law, we have no right to con-
sider the subject as applicable to any, who had not sinned
in that way. In order to bring the doctrine home to the
Apos.le's point, it was important to him, afier the men-
tion of Adam, to hold him up as " a figure" (or type) ** of
* Verse 13. t Verse 14.
VOL. I. K

66 Comparison of the Controversy, bV.

him who was to come." This he does; but although there
must, of course, be a resemblance between the antitype

and the type; yet he contends, that what is true of the one

is more eminently so of the other.

Here comes in the most difficult part of the passage: and
the difficulty consists, in determining precisely the points
of the dissimilitude affirmed. There shall be given
three interpretations; each of them supported by a great
name: But as no one of them is entirely satisfactory to the
writer of these remarks, he will take the liberty — which
he trusts is not presumptuous, when the inquiry is con-
cerning truth— to offer an interpretation of his own.

The first to be named, is that of Dr. Whitby. He
thinks, that they who had sinned in their own persons
may be said to have died on that account; for instance,
those Antediluvians, who were swept away by the flood.
On this ground, it is supposed that a deduction being
made of all who had sinned in person, the remainder are
not so many as those made alive by Christ: in which cir-
cumstance consisted the greater abounding of the gift, be-
yond the punishment. But this does not seem to answer
the purpose, since they who sinned and died would have
died, if they had never sinned, agreeably to what St. Paul
says in another place — " In Adam, all die."*

Accordingly, this sense of Dr. Whitby is objected to
by Mr. Locke, who offers another, to the following effect.
It is, that the stress of the similarity is in the unity of per-
son, in each of the two cases: that is, as the offence came
by one man — Adam; so, the gift came by one man-
Christ. But there must be, as a resemblance, so likewise
a difference: and accordingly, the latter is supposed to

* 1 Cor. xv. 22.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 67

consist in the contrast between the selfish appetite of
Adam, which brought on the death of him and his pos-
terity; and the grace of Christ, which was of his free and
abundant goodness. Here the difficulty is — but let it be
spoken with due deference to so eminent a person — in the
unsuitableness of the comparison drawn between the ap-
petite of Adam, and the benevolence of Christ. In order
to square the construction with the argument, it seems
needful, that the things compared should not be in entire
opposition to one another; bu^, as to the matter in hand,
alike: although one of them is to be supereminent over
the other.

The third opinion is that of Dr. Taylor, which lays the
stress on whatever grace or benefit there is in the Gospel,
beyond the counteracting of the effects of Adam's sin. —
For as the comparison introduced by the Apostle, obliged
him to prove merely that the one was not more extensive
than the other, any particulars, wherein this should be
found to excede, appeared to Dr. Taylor to answer to
the abounding of the grace, making it disproportion-
ed to the judgment But it may be observed of the opi-
nion of this ingenious gentleman, that he would perhaps
have found it difficult to have shown, wherein the benefit
obtained by the death of Christ went beyond the regaining
of what was lost through Adam. For although many and
precious are the fruits of the former, in the gifts and the
aids of the holy Spirit; yet they are all no more, than was
necessary for the object to be accomplished. And besides,
the supposed surplusage was at any rate — although great
stress is supposed to be laid on it — foreign to the Apos-
tle's argument; which is best satisfied by a strict analogy.
With diffidence, another interpretation is here propos-

68 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

ed. The idea which will govern in it is, that although
the passage is confessedly a digression, yet the Apostle
does not digress to such a length, as to lose sight of the
point which he had been labouring, and which it was his
purpose to resume. There are two criticisms to be here
made on the original. Mr. Locke translates* " the many:"
And conformably to such a translation it will be found,
that, although the article is seldom joined in the New
Testament to the same adjective, yet, when they are giv-
en together, the adjective denotes,not an indefinite but a pre-
cise many. In regard to the wordsf translated " much
more," it may be remarked, that they may mean here,nota
greater measure , but a higher certainty, asifit had been said
" much rather." And this is agreeable to the sense
which the same words evidently bear, in the 15th verse of
the chapter now before us.

With the help of the principles laid down, we may
now go on with the passage. " But," says the Apostle,
" not as the offence, so also is the free gift" J — free alike to
Jew and Gentile, without the condition of the burthensome
institutions of the Levitical law. " For if through the of-
fence of one, the many" — that is, as well they who had
sinned against a law denouncing death, as they who had
no law to which that precise penalty was annexed; or in
other words, both Jews and Gentiles—4' be dead;" that
is, obnoxious to the event of death; much rather, or, with
a higher degree of certa'mty — *' the grace of God, and
the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto the [same] many." And to give ano-
ther instance of the evidence of grace over that of punish-
ment, he goes on thus — " Not as it was by one that

* 01 jreAAei. ^ TeXku iMtXXev. J Verse 15.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 69

sinned," meaning, by one man's sinning — " so is the gift;
for the judgment was by one to condemnation."* And
if this could be the infliction of a righteous God, much
more may we conceive it to be a part of his dispensation
of mercy, that '* the free gift is of many offences" (if they
had been committed) " unto justification." He goes on
'• For if by one offence" (as che margin properly has it)
'' death reigned by one; much rather" may it be, consider-
ing God's overflowing mercy in the gospel, that " they
which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of right-
eousness, shall reign in life by onejesus Christ."! In both
of the last preceding verses, there is here contemplated
a reference to the Jewish prejudices opposed. And it
seems an argument in point, that if, as was admitted, all
descriptions of men had lost their immortality by another's
fault, it might well be believed, concerningadispensation so
beneficent as that of the Gospel, that all descriptions of
men might receive under it the fruits of the merits of
another — freely: for this is the circumstance, on which
the stress is laid, or without the prerequisite of legal ini-
tiation and the subsequent burthen of legal works.

In the 18th verse next succeeding, it may seem unfa-
vourable to the interpretation here given, that " the many"
are changed to " all." But the interpretation is not to
be given up, on that account; because, if the scope of the
passage give countenance to the application of *' the many"
to Jew and Gentile, it is not affected by the varying of the
term; since the " all," now spoken of, must be " the ma-
ny," or both the descriptions spoken of before: especially,
as the Apostle will be found to return to his first choice
of words,

* Verse 16. f Verse 17:

70 Comparison of the Controversy ', £s?c.

Togo on then with the passage: " Therefore," adds
the Apostle, " as by one offence, judgment came upon all
men" — Jew and Gentile— -" to condemnation; even so, by
one righteousness;" that is,one act of it, " the free gift came
upon all men," of the same variety of character, " unto
justification of life." Then, the Apostle seems desirous
of expressing the same truth in varied language, for the
greater clearness. " For," says he, "as by one man's* diso-
bedience,the many "(Jews and Gentiles) " were made" (or
constituted) " sinners;" that is, subjected to the consequen-
ces of another's sin, " so, by the obedience of one, shall
[the same] many be made righteous;" that is, not formal-
ly so, but as partaking of the blessed effects of his merito-
rious death. To those not attentive to the peculiarities
of St. Paul's writing, it may seem a straining of this verse,
to make " sinners" another expression for the being made
subject to the consequences of sin. But let those who
may be disposed to object to it be aware, not only of the
pertinency of it to the argument; but of the consequence
of insisting on the strict meaning of the word: which will
be, that, as all sinned in Adam, without any subsequent
consenting to it; so, all are released from the penalties of
sin, by being made righteous in Christ, in virtue of his
obedience, without any subsequent act, not tc say of obe-
dience of their own, but also of faUh.

There has been given, it is trusted, the sense of this
much litigated passage. If it should not be accurate
in every particular, it may be sufficiently so, for the
purpose of the writer. On the ground of the interpreta-
tion, the Arminians can draw nothing from it, in favour of
their system. For, although there may seem something

* Verse 19.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 71

to this effect, in what is said of" all being made righteous;"
and of the free gift to " the many," interpreted by respect-
able authority to be the same with " all;" yet, if these ex-
pressions are so positively applied, as is here affirmed, to
different descriptions of collective bodies, little stress is
to be laid on the use of them. What should further dis-
courage all application of this sort, is the absolute naked-
ness of the epistle, as to any evidence of there having been,
in the mind of the Apostle, an inquiry into the extent of
the offer of salvation, as the subject respected individu-
als, involving the question of few or many. No, the ge-
neral argument of it applies " all" and " the many" to the
Gentiles, contemplated in combination with the Jews
in the enjoyment of the benefits of the Gospel dispensation;
And as those two descriptions of persons are kept steadi-
ly in view, through all the rest of the discussion; it seems
impossible, that, in the digression which has just now been
before us, the Apostle should have gone out of his way,
in order to decide on a question not moved, so far as we
know, at the time; and not involved in the other question,
which pressing circumstances had forced on him.

Much less, it is here conceived, has the passage any
appearance of being favourable to the Calvinists. For
there is nothing in it of federal representation;* nothing

* The acknowledged forfeiture of immortality in Adam, of
which the passage is evidently full, has been thought to favour
the doctrine of federal representation. But we know of various
ways, in which one man, through the fault of another, may forfeit
a benefit, to which the right of the latter would otherwise have
entitled the former. This happens when a sob, by his father's trea-
son, loses an estate, which was held of the sovereignty on the con-
dition of allegiance; or when the like thing happens, on the negleet

72 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

of the imputation of sin, except of men's sins to them-
selves; and nothing of the corruption of human nature,
whatever there may be of this in the passage that is to
succeed. There is, indeed, in the passage which has
been commented on, a death spoken of. And that this
word, like other words, is sometimes transferred from
its strict signification, and used figuratively, to denote
a spiritual subject, must be granted. Even in this epis-
tle we read: "To be carnally minded is death,"* mean-
ing a spiritual one, no doubt. But in the passage which
has been before us, it is the dissolution of our mortal
nature: and if we give it any other sense, we must
take away all consistency from the passage, generally.
The Calvinist, in particular, should be aware of giving
it this construction; because, considering the parallel
which had been drawn by the Apostle, it would then
follow, that, as all had been under a spiritual death, in-
cluding an entire depravation of nature and subjection
to everlasting punishment; so, at least an opportunity
of attaining to salvation has been bestowed on all; if
not rather, that it shall certainly be enjoyed by all:
neither of which would be admitted by him, who sub-
jects himself to such a consequence.

We proceed to another passage, weighty in meaning.
It ought to be so, indeed, in the estimation of all; but

of a condition provided for under a private tenure. In either of
these cases, it would be entirely inconsistent with propriety, to
consider the father as the representative of bis son. This would
be to suppose the son to be possessed of independent right;
whereas he could have had none, except what would have been
transmitted to him, had there been no forfeiture through the father

Ch. viii. v. 6.

with the Epistle to the Romans, 73

it is set up by one of the parties in view, as the sub-
stance of their whole system, so far as it regards the
actual state of man. And since the text, be the sense
what it may, speaks of something, of which, if it exist,
there must be a consciousness in the bosoms of all
mankind, except of those who have risen superiour to it
by grace, and even of them in a degree; it is to be hoped,
that this very circumstance will help to a right under-
standing of the passage. For it cannot be reasonably
supposed of the Apostle, that he describes mankind,
otherwise than as each individual knows of himself aud
observes of others.

The text intended is in the 7th verse of the 8th chap-
ter, where we read — "The carnal mind is enmity against
God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither in-
deed can be." What is the carnal mind? D ubtless>
inordinate desire, expressed in the original by words*
which, literally translated, are "the mind of the
flesh." There is a personification of the latter
word; and to the figurative person thus brought into
view, there is ascribed a will. And what is the enmity
against God, here meant? Certainly, the not being sub-
ject to his law; as is testified in the latter part of the
verse. This is noticed, in order to guard against the
construction, that St. Paul, in using the abstract, in-
tended to insinuate the sentiment, that the carnally
minded man must be a hater of God, in the proper sense
of the expression; that is, of his being and his perfec-
tions. No; what it signifies is a contrariety to his per-
fections, in not being subject to his law: just as a sub-
ject may have a mind and manners alien from the laws

VOL. .1 L

74 Comparison of the Controversy, &t\

of his sovereign; and, on that account, be under his
just displeasure; while yet, he may be never thought
or spoken of by the same subject, but with reverence
and even with affection. Still, the character of such a
subject is to be denominated from his ruling principle;
and he must be contemplated, as a continual offender
against his prince.

For the understanding of the passage before us, we
must look back to the 7th verse of the preceding chap-
ter; from which there is a continuation of kindred sen-
timent, to the verse before us.

The Apostle, through the whole, opposes the purity
of the law to inbred sin; by reason of which, the law,
though "ordained to life"* was "found to be unto
death," by the condemning effect of the penalty annex-
ed to it. He here uses some very strong expressions,
as his manner sometimes is, and not in their most ob-
vious senses. Thus he speaks of sin working in
him all manner of concupiscence:! not meaning this,
surely, as to the direct and designed effect of the law; but
to show, that vicious propensities, the criminality of
which he would not otherwise have known, or at least
not have known in its extent, were displayed to him in
all their enormity, by it. And thus it happened;
that while compelled to acknowledge — " The law is
holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good,":]:
he became subjected by it to the sentence of death in his
own conscience; "that sin"§ — here the Apostle seems
to labour under an effort for the strongest expressions
which language could supply — "might become ex-
ceeding sinful:" meaning, not that it might become,

* Verse 10. t Verse 8. $ Verse 12. $ Vers* 13.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 75

by circumstances, more aggravated than it was in its
own nature, for that was impossible; but that it might
press with its whole weight on the awakened con-
science.

In going on to the more immediate purpose of the
present investigation, it will be necessary to state an
opposition of opinion, among commentators and other
writers; some ascribing the struggle which the first
part of the passage describes, to the stranger to gospel
grace; and others to the man subjected to its influence.
On the opposite sides of the question, there shall be
here mentioned two men, who may be supposed near-
ly equal in the greatness of their talents — Mr. Locke
and Dr. Samuel Clarke. Had the writer of this been
left to his own understanding only, he should have
supposed it impossible to have entertained any other
opinion, than that of the passage being designed of the
sinner; partly, because the violence of the struggle
seems little consistent with that subjection of passion,
which must, in a considerable degree at least, adorn the
character of the Saint; and further, because, in the con-
clusion, there is celebrated a triumph, as the effect of
grace, in the struggle which had been described. Dr.
Clarke is of the opinion, which has been here express-
ed. He supposes,* that the Apostle personates a man,
who is at first a stranger, both to the law and to the gos-
pel; who, afterwards, is subjected to the law, which
lays him under its condemning sentence, and who final-
ly hears the consoling voice and is sensible of the pow-
erful energy of the gospel. The opinion of Dr. Clarke
is consented in, by many respectable commentators; of

* Serm. 9. vol. via.

76 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

whom it may be sufficient to mention Dr. Hammond.
Dr. Whitby, and Dr. Taylor. In the construction of
this passage, Mr. Locke agrees with the Calvinistick
writers generally, not excepting Calvin himself; it
being important to their system. Accordingly, they
give as a reason of their interpretation, that, in the un<
regenerate man, there can be no such good desire, ae
St. Paul describes.

We are then to suppose the Apostle speaking to us,
not in his own person, but in three supposed charac-
ters. The first is that of a man, without either the law
or the gospel. The Apostle says, meaning it of such a
man — "I was alive without the law once,"* that is — it
being designed comparatively, doubtless — I saw no
necessary connexion between sin and death. "But,**
says this man — now under a change of circumstances
— " when the commandment came, sin revived;" that
is — the knowledge — the conviction — the sense of sin
was excited in me in a higher degree than before the
prohibitory ordinance— " and I died." that is, per-
ceived myself to be subject to death, under the con-
demnation of the law. Alter several remarks, opening
this sentiment more distinctly, the pas age goes on to
describe the conflict bet ween inordinate desire and the
commandment set in opposition to it. — "That which I
do, I allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I
hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not,
I consent unto the law, that it is good Now then, it is
no more I that do it, but sin that dvvelleth in me. For
I know 'ha1, in m< , that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good
thing, tor to will is present with me; but how to per-

* Verse 9.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 77

form that which is good, I find not. For the good that I
would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that
I do. Now, if I do that I would not, it is no more I that
do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law,
that when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man.
Eut I see another law in my members, warring against
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to
the law of sin, which is in my members."*

The Apostle had thus discoursed of man, first in his
natural state; and then, as a subject of the Mosaick
dispensation. After this, he discourses of a conflict, as
belonging to both these states, but applied especially to
the latter, which was more immediately connected
with his design. Here we perceive two principles; on
one hand, a principle allowing, consenting to, and de-
lighting in what is good; and on the other, a principle
bringing into captivity to the evil, although a known
enemy and hated. Now, this is no other, than that strug-
gle between virtue and vice, which has been observed
andlamented in mankind, under all the varieties of their
condition; and which, although more emphatically per-
haps, described by St. Paul than by any other, is in
substance the same with the old and familiar adagef—
"I see and approve of the better, but pursue the worse."

What establishes the interpretation here given of the
passage, as appl)ing to the natural and not to the
Christian man, is, that the Apostle, after having descri-
bed the conflicting principles in the breast of the per-
sonated character, makes him exclaim, under a sense

* Verse 15—23.
t Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.

78 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

of the misery of his estate — " O wretched man that 1
am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?''*
flien making him answer his own question, under the
disclosure of gospel grace, supposed just then to open
on him — "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our
Lord."f The Apostle, returning to his former point,
sums up what he had said concerning it, thus — " So
then with the mind, I myself, this man, % who has
been described, " serve the law of God; but with the
flesh, the law of sin." With this view of the sub-
ject, he contrasts the first verse of the 8th chapter —
" There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them
that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh,
but after the spirit." Are these the same persons, who
were represented a few verses before, as dragged by
fleshly appetite into sin, contrary to better conviction
and better inclination? It cannot be: especially as the
Apostle goes on, enlarging on the happy deliverance
from the captivity, which had been groaned under be-
fore. It is one of the instances of the candour of Dr.
Doddridge, that he releases this important passage from
the claims of Calvinism: expressing himself concerning
it, in a note, as follows — " I should not have known
sin,' &c. "The Apostle here, by a very dexterous turn,
changes the person, and speaks as of himself. This he
elsewhere does,§ when he is only personating another
character. And the character assumed here, is that of
a man, first ignorant of the law, then under it, and sin-
cerely desiring to please God, but finding, to his sor-

* Verse 24. f Verse 25. - \ etvros tyu.
5 Rom. iii. 6, 1 Cor. x. SO, Ch. iv. 6.

with the Epistle to the Romans, 79

row, the weakness of the motives it suggested, and th
sad discouragement under which it left him; and last
of all, with transport discovering the gospel, and gain-
ing pardon and strength, peace and joy by it. But to
suppose he speaks all these things of himself, as the
confirmed Christian, that he really was, when he wrote
this epistle, is not only foreign, but contrary to the
whole scope of his discourse, as well as to what is ex-
pressly asserted ch. viii. 2."

The effect which the foregoing passage has on the
text more immediately proposed to be commented on,
must be obvious. When it is said — "The carnal mind,"
or, according to the more strict translation, " The mind
of the flesh is enmity against God;" the proposition
cannot possibly be designed of a settled enmity against
the Divine Being; but it relates to the lower principle,
comprehended under the preceding delineation of hu-
man nature. That principle is, in itself, a necessary
part of our present being: but when it breaks loose
from its proper subjection to the law of God, it is then
contemplated, as in hostility to him. The person thus
under its misrule, is then " carnally minded." And to
be thus minded is " enmity against God:" or, as it is
said in the next verse — " they that are in the flesh" —
that is, sunk in its sensualities, so as to be detached
from the pursuit of spiritual good — " cannot please
God." They are in contrariety to his perfections and his
laws, and obnoxious to his judgments.

The passage then, under this view of it, can have no
relation to the controversy in question. And in regard
to the interpretation which has been given to the im-
mediately preceding passage, beginning in the 7th

80 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

«

chapter; if that interpretation should be rejected, little
will be thereby gained. There will then be given a
harsh appearance to the description of a conflict be-
tween virtue and vice in the breast of an Apostle; in
which also, the latter is triumphant and the former
born down under it. But all that will follow is, that
the conflict must be still more severe, in the heart that
is a stranger to the ascendency of gospel grace. If, in
such a heart, there cannot be any good thought or any
good desire, it must be proved by some other medium,
than that before us: and this is all that has been pledged
to be proved, concerning it.

The interpretation which has been given of the pas-
sage, agrees perfectly with the design of the Apostle;
which was to show the insufficiency of the law, and
the efficacy of grace. To the same purpose, tends the
immediate connexion of the words which have been
made the most prominent in this discussion. For St.
Paul speaks of having been " without the law once:"
which shows, that he personates another; because he
had never been without the law himself. And then, on
the contrary supposition, there is the opposition of the
character drawn of the regenerate man to many places
in scripture; such as — "they that are Christ's have
crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts;" with
many things to the same effect.

There is a striking fact of early times, showing how
much the passage in question has been seen to stand
in the wav of th( doctrine now called Calvinistick. Be-
fere the time of St. Austin, it had been generally in-
terpreted— among others by Tertullian, Origen, and
Chrysostom — of man first in his natural state, then un-

with the Epistle to the Romans. 81

der the law, and lastly under the gospel. Austin him-
self had explained it in the same way.* But having
afterwards adopted some of the sentiments since called
Caivinistick, he revoked the interpretation; and applied
the passage to the struggle still subsisting in the rege-
nerate man, between grace and nature. But even un-
der this change, he seems to have shrunk back from the
full length of the modern Caivinistick interpretation.
For he makes the struggle to consist in a concupiscence,
in contrariety to a will drawing another way. Austin's
motive in this, seems to have been the avoiding of a
sanction for sin, from his novel interpretation; which
was to his purpose, in his controversy with the Pelagians.
But, in order to bring those things together, he tortured
the Greek verb,f translated, " to do," into a motion of
the mind, which it never signifies; and not only this, but
to represent a will and a counter will, as operating at
the same moment. This appears unreasonable, because,
without willing, there can be no concupiscence; while
yet this is the very thing, from which Austin describes
the man in question as willing to be delivered. Calvin
rid himself of all this difficulty; but at the expense of an
interpretation, which describes the best of men as un-
der the worst sort ofcaptivity — that of sin. J

* In his Confessions, Lib. 7. last paragraph, t ^purs-civ.

\ What is here stated concerning St. Austin's interpretation of
the passage, is given more at large in Bishop Taylor on Repen-
tance, Ch. viii. Sect. 3

The Apostle's speaking in the present tense, from the 8th to
the 25th verse, has been alleged against the interpretation given.
Answer. He speaks in the past time from the 7th verse to the
13th; although in each case, the intervening verses unquestionably

Vol. i. m

82 Comparison of the Controversy r, &c.

Perhaps the evidence, which has been given of the in-
terference of the passage with the Calvinistick scheme,
may be considered as passing it to the credit of the
Arminian. There is, however, a circumstance unfa-
vourable to this sentiment. The Apostle, where he de-
scribes the struggle, makes it between nature and a
sense of sin under the law; on which account, it may
perhaps be said, that the same thing is not to be predi-
cated of nature simply, on the authority of this passage.
For this reason, although the author considers it as sub-
versive of Calvinism, yet he does not discern in it an
explicit support of the other system.

If there be any other passages, falling under the ques-
tion, they have escaped the recollection of the writer of
this: And therefore, he goes on to the next department
of the work.

apply to the same person, in the same state of mind. The Apos-
tle's disregard of exactness in this matter, is the less surprising,
when he is seen, in the verses immediately preceding, exhibiting
himself in a character which he never sustained— that of a Hea-
then.

Another excuse for the applying of the conflict to Christian Paul,
is on the ground of the humility, which induces a Christian to
magnify the remaining corruptions of his nature. Certainly; but
not to describe himself as abandoned to the dominion of sinful
passion; under which grace struggles, indeed, but altogether in
vain.

4. OF GRACE.

The Question stated — Nothing relative — Some Passages, which
may be thought to apply — Relation of the Subject to the Ques-
tion concerning good Works — Fourth Chapter, with resulting
Considerations.

THE Calvinists and the Arminians agree in affirm-
ing, that the disorders of our nature can be healed only
by the grace of God, which begins, and brings to per-
fection, whatever is holy and acceptable to God, in man.
But the Calvinists say, that saving grace is given only to
the elect; in whom it is irresistible and efficacious. The
Arminians hold, that grace is bestowed on all; that it is
sufficient for their salvation; but that it acts suasively,
and may be resisted.

The principal question, then, is that of resistible or
irresistible influence of the Koly Ghost, in conversion.
Now, the epistle does n©t contain any thing which has
ever been alleged to be a direct affirmation, concerning
his holy influence, in that business. We are, indeed,
told of "the spirit's helping our infirmities," and of his
" making intercession for us." And it is not denied to
be reasonable to argue analogically, that he must exer-
cise an agency over the mind, in the matter now the
subject. But, as even this is not directly affirmed in the
epistle, much less can it be expected, that there should
be found in it any metaphysical distinctions, as to the
manner of his operation.

There may, however, be supposed something to the
same effect, in those expressions which intimate a call
to Christians; since the very address is to persons

84 Co m pari son of the Controversy, fcfc.

"called to be saints;" or, as the margin has it more
literally, to "called saints." And so, the foreknown
and predestinated are " called," before they are "justi-
fied." Here, it is common to make a distinction, be-
tween an outward calling- by the ministry of the word,
and an inward calling by the spirit. It is far from being
intended to be said in this place, that the latter is un-
concerned, in bringing sinners home to God. But it is
affirmed, that, be the sense of scripture what it may in
this mutter, it has nothing to do in establishing the
meaning of the expression; which ought not to be sup-
posed to have different meanings, in different parts of
the epistle. For, when it is said in the llth chapter:
" The gifts and calling of God are without repen-
tance;" this applying to the Jews, who were cut off be-
cause of their unbelief, and pointing to their being
taken in again; it is evident, that the word " called,"
to whatever extent it may imply individual application,
is used collectively by the Apostle; and that, in what-
ever degree, it may in its consequences extend to ano-
ther life, it is here intended of a visible profession in th^
present. If so, whatever weight there may be in the
distinction betw en a genera; and an effectual call, there
can be no foundation fo it in the word itself; which has
no relation to any other call, than that intimated in this
epistle, where it is said — " How shall they believe in
him of whom they have not heard'? And how shall they
hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach,
except they be sent?"*

* Professor Michaelis remarks, in his Introduction to the New
Tesiameiv, Vol 4. Ch. 14 Sec. 1, that " KAjjtjj xyiaC* is an ex-
pression borro.e from the Se^uagin', to tknox a congrega*
•ion called together for divine worship.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 85

There is something further, however, to be said of
grace, as it respects good works; and of the relation in
which the two subjects stand to one another. It is well
known, that there have been entertained some opinions,
ascribing merit to human works; and thus, detracting
from the freedom of the grace of God: A nd to these opi-
nions, there is generally opposed the doctrine held by
Protestants, of justification by faith alone. Now, it has
been argued against the representing of our acceptance
as dependent on the cooperation of our endeavours, that
this detracts from the freedom of the grace; making the
effect, in some degree, dependent on our works. It is fo-
reign to the present design, to gofullv into this question.
Nothing more is exacted, than a proof, that the contro-
verted matter handled by the Apostle, was of a different
description from that which has become familiar in mo-
dern controversy; that no determination of this can be ga-
thered from reasonings concerning the other; and that
therefore, how far the affirming of the cooperation of man
is an invasion of the prerogative of sovereign grace, must
be left to other authorities of scripture, in entire indepen-
dence on the book before us.

It is the 4th chapter only, in which this subject has
been supposed treated of, in any extent; and in order to
form a correct idea of the reasoning of the Apostle in that
place, there will be use in noticing a clear distinction
between merit, strictly speaking, on the part of the crea-
ture, and the claiming of debt from the Creator, as the
result of the binding operation of his own gracious pro-
mise. V> hen St. Paul says, in another book of scripture:
" God is not unrighteous, to forget your work, and labour
of love;"* it ought not to be considered as lessening the

* Hebrews, vi. 10.

86 Comparison of the Controversy ', fcfc.

free grace of the reward; but only as making it claimable,
in virtue of unmerited declaration. So, when it is said,
in the passage that is now to meet our notice — " To him
that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of
debt;" there cannot be supposed the declaration, which
would be contrary to the immensity of the divine perfec-
tions, that in the unsinning keeping of the whole law, sup-
posing it were possible, there can be a ground of the
claim of merit: And it would be inconsistent with the ad-
monition of our blessed Saviour, that, when we have done
all, we must say — " We are unprofitable servants."

What then is the debt, implied by the Apostle to be
brought forward by the advocates of Judaism, but denied
by him? It^can be no other.than the kind of debt referred
to just now, in the epistle to the Hebrews; supposed
to be attached to the laws of the Mosaick economy. And
if we consider the reasons on which the Apostle denies
this debt; and still more, the consequence which had been
drawn from it, of the perpetual obligation of the law;
and most of all, the effect of the principle on the con-
dition of the Gentile converts; the present part of the sub-
ject will be set in a sufficiently perspicuous point of view.

The first argument used is, that Abraham, who was. to
be " a Father of many nations;" that is, who was taken
into a state of covenant designed to embrace those many,
coming under him to the inheritance of it, was justified
with God, before he was placed under the covenant refer-
red to; his faith being counted to him for righteous-
ness:* his faith, considered as contrasted with works
done in obedience to a covenanting law, and having no
reference to a work, so far as it is morally good in itself
and in its motive. Accordingly, St. James consistently

* Verse 5.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 87

considers the offering of Isaac as a work; although, on the
plan of reasoning of St. Paul, it was an act of faith, in ano-
ther sense of the expression. And here, by the way, there
may be propriety in noticing the extraordinary use made
of the part of the passage now before us, in the doctrine
of what i* called the imputed righteousness of Christ.
The favourers of this doctrine bring in proof of it, what
first the history of the Old Testament, and afterwards an
Apostle mention, as imputed to a man's self: imputed,
certainly, by the free grace of God, although it be not ex-
pressly said so. If it be replied, that all grace of God is
through Christ, this will not be denied; atlhough it will
be contended, that the manner in which the grace is con.
fen\d is foreign to the present subject. But to return to
the Apostle's argument. The way in which it applies to
the purpose, is, as he expresses himself on the same subject
in another epistle, that " the covenant, that was confirmed
before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred
and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect;"* or render it less favourable
to the many nations, than it had been before, in relation
to the freedom of the interest which they were to obtain in it.
Any consideration brought to the same effect, is in the
temporary duration of the law, which the Apostle does not
here go fully into the proof of, as in the epistle to the Ga-
latians; but rather seems to point to it, as a necessary con-
sequence of the dispensation to Abraham, which had been
the foundation of all that followed. However, he une-
quivocally affirms the fact; comparing the circumstance
in which the Jewish people had stood, as to the law, to a
marriage contract, which is no longer binding, than during
the lives of both the parties.

* Gal. Hi. 17,

88 Comparison of the Controversy, ike.

But the Apostle has another argument, and that going
directly to the present point, in the very nature of the law
itself, which was exclusive of every idea, of there being
created a debt on the part of the lawgiver: and the reason
was, the law's condemning sentence on the irregular pro-
pensities of our nature.For this must be supposed intended
in the saying: " The law worketh wrath:"* and when it
is added: " Where no law is, there is no transgression;"
this must betaken agreeably to the concise writing charac-
teristick of the Apostle; meaning, that the prohibition, and
the penalty of the law exhibit, in the strongest point of
view, the enormity of irregular desire; while, even without
them, there could not but be an apprehension of the crime.

Let there be observed, the way in which the argument
is brought to bear on the point before us. Had the Apos-
tle been reproving any such arrogance of the Jewish Chris-
tians, as consisted in the plea of actual merit in the sight
of God, there was uo occasion to have had recourse to
such a recondite sense of the law as that stated. Had
they been adopting the language of the ostentatious Phar-
isee in theGosple — " God, I thank thee, that I am not as
other men are;" he might have shown to them from the
same Gospel, that, were their obedience as perfect as they
erroneously supposed, they would have done no more
than it was their duty to have done. And he might even
have asked them, from those ancient scriptures which they
so highly valued— -"If thou be righteous, what givest thou
him? Or what receiveth he of thine hand? Thy wicked-
ness may hurt a man as thou art, and thy righteousness
may profit the son of man." In short, had such been
the prejudice to which the reasonings of the Apostle were

* Verse 15,

with the Epistle to the Romans. 89

opposed he would, not have been found treating it as a
mrntal errour, but would more probably have assumed
the tone suited to an immoral state of mind.

But no; the Jewish Christians supposed, that the divine
Being had assumed—- if it may be related without pre-
sumption— the obligation of his own act, in the law insti-
tuted by the ministry of Moses. With the giving of this
law, he had entered into a covenant with their nation, un-
der its seals, instituted by himself. And therefore they
inferred, that the new covenant, which they had seen es-
tablished by omnipotence, must be designed to coexistwith
the obligations of the old. In contradiction of thiserroun
the Apostle shows, that the new covenant was recognised
in one older than the Mosaick, even in the Abrahamick;
that the Mosaick was never designed to be other than tem-
porary; and that, even during its continuance, it could give
no claim; because it showed, more conspicuously than
would otherwise have appeared, the imperfection of all those
services of men, the claim of which, if there be any, must
therefore rest on other grounds, than what could be found
established by the law. All this is pertinent. . But to
suppose that the Apostle, in order to determine a contro-
versy of a local nature, and to be judged of with the help
of circumstances peculiar to a certain plea, should move,
as relative to it, a question intimately connected with
Christian morals, and regarding all mankind; and not only
so, but that, in order to establish his sense of it, he should
travel in circuitous argument, when he might come direct-
ly to the conscience and to the heart, is a proceeding, of
which very strong evidence should appear, to convince us
of it in such a writer as St. Paul. But if, in the whole

thread of the discourse, there be not a sentence, showing
VOL. i. N

90 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

that the writer designed to speak on the one or on the other
side of any question concerning merit inherent to human
works; or concerning the share which the human will
may be disposed to take in the performance of them; it
does not appear, that the decisions of the Apostle, in the
places referred to, can with any propriety be introduced
into the controversy contemplated in this book.

3 OF PERSEVERANCE.

Opposition of the parties — Sense of Chapter 8, Verse 38, 39-*
And of Chapter 1 1, Verse 29.

THE impossibility of falling finally from grace, is
what the Calvinists affirm and the Arminians deny.
The object here is to prove, that the epistle has nothing
to the purpose of either of the parties.

In favour of the doctrine, there are not recollected
more than two passages adduced. The first of them, are
the last two verses of the 8th chapter — "For I am per-
suaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor prin-
cipalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which
is in Chnst Jesus our Lord." Be it confessed, that
none of them can separate, in the important matter
mentioned: But may not a man be so separated by his vo-
luntary apostasy? That he may not, does by no means
follow. It is analogous to a case easily supposed; that
of a man, whose right to civil citizenship should be call-
ed in question. We may conceive of ourselves as ad-
vocating it, on the ground of constitution and law. In
so doing, we might properly advert to all the machina-
tions of his opponents; and then affirm, in the warmth
of our attachment to his cause, that neither this man,
nor another — and so on, mentioning every one of those
whose malice we were defying, should deprive our
client of his privilege. But it would not follow, nor
would we design to affirm, that he might not forfeit il
by treason, or lose the benefit of it by expatriation.

92 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

The oth< r passage is in the 29th verse of the 11th
chapter; where we read — ' The gifts and calling of
God are without repentance." Now, even if these
word* had been spoken of men in their individual ca-
pacities, it would not fallow, that there might not be a
forfeiture of their calling, by apostasy on their part;
although they could not lose it by repentance on the
part of God. But in truth, the words are intended of
the Jews, in their collective capacity; and express, that
although in their character of a nation they were now
cast off; yet their original calling btood firm, ensuring
their being brought in again.

On the part of the Arminians, there has been addu-
ced the passage of which the last quoted words are
part; to show, that persons once in a state of acceptance
with God, may be finally rejected by him: because,
sav thev, certain, who were in existence at the time of
the casting off, died in their unbelief, before the bring-
ing in again; which will not happen, until " the fulness
of the Gentiles shall have come in." Still, the matter
affirmed was of the nation; leaving the case of the indi-
vidual as it was before.

There ought to be noted, in this place, the ground
on which the doctrine of the final perseverance of the
saints is here considered as a branch of Calvinism. It
does not appear to have been the opinion of Calvin, in
the extent in which it is now received, and in which it
was declared by the Synod of Don, here adopted as the
standard of the opinions of the parties.

Still, it is conceived not to have been, in its present
extent, the sentiment of Calvin himself. He treads
carefully in the steps of St. Austin; who reconciled his

with the Epistle to the Romans. 93

doctrine of predestination with that of defectibility, by-
saying, that to others than the elect, God might give
all grace, except of perseverance. Agreeably to this,
Calvin says in his Institutions — " Neither is it from
any other cause" (meaning than the grace of God) "that
some persevere to the end, while others fall in the course
begun: Forasmuch as perseverance itself is the gift of
God, which he does not bestow promiscuously on all,
but imparts it as seems good to him. If the reason of
the difference be demanded, why some constantly per-
severe and others fall, through instability; no other rea-
son appears to us, than that God sustains the former
with a strength effected by his own energy, lest they
should perish; and that to the latter he does not furnish
the same support, to the end that they may be exam-
ples of inconstancy."*

He also affirms the regeneration of infants, in the or-
dinance of baptism. Forspeakingof their case, he says
— "The promise, in which we have explained the vir-
tue of the sign to consist, is the same in both" (circum-
-cisionand baptism) "consisting in the fatherly favour of
God, remission of sins, and eternal life. "f In the 20th
section, speaking of future repentance and faith, he
says — "Though these graces have not yet been formed
in them, the seeds of both are nevertheless implanted
in their hearts, by the secret operation of the Spirit."
And he concludes the chapter thus — "Wherefore, un-
less we are obstinately determined to reject the good-
ness of God, let us present to him our children, to

* Book ii. chapter v. sec. 3. t Book iv. chapter xvi. sec. 4.

94 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

whom he assigns a place in his family, that is, among
the members of his church."*

That there is an inconsistency between the doctrine
of baptismal regeneration, and that of the final per-
severance of the Saints as now held by Calvinists, needs
not be proved. Nevertheless, it must be confessed,
that Calvin held the latter doctrine, as applicable to all in
whom there had been the exercise of faith. In the 2d
chapter of I .e 3d book of his Institutions, he maintains
at large, that the least dropf of faith is accom-
panied by a certainty of election: and in the 20th sec-
tion, and both before and afterwards, he is express to
the point, that of such a frith there cannot be a final
failure.

The author has thought it needful to make the pre-
ceding discrimination, lest he should be supposed to
have ascribed to Calvin an opinion not fully his. It is
Ci inism. as explained by the decrees of the Synod of
Dort — confessedly the line drawn between them and
the Arminians — which is contemplated in this per-
formance.

* There having been recently published a translation of Calvin's
Institutes, the author, as a guard against any undue bias, has sub-
stituted for his own translations, from the Latin, what he finds in
the English edition, although, as far as he can judge, they are
substantially the same with his own.

t Gutta.

CONCLUSION.

The points agreed on — Reasons of the form of this discussion—
Remarks on St. Paul's Epistles— And on the Epistle to the
Romans in particular.

THERE has often occurred to the author of this
work, during the progress of it, the danger of a rea-
der's suspecting him of an insidious design — that of
insinuating concerning certain important subjects of
religion, their being foreign to the sense of scripture,
under the cover of merely proving, that there is nothing
said of them in a particular book of it. At any rate, the
inquiry occurs — For what purpose was the investiga-
tion gone into?

To lay the foundation for a satisfactory answer to the
inquiry, and to remove the preceding apprehension;
let there be noticed certain points, on which the Calvi-
nists and the Arminians are agreed; and to which, of
course, nothing in the preceding disquisition ought to
be construed to apply.

They are agreed, in there being a departure in hu-
man nature, from its original righteousness; and this
to such an extent, that no man can, of his own strength,
raise himself above the condition in which the fall has
placed him; or even make the least advance to that
effect. It is alike agreed, concerning every step to re-
storation and every motion of the mind prompting to
it, that they are induced by the agency of the divine
spirit; the necessity of which is supposed, under all the
distinctions and all the disputation, as to the manner

'96 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

of his operation. And further, it is agreed, that the
true and the only ground of acceptance with God, is
in the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
through the sacrifice of the cross; all merit, en the part
of man, being utterly excluded and denied,

As these matters are common to the litigants, so, let
it be here understood, that they are believed in and
now acknowledged, by the writer of these remarks. If,
in any thing which he has written, there should be
thought a discovery of the contrary, he trusts, that it
is through mistaken inference; and at any rate, he dis-
owns all such supposed errour.

But at the same time, he believes, that, from the afore-
said truths of scripture, speculations have been educed,
concerning which, no data towards reasoning are given
to us in the scriptures. Although this has been affirmed
and endeavoured to be proved of one book only; yet
it is under the persuasion, that the same principles may
be applied to the same use, concerning the books of
scripture generally: not indeed to prove, that they
decide nothing in the controversy; for it is here
thought that they decide a great deal; but to show, that
there are some metaphysical discussions improperly
introduced into theology, and not at all spoken to in
the word of truth.

At present, however, the author has no rght to
affirm further, than to the extent of what he supposes
to be the result of the examination of the epistle to the
Romans: and his inference from this is, that, in the
conducting of the controversy, the book should be con-
sidered as not making for one side or for the other; and
therefore left entirely out of the account.

with the Epistle to the Romans. 97

As it must have been perceived and will not be de-
nied, that the author is more inclined to the system of
the Arminians, than to that of the Calvinists; the in-
quiry may be made — Why he should endeavour to de-
prive the former of any aid which they might suppose
derived from the epistle to the Romans. His answer
is, that, next to his opinion of the true sense of the
composicion, there is the consideration of the tendency
of his argument to show the untenable ground on
which Calvinism stands. It is well known, that this
system rests its peculiar doctrines more on the epistle
to the Romans, than on any other part, and perhaps than
on all the rest, of scripture. Accordingly, what are
here supposed to be its errours, are less likely to be
satisfactorily exposed, by there being proved, if that
happened to be the case, that the Apostle spoke more
conformably to the Arminian, than to the Calvinistick
hypothesis, than by there being proved, as is conceived
to be actually the case, that the Apostle had another
subject in contemplation; that every part of his argu-
ment is strictly pertinent to it; and that there is no
evidence in the composition, of there having crossed
his mind, during the writing of it, a single thought on
either side of any one of the points comprehended in
the controversy.

After all, however, the author is aware, that there is a
considerable proportion of serious people, who will not
be reconciled to any plan of interpretation of this epis-
tle, which shall make the taking in of the whole design
of it, a circumstance essential to the right understanding
of any considerable part. This brings to mind a pas-
sage in the paraphrase of Mr. Locke. "I have heard

vol. i. o

98 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

sober Christians," says he, "very much admire, why or-
dinary, illiterate people, who were professors, that show-
ed a concern for religion, seemed much more conver-
sant in St. Paul's Epistles, than in the plainer, and as it
seemed to them," meaning- the former, "much more in-
telligible parts of the New Testament. They confessed*
that though they read St. Paul's epistles with the best
intention, yet they generally found them too hard to be
mastered, and they laboured in vain, so far to reach the
Apostle's meaning all along in the train of what he said,
as to read them with that satisfaction, that arises from
a feeling, that we understand and fully comprehend
the force and reasoning of an author; and therefore,
they could not imagine what those saw in them, whose
eyes they thought not much better than their own. But
the case was plain These ober, inquisitive readers,
had a mind to see nothing in St. Paul's epistles, but
just what he meant; whereas those others of a quicker
and gayer sight, could see in them what they pleased."
If any reader of the present work should be disratisfied
with it, from a habit of thinking like that complained
of by Mr. Locke, an appeal is here entered, from the
judgment of such a person. The present writer may
be mistaken inhid interpretation; but by such a reader,
there cannot be obtained the true one, which does not
lie near enough for him to the surface. It may be proper,
however, to give him from this very epistle and from a
part of it foreign to tac controversy which has been
considered, a proof, how far from being obvious is St.
Paul's meaning in the composition. The part of it in
view, is his admonition in respect to meats. If there
were set aside all reference to peculiar difference of the

with the Epistle to the Romans. 99

time, and if instructions were supposed to be given on
the subject simply; it would undeniably follow, that
no Christian should indulge himself in the use of meat,
so long as there were a wrongheaded fellow Christian,
who might be offended by it. But when the true sense
is obtained by the consideration of cotemporary cir-
cumstances, it appears to be no more, than that the
Gentile Christians ought not so to use their exemption
from the institutions of the Mosaick law, as to
£ive offence to the Jewish Christians, who supposed
themselves thereby bound. In regard to the concluding
words of this part of the epistle: "Whatever is not of
faith, is sin," the writer of this has heard it seriously
contended for, as the sense of the words, and it is in-
deed so, when they are taken independently on the con-
nexion, that there is no action of a man's life, indiffer-
ent in regard to moral good and evil, but that all is sin,
except when God's glory is especially contemplated in
the act. Every one who attends to the series of the
discourse must perceive the meaning to be, that in
every important transaction of life, a man's belief of
his being right is an essential circumstance of his being
30, as to intention and motive.

There may further be noticed, in regard to the epis-
tle to the Romans, as especially applicable to it, a re.
mark made by St. Peter concerning the writings of St.
Paul generally, where he says of them: "In which there
are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the
other scriptures, unto their own destruction"* Now,
* 2 Peter iii 16. The passage frora St. Peter is here introdu-
ced, as especially applicable to the subjects treated of in the epis-

100 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

although sincerity of intention will prevent us, under
the influence of divine grace, from abusing any part of
scripture to our destruction; yet, in regard to the
epistle to the^Romans, we shall never, without the use
of extraneous helps which divine providence has fur-
nished, obtain a clear apprehension of what an Apostle
found difficult to be understood: and this itself should
induce modesty in our interpretation, be it what it may.

If these sheets should meet the eye of any reader,,
who, in addition to the love of truth, the most necessa-
ry requisite for the study of any book of scripture,
possesses the share of erudition and has bestowed the
strict attention to the chain of argument, which are ex-
acted in an eminent degree by the book in question; in
regard to such a reader, the author is aware, that, by
writing on it, he has committed himself to the rigour
of criticism; although, as he hopes, not to the severity
of censure. At least,, he has endeavoured to avoid
whatever could justly expose him to this: For while
he has exercised his own right of religious inquiry, he
has respected the rights of any others whom he has
had occasion toadver*. to, either by name or otherwise;
not having criminated or thrown odium, to the best of
his recollection, or with design, either on the motives or
on the tendency of thtir writings.

To some it may give offence, that so considerable a
book of holy Scripture should be represented as being
principally employed on a temporary subject of litiga-
tion; not exciting any uneasiness in the Christian world,

tie to the Romans; which is mentioned, because of a construc-
tion given to the place, referring it, not to St. Paul's epistles, buj
to the things spoken of in them.

with the Epistle to the Romans* 101

any longer than during the age in which the book was
endited. That this should be no objection to the argu-
ment of the present work, might be proved from many
parts of scripture; which have evident relation to early
errours, of no longer continuance than that of the per-
petual obligation of the Mosaick law. In the epistle
which has been before us, and extraneous to the portion
of it taken into view, there is a whole chapter — the 14th
— confessed by all to be intended of a difference" of opi-
nion, which soon expired; while yet the record of it
remains;

As long as it shall remain, indeed, it will dictate a
lesson of mutual forbearance,' on points concerning
which there may be a difference of opinion and of prac-
tice among Christians, without any injury to funda-
mental truths: a lesson, which, if it had been duly sub-
mitted to and acted on, would have prevented a great
proportion of the breaches of the Church's peace. In
like manner, in regard to the Apostle's argument in the
first eleven chapters, there is not a single branch of it,
however local and temporary as to its immediate ob-
jects, which may not be universal and perpetual, as to
the benefit to be derived from it. By the Apostle's me-
lancholy but true portraiture of heathen manners, we
may be instructed, that if the lamp of revelation should
be extinguished, the same would be again the result
of the same depraved passions of human nature. The
part of the argument which unveils the aggravation of
the criminality of the Jews, in the contrariety of their
practice to their law, will for ever admonish professing
Christians, of the greater inconsistency of corrupt mo-
rals, in contrariety to the holy requisitions of the Gospel.

102 Comparison of the Controversy, Esfc.

If the Jews could not consider God as their debtor, in
virtue of any obedience which they could pay to the
Mosaick law; with still less pretence can we arrogate
the claim of merit to any obedience of ours, under a
dispensation which takes us up as sinners; and pro-
claims, in terms not to be misunderstood, that all its
benefits are of grace. When we read of collective bo-
dn .^, not only in their civil existence, but in their visible
profession of God's holy and eternal truth, that they are
"as clay in the hands of the potter;" it not being, in
respect to either, " of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;" there will
alw ays be presented a theme of gratitude for our being
born under the light of Christianity, and for our being
made, from infancy, members of Christ's kingdom, the
chu . And when we learn the rejection of the Jews
for their unbelief, accompanied by the solemn intima-
tion to Christian churches — " Take heed, lest, as he
spared not the natural branches, he also spare not
thee;" it will be, to the end of time, a lesson to every
Christian church, to " hold fast the form of sound
words delivered to them;" lest there should happen
that removing of the " candlestick out of his place,"
which, in the Apostolick age, was threatened to some
Christian churches, then j^reat and flourishing; and
was at last awfully inflicted on them. But there is
no part of the argument more instructive, than that
which carries the expectation forward to a future dis-
play of the mighty power of God, in bringing back his
people to the true flock and fold; when, as the Apostle
quotes the prophet Isaiah, saying — " There shall come
out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungod-

with the Epistle to the Romans. 103

iincss from Jacob. " There is in this a powerful incen-
tive of faith and hope; especially when we observe
before our eyes, existing monuments of the accom-
plishment of the threatening; and when we perceive
the train laid, of events pointing to the better accom-
plishment of the promise; and destined to demonstrate,
in regard to the ancient people, that the calling of them
is "without repentance." And it is further obvious,
concerning the splendour of the prospect opened to us
by this part of the epistle, that it derives additional
graces from the association of the event which has been
referred to, with the coming in of " the fullness of the
Gentiles;" in which, there will be fulfilled the prophecy
of Malachi* — " From the rising of the sun, even unto
the going down of the same, my name shall be great
among the Gentiles; and in every place, incense shall
be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my
name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord
of Hosts."

Besides, that the branches of the Apostle's discourse
may be made sources of information by easy and ob-
vious accommodation; there shine forth, in this argu-
mentative part of the epistle, divine truths alike appli-
cable to all times and places. Such as the entailment
of death, in consequence of Adam's sin; the danger of
a second death, as the consequence of our own sins; the
struggle between natural appetite and the better desire
of the mind, which ever) man finds attested by evi-
dence in himself; the danger of abusing divine grace
to a continuance in sin; the duty of a death to sin,
exacted by the Christian calling; the Christian sacri-

* Chapter i. verse 1 1.

104 Comparison of the Controversy, bV.

fice of a holy and virtuous state of mind, as a necessary
accompaniment of a celebration of the sacrifice of the
death, of Christ; the consequences of being reconciled
to God, in the confidence thus obtained of drawing-
nigh to him with the full assurance of faith; in the love
— the peace— the joy which it inspires; in the patient
endurance of injuries, to which it disposes; and finally,
in the hopes, beyond any the world can give, of which
it is the ground. These, and other like to these, are
salutary truths, lying conspicuous on the face of the
discursive portions of the epistle.

But even had there been nothing of the description
stated, imbodied with the argument, the composition
would have been rendered invaluable, by the moral
instructions contained in the concluding chapters*
How cold are the morals of a Cicero, of a Seneca,
and of an Epictetus, when compared with those of
St. Paul, in respect to their being accommodated to
the renovation of the heart; and their thus savouring
of the unction, which the Holy Spirit only can pour
out! God forbid! that under the show of zeal for
moral rectitude, we should be indifferent to the duty
of maintaining Gospel verity. But without endan-
gering ourselves in this respect, we may affirm,
that if professing Christians had always contended,
under the influence of the morality of the conclu-
ding chapter of this epistle, for the views of faith,
which they have respectively thought 'opened to
them by the preceding chapters, they would not
have been rendered by such contention, what we
know to have happened often, the less " meet for
the inheritance of the Saints in light." And this is

with the Epistle co the Romans. 105

a lesson, which the author of the present work espe-
cially wishes to be impressed, by divine grace, on
his own mind; lest the investigation in which he has
been occupied should have the effect, of weakening in
him the desire of the cultivation of that charity, which
is better than the possession of all " mysteries and all
knowledge."

VOL. I.

APPENDIX.

ON THE

CASE OF THE HEATHEN,

Calvin and others on the Subject— Calvinistick Churches — The
Point of Difference between Christians and the Heathen —
Authorities from the Old Testament — The Circumstances of
Idolatry — Authorities from the New Testament.

IT was hinted in the introduction to this work, that
there attached to the general question of it the subordi-
nate question, how far a state of visible covenant with
God in this life, is connected with the blessedness of a
future state of existence: and a caution was given
against supposing, that, in all circumstances, the one
Were no otherwise to be attained to, than through the
medium of the other. But, as there could not be much
said, without going beyond the limits of the epistle, it
is judged expedient to add something, in the way of
appendix.

It is not rare to find respectable and learned minis-
ters of the Gospel expressing the hope, that God ex-
tends his mercy to the virtuous heathen: But some
of them entertain this hope in such a manner as
proves, that however agreeable the expectation to
their own humane minds, they are not without appre-
hension of their having gone further, than they are
warranted by the Oracles of God. The object of this
appendix is to prove, that it is a conspicuous truth of
Holy Scripture.

as contemplated in the Scriptures. 107

As the appendix is designed to supply a defect, be-
cause of a point rather presumed than proved in the
body of the performance, so there is a trust, that it
cannot be deemed superfluous, in reference to the
Calvinistick theory; which pronounces a severer sen-
tence on the heathen world, than any here conceived to
be found in the word of God, or to be inferred from it.
Calvin affirms* — " The end of the law of nature is,
that man may be rendered inexcusable;" and again:
" To deprive men of the pretext of ignorance, while
they are convicted, even by their own testimony. " And
just before, commenting on Romans, ii. 14. he had
said — " Because it might have seemed absurd, that
the Gentiles should perish without any previous know-
ledge, he" (the Apostle) "immediately subjoins, that
their conscience supplies the place of a law to them;
and is therefore sufficient for their condemnation."

Conformably to this, when speaking of predestination
in the 5th section of the 21st chapter of his 3d book, he
sayS — " This, God has not only testified in particular per-
sons, but has given a specimen of it in the whole progeny
of Abraham:" the subsequent reasoning, through several
pages, showing that he considered, first Ishmael and his
posterity, and then Esau and his posterity, as under the
sentence of reprobation. Turrentine and Witsius deliver
themselves in language like that of Calvin : And the same
is well known to be common in Calvinistick writers.
It is not here unknown, that a language somewhat differ-
ent from that of Calvin, has been held since his time by
Calvinistick churches; which confess, that there are elect
persons, not called by the ministry of the word. But
* Book ii. ch. ii. sect. 22.

108 On the Case of the Heathen ,

this distinction will be kept out of view ; partly because
the author knows not on what testimonies of scripture it
is grounded, but principally, because his remarks will
rest on principles, to which the distinction will be foreign.
By those from whom he departs, there is held, what is
here most heartily acknowledged, that, from the fall of
man to the present day, there has been a church or visi-
ble body, living in the profession of a divine revelation ;
which, as to its great object, has been the same under
different dispensations. From the truth stated, it has
been inferred — and this is the matter here denied — that
beyond the limits of that pale — with the modern excep-
tion, perhaps, of some unknown elect— there are none
who attain to the favour of God in this life and his pre-
sence in another: that this is evident in the general tenour
of holy writ ; and that there are no testimonies in it to the
contrary.

Let there not be supposed of what is to follow, that it
is a result of a low sense of the advantages formerly pos-
sessed by the Jewish church, and of the greater advanta-
ges since belonging to the Christian. Perhaps, however,
it may be properly said of both, what was said by St.
Paul of one of them only, that their pre-eminence con-
sisted " chiefly" in this, that " to them were committed
the Oracles of God." Many and inestimable are the
benefits now enjoyed by Christian people, over those held
by any other. They have more information of the pro-
cess of the moral government of God, from the creation
to the consummation of all things. They have more
ample and more excellent instructions for the govern-
ment of life. They have more persuasive motives to a
suitable practice. In the event of falling into sin, they

as contemplated in the Scriptures. 109

have stronger incitements to repentance ; especially in the
communication made to them of the great sacrifice for sin,
and of acceptance through its merits. They have assu-
rances which reason never could have supplied, of the aids
of divine grace, to quicken and sustain them: And they
have an immortality set before them, which, on the
ground of rational deduction, might have been hoped for,
but could not have been assured. All these particulars
might be amplified to a great extent; but they are merely
adverted to, in order to show, that while we thank God,
above all his mercies, for the gift of revelation ; and
while we lament the awful condition of those, who, from
indifference, or from the love of sin, reject it; we need not
suppose of our merciful Lord, that in his dispensations to
his other servants, he is the "hard man" who "reaps where
he has not sown, and gathers where he has not strowed."
No: As the scriptures frequently assure us, all men will
be judged according to their works ; according to these,
no doubt, as connected with the states of mind from
which they issue ; and both being taken in connexion
witji the lights which have been bestowed.

Although, in the epistle itself, we find the Apostle in-
cidentally speaking to the purpose, as was stated in the
introduction; yet it is hardly to be expected, that he
should have discoursed of it professedly ; because there
was nothing in the economy under which he lived, so cir-
cumscribing the divine favour, as to suggest a reasonable
doubt concerning the future condition of the virtuous
Heathen. To be within the covenant was a distinguish-
ing privilege, in the estimation of a devout Jew. But
there was no ground on which he could have pronounced
of all who were strangers to it, that they were cut off

110 On the Case of the Heathen,

from the paternal regard of the great Being, concerning
whom St. Paul so pertinently demands — "Is he the
God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?"

In inquiring into the sense of the Old Testament
concerning this matter, we of course go back to the
time of Abraham. The peculiar designation of his fa-
mily, may be considered as beginning with the call
given to him in Ur of the Chaldees, and recorded in
the 12th chapter of Genesis — "Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's
house, unto a land that I will show thee." The cove-
nant, however, was not established, until the transac-
tion related in the 15th chapter. Now let there be ob-
served the existing proofs, that the contrary of the po-
sition here maintained could not have been in the mind
either of Abraham, or of the writer of the Pentateuch,
as forming a part of the divine dispensation at that time
established.

Of the proofs from that period, there may be men-
tioned three; and the first of them, shall be the not in-
cluding of Lot and his family, within the covenant.
When Abraham, intercedes thus for Sodom — "Perad-
venture there be fifty righteous within the city; wilt
thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty
righteous that are therein?" rising in his demand, until
he obtains the promise — " I will not destroy it for ten's
sake;" and when we find that Lot and his family, being
not ten in number, although they could not save the
city, were themselves saved by a permitted flight; what
are we to conclude, but that the fugitives are affirmed
by scripture history to be righteous? And as to Lot
himself, he is expressly so called by St. Peter. 2d.
Ep. ii. 8.

as contemplated in the Scriptures. Ill

Next, when we read of Abimelech King of Gerar,
on the occasion of a judgment brought on his subjects,
drawing nigh to God with the expostulation — "Lord
wilt thou slay also a righteous nation;" and when we
find the same Abimelech the subject of a divine admo-
nition and promise, it is not natural to conceive of him-
self and of his people, as cast oft" from the love of God.

Another instance is Melchisedeck, King of Salem;
a righteous king, as is denoted by his name. This man
was evidently without the covenant; and yet, he is call-
ed a priest of the most high God, and made a type of
the Messiah, who is "a priest for ever, after the order
of Melchisedeck."

We may go on, beyond the time of Abraham, to
other instances in sacred history. Job was an alien
from the commonwealth of Israel; and yet he is men-
tioned by the prophet Ezekiel as one of the three, the
most perfect in ancient times, and in the history, he is
described by the pen of inspiration, as " perfect and
upright, one that feared God, and eschewed evil." He
is generally understood to have been of the posterity
of Esau; on all of whom the curse in the 9th chapter
of the epistle is supposed by some to have been laid in
a spiritual sense. It has, indeed, been conjectured, that
Job lived before the giving of the law: But as no such
circumstance is mentioned, it must have been indiffer-
ent in the mind of inspiration, as to the purpose for
which his name is introduced in this place. Even if we
should hold with some that the character is fictitious,
still we must believe, that it is accommodated to the
truth of the circumstances, under which his example
was to be displayed.

112 On the Case of the Heathen,

Equally beyond the limits of the covenant, were
Jonadab the son of Rechab and the patriarchal family
governed by him; a branch of the family of the father
in law of Moses, who maintained their independence in
the country to the south of Judea, during- the greater
part of the Israelitish history, and were owned by Jeho-
vah as a pious and virtuous people, in a message by his
prophet.

But perhaps it will be remarked of all the persons
mentioned, that they were worshippers of the one true
God. Who can affirm, however, that the same may not
be applicable to some persons among all the nations of
the earth? Individuals might be mentioned, of whom it
is undisputed: And it would be unreasonable to doubt
of there having been very many, not regardless of the
great Being, who "left not himself without witness"
in his works.

It may be asked — What excuse is to be made for
the abominable idolatries to imaginary deities of an in-
feriour grade, commonly intermixed with the adora-
tion, where it is to be found, of one great Supreme?
The answer is — No other excuse, than such as is com-
monly made under the Christian law, for men upright
in general character; but misled, in certain instances,
by the errours of their respective times. To mention
a single instance: It would be difficult to demonstrate,
that the offering of homage to a supposed subordinate di-
vinity, or the worshipping of the one only God after the
symbol of an image, is in itself more faulty and more
inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity, than the ta-
king of life for supposed errours in religion. This cor-
ruption of Christianity, is not here laid at the door of*

as contemplated in the Scriptures. 113

any particular denomination of professing Christians;
but is chargeable on Roman Catholicks and on Protes-
tants, and on all the denominations of the latter, who
have tasted of the sweets of independent power.* If
God hath said, in reference to idolatry — "I will not give
my glory to another," he has also given as a reason of
his prohibiting of the injurious taking away of life —
"In the image of God made he man." But in the pre-
sent day, when religious rights are better understood
than formerly, we are fain to apologize for errour in
this matter, by the plea of the general prevalence of it:
Which is nothing else, than an endeavour — and, it is
trusted a successful one — to cover the faultsreferred to
with that very mantle of charity, which St. Paul ac-
tually threw over it, when he said to the Athenians —
"The times of this ignorance God winked at." This
may serve for argument, as well as for example: For

* Persecution by temporal penalties, for errours in religion, is
treated in this place, not as an immorality, although it doubtless
deserves the name, but as a most pernicious errour. If it were
more contemplated in this point of view, there would arise an in-
ducement to moderation; and there would be prevented much
mutual condemnation, for less destructive errours in opinion: while
from circumstances, we are constrained to make a favourable
allowance, for this greater one, in characters of former times.
Certainly it cannot be incorrect, to consider persecution as the
effect of heresy, according to the sense in which the word is usu-
ally understood. When men are guilty of theft, or of adultery, or
of murder or in any other way, it does not follow that they judge
erroneously, concerning the laws against which they are offenders.
But persecution has always bottomed itself on a zeal to do God
serviee; and is therefore an offence, not only against Christian mo-
rals, but against Christian truth.

VOL. I (^

114 On the Case of the Heathen ,

although it is a frequent practice to evade the full force
of the words, by referring them to God's not sending
till then of a revelation against prevalent idolatry, yet,
were it not for the effect on the point before us, it
could hardlv be overlooked, that the natural construe-
tion makes them declaratory of his not rigorously pun-
ishing, where there was want of better information to
prevent.

When we go on to the New Testament, the first in-
stance that meets us, is of the eastern sages. It will not
be alleged, that they were under the Old Testament
economy; and as to the New, it was not begun. Let it
not be objected, that they were brought to Christ and
exercised faith in him. The revelation of his birth had
been previously made: And was it to persons labouring
under the wrath of God, that so signal a favour had
been extended?

The parable of the good Samaritan is in point; because
what is attached to a fictitious person, must be considered
as what might have belonged to a real character of the day.
Let it be recollected, then, that the Samaritan was one of
those, against whom our Saviour had given his decision
on the question concerning the proper place of worship;
saying — " Salvation is of the Jews." In respect to the
covenant of promise, therefore, there was no more title to
it, than among any people professedly pagan. And be-
sides, their worship was much intermixed with idolatry,
having had its origin in the apostasy of Jeroboam; when
he set up the golden calves in Bethel and in Dan. Yet,
of a member of such a community, our Lord records an
action, evidently represented to be pure in its motive and
acceptable to God: For nothing less can be implied in

as contemplated in the Scriptures. 115

the injunction which makes the moral of the parable —
" Go and do thou likewise."

Perhaps, as decisive a proof as any that can be adduced
is in the description of the final judgment, in the 25th chap-
ter of St. Matthew's Gospel; in which all nations are repre-
sented, standing before the Judge. Without laying stress
on the original word;* no words can be more comprehen-
sive of the universality of mankind, to be separated under
the names of the sheep and the goats. Not only are they in-
clusive of the virtuous heathen; but there is something es-
pecially descriptive of these, in the question — " Lord,
when saw we thee an hungered and fed thee, or thirsty
and gave thee drink?" Because Christians would not be ig-
norant, of what had been assured to them by their mas-
ter, relative to their needy brethren — " as ye have done
it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done
it unto me."f

When it is said in Luke xii. 47, 48 — " That servant
which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself,
neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with ma-
ny stripes, but he that knew not, and did commit things
worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes;" it is
implied, that men will be judged, accordingtothe dispen-
sations under which they have been respectively placed:

* E0vo<.

t The interpretation given on the other side, makes the mean-
ing of the expression, " all nations," to be the professors of the
Christian religion in all nations. It is difficult to say, how far the
same position may appear differently to different minds; but were
it not known, to how great an extent the diversity may take place;
it would be here presumed, that the stating of the above would
suffice for the refutation of it.

116 On the Case of the Heathen,

There being nothing in the declaration, the principle of
which does not reach to the full extent of this.

The case of Cornelius is very significative. Let it not
be said, for the evasion of the inference to be drawn from
it, that this man was convened to the Christian faith, at
the expense of a miracle. While he was yet a heathen, his
prayers and alms came " up for a memorial before God;"
being accepted — for this must be implied — through the
merits of him, than whom " there is nunc other name un-
der heaven given among men whereby we muts be saved. "
On the case of Cornelius is grounded the declaration of
St. Peter concerning the virtuous heathen generally — " In
every nation, he that feareth him," God, " and woiketh
righteousness, is accepted with him."*

Independently on these authorities, conceived to be di-
rectly in favour of the position, it seems essentially invol-
ved in all those passages, which speak of the goodness of

* 7"he way of withdrawing Cornelius from the operation of the
principle here pleaded for, is by supposing that he was a prose-
Jy'e of righteousness, or else believed in Christ; although not a
word is said to either effect. The circumstances of his case are
presumptive of the contrary. That he could not have been, what
was called among the Jews, a proselyte of righteousness, is evident:
For in that case, there would have not been brought the charge
against St. Peter — " Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and
didst eat with them.'* His station in the Roman army, his distance
from the original sea* of Christian doctrine, his having no idea of
the information which his visitant was to bring, his taking the
Apostle for more than man, and the Apostle's statement of Chris-
tian truths, presumptive indeed that tidings of them had reached
Gorneliub, but at the same time, that evidence was wanting to him;
all these are little suited to the idea, that this heaven favoured
man had been of the number of believers, before the miraculous
event recorded.

as cojitemplated in the Scriptures. 117

God to mankind generally; as where St. Paul calls him
" the Saviour of all men;" and where Christ says of his
Almighty Father — " He maketh his sun to rise on the
evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
the unjust." Be it, that such passages speak of the pro-
vidential care of God in the present life: Still, if that care
be extended to men, only to aggravate a condemnation,
necessarily resulting _»m the circumstances in which the
same providence had placed them; such declarations, to
say the least, are not to the purpose for which they seem
to have been made, of magnifying the goodness of the
divine Being.

There is another remarkable passage in St. Matthew
viii. 11. compared with St. Luke xiii. 29. The words are
nearly the same in both Gospels; butinSt. Matthew, they
are — '* Many shall come from the east and from the west,
and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in
the kingdom of heaven." It has been made a question,
whether this relates to the influx of the heathen into the
church; or to the admission of persons of that description,
being virtuous, into heaven. It cannot be denied, that
some judicious commentators give it the former turn;
but as the latter is here preferred, the reasons shall be given.

What has principally led to the supposition, that the
passage relates to professors of Christianity, is, that in St.
Matthew, the recited words come in just after the healing
of the servant of a Roman centurion; with a commenda-
tion of his faith, as superiour to any found in Israel: And
there seems something very pertinent in the sentiment,
that many, of the same description with this centurion,
would, like him, exercise faith in the Messiah. In St.
Luke, however, the declaration is in almost the same

118 On the Case of the Heathen^

words; but without the record of any such circumstance,
appearing to give a limitation to the meaning.

In both passages, they are said to come " from the east
and from the west;" with the addition in the latter passage,
of the words, "and from the north and from the south."
But the propagation of the Gospel among the heathen,
was not by their coming to the original seat of it: It was
by its being carried to them.

The converts to the Christian faith, could not sit down
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God,
understood in the sense of the church on earth; and there-
fore, the expression must have been applied to the better
kingdom in heaven. And this is especially clear in St.
Luke; where, the subject being the final judgment, it is
pleaded by some before the Judge " We have eaten and
drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets."
These, however, " see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God," and them-
selves " thrust out:" Then come in the words here
remarked on; which of course designate persons opposed
to the preceding, in regard to opportunity of receiving
instruction and making a profession.

Dr. Taylor gives the following reason — and it seems of
great weight — against the interpretation exploded. He
says, that according to it, the assertion of our Saviour is
not in point. It makes an opposition between the present
children of the kingdom, that is, the Jews; and the future
children, that is, Christians: Whereas, the opposition
ought to be between the former, and such persons as the
centurion, that is, heathens.

The manner in which the three passages last quoted
are treated by Dr. Doddridge, is worthy of notice. In his

as contemplated it the Scriptures 119

interpretation of that of St. Matthew viii. 11. and that of
St. Luke xiii. 29. he has not a word expressive of the
sentiment of other writers on his system, limiting the
description of the righteous to a proportion of the profes-
sors of all nations; but gives an interpretation which im-
plies, but does not positively express the opinion, here
sustained. It is more evidently implied, although still
not expressed, in his interpretation and improvement of
Matthew xviii. 11. But when he comes to the passage
in the 10th chapter of the Acts, the opinion is evident in
the interpretation, and still more so in a note; in which he
comments as follows on the words—" He thatfeareth him
and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.' —
" This, for any thing I can see, might be supposed the
case of many, who were far from being in any degree Jew-
ish proselytes, and had never heard of the Jews and their
religion, as it was certainly the case of many, before the
peculiarities of Judaism existed, and even before the in-
stitution of the Abrahamick covenant. I think this text
proves, that God would sooner send an angel to direct
pious and upright persons to the knowledge of the Gos-
pel, than suffer them to perish by ignorance of it."

The above is exactly to the present purpose. But in
the remainder of the note, principally intended to distin-
guish the case of Cornelius, from that of persons who re-
ject Christian light bestowed, Dr. Doddridge seems to
have entertained the further design of avoiding a shock
to prejudice, by what had gone before. For, speaking
of the sense of the passage as opened by him, he continues
thus: — " But far from intimating, that some such per-
sons may be found among those that reject Christianity,
when offered to them in its full evidence, it determines

/

120 On the Case of the Heathen.

nothing concerning the existence of such in every nation;'7
(meaning such as Cornelius) " though it tells us, how God
regards them, supposing them to exist."

It is here thought a reasonable conclusion from the pre-
mises, that no pyrt of the human race are placed, by the
condition of their birth, beyond the reac'-: of the mercy of
God, through Christ. In regard to the heathen, we may
properly speak of them, as be', g left to the uncovenanted
mercies of God. For we know not the grounds on which
they shall be judged: while, in regard to ourselves, we
have great reason to bear in mind our Lord's decision
concerning the talents — " Unto whomsoever much is gi-
ven, of him shall be much required."

PART II.

A Comparison of the Controversy between the Calvin-
ists and the Arminians, with Holy Scripture ge-
nerally.

INTRODUCTION.

Dissent from Calvinism— Not on Arminian Principles— Origin
of Calvinism — Its Progress — Its Alliance with Philosophical
Necessity—Difference between this and Original Calvinism —
Net in the Decrees of the Synod of Dort — Since embraced by
various Calvinists — Proposal to exclude it from Theology-
Result, is the stating of Scripture Doctrine.

THE author, wishing to give an early insight of
his design, begins with the intimation, that it will be,
principally, to prove what he believes to be the errours of
the Calvinistick system; while yet, the opinions which he
is about to oppose to them will not be built on the Armi-
nian foundation. He conceives of the peculiarities of Cal-
vinism, that they are human inventions; introduced, at no
very early period, into Christian theology. The objects
which he proposes to keep in view, throughout the suc-
ceeding investigation of passages of scripture, are the fol-
lowing.

In regard to the first link in the chain — predestination,
as applied by Calvinists to individual persons and their
condition in another life; it is conceived to be a subject,
on which the scriptures are silent. If this be correct,
it must be evident, that both the parties have acted under
an errour. The Calvinist thinks, that the glory of the so-
vereignty of God cannot be supported, otherwise than by
the opinion, that he foreordained some of the human race

VOL. I. R

122 Comparison of the Controversy, Esfc.

to everlasting happiness, and others of them to everlasting
misery, without reference to any good to be done by them
respectively; and even that he called them into existence,
for the very purpose of illustrating his mercy and his jus-
tice, in these opposite ends appointed to them. On the
contrary the Arminian, offended by what he thinks an im-
peachment of the divine benevolence and justice, suppo-
ses that he avoids the difficulty, by founding predestination
on prescience: So that, according to him, the different
allotments are predicated on the foreseen uses of a liberty
to be bestowed on all. Whether the position of a pre-
destination founded on prescience be true or otherwise,
considered as matter of human speculation, the author
does not inquire. But he proposes to show, that a pre-
ceding eternity itself being beyond the grasp of the hu-
man understanding; the scriptures, harmonizing with this
property of our being, have left all that concerns our des-
tination from eternity, under the dark veil behind which
the subject itself lies hid. Or, in other words, there is
nothing declared to us, that applies at all to God's eternal
decree concerning the everlasting condition, either happy
or miserable, of his creatures. It this be fact, it follows,
that what is affirmed by the Calvinists on the one hand, or
by the Arminians on the other, whether there be truth or
falsehood in either of them, is not Christian doctrine, but
metaphysical speculation.

Another position to be maintained, in the progress of
the inquiry, is, that the doctrine of absolute and uncondi-
tional predestination being laid down as scriptural, there
followed of course from it, all the other peculiarities of Cal-
vi.usm; which were indeed called for, in order to render
the system consistent and complete. It is not intended

with Holy Scripture generally. 123

to say any thing in this place, to the merits of the ques-
tion, any further, than is necessary to the unfolding of the
idea adopted and to be pursued. The introduction ofthe
doctrine of predestination, in what is now called the Cal-
vinistick sense, is here supposed to have been with a view
to the aid which it was thought to afford, in the argument
against the errours of the Pelagians. It was however per-
ceived, that the doctrine would seem to militate against
an opinion universally entertained, and for the contradict-
ing of which the minds of men were not prepared; that
for God to condemn an innocent creature to everlasting
torments, was inconsistent with our ideas of his attributes.
To him who is now writing, this seems no more contrary
to the first principles of reason, and no more difficult to be
resolved into sovereign will, than the saying, that God de-
creed the state, although to be accomplished through
the medium of guilt, not to be avoided. The latter,
however, was accepted; while the other would have
been refused. And hence there arose the necessity of de-
vising the expedient ofthe imputation of Adam's sin, as
the only mean by which the final result could have been
brought about. From the same source flowed the doc-
trine of a grace irresistibly saving to some, and not possi-
ble to be improved by others; which was nothing else
than the exertion of omnipotence, in the only way in
which the decree could have been carried into effect.
These doctrines were not introduced into the church at
the same time. Those of predestination and irresistible
grace, appeared in the beginning ofthe fifth century, and
were afterwards much cultivated in curious reasonings and
distinctions; especially by the schoolmen and the monks;
still, in connexion with an opinion very ill suited to the

124 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

system; that of the possibility of falling from grace given.
It was reserved for Calvinism, to discover the inconsis-
tency; and by establishing the final perseverance of the
saints, to exhibit a connected chain of doctrine. But,
although the introducing of this comparatively modern
doctrine is here ascribed to Calvinism; and although it is
one of the five points which have been long considered as
charactcristick of the followers of Calvin; yet it does not
appear to have been taught by the reformer himself. On
the contrary, as was shown in the first part, but as it may
be proper to repeat here in substance, after having spo-
ken of some elected and of others passed by, he says* —
'* It is owing to this, that some persevere while others fall;
perseverance itself being the gift of God; which he be-
stows, not on all, but as seems good to him."

Although there is here a delineation of one new opi-
nion giving birth to another, and this to a third; and
onward, until a theory became complete; yet it is far
from being thought, that there was a deliberate design
to corrupt the word of God, by matters of human in-
vention and tradition. Far from it, the principal framers
of the theory were holy men; who had in view the
clearing of the church of a heresy, by which her
peace had been disturbed. But it is an infirmity of the
human mind, to be driven by zeal against some parti-
cular errour, into whatever is the farthest removed from
it; which may be errour also. And when this happens,
the latter will beget its like; until there shall be a fami-
ly of errours, with the same features and complexion;
one or another of which will be met with, in every de-
partment of religious disquisition. With this good opi-
* Book ii. chapter v. section 3.

with Holy Scripture generally. 125

nion of the original devisers of the system, there is one
equally favourable, of many who have supported it in
every succeeding age. It is not here forgotten, that
there have been religious men, who, conceiving them-
selves called to speculations concerning seemingly in-
consistent attributes of God, have preferred the view
of them which seemed the least in danger of encoura-
ging selfrighteousness and selfsufficiency. It is further
here acknowledged, that if these are the genuine
growth of the opinions on the subjects which are to
be given in the present work, in opposition to Calvin-
ism; they show errour — deadly errour, on their very
faces. But if every thing of this sort can he avoided,
without resorting to doctrines so shocking as those of
Calvinism are here conceived to be to the reason of
mankind, the author supposes himself at liberty to
treat those doctrines as the imaginations of men, with-
out giving just cause of offence to worthy persons who
hold them. Among these, he knows some of whose
sincerity he has the highest opinion, and for whose ta-
lents also he entertains great respect. If they should
be mistaken, as is here supposed, there can be little
doubt, that the single errour of Calvinistick predesti-
nation is the source of their errours on the other points;
and if so, they must all be affected by the property of
metaphysical speculation, in which the first step was
taken.

But the author has a third position, which he wishes
to establish in this part of his work. It is, that a theory
arising, as was affirmed, not in revelation, but in meta-
physicks, has become, long since its origin and in mo-
dern times, more metaphysical and less dependent on

126 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

revelation than before; bv an alliance with the more re-
cently invented (or rather revived) doctrine of philoso-
phical necessity. In regard jto the two preceding re-
marks, recourse must be had for evidence, to the body
of this department of the work. But as nothing will be
there found relative to the matter now affirmed, the au-
thor is under the necessity of declaring his sense of it
here, in the introduction.

It is not his design to discuss in this place, the merits
of the doctrine the last alluded to. Whether it be true
or false, is nothing to the present purpose; which is
merely to show, that Calvinism has heightened her me-
taphvsical complexion, by having recourse to this doc-
trine for its assistance. Or, if it be not saying too much
in this stage of proposal without proof, she has reclined
on the prop thus presented, in failure of support formerly
supposed to be sufficiently abounding in the scriptures.

What is undertaken under this branch of the subject,
will have been sufficiently performed, if it should be
shown concerning the doctrine of philosophical necessity,
that it originated with, and in its progress has been im-
proved principally, by men who were either indifferent
or unfriendly to revelation — that, in some important par-
ticulars, it is contradictory of the tenets of Calvinism, as
held in the beginning — and yet, that modern Calvinism
has placed reliance on it for her support.

In regard to the origin of the doctrine, current opi-
nion mentions Thomas Hobbes as having given the first
hints of it: A name, of which it was not supposed, in
the age in which he lived, that it would in after times be-
come allied to any thing favourable to piety or to morals.*
* Dr. Priestley, in his correspondence with Dr. Price on the

•with Holy Scripture generally, 127

Some time afterwards, the doctrine found an able advo-

subject here treated of, has given the opinion, that Hobbes, far
from being an atheist, as is commonly supposed, was a believer in
Christianity and a conscientious good man: and he refers, in sup-
port of the opinion, to the life of Hobbes, in the Biographica
Britannica.

It is so unwelcome a task to supnort the contrary opinion con-
cerning any man, that the author does not undertake it: neither
is it necessary to his argument. He supposes that few, if any, will
deny, that Hobbes has published to the world principles, which
strike at the foundations of all religion and morality. How far a
man may do this from eccentricity of character, and consistently
with abetter faith, the author declines considering; as also, on the
other hand, whether a man, contemning religion in every shape,
may not attend on its instituted ordinances, without violating any
principle on which he may be supposed to act; and merely to
plead his doing so, as is said of Hcbbes, in order to have some-
thing to oppose to the charge of atheism, from which he seems
to have apprehended danger to his person. It is enough for the
present purpose, that such a reasoner as this singular man
should be looked up to as a distinguished champion; and, ac-
cording to Dr. Priestley, the father of the doctrine in question.
This posi'ion, however, is not here admitted to be strictly correct:
and it is rather believed, that the modern Necessarian scheme is
a revival of the ancient doctrine of Fate; with the very material
difference, indeed, that this binds God as well as men, under its
decree; while the other hesitates as to the carrying of its specula-
tions to such an extent, concerning the divine nature. In this
point, it is the most reverent; but not, as is here thought, the
most consistent. The author might bring forward many names,
which, being connected alike with infidelity and with necessity, are
evidence of an alliance between the two. But he will rather men-
tion this remarkable fact. It is well known, that not long before
the French revolution, Monsieur IsUckar wrote a book " Of the
Importance of Religious Opinions," the design of which was to
con bat the fashionable atheism of his country. In that book, the
ingenious author, sustaining the truth ot the existence of an intel-

128 Comparison of the Controversy, &c

cate in Anthony Collins, a known unbeliever in Christi-
anity and zealous to disparage it*. It is of no conse-
quence to the author, to recite the names of all who have
laboured in this thorny field of speculation; but he sup-
poses he cannot be mistaken in saving, that none have
figured in it more than Leibnitz and his successour Wol-
fius. Of these men it is certain, that they made no pub-
lick profession of Christianity. To all appearance they
were deists, with discretion generally suited to the sta-
tions which they filled. In later times, there has been
probably no man whose work on the subject has acqui-
red so much celebrity as that ofLord Kaims: And the
infidelity of this eminent scholar is commonly mentioned
as a matter not to be disputed.! There would be mis-

ligent Being, steadily considers as opposed to his system, and held
by those on the other side; necessity operating on matter existing
from eternity.

• To this Anthony Collins, Dr. Priestley, in his Treatise on Phi-
losophical Necessity, ascribes his conversion to the belief of it,
after having been a writer in favour of the opposite system.

t Since writing the above, the author has seen a life of this
celebrated man, by Alexander Fraser Tytler, Esq. He de-
scribes the subject of his work, as deeply impressed with
sentiments of religion, and taking great delight in exercises of
devotion: And many evidences of this are given; especially a
prayer in the conclusion. Every Christian, who shall read what
the biographer has said to this effect, will rejoice for the correct
sentiments entertained by Lord Kaims, concerning the divine
Being. At the same time it will be lamented, that a man of such
an enlarged capacity and extensive knowledge of the moral histo-
ry of mankind, should not have perceived, that his sentiments
would never have been instilled into his mind, but through the
medium of the divine revelation, the authenticity of which we may
reasonably suppqse to have been rejected by him. That this was

with Holy Scripture generally. 129

conception in supposing- it intended to be here affirmed,
that the doctrine has been confined to unbelievers in the
scriptures. It is only contended, that its principal pro-
jectors and improvers have been of that description: and
this, as an introduction to the second particular— the
points in which it differs from Calvinism as held former-
ly; of which the test shall be the sentiments of Calvin
himself, in his celebrated work called " The Institutions
of the Christian Religion."

This test shall be applied, as it affects man in his inno-
cency, in his fall, and in his renewal.

In his innocency, there must have been, according to
the doctrine, a propellent motive; which produced his
fall necessarily, by means of the dependence of every
effect on its proper cause. But Calvin thought other-
wise; for he says: " We grant that such was the primi-
tive condition of man during his state of integrity; that it
was in his power to incline to one side or the other"*
(meaning good or evil). And " In this integrity man
was endued with freewill, by which, if he had chosen,

the case, appears not only from some matters in his own works,
utterly inconsistent with Christianity; but from the silence of him-
self and of his biographer, wherever the idea, if it had existed,
may be expected to have been expressed. This note is inserted,
because the author, having through a long course of time, heard
Lord Kaims mentioned as one of the most distinguished deists of
the age, has within these few years heard the fact doubted of, in
consequence of respect shown by his lordship to divine worship,
in va-ious ways. There has been manifested by many men a fa-
vourable disposition to the religion of their country, without any
faith in its divine authority; but from contemplating it as a mean of
the moral improvement and the political government of mankind.

* Book ii. chapter iii. section 10.
VOL. 1. s

130 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

he might have obtained eternal life:" — and again — " All
the powers of his soul were formed to rectitude; and
there subsisted a soundness of mind and a will free to the
choice of good.*" It would be in vain to allege in this
place, that Calvin contemplated freedom as opposed to
force: Because, as will appear presently, he thought the
distinction, as applied to the present subject, both trivial
and dangerous. Besides, his considering of freewill as
distinguishing the innocency of man from the circum-
stances induced by the apostasy, shows beyond all doubt,
that he designed to hold up the high endowment in ques-
tion, as involving the independence of the morality of his
conduct on any necessarily predisposing cause. Calvin's
idea of the liberty of Adam, as opposed, not to force, but
to necessity, is clearly unfolded in the eighth section of
the sixteenth chapter of his first book; of which a small
part is quoted above.

The very circumstance of the change which has
taken place among the Calvinists, in regard to the use
of the word freewill, shows the accommodation of
their ideas concerning man's state in his apostasy, to
the Necessarian scheme. By the loss of freewill, the
early Calvinists meant no more, than the subjection of
the will to corrupt passion and inordinate desire: And
accordingly, there is not in all Calvin's book, a more
decided censure than the following, passed by him on
the name of freewill: " Man will be said to possess
freewill in this sense, not that he has an equally free
election of good and evil, but because he does evil
voluntarily, and not by constraint. That indeed is
very true; but what end could it answer, to deck a

* Book i. chapter xv. section 8,

-with Holy Scripture generally. 131

thing so diminutive, with a title so superb? Egregious
liberty indeed! if man be not compelled to serve sin,
but yet is such a willing slave, that his will is held in
bondage by the fetters of sin. I really abominate conten-
tions about words, which disturb the church, without
producing any good effect: but I think, that we ought
religiously to avoid words, which signify any absurdi-
ty, particularly when they lead to a pernicious errour.
How few are there, pray, who, when they hear free-
will attributed to man, do not immediately conceive,
that he has the sovereignty over his own mind and will;
and is able, by his innate power, to incline himself to
whatever he pleases? But it will be said, all danger
from these expressions will be removed, if the people
are carefully apprized of their signification. But, on
the contrary, the human mind is naturally so prone to
falsehood, that it will sooner imbibe errour from one
single expression, than truth from a prolix oration: of
which, we have a more certain experiment than could
be wished, in this very word. For, neglecting that ex-
planation of the Fathers, almost all their successours
have been drawn into a most fatal selfconfidence, by
adhering to the original and proper signification of the
word."*

Now, there can be no occasion to prove, that the
word, as descriptive of an attribute of the human mind,
has become familiar in Calvinistick systems, since the
time of Calvin: and this is so much the case, as to oc-
casion the boast frequently found in them, that there-
can be no true and rational liberty, detached from their
favourite necessity. It is true, that they make a dis
* Book ii chap. ii. sect. 7.

132 Comparison of the Controversy, Wc.

tinction between necessity and force. It is carefully
defined, that liberty is ascribed to the will, in contra-
distinction to the latter only: And this may give the
appearance of there being merely a change in the sig-
nification appropriated to the word. But this is not the
case. For when the old Calvinists spoke of the slavery
of the will, they intended this of the subjection in
which it was held by sinful passion: And accordingly,
their doctrine did not apply, as a thing of course, to
matters indifferent to moral good and evil. Not so the
iron chain of philosophical necessity; which binds eve-
ry motion of the will, in the track of a continued series
of causes and effects, beginning in the will of God.
Accordingly, here is a change in the system, which, if
it have no other consequence, has that of leading still
further from the straight and high road of scripture, into
the crooked and obscure byways of metaphysical sub-
tilty and refinement.

Lastly, in regard to the renewal of human nature,
Calvinism held out as accompanying it, and in propor-
tion as it is accomplished, the regaining of the freedom
which had been lost; than which nothing can be more
contrary to the sentiments of the Necessarians. That
the former part of what is here affirmed is true, may be
likewise proved from Calvin; who assigns as a reason
for denying all power to man in his apostasy, that " be-
ing surrounded, on every side, with the most miserable
necessity, he should nevertheless be instructed to aspire
to the good of which he is destitute, and to the liberty
of vhich he is deprived."* Indeed, this is a necessary
consequence of what had been conceded, of freedom in
* Book ii. chap. ii. sect. 1.

with Holy Scripture generally, 133

a. state of innocency; since, as they were both lost, so it
is natural to be supposed, that they will both be regain-
ed together.

It will be pertinent to set down in this place, in ad-
dition to the authority of Calvin, the determinations of
the Synod of Dort, on the particulars which have been
stated: From which it will appear, that at the time
when the comparative merits of Calvinism and Armi-
nianism were put to issue in that celebrated assembly,
the former had not as yet formed the alliance in which
it now stands, with a doctrine born and fostered out of
the pale of the Christian church. In the Confession of
Faith, received and established by the Synod, it is said*
— " We believe, that God created man out of the dust
of the earth; and made and formed him after his own
image and likeness; good, righteous, and holy, capable
in all things to will, agreeably to the will of God."f
So much for the first of the particulars mentioned:
And as to the second, it is said in the same article,
after notice of the change undergone in the apostasy«=»
" We reject all what is repugnant to this, concerning
the freewill of man; since man is but a slave to sin,
and has nothing of himself, unless it is given him from
heaven." In regard to the third particular, it is said in
the twelfth canon, under the third and fourth heads,
after a declaration of the change of the sinner wrought
by grace — " The will thus renewed, is not only actua-
ted and influenced by God, but, in consequence of this

* The extracts to be here made from the system of the Synod
of Dort, are taken from the translation in use in the churches in
the United States, professing that faith.

t Article 14.

134 Comparison of the Controversy, &?t\

influence, becomes itself active." Thus different from
the present Necessarian Calvinism, was the system
established by the very Synod, which was summoned
for the purpose of extirpating opposing opinions; and
for the guarding against any which might otherwise
arise in future.

However inimical both Calvin and the Synod of
Dort to the name of freewill, it seems to have been
adopted by their followers generally, within half a cen-
tury after the Synod. For Professor Turretine, of Ge-
neva, a standard writer of the Calvinistick opinion, not
only uses the word and defends it in his system of
divinity,* but considers the affirmation of its being re-
jected by those of his persuasion, as a calumny. What
he says on the subject is as follows, and must be per-
ceived to be in direct contrariety to what had been
said on it by Calvin — " Although this name may seem
too proud, and although some may, on that account,
have wished it removed from the church; yet, as it
has been so long in use with her, we judge that it may
be usefully retained; provided the right sense of it be
taught and abuse avoided. Wherefore, it cannot with-
out calumny be urged against us, that we cannot bear
either the name of freewill, or the thing itself."

There remains to give evidence of the application of
the Necessarian scheme, to what is doubtless thought
an improvement of Calvinism, by professed advocates
of this system.

It has been said by Dr. Priestley,! that the first that in-
troduced the supposed improvement was a divine of this

* Locus ix. chap. xli. t Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity,
section 12.

with holy Script lire generally* 135

country — Mr. Jonathan Edwards, formerly President of
Princeton College. Whether this be exactly the fact, the
knowledge of Calvinistick writers may not be sufficiently
autho r's extensive to determine: But that necessity, in the
sense of the philosophers, is the distinguishing feature of
President Edwards's celebrated Treatise on Freewill, and
that the subject is there handled with great ability, will
doubtless be acknowledged by all who have perused the
book. It is well known, and might be made appear, that the
principles thus maintained by President Edwards, have
had their effect on the Calvinistick writings of this coun-
try. He has clearly described the application of his sys-
tem, to the current objections against the Calvinistick
system; and his zeal and ingenuity in this line have not
failed of their effect.*

In the church of England, there have been perhaps no
divines of late years, who have written so much and so
zealously in favour of Calvinism, as Mr. Toplady and
Dr. Haweis; both of whom have considered the Calvin-
istick scheme as supported by the Necessarian. Mr.
Toplady, in various places, treats it as the height of impi-
ety and of folly to deny them: And as to Dr. Haweis, it
is obvious how decided a Necessarian he must have been
in the circumstance, that, however great St. Austin in

* However considerable the influence of President Edwards's
system, it is here supposed that Dr. Witherspoon, one of his sue*
cessours, was what may be called, in this respect, a Calyinist of the
old school. There seems reason to infer this, from some objec-
tions brought in his thirteenth lecture on divinity, against the
scheme of Leibnitz; which is in evident harmony with that of Ed-
wards. And in the sixteenth lecture, he declares expressly
against the metaphysical doctrine of necessity, " of which," says
he, " infidels avail themselves, in opposition to all religion,"

136 Comparison of the Controversy , &fc.

the estimation of Calvin, and however great in that of al!
those reformers and of others since them who have trod-
den in Calvin's steps, the author here spoken of, in what
he calls his impartial history of the Christian Church,
does not scruple to say,* that " there isjnore deep reason-
ing, solid argument, precision of language, and scriptural
evidence, in one page of Edwards on Freewill, than in all
the voluminous works of Augustine put together."!

Since those gentlemen, there is a writer, who has been
thought to have given an able delineation of Calvinism.
The writer, here alluded to, is the Rev. J. Pye Smith,
D. D. a dissenting minister of South Britain; from whose
letter to Mr. Belsham on the subject, there has been
lately published in that country, and republished in the
United States, an account of the Calvinistick doctrine.
If the writer of this be correctly informed, it has been fa-
vourably received by Calvinistick divines; which is a cir-
cumstance, tending to show the increasing reputation of
Calvinism in its more modern dress. Dr. Smith says, that
" all created existence is a concatenation of subordinate
causes and consequences, originating in the will and pow-
er of God; constantly supported by him and terminating
in the most glorious display of his excellences. "J This
is precisely philosophical necessity; but there is nothing
like it in ancient Calvinism. Dr. Smith seems sensible

* Vol. i. page 337.

f Dr. Haweis, it seems, like most of the modern Calvinists, was
reconciled to the name of freewill, so much reprobated by Calvin.
Not so Mr. Toplady, who manifests his dislike to it wherever it
comes in his way; and pours out his indignation on the freewillers,
as he calls all who are inimical to his favourite theory.

| Page 28.

-with Holy Scripture generally, 137

of this; for he adds soon after in a note: " It is acknow-
ledged, that this view of the subject is different from that
which most Calvinistick writers have given. Yet several
eminent writers have laid down the fundamental princi-
ples at least of this sentiment, and have opened the way
to it; particularly Augustine, Theophilus Gale, and a class
of German theologians of the school of Leibnitz." As
to Austin, it would be difficult to show, in what respects
he differs materially from Calvin, who evidently consider-
ed himself as treading in his steps. It is remarkable, that
Calvin is not mentioned by Dr. Smith, among the few
who are noticed as giving their sanction to his own view
of Calvinism: And as to looking back to Austin for the
ground work of the Necessarian scheme, there is here
doubted the propriety of it. There seems no other co-
incidence in the two opinions, than what may be found in
two roads, which, beginning in different quarters, come
in contact at certain points. With the writings of Theo-
philus Gale, the writer of this is unacquainted. He was
certainly a Calvinistick divine, of eminent reputation: And
if his works contain the principles of philosophical necessi-
ty, Dr. Priestley has been mistaken in mentioning Presi-
dent Edwards, as the first Calvinist who had owned them.
Dr. Smith's claim to the countenance of the Leibnitzian
school is not to be denied; and his introducing of its au-
thority is to the purpose for which his own is introduced,
in the present work. He does not go into argu-
ment on the subject of the controversy; but only pro-
fesses to give a correct statement of the Calvinistick opi-
nions; in order to guard against what he thinks a mis-
taken representation of them by Mr. Belsham. It seems
inconsistent, that the former, writing with this design,

VOL, I. T

138 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

should make the acknowledgment, that most Calvinis-
tick writers had given a view of the subject different from
his. Mr. Belsham does not fail to avail himself of this
concession; and thinks it extraordinary, that he should be
publickly attacked for misrepresenting the tenets of Cal-
vinism, by a gentleman, who, in the very act of making
the attack, declares his own view of the subject to be dif-
ferent from that of the majority of its advocates. Among
these, he might have included Calvin himself, all who
thought with him in his day, and afterwards, the whole
body of the Synod of Dort. If the standard must be
looked for in the junction stated by Dr. Smith, to be made
with the Leibnitzian scheme; that standard, and the con-
fessions of the Calvinistick churches should be consider-
ed henceforth as wide of one another.

At the same time, it is worthy of remark, how coldly
Calvinism, in this her new form, is received by her soli-
cited ally — Philosophical necessity. Dr. Priestley, in
his work on the latter subject, is careful to point out the
differences between the two. And now, his friend Mr.
Belsham— a Necessarian also — refuses to know Calvin-
ism, except as contained in publick confessions. Not so,
indeed, Lord Kaims; as set forth already. But the rea-
son of the difference is discernable. His Essay on Liber-
ty and Necessity had subjected him to the charge of irre-
ligion. Accordingly, he availed himself of the aid of
President Edwards's book on the will, which came out
soon afterwards; and on the ground of the principles
therein contained, claimed to be considered as a supporter
of the doctrines of the established Church of Scotland.

When Dr. Priestley said, that President Edwards
was the first Calvinist who applied the doctrine of phi-

with Holy Scripture generally. 139

iosophical necessity to his system, he probably meant
— to any considerable extent. For there could not have
been unknown to him Professor Witsius's work on the
covenants; in which, the necessity spoken of is conspi-
cuous. According to this learned and respectable wri-
ter,* there were two species of influence operating on
Adam; a natural influence, through the medium of se-
cond causes, by which the divine Being impelled him to
will and act; and a moral influence, inducing its being
done in a holy manner. The latter influence being
withdrawn and the former remaining, Adam fell. On
this, the present writer would remark, that he must
have been like a body acted on by two forces, one im-
pelling and the other guiding: On the withdrawing of
the guiding force, disorder followed. It is evident,
that the sentiments of Professor Witsius vary from
those of Calvin and the Synod of Dort: And the change
seems to have been introduced, by the intervention of
the philosophical hypothesis in question.

It is useless to mention more names to the present
point, when satisfaction may so easily be obtained from
many sources, accessible in common life. But there is
a note to a passage in Dr. Mosheim's History, so much
to the purpose, that it ought not to be overlooked.
Mosheim had spoken of the Arminians* declining as
a sect; but of Arminianism, as increasing in the esta-
blished church of the Netherlands. But his learned an-
notator, Dr. Maclean, who had the best opportunities
of personal information, thinks it proper to remark,
that the progress of Arminianism has been there great-

* Chapter viii. sec. 13 and following. Amer. ed. t Century
17, sec. ii. part ii.

140 Comparison of the Controversy, &Y.

ly checked, and even that its cause daily declines in
Germany and several parts of Switzerland; in conse-
quence of the ascendency which the Leibnitzian and
Wolfian philosophy has gained in those countries, and
particularly among the clergy and men of learning.
It is foreign to the present purpose to inquire, with
what correctness the reasonings deduced from the said
philosophy have been applied. It is sufficient, that the
armour, thus wielded in defence of what is thought a
Christian fortress, was wrought on a foreign anvil: And
this is only brought in aid of the considerations intend-
ed to prove, that the works defended are of human and
not of divine structure.

This leads to another object of the ensuing investi-
gation; a and mere inference from what has been premi-
sed: The effect of which will be, if the view to be here
taken of the subject should be correct, that there ought
to be an exclusion of it from the sphere of Christian
theology; and that, if thought of, it should be merely
as matter of philosophical research; this too, with the
caution which is dictated by reverence to the great
Being, concerning whose perfections we thus presume
to speculate. We are instructed on the highest autho-
rity, that "the secret things belong to the Lord our God;
but those things which are revealed belong unto us."
Yet there is an infirmity of the mind of man, always
tempting him to transgress the bounds prescribed to
his understanding; and to dogmatize on subjects, con-
cerning which there are no data to be reasoned from
with certainty, and authorizing to co*icl:ide with safety.
There are evidences of this busy and presumptuous
spirit, operating within the bounds of the Christian

-with Holy Scripture generally, 141

church, in the days of the Apostles. St. Paul, in par-
ticular, alludes to it in several places; and speaks of it
most expressly, when, in his first epistle to Timo-
thy,* he notices "oppositions of science falsely so
called;" and when, in his epistle to the Colossians,f
he warns them — " Beware lest any man spoil you,
through philosophy and vain deceit.'* Far be it from
him who is now writing, to insinuate reproach on the
use which may be made of any branch of human lite-
rature, in defending, or in explaining, or in illustrating
any book of Scripture, or any matter comprehended
in it. Instead of this, the opinion is entertained, that, in
the councils of divine wisdom, there was designed to
be an aid from literature, for the accomplishing of pur-
poses, which would otherwise have required a perpe-
tuity of miracle. But when the busy wits of men, by pro-
cesses of philosophical reasoning, or of what is deem-
ed such, land in dogmas not found in the word of truth;
this is what is here conceived to come under the weight
of the censures cited from St. Paul. What though
the effect of such reasoning present a supposed ratio-
nale, for matters confessedly delivered; the most that
this can justify, is the modestly tendering of it, in con-
trariety to the pretence of absurdity, or of inconsistency
in the sacred oracles. But from the circumstance there
can be no plea resulting, to demand submission to hu-
man theory.

The last matter to be stated, as the expected result
of the ensuing investigation, is, that the anti-Calvinis-
tick opinion, on some points especially interesting to
the feelings of mankind in general, are to be declared
to them without reserve. Particularly, if individual and

* Chap. vi. v. 20. t Chap. ii. v. 8.

142 Comparison of the Controversy* &c.

discriminative predestination should be proved a fabri-
cation of the human imagination, the contrary truth
of salvation, wrought for all men and offered alike to
all, is to be indiscriminately offered; without the latent
sting of a distinction between a revealed and a secret
will; the former holding out the offer of a good, which
the latter keeps back under the strong hold of an irre-
sistible decree. In like manner, if there should appear
no ground for the distinction between ordinary and
efficacious grace, mankind are to be encouraged to im-
prove every gracious motion; under an assurance, that
it cannot betray them into a fruitless labour and the
pursuit of an unattainable good. On the same ground,
the best of Christians may be cautioned — and much
more may they who think themselves such, in conse-
quence of an inward personal assurance supposed to
have been vouchsafed to them — against the danger still
existing, of being at last destroyed by the remaining
infirmities of their nature; whatever measure of joy may
have been the fruit of their compliance with the offers
of the Gospel; and notwithstanding which, there is no
information of a resistless power, which will at last
snatch them from perdition, whatever sinfulness they
may fall into before the close of life.

To him who expresses these sentiments, it is not
unknown, that the most enlightened and liberal preach-
ers of the Calvinistick persuasion, do not think them-
selves obliged to declare the discouraging side of the
system, in their publick ministrations; and that on the
contrary, they consider this as a matter to be avoided.
But it is worth their while to inquire, whether this very
lircumstance be not additional evidence of the increa-

with Holy Scripture generally. 143

sing preponderance of their philosophical authority,
over their scriptural. Certainly, they think in this mat-
ter very differently from Calvin, who says of predesti-
nation— " It is by all means to be preached, that he
who hath ears to hear may hear:*'* And he only con-
demns the pronouncing concerning any, that they are
reprobates, because of their unbelief; by which, he
says, we should make ourselves prophets. Agreeable
to this is the decision of the Council of Dort; who de-
creed, under the point of predestination,! that " it is
still to be published in due time and place in the
church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed;
provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of
piety and discretion, to the glory of God's most holy
name, and the enlivening and comforting his people;
without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways
of the Most High." Who can deny that all this is cor-
rect; if predestination, in the sense of Calvin and of the
Synod, be indeed taught in the many passages of
Scripture, in which they thought they found it? But
if, on the contrary, the basis be in necessity alone,
ministers of the Gospel may reasonably think with
Lord Kaims; who finds a security against the evils
which it threatens, in the conviction, that it will be
never known but to those who are conversant with
philosophy. The same ministers, under the present
view of the subject, may address to their hearers the
admonitions, the exhortations, the reproofs, the promi-
ses, and the threatenings of scripture; free from the
discouragement, with which, on the contrary system,
they must be delivered and received. It is sufficiently
* Book in. cfrap. xxiii. sect. 13. f Article xi.

144 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

painful to a benevolent man to know, that the offers
which he makes of grace will increase the guilt of
those who reject them, without the existence of any
disqualification or disability. But to be persuaded,
that the very end of preaching, in regard to some, is
to make their damnation sure; would seem sufficient
to swallow up whatever consolation ean arise from any
other source of the ministerial calling. And then, in
regard to the hearers, the doctrine seems naturally
fruitful of presumption in some, and of despair in others*
For, although these consequences are contended to be
incorrectly drawn, and to be abuses of gospel truth;
yet the misfortune is, that the consequences are such
as present themselves to ordinary understandings; and
can be guarded against no otherwise, than by refined
reasonings and minute distinctions. But be these
things as they may, if the doctrine should not shine as
a luminous truth of scripture, the promises of God
may be announced and received with all certainty in
their favour; and its threatenings without the discou-
ragement, that there may be a predetermination of their
being fruitless. And in this case, ministers may preach,
and the people may hear, under the impression, that
there arc set before men, in every instance, life and
death; an eternal blessing, and an eternal curse; ma-
king salvation, indeed, if they should attain to it, the
free gift of God; but their perdition, if this should be
the sad reverse, the consequence of their sinful state,
inexcusably and without an over-ruling destiny perse-
vered in.

These remarks, however, are made merely for the
giving of a view of the design, in this department of

with Holy Scripture generally* 145

the work. At present it shall only be added, that if
they be incorrect, commendation should be given to
those consistent Calvinists, who consider an indiscrimi-
nate offer of grace, as prohibited by the doctrine in
question. The late Mr. R. Robinson, in his notes to
" Claude on the Composition of a Sermon,"* takes
notice of the errour, as he thought it, of those who cen-
sured such an offer; being himself what is called a
moderate Calvinist; and remarks, that the like objec-
tion would lie against reasoning on the subject. But
there is a great difference. An officer of government
might address a rebel audience on their guilt, and de-
monstrate to them the duty of submission; although
he might not absolutely know, that all of them were
within the sphere of a contemplated pardon. But to
make the offer of mercy indiscriminately to all, when
he could not know, but that his hearers might be of
the number who are beyond its reach, would be an
exceeding of his commission. And therefore, on the
ground taken, there seems no impropriety in what Mr.
Robinson cites with disapprobation from a Mr. Hussey,
who complained of the practice of murdering a text, by
shooting at it from the stalkinghorse of use and ap-
plication. The said Mr. Hussey, it seems, judged ap-
plication altogether unwarrantable, when it related to
the offer of gospel grace to sinners; because it could
not be known, for whom of them the divine decree
designed it. To the writer of this, the inference seems
fair. But supposing it otherwise; the very abuse ren-
ders the question of the utmost importance, how far
the system of Calvinism rests on the scriptures; and

* Vol. ii. p. 237.
VOL. I. u

146 Comparison of the Controversy, fcte.

how far, on philosophical necessity. If the latter be the
only ground, the system should be abandoned by every
clergyman as a theologian, whatever he may think of it
as a metaphysician.*

* Since the former publication of these sheets, there has been
edited a volume of sermons, of the late Bishop Horsley; in which,
page 74, there is the following remark, sustaining the sentiments
here expressed — " There is yet another errour on this subject"
(Grace) " which, I think, took its rise among professed infidels;
and to them, till of late, it hath been entirely confined. But some
have appeared among its modern advocates, actuated, I am per-
suaded (for their writings on this subject witness it) by the same
humble spirit of resigned devotion, which gave birth to the plan
of arbitrary predestination. Deeply versed in physicks, which the
Calvinists neglected, these men wish to reconcile the notion of
God's arbitrary dominion, which they in common with the Cal-
vinists maintain, with what the others entirely overlooked, the
regular operation of second causes. And in this circumstance
lies the chief, if not the whole difference, between the philosophi-
cal necessity of our subtile moderns, and the predestination of
their more simple ancestors."

1. OF PREDESTINATION.

Of the Term " Decree" — Predestination only incidentally found
in other Books — Predestination and Election mean the same in
all—Phrases, thought similar in Sense — The Situation of St.
Paul— Sundry Passages of Scripture — A constructive Sense-
Useless Questions — Rules — The Subject, being foreign to
Scripture, must be judged of on Principles of Reason — A
Point, on which the Parties are agreed — A Deduction from
what should be considered as the Point of Difference — The
Result, in Relation to the Divine Attributes.

ON the very threshold of this gloomy building, the
attention of the author is drawn to what he considers as
no slight evidence of its having been raised, not by
scripture, but by metaphysicks. It is the necessity
which has occurred of calling in the word, " decree,"
to answer some purpose, to which the word, " predes-
tination" does not extend. For there may be propriety
in apprizing the reader, that the latter word, which is
scriptural, has not been found sufficient to support the
systems devised by human ingenuity, on the present
subject. Hence, the introduction of the other word,
which is confessedly not applied to the subject in the
scriptures. Predestination supposes the persons to be
contemplated, of whom it is affirmed: But, as it is
wished to carry back the investigation so far, as to dis-
close the motive in the mind of God; which proposes
the illustrating of his glory, independently on the ob-
ject on which the dispensation operates; there was oc-
casion, that another word should be had recourse to.
The word " chosen" does not answer to any thing in
scripture, thought applicable to the present subject.
Accordingly, the word " decree" is taken, although it

148 Comparison of the Controversy, %?c.

is not used any where in scripture, in the sense thus im-
posed on it, to make it serve the intended purpose. In
the Old Testament, the word translated "decree,"* sig-
nifies "commandment" or "statute," as in Isaiah viii. 1 .
And in the New Testament, the word so translated is
found in Acts xvi. 4, and xvii. 7.f This introduction of
the word "decree" has an unfavourable aspect on those
views of the subject — and they are many — to which
there could have been no extension of the word " pre-
destination." The distinction here taken must now,
however, be lost sight of; because the ensuing investi-
gation is to be of the sense of scripture only; which
knows nothing of the determination of the divine mind,
considered independently on the persons whom they
respect.

Under the present point, it is a considerable relief in
examining the alleged authorities of Scripture, that there
will be no necessity of devoting any further attention to the
epistle to the Romans. In saying this, the author is not
sensible of any difficulty, of giving a satisfactory explana-
tion of the passages in that epistle, any more than of those
in other books of scripture. But the sentiment is ground-
ed on the circumstance, that it is the only book, in which
the subject is supposed to have been treated of professed
ly; or given in any place in such a shape, as shows it to
have been principally on the mind of the \vriter. It is
here believed, that any considerate person, either Calvin-
ist or Arminian, would not hesitate to acknowledge, in re-
gard to anv text which he thinks favourable to his doc-
trine in t] »e other books, '■ hat it introduced incidentally; if
indeed it be otherwise seen than by implication; and to be
presumed, in order to render the sense consistent and

* PH. t hy/ue.

with Holy Scripture generally. 149

complete. It is not so with the epistle to the Romans.
In this, if the doctrine be found at all, it was what princi-
pally occupied the mind of the writer, during the latter
part of the eighth and the whole of the ninth chapter. If
therefore it should have appeared, that those passages re-
late to quite another subject; respecting nothing else than
national designation to the visible church; there may rea-
sonably be suspected a mistake, in the supposed disco-
very of it in any other place. For the point of view in
which the doctrine is upheld, is, as clothed with preemi-
nent importance; and indeed, entering more or less into
all the Christian doctrines; being that which constitutes
them doctrines of grace: A name not seldom denied to
every system, which does not manifest in all its parts, the
pervading influence of the doctrine here in question. It
is not in the indirect way here noticed, that there is given
to us in scripture any thing which can be supposed to
constitute its high and leading sense. For instance, the
divinity of our blessed Saviour, and his propitiatory sacri-
fice for sin. However convinced the writer of this, of
their being truths of scripture; yet, if they were found
there in a form like that of the doctrine of predestination,
as it respects opposite states in another life; supposing this
to be found in the texts alleged for it; he would certainly
consider the preceding doctrines as unimportant to the
essence of divine truth; and opposite opinion as a matter,
by which Christian communion were not at all to be affec-
ted. In what extent the remark applies to the passages
which are to come under review, may be worthy of some
consideration, as they shall present themselves.

But it is here conceived, that another advantage may
he fairly claimed, in consequence of what has been alrea-

150 Comparison of the Controversy ', b^r.

dy written on the epistle to the Romans. If the princi-
ples there advocated should bethought correct, especially
in regard to the term predestination, this and its kindred
word election may reasonably be supposed to have the
same meaning, in the other epistles of the same Apostle.
Thus, when he tells the Ephesians,speaking of the Father's
" having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ, to himself;"* and when he says to
the Thessalonians:f "Knowing, brethren beloved, your
election of God;" and to the same people in his other
epistle to them — " God hath from the beginning chosen
you to salvation;"} he can mean no more, than to support
a truth which he has often occasion to refer to, in opposi-
tion to the favourers of legality, that the Gentiles were
called, in an emancipation from the institutions of the law.
And nothing could so effectually sustain this sentiment,
as the resting of it on the divine purpose, entertained be-
fore the giving of the law, and even before the foundation
of the world.

The passage from the 2d epistle to the Thessalonians,
is thought to give weight to the Calvinistick interpreta-
tion, by the words, " from the beginning." It seems
however agreed on all hands, that the same words being
applied in scripture to different subjects, they ought
to be interpreted in each instance, according to the
subject. That in some instances they are intended of
the commencement of the evangelical dispensation, is
allowed; and of this there is an instance in St. Luke i. 2.
Hence, some have endeavoured to bring the passage in
question under the same interpretation. But to this there
seems a fair objection in its appearing, that the Thessak>
* Chapter i. v. 5. t Ch..i. v. 1—4 \ Ch, ii. v. 13-

with Holy Scripture generally, 151

nians were not among the earliest believers. Still, if we
abide by the rule laid down, the divine dispensations rela-
tive to the Gospel ought to bound the interpretation.

It seems indeed impossible to prove from scripture,
that the expression, " from the beginning,'' ever denotes
eternity in the strict and proper sense. In the 1st chap-
ter of Genesis, the words, " in the beginning," look no
further back than to the creation; and that confined proba*
bly to the system of which our globe is part. The first
words in the gospel of St. John — " In the beginning was
the word" — are often quoted to prove the eternity of
the divine nature of the Messiah. There seems how-
ever something more to the purpose, in what follows
in the same verse and in similar places of scripture;
ascribing to the Son divine attributes, derived to him
from the Father. The mere expression, " in the begin-
ning," is here conceived to be too indeterminate to
found the doctrine on .

If we depart from the construction which has been
given of "chosen" and "predestinate," it may be
worth while to be aware of the objections, lying against
the manner of writing which we must in that case at-
tribute to St. Paul. However highly we may think of
his extraordinary gifts, have we reason to suppose, that
it extended to the knowledge of the hearts of men?
This would be very unreasonable; and yet we must
conceive of him, as discerning the inward state and
condition of every member of every Church which
he addressed in such language as that recited; to jus*
tify his affirming of them without exception, that
they were "chosen" or "predestinated" to everlast-
ing life. It would have ill accorded with what is said

152 Comparison of the Controversy, Esfc.

in the epistle from which the first recited text was
taken, when the writer admonishes those whom he was
addressing: " Take to yourselves the whole armour of
God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the
devil;" going on in an expressive allegorical description
of the dangers of the spiritual warfare. And then, why
there should be such dangers from the formidable foe al-
luded to, it seems impossible to account for on the principle
here supposed. Did St. Paul so explicitly announce to the
Ephesian church, the election to eternal life of all and every
one of them? And was the prince of darkness less able than
they and we, to comprehend it? Or knowing it, was he
so unwise, as to waste his efforts for their destruction? He
had sagacity enough to let Job alone, in his person and
in his substance, because God had hedged him about and
all that he had, within the protection of his providence:
And could the archdeceiver have been less aware of the
irresistible effects of the eternal decree of saving grace?
These seem difficulties in the way; but there is another —
that of the language of severe reproof of the Apostle to
some members of the churches, which yet he honours
with the appellation of " elect." This is consistent, if the
term were intended of the body, and that in reference to
the subject of church communion. But if it were applied
to them individually, and with a view to their destination
in another world; it is not to be supposed, that there should
be charged, on some of these elect, faults which are in-
compatible with the Christian state. For this is done by
the Apostle,relatively to some members of theThessaloni-
an church; when he describes them* thus: " We hear
that there are some which walk among you disorderly,

working not at all, but are busybodies." Are these they?

*2, iii. II.

•with Holy Scripture generally. 153

whom he had assured in the preceding chapter* — that
they had, " from the beginning, been chosen unto salva-
tion?" Yet this is what the Calvinistick sense requires.
But no, the'Thessalonians, collectively considered, were
chosen to be a church of God, living in visible profession
of his name-, and this no doubt with a view to the salva-
tion, of which such a profession was the mean: while, as
to every individual and his attaining to the same salvation,
it was another subject and rested on other grounds.

But even if the construction of the words here given
were to be abandoned; and they were to be interpreted
of every individual and his condition in another life; it
would not appear, with what propriety the subject is
connected with the operation of the eternal mind of
God. The remotest dates referred to by the New Tes-
tament, as connected with any predestination, or election
of which it speaks, is what may be thought contained
in the expression used in several places — "Before the
foundation of the world." If this be considered the
same as from eternity, it is because we know of the
adorable Being concerning whom it is spoken, that he
is without beginning. It is then by mere inference,
that a foundation is laid, on which to erect a structure
of dogmas, attached to so incomprehensible a subject,
as that of an antecedent eternity. As to the Greek ex-
pressionf translated in 2.Timothy, i. 9. and in Titus i. 2,
"before the world began," it will not be rash to say,
that it does not necessarily mean more, than before the
different dispensations of the divine economy in the
present world; and that this must be the meaning, espe-
cially in the place last referred to; which speaksof a pro-

* ii. 13. t *1P» Xfovm muntm*
^01. I. X

154 Comparison of the Controversy, Este.

mise made before the ages in contemplation. The
words are— "In hope of eternal life, which God, who
cannot lie, promised, before the world began."
The passage cannot be supposed to look further back,
than to the promise made in paradise of the seed of the
woman to bruise the serpent's head. The like may-
be said of another expression, that of Ephesians, iii. 11*
translated: "According to the eternal purpose," but of
which the literal meaning is — "According to the afore-
disposing of the ages." Of these,the last was the evange-
lical; which shows, that the others could reach no fur-
ther back, than those preparatory to it. In systematick
discussions of the doctrine of predestination, it is com-
mon to find this text brought forward as the prominent
authority, for the affirming of the decrees of God, that
they are eternal. Professor Witsius acknowledges! that
the expressions: "From the foundation of the world, "and
"before the foundation of the world," do not necessarily
signify eternity. And he further acknowledges the
same concerning the expression: "Before the world
began."! And yet the same author quotes Ephesians
iii. 11, as directly declaring the eternity of God's de-
cree; whereas it would seem the furthest from it of all
the passages he has quoted, if the original be taken into
view. But it is remarkable, in a person of so much can-
dour, that although he refers to the originals of his
other quotations, he has not done so in the present
instance. As to those others, they are not even alleged
by this author to be declarative of eternity, any fur.
ther than as this may be drawn from them by way of in-

ference.

* K«t« rro9$ecrt9 *£v xtavm f Book . <ii. chap, iv. sec. IS.

$ Sec. 50,

with Holy Scripture generally* 155

It will still be said, that every consideration extend-
ing tc "before the ages" and "before the foundation
of the world," will also carry them back without end.
Far be the author of the present work, from denying
this: Still, it is only an inference from what we are sa-
tisfied of, concerning the unbeginning existence of
the divine mind. What difference then, it may be said,
do the two opinions make, in regard to the sense of
the words in question? The difference is very mate-
rial: the opinion here contradicted, making the subject
of the Apostle quite wide of that occupying his mind;
which was a series of dispensations, ending as well as
beginning in time. Why then may not the opinion
stand, as the reasonable decision of the human under-
standing, instead of being quoted as the language of
holy writ? It is here conceived, that there can be but.
one reason; and this is the difficulty of subjecting our
imaginations to restraints, which tie them down from
the fabricating of metaphysical systems.

It is thought that there can be no occasion, to enter
on a discussion of the weight of the criticisms made on
the word translated "eternal."* As applied to the
present subject, it cannot mean a strict and proper
eternity: It cannot in the passage quoted from the epis-
tle to Titus; because the ages there spoken of, are con-
nected with a promise confessedly made in time: And
it cannot, even in that quoted from the epistle to Timo-
thy; because all time must have had a beginning, as
well as an end. The Greek words in question may be
not improperly translated — " The times of the ages;"
although it is employing an adjective substantatively,
there being no adjective answering to it in English.

* etlmviec.

156 Comparison of the Controversy , fcfc.

But there is a passage, considered as so peculiarly in
favour of the Calvinistick scheme, by its stating of divine
election to be precedent to a regard to the holiness of the
parties chosen, as to require notice.* It is — " Accord-
ing as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy" &c. But for the
construction thus given, the cause is indebted to the se-
vering of the 4th verse from the 3rd, which makes a
part of the same sentence. It is — "Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath bless-
eel us with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places in
Christ." The sense of the place is, there being confer-
red on the Ephesians spiritual blessings, to the end
that they should be holy. The predestinating of them
to be a church gathered from among the heathens, is a
circumstance noticed of the case. So far as concerns
the order of the ac^s of the divine mind, there is much
more pertinent in a passage in the 1st epistle of St. Peter,
i. 2. "Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the
Father." Here, the election is evidently predicated to
be founded on the foreknowledge, &c.

But let it be remembered, that these strictures on
eternity, as connected with the decrees of God, are not
necessary to the purpose here entertained; which sup-
poses, that, whether there be intended a strict and pro-
per eternity, or only an indefinite term of time, in the
passages in question; they have no immediate relation
ti a future life, or to the conditions of individuals in
it; the subject to which they relate being the church
on earth.

It was natun>';, that of all the inspired writers, St.
Paul should the most abound in references to antece-

* Lph. i. 4.

•with Holy Scripture generally. 157

dent determinations of the sovereign will of God, con-
cerning his kingdom on earth recently founded by his
omnipotence. The mission of this Apostle was especi-
ally to the Gentiles. All his epistles to churches, are
principally to those of the Gentile sort, except the
epistle to the Hebrews, which, conformably with the view
here taken of the subject, has nothing concerning predes»
tination, or election, or purpose. Further, he found him-
self continually thwarted in his ministry, by a mixture of
Judaism and Christianity; which had its foundation in the
errour, that there was but one chosen people; in the mass
of whom, of course, all the receivers of the new doctrine
should be merged. That St. Paul is continually taking
occasion to contradict this errour; and that he has largely
refuted it in his epistle to the Romans and in that to the
Galatians, will not be denied by any. It is equally evi-
dent, that, ill so doing, he has shown at some length, how
far his sense of a Gentile church was from being a novel-
ty, and that, on the contrary, it might be clearly seen in
promises made before the giving of the law. Under these
circumstances, it is not to be wondered at, that the Apos-
tle, even in his salutations of particular churches, address
ses them as the objects of divine choice and predestination;
that is, in their collective capacity. For that he should
have intended it of them in their individual characters,
assuring them that they were all marked out for eternal
glory by an unchangeable destination; and this in epistles,
in which admonition and reproof were to bear a part; and
which were designed to incite the full force of endeavour
under surrounding difficulties and discouragements, de-
scribed with all their formidable dangers; is an inconsist-
ency not to be supposed under the gift of inspiration; or

158 Comparison of the Controversy, krc.

even under the influence of a tolerable measure of Chris-
tian prudence. What would be thought, at this day, of
any minister of the Gospel; who, having cleared his con-
gregation of every member chargeable with just cause of
ecclesiastical censure, should address the remainder as the
predestinated of God, in the modern sense which the term
customarily bears; declaring to one and all of them, that
their heavenly inheritance was made sure beyond the pos-
sibility of change? Yet why may he not do this, on the
Calvinistick interpretation of the passages which have
been referred to? It is not conceived to be a part of Apos-
tolick prerogative, to know the hearts of men. Of those
addressed in any Epistle of St. Paul, some may have been
hypocrites, for any thing known to the contrary by him.
And even of those who thought themselves sincere, some,
according to the theory here opposed, may have been un-
der that kind of grace, distinguished from the saving grace
affirmed to be invariably followed by perseverance. Ac-
cordingly, it is not reasonable to give to the expressions
of this Apostle such a construction, as wings them with
delusion to some; and with the danger of relaxation of
endeavour, in regard to all. It may be here proper to
apply to the texts which have been examined, the remark
already made — that even taking them in the Calvinistick
sense, it can be drawn from them no otherwise, than as
taught incidentally; or else by way of inference. For it
will not be contended, that when different churches arc
addressed as the elect or chosen of God, their election is
the prominent sentiment in the writer's mind. His prin-
cipal purpose, in each place, is to deliver a different mat-
ter of instruction; and the other is at most a circumstance
attached to it. But it may be said — the election spoken

with Holy Scripture generally, 159

of is presumed; and built on as an acknowledged doctrine
of the Gospel. There may be reason in this, if the re-
mark made were applicable to some places only; and if
the doctrine in question were taught often and explicitly
elsewhere: Which is the matter principally intended to
be here denied.

The hope then is entertained of its having been made
to appear, that, exclusively of the epistle to the Romans,
there are no circumstances attached to the other epistles
of St. Paul, which rescue them from what is contended
for, as the proper sense of scriptural predestination; but
on the contrary, that there are considerations which make
all the epistles harmonize. We may therefore go on to
the other parts of Scripture.

Here it will be natural to take, in the first place, the
passages the most nearly allied to those which have been
commented on; and resting on the same general principle.
Such are our Saviour's speaking of the elect or chosen.*
Nearly of the same character, are the places in the
10th, the 15th, and the 17th chapters of St. John's
Gospel; in which our Lord speaks frequently of his chos-
en; sometimes expressly, and sometimes also figuratively,
as the sheep of him, the shepherd, and as branches depen-
dent for nourishment on him, the vine. St, Peter also
speaks of the elect in his 1 Epistle i. 2; and of election in
his 2 Epistle i. 10. And St. John addresses an eminent
Christian woman, as " the elect lady."

In explanation of these places,let it be remarked, in the
first place, that nothing could have been more natural;
than for our blessed Saviour and his Apostles to designate
his followers, at ffrst few in number, but contemplated as a

* Matt. xxiv. 33 and 31; Mark x'rii, 20: and Luke xviii, 7,

160 Comparison of the Controversy ', &c.

great multitude in future, as the chosen of God. For
what was Christian communion, but a perpetuating oT the
church of God, begun many ages before; to be in future
under another form? Now, we find Moses addressing the
children of Israel, in Deuteronomy, vii. 6, thus: " Thou
art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy
God hath chosen thee to be a • pecial people unto himself:'*
and again the same words in chap. xiv. 2. Did the legislator
of Israel intend to ascribe sanctity of mind to every indi-
vidual of the body, whom he was addressing? It is too ab-
surd a sentiment to be entertained by any. Did he even
intend the words to be descriptive of the major part?
Neither can this be; for he tells them in the very address
that has been referred to — " From the day that thou didst
depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this
place, ye have been rebellious against the Lord."* What
then was the ground of the epithet in question? It could
have been grounded on nothing else, than God's choice
of the Israelites, to be a people in covenant with him; to be
favoured with a revelation of his will; and to maintain on
earth the profession of the belief of one true God, the
Creator of heaven and earth, until the appointed time of
gathering a church from among all nations. The same
title of" the elect" or " the chosen," is applied indiscri-
minately to the people of Israel, in Isaiah, in Jeremiah,
and in the Psalms. It was therefore a maintaining of the
style of holy writ, to speak of those who had been brought
within the pale of the Christian church, under the name
of" the chosen" or of a word the same in the original—
<{ the elect." As to the sense of the word in its appliea-

• Deuteronomy ix. 7.

with Holy Scripture generally. 161

tion to the immediate followers of Christ; it ought to have
been rescued from the Calvinistick interpretation, by the
circumstance, that Judas is called one of the chosen in
John vi. 70; and must have been recognised as such
where it is said* — ■ * Those that thou gavest me I have
kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;
that the scripture might be fulfilled." There seems very
little appearance of reason, in the Calvinistick interpreta-
tion of the latter text. The word " but"t is supposed
to be used to express, not exception, but opposition,
which makes the sentiment of the text — •" none," mea-
ning of those given, " lost, but the son of perdition is
lost." If our Saviour extended his view beyond the
sphere to which his discourse had been before confined,
were there none lost but Judas? Yet it follows that there
were none but he, if we suppose any spoken of besides
" the chosen" or*' the given;" of which, accordingly, Ju-
das was one. Dr. Doddridge remarks, that the Greek
word % is not always strictly an exceptive particle; and has
quoted some passages in support of his remark. Still, as it
is generally andproperly exceptive, it would seem reason-
able to understand it as so used, at least whenever this the
best agrees with the tendency of the discourse: Which
is the case in the present instance; there being otherwise
a disagreeable redundancy.

But Calvin thinks, \ that the text may be explained by
John xiii. 18; where it is said — " I speak not of you all;
I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may
be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me hath lifted
up his heel against me." The aid supposed to be derived

* John xvii. 12. f h w- \ e) (**. § book iii. chapter xxiv.
section 8.

VOL. I Y

162 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

from this, is in its being construed to distinguish Judas
from the chosen. Now setting aside that this would be
contrary to that other place, in which he is pronounced to be
of the number; to sever him from them even in the passage
brought for the purpose, it must receive an interpretation
resting on the supposition of there being something un-
derstood; which, however, is not required to make out
the sense. This, with the something to be understood,
seems neither more nor less than as if it had been said —
" In regard to the blessedness just now spoken of, con-
sisting of the doing of what I have enjoined, I do not con-
sider it as a subject in which all of you have an interest.
You are, indeed, every one of you, of the chosen company
of my disciples: Yet there is one of you, who will aban-
don the privilege conferred on him, by becoming my be-
trayer."

For the full understanding of the passage, recourse
should be had to two other passages; one evidently refer-
red to in the Psalms, which must be that in Psalm cix. 8,
*' Let his days be few, and let another take his office; " and
a passage in the succeeding chapter,* where we read, after
our Lord's benevolent intercession for his disciples — " if
ye seek me, let these go their way," that this was done,
for the fulfilling of the other saying — " Of them which
thou gavest me have I lost none.',t The amount of these
places, taken together, seems to be, that the immediate
disciples of our Lord were given to him, for the laying of
the foundation of his church; that for the accomplishing
of this, they must both have remained faithful to his per-
son, and have escaped the malice by which the master
himself should fall; that when he spoke in chapter xvii.
* John xviii. 8. f John xviii. 9,

with Holy Scripture generally, 1§3

his purpose in thev behalf, except as to one of them, had
prevailed; and that what he said in chapter xviii. was in
pursuance of the same design; which is so expressly de-
clared, in the last mentioned place, to have been directed
to the safety of their persons, that it seems impossible to
bend it to any other subject. Thus, from the comparing
of the quotation as it stands in the New Testament, with
its station in the Old, there arises a confirmation of the
sense which is here thought to be obvious on the very
face of the passage — that our Lord acknowledged Judas
to be one of the chosen, but declared, that although cho-
sen, he would be a traitor.

The contrary interpretation to that here sustained, has
been thought countenanced by what is said in Matthew
xxiv. 24 of false Christs, and false prophets, who shall
deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. But who
knows not, that the words, " if it were possible," are often
used to express a matter of considerable difficulty; as we
may suppose to have been that of seducingjbeljevers, who
had become such under a visible display of supernatu-
ral power. St. Paul hastened, " if it were possible," — -
" to be at Jerusalem the feast of Penticost:"* And the
same Apostle commands — " if it be possible, as much
as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."f If the
former had been strictly an impossibility, it would not
have been attempted: And if the latter had been such,
it would not have been advised. The clause evidently
intimates no more, than that the accomplishment of the
purpose was problematical. Such lax phraseology is
frequent in every language; and may be mentioned as an
additional proof of the impropriety of founding doctrine
* Acts xx. 16. f Rom. xii. 19.

164 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

on particular expressions; in which the object of the spea-
ker is something distinct from the doctrine, whether true

or false.

There is also n class of texts brought up, consisting of
declarations of the immutability of the counsels of God;
and of his foreknowledge of all the events, which were
to be brought about in the order of his providence: such
as that in Isaiah xlvi. 10 — " My counsel shall stand, and
I will do all my pleasure:" that in Daniel, iv. 35 — " He
doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and a-
mong the inhabitants of the earth;" and that in Prov. xix.
21 — " The counsel of the Lord, that shall stand." In
theNew Testament also it is said-" He worketh all things
after the counsel of his own will;"* and " Known unto
God are all his works, from the beginning of the world, "f
Many other passages might be mentioned, to the same ef-
fect; but they avail nothing, in contrariety to those who
acknowledge the sovereignty and the foreknowledge of
God, in their extent. What they demand, is scriptural
authority to show, that his foreknowledge is exercised or
his sovereignty illustrated, in the predetermination contem-
plated by the subject. Is it not evident in the producing
of such passages, that the doctrine is first presumed; and
then proof given, of the unchangeableness of the event to
which it refers?

There is another class of texts, which speak of wicked
men, and of God's making of their wickedness the medium
of their destruction: The Calvinistick interpretation of
which is predicated on the supposition, that God makes
them wicked, with a view to that unhappy end; although

*Eph. i. 1 1. t Acts xv. 18.

with Holy Scripture generally. 165

no intimation to such an effect is given in the texts them-
selves. Thus where it is said in Joshua xi. 20, concerning
the Canaanitish nations — " It was of the Lord to harden
their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle,
that he might destroy them utterly;" it amounts to no
more, than that those nations being very wicked, and, on
that account, their excision being determined on by the
Lord of life and death; his providence so disposed the se-
ries of events, as to incite them to hazard battle with a
power, before which they had not strength to stand. — •
Their wickedness had been frequently spoken of in the
foregoing history; and made the ground of a destruction,
of which the Israelites were declared to be the execution-
ers. They were found wicked, when their hearts were
hardened to a desperate warfare: so that their case is quite
foreign to the point, to which it has been applied — their
being brought into existence, under an inevitable necessi-
ty of being wicked. Analogous to this, is the case of
Pharaoh; the hardening of whose heart is ascribed to God
in Exodus vii. 3 — xiv. 4 and 27. It is not meant that
God made him wicked: But being so, the miracles which
would have softened and subdued a heart less desperate,
had the effect of hardening his still more; and of urging
him on to ruin.

Under the same denomination there comes a text, than
which there has perhaps been none oftener cited, in sup-
port of the system here opposed. It is Prov. xvj. 4;
" The Lord hath made allthings for himself; yea, even the
wicked lot the day of evil." The word translated" made"
is not expressive of creating* or making; f but signifies to
go through a work, or bring it to eflect.J As applied in this

**n> tnpy. $by&

166 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

place, it means, that God so disposes matters, as to cause
the wickedness of men to bring them to the day of evil: if
indeed evil to them be the matter intended in this place ;and
not rather their being the instruments of accomplishing the
divine purposes, in evil to be brought on others; as in the
case of the king of Assyria,* who was, in the hands of
God, the rod of his anger and the staff of his indignation
against the surrounding nations. The words will bear
either interpretation; and therefore, if there were nothing
else to hinder, ought not to be applied to any sense repug-
nant to correct ideas of the Godhead. The latter inter-
pretation is much countenanced by the Hebrew wordf
which i* expressive of one thing answering to another.

What great stress Calvin laid on this text, may be
seen book iii. chapter xxiii. section 6. He notices an
objection made by some to his scheme of predestina-
tion, that it takes from the sinner the blame which
would attach. In answer to this, Calvin speaks to the
following effect. He says he will not answer with
ecclesiastical writers, that prescience does not prevent
guilt: It is sufficient for him, that he can oppose to
such objections the decision of scripture, in Proverbs
xvi. 4.

Belonging to the same class, there is a text in Isaiah
vi. 10; which ought to be the more noticed, as it is
quoted and applied by our Saviour himself; whose
meaning may, of course, derive light from the use of
the passage by the prophet. " Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and
be healed." Here are three things, worthy to be inquired
* Isaiah x. 5. t VWD^ parkhurst.

with Holy Scripture generally, 167

into — the end of the denunciation — the cause of it —
and the mean by which it was to be accomplished.
The end is laid down in the words following those
already quoted. For, on the prophet's asking: " How
long"— meaning the continuance of the judgment
threatened — the answer is—" Until the cities be wast-
ed without inhabitant, and the houses without man,
and the land be utterly desolate: and the Lord have
removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking
in the midst of the land." Nothing else than the im-
pending captivity in Babylon, can be the matter intend-
ed in these words; which are also followed by the
promise of a remnant who should return. So much for
the end of the denunciation: and for the cause of it, we
must look to the preceding parts of the prophecy,
which is principally filled with lamentations of abound-
ing wickedness; and this was, of course, what produced
the denunciation. The nation being excessively cor-
rupt, and this corruption being about to be punished
by a seventy years banishment from their country; the
preaching of the prophet was, in itself indeed, a dis-
pensation full of grace; but is here contemplated as a
mean, which would be abused to a greater degree of
obduracy; and thus add to the punishment to be inflict-
ed. This is no more than what we have continually be-
fore our eyes, of men's being hardened in their iniquity,
by that which should be the occasion of their recovery
from it.

It may be now proper to follow the passage to
where it is quoted by our Saviour, as recorded in
Matthew xiii. 14 — in Mark iv. 12, and in John xii. 40
—in Luke viii. 10, and by St. Paul in Acts xxviii. 26,

168 Comparison of the Controversy, $s?c.

A repetition of the words would be useless, because
Isaiah is quoted by name; and there is no other passage
in his book, which could have been intended. Is it not
then evident, that our Lord's ministry found the Jewish
nation in just such a crisis, as that formerly contem-
plated by Isaiah? Was there not impending a captivity,
as before by the king of Babylon, so now by the Ro-
mans? And was there ever a passage more pertinently
transferred from an event past, to another future? But
after all, the passage, as applied by our Saviour, refers
to a particular species of his discourses; not as harden-
ing the heart, but as wrapping up his meaning in para-
bles, to prevent their being the mean of the hardening
of it the more. Not far before, there stands recorded
his admirable sermon on the mount; delivered to the
people generally, who were "astonished at his doc-
trine." That sermon, relative to the ordinary discipline
of the mind and government of the life, is expressed in
language void of figure and concealment of every kind.
But when he delivered what was peculiarly intended of
his kingdom, that is of his church, it was designed pe-
culiarly for his Apostles; to whom it was " given to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of God." It is not
said, that those mysteries were withheld from the peo-
ple ,lest they should convert and be healed:" to give
this construction, would be to connect two subjects,
without regard to what occurs intermediately. No, it
is " because they seeing, see not; and hearing, they
hear not, neither do they understand:"* that is, they
would not, speaking of them nationally, admit the in-
telligence which might be communicated to them, of

* Matthew xiii, 13.

with Holy Scripture generally. 169

the ensuing spritual kingdom. Then follows the quo-
tation from the prophecy of Isaiah, which is merely
said to be fulfilled: that is, as in Isaiah's time, so now,
the nation was waxing ripe for destruction; and could
not be reclaimed, but might be made worse, by an in-
discriminate disclosure of truths, concerning the future
establishment and prodigious increase of the church.
There have been noticed the several passages of the
New Testament, in which the passage from Isaiah is
quoted. In no one of these places, except in St. John,
is the act of hardening apparently affirmed of the divine
Being. And even in St. John, the words will be devest-
ed of a signification so harsh, if we construe the original
word, on the supposition of its being used impersonally;
which is frequent in the Greek language. Under such
a translation, the passage would be relieved from a sen-
timent not found either in that of which it is confessedly
a quotation, or in the quotations by the three other Evan-
gelists.

Similar to the class of texts the last mentioned, is
another class of them, which speak of God's imparting
or withholding the benefits of the Gospel; according to
theperparation or the disqualification of mind, of the per-
sons in contemplation. But there may be propriety in
premising in this place, concerning what is to be said
of a preparation of the mind, that it would be unfairly
interpreted, as if presumed to be the result of human
ability. On the contrary, it is here believed, that divine
grace goes before, in such a previous discipline, and
assists in it. But, that the receiving of the truth de-
pends in some degree on the predisposing habits of the
mind, is evident in various passages of scripture. Why

VOL. I.

170 Comparison of the Controversy, 8V.

else is the seed of the word, agreeably to what is affirmed
in Luke xiii. 15, the more likely to be productive, from
the circumstance of its having been sown, " in an honest
and good heart?" And why is the doing of good or of evil
spoken of in St. John iii. 20, 21, as being preparatory to
the coming to the light, or the contrary? Also in Mark x.
21, we read of a young man of whom it is said — " Jesu«
beholding him, loved him." And in Acts xvii. 11, the
Jews of Berea are commended above those of Thessalo-
nica, in that the former " received the word with all readi-
ness of mind." These passages are cited merely to
prove, that when our blessed Saviour opened his com-
mission of the Gospel to the Jews, their reception or re-
jection of the gracious present, depended partly on the
states of mind which had been cherished by thein under
a lower measure of the communication of divine truth.*

* Professor Witsius, speaking of the passage here cited, of the
young man in the Gospel, says — " It has been found, that they who
in appearance, were in the best manner dispossed for regeneration,
were yet at the greatest distance from it, as the instance of that
young man very plainly shows." In what direct contrariety are the
statement of the Evangelist, and the comment of the professor!
The former siys— u Jesus loved him:" which implies some gra-
cious tendency to good. But the latter thinks, that however appa-
rently disposed, he was at the greatest distance from it. Doubtless,
the professor would have said the same of a kindred case, related
soon after (xii. 34) in the same Gospel, in which Jesus said to a
certain Scribe — " Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." It
is true, as the professor remarks of the young man— he parted
with our Lord sorrowful. That he parted finally, is more than we
can affirm: And if he did, it only proves, that his riches and the
prospect of persecution had greater effect on one hand, than his
favourable disposition on the other. In regard to the kingdom of

■with Holy Scripture generally, 171

But to proceed with the class of texts in contempla-
tion: St. Matthew says — " At that time Jesus answer-
ed and said: I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven
and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."*
That the words, u wise and prudent," are here used
in a sense implying censure, and the word " babes"
in a sense of approbation, is not denied by any. Under
the one therefore, there must be conveyed the sense of a
mental preparation for the receiving of the truths of the
Gospel; and under the other, disability and hindrance
in a similar point of view. What has this to do, with
the subjection of some to an unavoidable necessity of
sinning, and of others to an irresistible call of grace? It

heaven, as in regard to any place or state on earth, a man may be
near and yet never enter; while this does not prove, that propin-
quity is not in itself a favourable circumstance. But the professor
cites what is said in Matthew xxi. 31, 32, that " the publicans and
harlots go into the kingdom of God," before certain others. But
who were these others? They were " the chief priests and elders
of the people;" whose characters are drawn in very dark colours;
and who had sinned against clearer light, than they with whom
they are so ignominiously compared. Doubtless, the former were
not the persons, of whom it is said — " He that doth truth cometh
to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are
wrought in God."

It is worthy of remark, that Witsius, when professedly attacking
the sentiment here sustained, rests his cause on the passage the
last commented on; and on Isaiah lx v. 1; which will be commented
on in the next note.

* xi. 25.

172 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

would seem, that no two subjects can be less connected.
And yet it has been common with Calvinistick writers,
in every particular in which their system exacts of
them the acknowledgment of what seems in opposition
to the clearest dictates of our rational nature, to bow in
submission, and to say — " Even so, Father, for so it
seemed good in thy sight." Many indeed are the in-
stances, in which the ways of God are unsearchable;
because we cannot look forward to their ends. And
great reason have we, on such occasions, to acqui-
esce and to adore; under the conviction, concerning
what is good in the sight of God, that it would be good
in ours also, could we see it in the whole extent of its
relations. But when the very end of a dispensation is
so stated, as to contradict our best founded apprehen-
sions of the moral attributes of God; the doctrine can-
not come within the meaning of the holy ejaculation
quoted.

Under the present denomination, we may bring that
in Acts xiii. 48; in which it is said — " As many as were
ordained to eternal life believed." It would have been
more to the purpose for which this text has been so
©ften quoted, if the original word, instead of being
from the word answering to it in the Greek Testa-
ment;* had been from one or the other of two words, t
both of which are translated " ordained" in other places.
But that the first mentioned word has a greater latitude
of signification, appears from the use made of it in l.Cor.
xvi. 15, where we read — " They have addicted them-
selves to the ministry of the saints."! In like manner,
when it is said Acts xx. 13 — " for so had he appoint-

* -rciTiru. f nd>}fA.t, or ■n-poofH^a. \ etu£m eccvTH?.

with Holy Scripture generally. 173

ed"* more strictly — "so was he disposed" — if, as in
the passage under consideration, we were to translate
it, " so was he ordained;" it would represent the Apos-
tle as guided by the will of others; in measures in which
the passage evidently intended to represent him as go-
verned bv the dictates of his own mind. If the same
sense be applied to the place in question, the sentiment
will imply a preparation of heart, disposing certain per-
sons to believe: Which we ought the rather to suppose
to be the matter intended, as the expression describes
a contrariety of character to that found in the verse but
one before, in which the Apostle had said to those Jews
who rejected the Gospel — " It was necessary that the
word of God should first have been spoken to you;
but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves
unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gen-
tiles." Here were a class of people indisposed to eter-
nal life, who thrust it from them: On the contrary, " as
many as were disposed to eternal life, believed."

A similar passage is brought from 1. Peter ii. 8 —
" Whereunto also" [that is destruction] " they were ap-
pointed." And there would have been no impropriety
in translating it " ordained:" For a word is usedf ac-
knowledged above to bear that meaning. But the ques-
tion is — Who were the persons spoken of, and to what
are they ordained? The context describes them as u dis-
obedient," and being disobedient, it was ordained, that
the preaching of a crucified Saviour should be " a stone
of stumbling and a rock of offence" to them. The cha-
racter of the party is laid down, before the mention of
the appointed destruction, which was the effect of it. %

* yot^ jjv oiXTtrcty pivot. f tTt&qrxv.

\ Although this text has been stated as not applying to the

174 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

Similar to the last mentioned passage, is another in

matter at issue; yet it is conceived, that the words admit of a mate-
rial emendation, from the Syriack version which is K« TrpaTK07rm(n
ru Xoyea ec-a-aSavfef, as o koii sTifao-xv." Of this, the present writer
presumes to propose the following translation— "At which
[stone] they stumble, who are disobedient to the word; to which
[word] they also were set [or placed or appointed.]" If an ob-
jection should be founded on the neuter gender of the pronoun,*
the answer is, that such precision is not always observed; and par-
ticularly that there is a similar change of gender, in 1 . Thess. iii. 3.

Whether the translation above given be or be not altogether
correct; the proposer of it entertains entire confidence in it, so far
as relates to the connecting of "appointment" with the "word,"
and not with "disobedience;" and in this he is sustained by the fol-
lowing authorities.

Erasmus paraphrases the place thus — "And they scumble, who-
soever be offended at the worde of the Gospel, and believe it not;
seeing Moses' lawe made them readie before-hande, to the ende
that they should believe the Gospel, as soon as the thing was truly
performed in dede, that the lawe signified in shadowe." Archbi-
shop Cranmer's bible, published in 1541, translates — "Whereat
they be offended, which stumble at the worde, and believe not that,
whereon they were set." Dr. Luther, according to a rendering
from the German, delivered to the writer of this by a respectable
Lutheran clergyman, translates — "Who stumble at the word, and
believe not thereon, on which they were placed." Archbishop
Newcome, translates— "Even to those who stumble at the word)
disbelieving that to which they were appointed." And Mr.
Charles Thomson, in the version with which he has lately favour-
ed the publick, translates— "They, disbelieving the word, stumble
at the thing for which they were laid."

In Griesbach's text of the New Testament, the sentiment here
given is sustained, by his connecting of "t» Aoy«" not with
"zrpoTKtzTTVTt" but with lict7rei6ttiTef.,>

In the sentiment here considered as offensive, the reading kept
in view is the vulgatej of which, however, it is a hard construc-
tion. The vulgate is-^-«Iis qui offendunt verbo, nee credunt in

* «

•with Holy Scripture generally* 175

the epistle of St. Jude v. 4 — " Who were before of old

quod et positi sunt." The being appointed to the word seems a
more natural sense, than the being appointed to ufibelief.

Perhaps one of the greatest liberties to be found in biblical
translation, is that taken with this text, by the learned professor
Theodore Beza. In his note on the place, he professes to adopt
the Syriack, as the better (^sinceriorem] version; and accordingly
in his translation, he properly uses the expression — " non parendo
sermoni." This would have thrown forward "the word/' to a con-
nexion with appointment. But to prevent such a connexion, he
thrusts in the word "immoregeri." There can be no room either
for "non parendo," or for "immoregeri," except as the rendering
of "amiSxvTtf." How then can there be room for both of those Latin
terms? Here is redundancy, and for what purpose, is evident. But
his is not all. He changes the perfect tense of the vulgate, "positi
sunt," into the pluperfect — "constituti fuerunt." This is not war-
ranted in the Greek; but the use is obvious. The perfect tense
might still have admitted the idea, that the unbelieving Jews, as
well as the believing, were set to the word; agreeably to the
prophecy quoted in the verse before the text: whereas the other
tense favours the idea, of a retrospect to an eternal determination
of the divine mind. Doubtless the exchange of "positi" for the
stronger word ^constituti" was with the same view.

What makes the preceding statement the more worthy of notice,
is a probability, that Beza may have introduced the change, which
seems to have taken place in his time, in the translation of the verse
in question. The present writer has consulted an edition of Geneva
edited in 1554. which translates — "Qui offendunt verbo, in quo et
positi sunt;" also a Swiss edition of 1544, which translates — "Qui
impingunt in sermonem, neque credunt in id, ad quod, et instituti
fuerunt." Archbishop Newcome quotes Strype, saying, that the
English version of Geneva was formed too faithfully on the mo-
del of of Beza: And this is probably the channel, through which
the substitution came of the present translation, for that of Cran-
mer's bible; an hypothesis, which agrees with the position, ©f
there having been a great change in the sentiments of the English
clergy, at a period intervening between the dates of these two
translations.

176 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

ordained to this condemenation." But the ground of
the ordaining — if this be thought the matter spoken of
— is declared in their being " ungodly men, turning the
grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the
only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." It can-
Even Calvin, so little earlier than Beza, does not seem to have
considered this text as to his purpose. For he is silent on it, in his
Institutions; although, understood Calvinistically, it goes to the
extent of his doctrine of reprobation.

After committing to the press the preceding part of this ncte,'
there came accidently under the notice of the writer of it, a work
which confirmed him in the suspicion before entertained, that
Theodore Beza was the person, with whom the drawing of repro-
bation from this text originated. The work here alluded to, is a
System of Theology by Dr. John Gerhard, a Lutheran divine,
who was a professor in the University of Jena, in the 16th centurv,
and is honourably spoken of by Dr. Mosheim. Dr. Gerhard [torn,
ii. p. 36. edit. 1657] notices the innovation here remarked on;
ascribes it to Beza; and adds, that the perversion [perversio] being
very agreeable to some, they were not afraid |_non veriti fuerinf]
to insert it in the very text of Latin Bibles, published in Francfort,
in the year 1591. Gerhard's work appears, from his dedication of
it to the Elector of Saxony, to have been first edited'in 1610: At
which time, it seemed to him an extraordinary instance of effron-
tory, to have introduced into Latin Bibles, what restricted the
words to a sense which is now pleaded for by Calvinists, as the
true construction of the common English version.

Further, the same author quotes some work of Calvin, in which,
commenting on Acts xiii. 36, he illustrates the sentiment of it by
the passage now in question; which he considers as expressing
that the Jews were placed in circumstances favourable to their
reception of the Gospel. This is stronger than what is stated
above, concerning his not including of the place among the texts
by which his system is supported in the Institutions.

The prominence of the place in the reprobatory scheme, and
concern for the integrity of the sacred text, must be the apology
for the length of this note.

with Holy Scripture generally, 177

not however be reasonably contended, that there is
here meant ordaining, in any usual meaning of the
word. It is,* "before written;" and in its con-
nexion may properly be translated, "of whom it was
before written." It must mean, either that the end of
such ungodly men might be seen, foretold in prophecy;
or that their destruction might be traced, either by
themselves or by others, in the ends of former ungodly
men on record. Nothing can be further from the sense
of the passage, than that their being ungodly was part
of the ordainment. The last of the two interpretations,
is that given by Dr. Doddridge, whose note on the
place, considering his general system, is an evidence
of his candour. It is as follows: "Which interpretar
tion I prefer to any other, as it tends to clear God of
that heavy imputation which it must bring upon his
moral attributes, to suppose that he appoints men to
sin against him, and then condemns them for doing
what they could not but do, and what they were, in-
dependent on their own freedom of choice, fated to: A
doctrine so pregnant with gloomy, and, as I should
fear with fatal consequences, that I think it a part
of the duty I owe to the word of God, to rescue it
from the imputation of containing such a tenet. "f

* Trpoyeypaft/tevoi.

t Cranrner's Bible translates — "Of which it was written afore-
time, unto such judgement." Luther's Bible, rendered into En-
glish, translates— "Of whom, in former times, has been written
to such punishments.6' Archbishop N«wcombe has it— "Who
were before, of eld, set forth for this condemnation." And Mr.
Charles Thomson has it — "Who have been of old written of, and
for this very crime."

Of this text it may be remarked, as of I. Peter ii. 8. that Cal-
▼ol. 1. a a

178 Comparison of the Controversy y &c.

In Philippians iv. 3. and in sundry places of the Re-
velation of St. John, we read of "the book of life," in
which the names of the saints are "written." Much
stress has been laid on this expression. But besides
the hazard run, when we rely on mere metaphor in
proof of doctrine; the abuse of that in question is
sufficiently guarded against, in that place of the Reve-
lations where it is threatened — *"If any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
Go.l shall take away his part out of the book of life."
Therefore, this was no book of eternal and immutable
decree.

In addition to the classes of texts hitherto noticed,
it may be proper to bring into view a few, which come
not strictly under them.

Considerable use has been made of a passage in the
Acts of the Apostles: "And the Lord added to the
church daily such rs should be saved. "f The stress
is evidently here laid on the words "should be;" as if
the event followed from some previous discriminating
determination. But this is not exacted by the sense of
the original,^ which might be well translated "were
saved;" or who had accepted of the salvation offered
to them. The meaning is, that of those there were
daily additions to the visible communion of Christians.
Plxodus xxxiii. 19. "I will be gracious to whom I
will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will
show mercy," has been continually brought up on
the present subject: not that, to all appearance, it would

vin did not apply it to his doctrine of reprobation: the way for
this was perhaps not prepared by mistranslation.
* Chap, xxii, v. 19. f Chap. it. v. 47. J cru^ofuvi/t.

with Holy Scripture generally, 179

have been thought to express more than tem-
poral promise, if it had not been quoted by St. Paul
in his epistle to the Romans, and there thought to have
a reference to everlasting happiness. The passage has
been already noticed in the first department of the pre-
sent work. But as this was merely because of its rela-
tion to the argument of St. Paul, there may be propriety
ill noticing it here also. The word translated: "I will
be gracious,"* means strictly: UI will seize or take pos-
session;" and although thought to be applicable to be-
nignity, according to the general idea of that attribute,
may be held fully satisfied in this place, by the cir-
cumstance that Israel was "the Lord's inheritance."
The word translated, "I will have mercy, "f bears the
sense of having compassion; between which and the
other there is some diversity. The substantive is
used in Genesis xliii. 14 — "God Almighty give you
mercy before the man;" and in other places, in which
it cannot be supposed to express the pardon of sin:
Although this is the sense to which modern use has
very much applied the word; and hence the facility
with which, as it stands in Exodus and in the epistle to
the Romans, there is drawn from it a meaning appa-
rently not in contemplation in either place.

Much also has been built on Deuteronomy xxix. 4.
"The Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and
eyes to see, and ears to hear, until this day." Now no-
thing could have been more foreign to the design of
Moses, in a discourse which is a mixture of exhorta-
tion and reproof, than to have told the Israelites, that
iheir past blindness or disobedience had been owing to

* ?rw t ms

180 Comparison of the Controversy , &c.

a withholding of the grace of God. The more natural
sense, therefore, is, that the root of the deficiency was
in themselves. But in truth the text, without the least
violence, may be made to bear a sense the very reverse
of that translation. The sense alluded to arises from
making the words an interrogation, as in 2. Kings v. £6
— "Went not mine heart with thee?" &c Other places
might be mentioned, for which there can be given no
other reason, than that applicable here also — and
indeed a reason quite sufficient — its being the most
agreeable to the sense.

Perhaps there never was a passage in itself beau-
tiful and affecting, but devested of these properties by
misapplication, more conspicuously than is that in
Isaiah Ixv. 1, when taken from its proper subject, the
call of the Gentiles into the church; and applied to a
predestination to life of individual persons. The pro-
phet, carried by vision to the time of the event invol-
ved in the former subject, and contemplating the event
as present to him, says, in the name of the great Being
under whose inspiration he was speaking — " I am
sought of them that asked not for me: I am found of
them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold
me, unto a nation that was not called by my name."
And then, mournfully contrasting the splendid event
with the foreseen apostasy of the Israelites, he adds —
" I have spread out my hands all the day, unto a rebel-
lious people:" going on to describe their own preva.
lent idolatry and other wickedness. St Paul, in the
20th verse of the 10th chapter to the Romans, closely
applies the prophecy as here interpreted, to the people
of whom it is designed: But Calvinists apply the ante-

with Holy Scripture generally. 181

cedent part of it to the predestinating decree of God;
which accomplishes its end, without any seeking of
the persons on whom it lights. The words are the
vehicle of the same sentiment, and relate to the same
event, as where it is said in another place* — ►*' The
people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to
them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light
is sprung up."t

The theory here opposed, continually applying per-
sonally what was meant collectively, does not disdain
to lay stress on what is said in Matthew xv. 13 —
" Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not
planted, shall be rooted up." The Greek wordf
signifies not so properly a single plant, as a collection
of plants; that is, a garden or plantation. The accusa-
tion had been made by our Saviour just before, con-
cerning the Pharisees, that they " taught for doctrines
the commandments of men." Then, on being told that
they were offended at his saying, he uttered the denun-
ciation now in question. It means, that the assumed
authority of this hypocritical sect, would fall under the
divinely instituted authority of the spiritual kingdom
of the speaker.

The text last noticed, is urged by Professor Witsius;
who also supposes something to his purpose in Luke

* Matthew iv. 16.

t Isaiah lxv. 1 . is one of the two passages, mentioned in a prece-
ding note, as the most relied on by Professor Witsius, in opposi-
tion to the opinion of there being certain states of mind, which
are a better preparation than others, for the receiving of Gospe'
grace.

182 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfo.

x. 20 — "In this rejoice not, that the sp rits are sub-
ject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names
are written in heaven." But, if it be affirmed of the
seventy disciples, to whom the language is addressed
after the fulfilment of their mission, that there were
evidence of their names being written in heaven; it
does not appear how any inference can be adduced, in
favour of the theory to which it is applied. No doubt,
as Witsius remarks, there is reference to a register:
But why it should be understood, as having an allusion
to the genealogical register noticed in Ezra, does not
so distinctly appear, as this learned man presumes. A
register, however, is in contemplation; such as a gene-
ral may keep of his army, or a pastor of his flock. In
neither of these, does the subject either discard all de-
pendence on the will of the person whose name is en-
tered, or preclude all possibility of its being erased, in
consequence of his default. There is always hazard
run, in building doctrine on metaphor: But when this
is attempted, there should be consistency.

So many texts of scripture have been commented
on, that there seems a call to say something further, in
evidence of a sentiment expressed in the beginning — •
there being, even on the ground of the Calvinistick
explication, no more than a constructive or implied
sense. A few instances of this shall be given, in texts
of different descriptions. Even if our Saviour, when he
spoke of " gathering his elect from the four winds,"
meant the term "elect" in the sense put on it in the
Calvinistick scheme; still it will be acknowledged, that
the object of the blessed speaker was not to establish
the point, that there is such a description of persons; but

with Holy Scripture generally. 183

to announce a future judgment. So, when he thanked
his heavenly Father, for hiding the things of the Gos-
pel from people of a certain character, and revealing
them to those of another; if it were allowed, contrary
to apparent propriety, that the opposite characters be-
came what they were, by the operation of an eternal de-
cree; this would not hinder, but that the matters spoken
of were the different dispensations towards them. In
like manner, when St. Paul, writing to the Philippians,
salutes certain persons " whose names are in the book
of life;" his purpose must have been, to declare his
opinion of their christian character. But that this was
connected with a predestination, in any sense that can
be annexed to the word — supposing this to have been
the case — was a circumstance attached to the com-
mendation given. Be it here acknowledged, that there
may often be clearly gathered truths, attached to other
subjects, and growing, as it were, out of them. The
matter contended for, is merely that there are no lead-
ing truths of scripture, which are not taught more ex-
pressly, and as being principally within the contempla-
tion of the writers.

If these things are so; on how slight a foundation, or
rather how without any foundation, has there been
erected a superstructure of systematick doctrine! To
take notice, in the first place, of the controversy which
gave occasion to the present discussion: There has
been presumed to have been taught in scripture, a
doctrine of predestination, relative to the future condi-
tion of individuals. The matter contested between the
opposite parties has been, whether the decree were
founded on prescience of good and ill. And what were

184 Comparison of the Controversy ', fcfc

the consequences in the confiscation of property, and
in the banishment of persons, besides all the wrath and
the malice excited, with their deplorable effects in a
variety of ways, are too well known to those who have
looked into the history of the dispute. But before this,
there had been another, which agitated the country
wherein the subjects were the most discussed: And to
all appearance, it was only the rise of the second con-
troversy, which united the two parties of the other
against a common enemy. The first controversy here al-
luded to, had been between the Supralapsarians and the
Sublapsarians; the former of whom thought, that God
determined to create mankind, for the express purpose
of illustrating his mercy in the salvation of some, and
his justice in the damnation of others. But the latter
represent the same great Being, contemplating the crea-
tion and the fall together; and founding his decrees on
his designs in respect to both those descriptions of
persons, although without respect to good and evil to
be done by them respectively. These are not yet the
only airy castles of predestinarian controversy. For it
has been thought of moment to inquire, and to take
opposite sides on the question, whether God, in the
framing of the decree, contemplated man created and
fallen, or only to be created and made liable to fall. As
if this were not enough, it has been debated, whether
our blessed Saviour were to be considered as the object
of the decree, or the mean of carrying it into effect:
some conceiving that they do him more honour, by
supposing that he is the final object of such an opera-
tion of the divine mind; than if man were the object,
and the divine nature united with the human on his

with Holy Scripture generally. 185

account. It would be endless to mention the subordi-
nate controversies, which have arisen on the various
branches of the more general controversy. But let it be
asked — Does it not follow from such speculations, run-
ning so far ahead of any guidance found in scripture,
that they are evidence of a frailty of the human heart,
which calls for subjection to Christian humility and a
just knowledge of ourselves? If it were only " weaving
the spider's web," it would at the best be pastime: But
it is to " hatch the cockatrice eggs," from which there
springs the viper of persecution. Instead therefore of
giving loose to the imagination, in inquiries such as
those alluded to; it must surely be better to lift up the
heart in prayer, to be kept contented under that pro-
perty of the condition of mankind, which will not suffer
them to " know" but " in part."

It may be asked, however, on the supposition of the
abandoning of all scripture ground relatively to the
subject — Is this to be a field of inquiry forbidden to the
human intellect; qualified, as we find it, to explore the
wonders of earth and heaven?

To this let it be answered, in the first place, that in
inquiries relative either to spirit or to matter, we can-
not reasonably proceed to determination, without first
having data, on which to ground it. It was allowable
in Des Cartes to contemplate the system of the uni-
verse, in order to discover the laws which guide its
motions: But he did not act philosophically, when he
delivered the unproved doctrine of his vortices. In like
manner, the metaphysician may look back to and adore
the eternal wisdom and goodness, which brought this
fair creation into being: But \r? him beware of fabri-

VOL. i. b L

186 Comparison of the Controversy , Wc.

eating a system, intended to have an operation on faith
and practice; unless, indeed, some metaphysical New-
ton should arise, who, by discovering and demonstra-
ting principles unthought of hitherto, shall carry irre-
sistible conviction. This, however, is here apprehend-
ed to be forbidden by the nature of the subject.

It is another reasonable rule resulting, that if a man
will speculate and form a system without demonstra-
ble principles to support it, although perhaps with
principles which m.iy appear demonstrable to himself,
he should at least take care, that his system be not such
as leads to conclusions, directly contrary to the clear-
est dictates of the understandings of mankind; and es-
pecially, in what relates to the adorable perfections of
the Godhead. There are some truths, which, fairly
presented to the mind, are perceived by the most sim-
ple of its operations. There are other truths, or what
seem such, each of which, to be attained to, requires
a chain of thought. In proportion to the number of
links in the chain, we ought to be aware, that errour
may have happened. But if the result be the contra-
dicting of important truths of the description before
stated, it ought in reason, as is here conceived, to be
rejected. The application of these remarks to the pre-
sent subject is obvious. We are told in scripture, that
"the invisible things of God from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that arc made."* And although only "his eternal pow-
er and godhead" are instanced, yet the sentiment may-
be extended to his attributes generally. But when we
speak of the goodness of G >d and of his justice, we

* Rom. i. 20.

with Holy Scripture generally. 187

cannot but conceive of these properties as the same
in kind, however infinitely higher the sense in which
they are applied, with what we find in men. And we
certainly cannot err, in conceiving of them as thus the
same in kind; when the great Lord of heaven and
earth has not disdained, in the revelation which he has
given us of his will, to invite us to judge of his deal-
ings towards us, by the same rules of equity which
apply to our dealings with one another.

But further — and this is another matter to be exact-
ed— if men will speculate and systematize, either dis-
regarding the consequences seen to follow, or persua-
ding themselves that they are not fairly drawn; let them
at all events beware of obtruding their opinions as re-
vealed truth, obligatory on others. The writer of this
is far from being of the opinion, that the church of
God has no right to oppose the salutary truths of scrip-
ture, to any pernicious errours which contradict them;
as if she were destined to be, like Noah's Ark, the re-
ceptacle of the unclean beasts and birds of heresies, in
all their variety of shapes. The right, here presumed
to belong to the church, may be abused; and has been
so, in a very great degree. But to deny it, is to devest
her of an attribute, which is essential to every social
body, whether civil or religious. Let those, however,
who are called to the management of her concerns, take
care how they press their own opinions, to be admitted
as the decisions of holy writ. It is an awful threat —
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book."*
It is not here affirmed, that the words apply strictly to the

* Rev. xxii. 18.

188 Comparison of the Controversy > &c.

subject: For the obtruding of dogmas extraneous to
the written word, is not of the same grade of assumed
power, as would be the incorporating of them with
the word itself. We have reason, indeed, of devout
acknowledgment in the circumstance, that the end
designed in the interdicting of the adding to or the de-
tracting from the Bible, in the passage to which there
has been here a reference, has been accomplished by
the good providence of God; in his having maintained
it in such integrity, that all parties agree in appealing
to it as the standard, however they may differ in the
interpretation of it. But if to demand to human opi
nions the same authority as to holy writ, be not actual-
ly a corruption of it, does it not partake of the same
spirit, and does not the criminality of the one extend
in a measure to the other? This would seem to be the
case; and the consequent responsibility ought to put us
on our guard.

As to the effect which the subject should have on
people generally; it is, that the scriptures being in their
hands, with an authenticity acknowledged by all liti-
gant parties to be incontrovertible, they should reject
all dogmas not there found; and also be assured, that
none will be found, which are contrary to the perfec-
tions of God, as stamped on the whole face of nature.
Doubtless, in the applying of the latter principle, there
is need of caution. In attending to the economy of
grace, there may be observed some particulars, the
reasons of which are not immediately apparent. It is
the same in the economy of nature: the wisdom of
which is not in every instance obvious, on a transient
attention. Both in nature and in grace, we may mis-

with Holy Scripture generally. 189

judge, from not having the divine dispensations before
us, in all their relations. Here is room for the suspen-
sion of opinion; and for the submission of human rea-
son, to the dictates of the divine. But when there are
promulgated doctrines, which strike directly at the di-
vine attributes: and that in a universality of sdnse,
leaving no room for their being placed in a different
point of view, by circumstances now unknown, we
cannot be unsafe, in imitating the saying ol St. Paul—
"Let God be true and every man a liar:" that is, as
applicable to the present point — let all the attributes
of the divine nature be sustained; whatever may be
the consequences, to the theories of fallible aid frail
men.

In the beginning of this discussion, there was held out
the expectation of such an explanation of the texS usu-
ally applied, as is thought to overthrow the Calvinistick
interpretation, without establishing the Arminian. With
a reference to that intimation, it m»y be proper again to
remark the two senses, in which predestination has
been understood. One sense and it is that here main-
tained— is, as constituting future believers the members
of a certain body— a peculium — a church, which was
to be established in the world by the Omnipotence, and
sustained in it by the Providence of God. Even in re-
gard to this favoured communion, it has been shown, as is
here hoped, that predestination, as affirmed in scripture,
looks no farther back than to the beginning of the dispensa-
tions connected with the event. And even for this retro-
spect, there has been shown a powerful reason in the ne-
cessity of contradicting a prejudice; which treated the co-
ming in of the Gentiles, otherwise than under the winp*

190 Comparison of the Controversy, &?«,

of Judaism, as a novel device, for which there was no
ground in antecedent promise.

The other sense of predestination is, as marking out
from eternity some to everlasting happiness, and others
to everlasting misery. But it has been endeavoured to
be shown, that of this, either as founded on rescience or
as independent on it, the scriptures are silent.

If so, the subject rests on reason, and our natural sense
of propriety: And on this ground, what can be more of-
fensive, than the sustaining of the sovereignty of God in
such a manner, as is contrary to every idea which we
should otherwise entertain of his benevolence and his jus-
tice? Here then it may be expected of the author, to in-
dulge himself in highly wrought invectives, against the
Calvinistick scheme; accusing it of describing God as the
tyrant of the universe; with many other things to the same
effect. But the author forbears; well knowing, that none
are more shocked than many religious Calvinists, at the
apparent consequences of their doctrine: which conse-
quences they accordingly deny; at the same time that they
are sensible of the difficulty attending their system, in this
respect; but from which they think they cannot disen-
gage it, without giving room for other consequences, held
by them to be still more injurious to the Godhead. There
is here so much respect for sensibility of this sort, that
there shall be avoided all reasoning a priori, from the
benevolence and the justice of God; any further than the
advocates of the opposite theory will consent to go along.
And there is even hope entertained, of showing in what
is now to be remarked, that the opposite parties of Cal-
vinists and Arminians are not so remote from one ano-
ther, on the present point of an appeal to reason, as to a
tiansient observer might appear.

with Holy Scripture generally. 191

There has been already referred to the decision of the
Calvinists, that God cannot condemn an innocent creature
to everlasting torments. And we find, in Professor
Turretine's system of Divinity, under his 9th head, chap-
ter 18, that thesis maintained against certain schoolmen,
who held the contrary. Conformably with this, Professor
Witsius affirms,* that " it is unbecoming the goodnescf
nay," says he, " I would almost dare to add, the justice of
God, to adjudge an innocent creature to hell torments."
But then, it was held by both these divines, that all man-
kind are guilty and deserving of punishment, by the im-
putation of Adam's sin, and by their inheriting from him
of a depraved nature. And before Turretine and Witsius,
it had been said by Calvin, t that, for the reasons stated,
" infants themselves, as they bring their condemnation
into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to pun-
ishment by their own sinfulness, not by the sinfulness of
another.,' There seems, then, a consent between the Cal-
vinists and the Arminians, in the position, that reason
may so far raise her voice, as to interdict an evident in-
terference of doctrine with what we know of the attributes
of God. Accordingly, the difference between the par-
ties is reduced to the question, whether the subjecting of
a creature to the necessity of sinning, by the very circum-
stances under which he was brought into existence, come
within the sphere of the position in which they are thus
agreed? If then the Arminian should pronounce of the
case the last supposed, that it is no less essentially unjust,
than that other on which the Calvinists decide positively
that it is so and therefore cannot be, let the point of differ-
ence be duly marked; and let there not be charged as cri-

* Book i. chapter iv. section 14. t Book ii. chapter i. sec. 8.

192 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfo.

minal, the comparing of what is proclaimed to be divine
truth, with what we gather concerning the nature of God,
from reflecting on the operations of our own minds and
from his works.

But as the point now contemplated is a fruitful source
of what logicians call the argument to modesty,* brought
forward for the silencing of debate; there may be proprie-
ty, in attending to what the above two learned men have
said, in proof of the position already quoted, as maintain-
ed by them.

ProfesscrTurretine argues, in thefifs' place, that, in an
innocent creature, there cannot be the consciousness of
crime and of the just judgment of God; which, says he,
constitutes the punishment. It would seem, that this ju-
dicious remark must apply much further than intended;
that is, to a creature not conscious of any act, but such as
it has been impelled to by overruling destiny. What
ground can there be here for the condemnation of con-
science, or for the looking back on the lost opportunities
of life, as what might have been applied for the working
out of salvation? That some men, believing the Calvinis-
tick doctrine, live and die in sin, is what no one will de-
ny. In all probability, a proportion of these have expe-
rienced the sensibilities excited by accusing consciences.
If so, it must surely be owing to lurking doubts of the
correctness of their theory. But if the truth of it should
be confirmed to them in that future state of being, in
which we are warranted to expect to have an enlarged
view of the divine dispensations; condemnation, whate-
ver may be the nature of the punishment consequent on it
in other respects, cannot, it would seem, produce the re-
proaches of a convicted conscience. A contrary opinion,
* Argumentum ad modestiam.

with Holy Scripture generally, 103

would suppose that venerable monitor determined to pos-
sess properties hereafter, quite different from any found
attached to it in the present life.

But there has not yet been given the extent of Turre-
tine's reasoning from the divine attributes, against that
extravagant opinion of certain schoolmen. He affirms,*
that " from such a dispensation no glory can arise,
but rather the ignominy of a tyrannical dominion." The
anticalvinist says precisely the same, against the idea of
God's calling into existence, for the illustrating of his glo-
ry in damnation. The question then between them is, not
of the lawfulness of applying the maxims of reason to the
ways of heaven, but of the propriety of the respective ap-
plication.

The Professor also arms himself with that passage in
the 25th Psalm, ver. 10 — " All the paths of the Lord are
mercy and truth, unto such as keep his covenant and his
testimonies." On the contrary side it will be said, that the
abstract part of the proposition must have a general opera-
tion; although in this place specially applied. Another text
of scripture is brought up, that in Hebrews xi. 6—** He
that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he
is a re warder of them that diligently seek him." It will
be answered, that this truth presumes the possibility of
the use, and of the abuse of moral freedom. There is
yet another text — Psalm xviii, 26 — " With the pure thou
wilt show thyself pure:" And this the writer presumes
essential to the justice of God. If so, it must be on a
principle, which extends further than would have been
allowed.

The reasoning of Professor Witsius is also worthy of
notice. He is answering Twiss; whom he calls a great

* System of Divinity, 9th head, Chap. It.
vol. i. C c

194 Comparison of the Controversy, &c»

divine; and who, he says, had many followers. In order
to show the unreasonableness of the opinion entertained
by this divine, Wit si us argues thus — " Is it becoming the
most holy and thrice excellent God, to say to his holy
creature — Look upon me as thy chief good; but know I
neither am, nor shall be such to thee. Long after me;
but on condition thou never obtain thy desire. Hunger
and thirst after me; but only to be for ever disappointed
and never satisfied. Seek me above all things; but seek
me in vain, never to be found. He does not know God,
who imagines that such things are worthy of him.,, The
anticalvinist may step in here; and by no material change
of sentiment and language, may represent the improprie-
ty of supposing the Creator thus addressing the unhappy
victim of his discriminating decree — " I command thee to
seek me above all things, but have predetermined to with-
hold from thee that grace, without which thou canst not
seek and find: And I have commanded thee to repent,
to believe, and to obey ; but all in contrariety to a necessity,
impelling thee to the opposite of the things required.'*
When the two cases and the corresponding addresses are
considered, there seems no such difference between them,
as should prevent our saying, in words like those of Wit-
sius — " He does not possess, in this particular point, a
just knowledge of God, who imagines that such things are
worthy of him."

Let it then be remembered, how freely such writers
can pronounce, concerning what the moral attributes of
God require, when the argument does not invade their
theory. For in such a case, there is no likening of it to
the " thing formed saying to him that formed it: Why hast
thou made me thus:" And there is allowed no weight to

with Holy Scripture generally, 195

the demand that might be made on them by their oppo-
nents— " Hath not the potter power over the clay, of
the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and ano-
ther unto dishonour?" And yet it is difficult to perceive,
how they could evade such an argument, otherwise than
by the interpretation given of the passage in the former
part of this work, as affecting the condition of man, not in
eternity, but in time. Much indeed may justly be said,
of the caution and the reverence with which we should
reason concerning the ways of God to man; and of the
danger of errour from our imperfect views of them. Yet
even on this awful subject, there are some things which we
may affirm, and other things which we may deny, with-
out presumption.

It is indeed surprising, that any should forbid all appeal
to our rational faculties, relatively to the connexion of the
moral government of God, with his adorable attributes;
when he has himself so often appealed to the same subject,
in his word. For instance, when in allusion to the equi-
ty of his commands, he expostulated--" O my people, what
have I done unto thee, and wherein have I wearied thee?
Testify against me:"* And when he allowed Abraham to
reason with him in regard to Sodom—*4 That be far from
thee to slay the righteous with the wicked: shall not the
Judge of all the earth do right?"f And when he addresses
the house of Israel thus — " Are not my ways equal? are
not your ways unequal?"^ Under these and the like high
authorities, although there will always be occasion, where
we cannot discern the ends of the moral government of
God, to remember, that" clouds and darkness are round
about him;" yet we may answer to all theories, contra-
* Micah vi. 3. t Genesis xvii'i. 25. \ Ezek. xviii. 29.

196 ' Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

dieting the primary truths gathered by sober reason from
the contemplation of his works, that " Righteousness and
judgment are the habitation of his seat."

2 OF REDEMPTION.

Import of the Term — Arminian side adopted — Texts expressive
of Universality — Of the same, without mentioning Sacrifice for
Sin— Texts of Invitation— Of expostulation — Ol Promise and
Threatening — Making especial Mention of the Wovkl — Which
excite to the Imitation of God — Expressive of being within the
Covenant— Of temporal Mercies — Of Spiritual — The whole
applied.

FROM a subject, which the word of God has not clear-
ed of the clouds and darkness thrown on it by the cir-
cumstances of our condition, the attention is now invited
to another; that of a truth, as luminous as the region from
which it has descended to bless mankind.

The very name of the history of Redemption — the
Gospel, that is, Good News — carries with it a confutation
of all theories, erected on the foundation of the doc-
trine of a discriminating decree. From constantly hear-
ing the word technically applied, as the title of a book, or
as denoting the contents of the books of the New Testa-
ment collectively, it makes an impression far below that,
with which the sound of it was winged to every ear, on the
first establishment of the Christian dispensation. Let a
man suppose himself an inhabitant of some city of the
Roman Empire, at the beginning of the Christian era.
Unexpectedly there appear persons, professing to be the
messengers of Heaven: The prominent circumstance of
what they announce, is its being glad tidings or good
news: And the offer is to one and all of those who listen to
them, either from curiosity or for edification. What
would be the sentiments of the man, supposing himself
the witness of such an occasion; and what would be his

198 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

feelings; when it should be disclosed to him, that under
the declared general will, there were another secret; pro-
viding that some, probably the far greater number, per-
haps all of the hearers, were incapacitated for the accept-
ance of it; and that the call, although made on every indi-
vidual, in such a manner as implies him to be personally
contemplated, was nevertheless, with there being a circum-
stance understood, the existence or the want of which
would render the call effectual or the contrary? These
are the very matters affirmed to have been taught by the
Apostles, to persons in the circumstances here supposed;
who, however, do not appear to have discovered, or to
have had their minds offended by the inconsistency.

It is intended, in the discussion of the present point,
to adopt precisely the Arminian side of the question; or
rather that which is here supposed to have been uniform-
ly taught in the Christian church, until early in the fifth
century. If there be weight in the authorities to be ad-
duced in support of it, they ought to be considered as
applying in direct contrariety to the Calvinistick construc-
tion of the passages on the other side. It follows from
the competition in which they will stand, not that the
scripture is inconsistent in itself, but that the parts of it,
somewhat obscure, should be explained by those which
are more explicit. For it will appear, in regard to a
considerable proportion of the texts to be brought for-
ward, in evidence of the universality of redemption, that
it is the very truth intended to be taught in them; and that
without it, the words have no meaning. So far are they
from conveying the sentiment merely by implication, or
from giving occasion to its being deduced from them, by
way of inference.

with Holy Scripture generally, 199

The first class of texts which shall be mentioned, are
they which consist in little more than in a further elucida-
tion of the sentiment comprehended in the name. Thus,
when the angels announced to the shepherds,* that the
message brought by them was " good tidings of great
joy, which shall be to all people;" when the disciples were
commanded to " go into all the world, and preach* the
Gospel [that is the good news] to every creature;" and
when the Gospel [the same good news] is saidf to have
been " preached toevery creature which is under heaven,"
and other passages to the same purpose might be men-
tioned— there is not specious room for the comfortless
criticism applied to other places; that by all people is
meant all sorts of people: For the stress is laid on the
preaching to all; which would be unworthy of the com-
mission, unless all to whom it was to be preached were
interested in it. Besides, it is well known to many, that
" preaching"is but a faint expression of the original word,
which might more properly be translated " publishing" or
" proclaiming."! There may, however, be propriety in re-
marking, that it is no violence to language to admit, what
the truth of the case requires, that, by proclaiming to all
the world, is not meant that all mankind had heard the
sound of the Gospel. It is sufficient, that, to all who were
within the reach of the sound, the Gospel was proclaimed;
and for their benefit. Why should it be published or
proclaimed to all? On the contrary side, there can be but
one pertinent answer; and this is,that it concerns all; some,
as the means of their salvation; and others as sealing their
condemnation. But this does not account for its being
published as good news — as tidings of salvation to all. It
* Luke ii. 10. t Col. i. 23. \ K^v«5w».

200 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

is a common rule in interpreting the written instruments
of men, that when any particular part is construed in oppo-
sition to the principal and the most conspicuous design,
errour is to be presumed in the construction of the subor-
dinate part; and the more general character of the com-
position is to be sustained. The rule seems reasonable;
and, if applied to the present subject, must quash all con-
troversy; because there cannot be any property of any
writing more explicitly declared, than that of grace to
mankind generally, as a property of the Gospel.

The next class of texts to be mentioned, are those
which apply to the universality of the extent of the
sacrifice of Christ upon the cross: and they will be ur-
ged with the more confidence of their being the pro-
per means of bringing the controversy to an issue, be-
cause of the unequivocal terms in which the Calvin-
istick doctrine declares, that the sacrifice was not for
all. No; the elect only are affirmed to be within the
reach of the divine mind, when it conceived the de-
sign of man's redemption.

Surely, the contrary sentiment to this must have
been in the mind of our blessed Saviour, when he de-
clared— "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which
I will give for the life of the world."* The same must
have been intended by St. Paul, when he said, speak-
ing of the Saviour — "Who gave himself a ransom for
all."t Agreeable to this is what St. John says — "He is
the propitiation for our sins; and not for our's only,
but also for the sins of the whole world; "J and what
St. Peter says, where he describes certain heretical
teachers, as "denying the Lord that bought them,"$

* Johnvi. 51, t 1. Tim, ii. 6. \ 1, John ii. 2. §2. Pet. ii. 1.

with Holy Scripture generally* 201

and yet, "bringing on themselves swift destruction."
These teachers had been characterized as "false," and
as "bringing in damnable heresies;" and "destruction"
is the fruit of their doings." Of this text, as in several
other instances, Dr. Doddridge gives an interpretation,
amounting to that of those who dissent from him in
his system.

It is but fair, to record the usual interpretation of
Calvinistick writers, of the texts which have been cited.
According to them, by "all the world" and "all men," is
meant a select number from all the people of the world,
of different times, places and circumstances of condi-
tion. And they who are said to have been bought by
the Lord, and yet to have perished, have the former
affirmed of them, because they bore the appearance to
others of being of the number of the faithful. The
former of these interpretations is applied to other texts,
intended to be cited.

There is a very explicit passage in Titus ii. 11, to
which the grammatical construction gives a much
stronger sense, than that found in the text of the com-
mon translation, although the margin has done justice
to the original. The exact order of Greek words dic-
tates the following order to the English-— "There has
appeared the grace of God, bringing salvation unto
all men." The advocates of the opposite system, so
far as is known to him who writes, have no way of
rendering the text conformable to their plan, but by
still keeping out of view the marginal reading,
and under the cover of the textual, making the old
distinction of all sorts of men.*

* Beza, however, the learned and celebrated Biicces»our®f Cal-
VOL. I D d

202 Comparison of the Controversy, &e.

Not unlike the preceding text, is that in 2. Cor. v.
19; which says— "God was in Christ, reconciling the
world unto himself." It would be difficult to devise
words, whereby universal redemption could have been
expressed more clearly, supposing it to have been the
matter intended; and therefore, the obvious interpreta-
tion should prevail; unless indeed it can be thought,
that a redemption wrought for all the world is beyond
the reach of the power of God, or beyond what can be
believed of his benevolence.

Under the present head, there may be brought in
the pointed parallel drawn by St. Paul, between the
death of all men in Adam, and the revivification of
all in Christ. When it is said " In Adam all die;"
if spiritual death be the thing intended, it would seem
that no ingenuity tan rescue the other clause — "So in
Christ shall all be nMjjde alive," from the same univer-
sality of sense, relatlf«|f to everlasting happiness. But
if we understand deatn to be the loss of immortality,
to which we are restored by Christ, in such a sense, ^s
that we are again in a state of probation for everlasting
happiness; the passage admits of an application easy in

vin in the professorship of divinity in Geneva, has done justice to
this text as a Latin translator, making his version conformable to
the Greek and to the Vulgate. But in his notes he guards against
the consequences, by the customary distinction.

To countervail the mere obvious sense of this text, it is usually
remarked, that the Apostle had been delivering instructions to
servants just before: which is thought to favour the construction
of all sorts of men. But to give ground for this interpretation, it
would seem necessary, that the putting of servants on an equal
footing with others, in the concerns of salvation, were a peculiari-
ty of the Christian dispensation.

with Holy Scripture generally. 203

itself, and agreeable to the general tenour of holy writ.
But to justify this, it is necessary to admit of the uni-
versality of the benefit bestowed.

2. Corinthians v. 14. "We thus judge, 'that if one died
for all, then were all dead." Here is, first a position
laid down as a safe ground of reasoning — "One died
for all." The inference is— -"Then were all dead." If
this be true, more evidently so must be the premises.
The meaning is still more firmly established by what
follows— -"And that he died for all, that they which,
live should not henceforth live unto themselves; but
unto him that died for them, and rose again." If what
went before do not apply to all who hear the gospel,
neither does the improvement: while yet, the Caivinist
affirms it to be obligatory; without the distinction of
the elect and others.

1. Corinthians viii. 11. "Anjl through thy know-
ledge shall the weak brother pforteh for whom Christ
died." If none can perish for whom Christ died, what
can these words mean? Dr. Doddridge— Caivinist as
he is — gives them a paraphrase, amounting to what
any anticalvinist would contend for. His words are
— "And so shall the weak brother, for whom the Lord
Jesus Christ himself died, be liable to perish by thy
knowledge, in this instance mischievous, rather than
useful, so that when thou makest a vain ostentation of
it, thou dost in effect pride thyself in thy brother's

ruin."

The class of texts which shall occupy the next place,
as seeming the most nearly allied to that which has
gone before, are those in which salvation by Christ ap-
pears in the same form of universality, but without espe-

204 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

cial mention of his sacrifice for sin. Thus it is said:
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begot-
ten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.1'* And again it is said,
in the next verse — "God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world; but that the world through
him might be saved." To the same purpose, 1. Ti-
mothy ii. 4 — "God our Saviour who will have all
men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the
truth."f And it seems reasonable to put in the same
range 1. Timothy iv. 10. "Who is the Saviour of all

* John iii. 16.

t'The old comment here recurs — that of "all men," for all sorts
of men; and is thought to derive weight from the special mention
of civil rulers. But the apostle had just before exhorted, "that
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be
made for all men:" and then it is specified "for kings, and for all
that are in authority." Therefore the "all" whom God would have
to be saved, and the "all" on account of whom the reason was gi-
ven, are "the all" for whom we are to pray. And it will be allowed,
that we are to pray for all men — rulers and subjects— saints and
sinners.

Dr. Doddridge rejects the usual Calvinistical interpretation of
this text. "I must confess," says he, "1 have never been satisfied
with that interpretation, which explains all men here, some of all
sorts and ranks of men; since I fear it might also be
said, on the principles of those who are fondest of this gloss, that
he also wills all men to be condemned." This divine's construc-
tion of the place is, " that God has made sufficient provision tor
the salvation o; a//, and that it is to be considered as the general
declaration of his will, that all who know thy truth themselves
should publish it to all around them, so far as their influence can
extend." This construction does not involve the absurdity before
cxposea: but seems equally remote from the obvious import of the
text.

with Holy Scripture generally. 205

men, especially of those that believe." It is true, that
the word translated "Saviour" may be applied either
in a temporal or in a spiritual sense, or in both. They
are probably both included, but that the latter is not
excluded, would seem from the low sense in that case
to be given to the species of mercy spoken of, which
would be merely the preservation of the wicked by the
providence of God, with a view to and for the greater
aggravation of the approaching judgment, drawing
nigh to them in consequence of his predestination.

The passage the last quoted, and that immediately
before it, have been grossly misrepresented by Beza,
in his translation of the New Testament. He renders
"«wrj>/>" not servator [Saviour] but conservator [pre-
server.] And he has taken a similar liberty with ano-
ther passage, that of Hebrews x. 38, which is here men-
tioned, not as applying to the present subdivision of
the subject, but as associated with the other texts by Dr.
Campbell. In Hebrews x 38, Beza translates.* "It is not
agreeable to my mind." YY hat makes the licenseof Beza
the more striking, is the position in which his translation
stands, with the Greek on the one hand and the Vulgate
on the other, in collateral columns, testifying against
the incorrectness of their companion.

Dr. Campbell, in his dissertations prefixed to his
translation of the gospelsf , although himself a Calvinist,
severely censures Beza, on account of the above and
other incorrect translations; calling him, what Jerom
had called Aquila — " contentiosus interpres;" that is,

* "OcJx suh*(1ti ^vxv /Mi h etuTo> "my soul shall have no pleasure
in him "non est graium animo nieo."

t Diss. x. p. 5.

206 Comparison of the Controversy ', fc?c<,

a translator who accommodates his version to his sy&
tern. There can hardly be a severer censure on any
man, in the character of a translator, than that which
one Calvinistick divine here passes on another. In re-
gard to two of the passages spoken of, Dr. Campbell
evidently considers Beza, as giving a different sense
from that intended in the Bible. Of the other,* he
says he will not affirm, that " conservator" does not
express the sense; but he objects to the altering of
expressions for the favouring of opinions: and he sup-
poses, that the translator would have adhered to serva-
tor, if it had not been to get rid of the difficulty, in the
clause,! ** especially of those that believe."

The reason given by Beza in his notes, for the free-
doms which have been specified, are here conceived
to be so evidently insufficient, as greatly to aggravate
the impropriety of such conduct. His motive for alter-
ing " Saviour" to " Preserver," is, that the former
word being commonly applied to the subjeot of eternal
life through Christ, he altered it to avoid an homonymy;
thus presuming, that it meant another matter in this
place; which is the very point in question. In the next
passage, he compares the expression — "Would have
all men to be saved, "to its being said, Matthew iv. 23,
and elsewhere, that our Lord healed " all manner of
sickness, and all manner of disease, among the peo-
ple."! But there seems no ground for this comparison:
because the varied forms of expression from St. Mat-
thew, give the same sentiment; whereas, not so the
expressions, " all men," and " every sort of men."The

* Timothy iv. 10. t /«***««•* -zriTuv.

with Holy Scripture generally, 205"

substance of what is said for the varied expression in
the remaining passage,* is, that it amounts to the
same thing: but this is not correct; for as it stands in
the Greek, and in the Vulgate, it makes directly against
final perseverance; a sense entirely lost by the substi-
tuted sentiment. How very extensive must have been
the consequences of such license! since, as Dr. Camp-
bell remarks, Beza's translation has been the standard
of most of the translations of the reformed churches
(I do not, says he, include the Lutheran) into modern
languages.

It is here recorded with satisfaction, that the com-
mon family bible, among the Calvinists, as well as
among the Lutherans, in the United States, is that of

Luther.f

* Hebrews x. 38.

f Dr. Campbell gives several other instances of Beza's depar-
ture from the integrity of a translator. One only sha'l be here
stated; and that because of its being said, like those a)ready quoted,
to have been copied into modern translations of the bibles of Cal-
vinistick churches. It is [Acts xiv. 23] xst?0Ta}'^Tc6VT£^ ^ wnts
a-pta-Svripas'" — in English, "when they had ordained them elders;"
which, to favour popular election, he has translated: " Quumque
ipsi per suffragia creassent presbyteros;" that is, "when they had
made presbyters by holding up hands" [significative of choice.!
Dr. Campbell says — " Though no man is more an enemy of eccle-
siastical tyranny than I am, I would not employ against it weapons
borrowed from falsehood and sophistry." He then goes on to show,
that the Greek verb in the passage, notwithstanding its etymology,
means authoritative constitution; and can mean nothing else in that
place. He next takes notice, that the errour had been copied by
the French Protestant, and by the English Geneva bible: by the
latter thus — " And when they had ordained them elders by elec-
tion." In the English translation, as Dr Campbel lurtuer re-
ipuks, meaning that made in England and by authority, the

208 Comparison of the Controversy, k?c.

Under the denomination of passages here presented,
there may properly be added sundry from the Old
Testament; which, although they say nothing of a Re-
deemer not yet revealed, offer life and death; the for-
mer, no otherwise to be had, than through his subse-
quent redemption. Thus, when Moses admonished the
children of Israel — u Behold, I set before you this day
a blessing and a curse: a blessing, if ye obey the com-
mandments of the Lord your God; and a curse, if ye
will not obey the commandments of the Lord your
God, but turn aside out of the way which I com-
mand you this day;"* it ought not to be supposed
of the Divine Being — it ought not to be supposed of
any human being, not depraved below the ordinary
standard, that such an offer should be indiscriminately
made; with the reserve, which, in the contrary system,
is implied.

What shall we say of the declaration in Ezekiel
xviii. 32 — " I have no pleasure in the death of him
that dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore turn your-
selves, and live ye." And again, in chapter xxxiii. 11.
as if to make the preceding assurance stronger under
the solemnity of an oath — " As I live, saith the Lord
God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;
but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn
ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die,
O house of Israel." Surely, such melting tenderness has
not been lavished, under the inexorable determination
that it shall be ineffectual.

words "by election" were discarded. "Our translators," says he,
11 did not concur in sentiment with the Genevese, at least in this
article."

* Deuteronomy xi. 26.

with Holy Scripture generally. 209

The last two passages are interpreted by the Cal-
vinists by the supposition, first, that temporal death is
spoken of principally; and then, that God is introduced,
speaking after the manner of men: And this is the opi-
nion of Calvin. Nothing can be more certain, than that
such a manner of speaking is frequent in the scrip,
tures. But in the figure, there is always an analo-
gy to support it. Thus, when God is spoken of as
having eyes and hands, there are his omnipotence
and his omnipresence, to support the license of ian.
giiage. But that it is ever used, as in the instance
supposed, without a ground of propriety in the subject,
is not, as is here believed, apparent from any thing in
scripture.

Next to these classes of texts, there may be men-
tioned those which consist of invitation simply. Such
are Isaiah lv. I — " Ho, every one that thirsteth, come
ye to the waters: " Isaiah xlv. 22 — " Look unto me
and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:" Matthew
xi. 28 — " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest:" Matthew xxii.
4 — "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and
my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come
unto the marriage." What though of texts like these,
some of them express particular cast of character: It is
of such a sort, as must be allowed to exist in many of
those, who never come in effect to Christ; and who will
not be allowed of the number of the elect; to whom
alone, therefore, the offer stands under the stamp of
the sincerity of the offerer.

Very like to texts of invitation, are those which arc
expostulatory: Such as Micah vi. 3—" O my people,

tol. I * e

210 Comparison of the Controversy y fcfc.

what have I clone unto thee? and wherein have I wea-
ried thee? Testify against me:" Isaiah i. 18— ." Come
now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:" John
v. 40 — " Ye will not come to me, that ye might have
life:" and Matthew xxiii. 37 — " How often would I
have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not." Why is such tender complaint thrown away?
And would not the damnation of the party have been
sufficiently provided for, by the mere offer; if the ma-
king and the unavoidable non-acceptance of this were to
be followed by such an effect?

There might, in addition, be enumerated texts of ad-
monition, texts of exhortation, and texts of censure:
But they are so numerous, that the mere mentioning
of these properties cannot but recall instances to every
mind, in any considerable degree conversant in the
Scriptures. But let there be every chance of justice to
the objection brought from the other side, against the
present application of them. And the objection shall
be, that of Calvin himself. He says — " When he" (that
is God) " addresses the same word to the reprobates,
though it produces not their correction, yet he m.kes
it effectual for another purpose, that they may be con-
founded by the testimony of their consciences now,
and be rendered more inexcusable at the day of judg-
ment."*

Texts of promise and threatening might also be
added to the account. But they so abound, that to spe-
cify a few of them might have the effect of detracting
from their weight in mass. Here also the answer of
* Book 2, chap. v. sect. 5.

with Holy Scripture generally, 211

Calvin demands admittance, as found in the passage
quoted from him. They are supposed to be for the
punishment of offenders in the pains of conscience.
The obvious reply is, that the effect of Calvin's system
is to release from the pains of conscience; these not ex-
isting, without the conviction of the commission of
crime which might have been avoided; or the omission
of duty that might have been performed.

There has been mentioned a class of texts, which
unequivocally affirm the universality of the mediato-
rial relation to mankind. But there may be made a
distinct class, of such as affirm indeed the same univer-
sality, but make it more pointed, by an especial men-
tion of the world: which must, in reason, be interpreted
of the whole and not a part of it. Thus, we read of a
"propitiation for the sins of the whole world:"* of "the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world: "f °f " tne bread of God that giveth life to the
world:"! and " God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world, but that the world through him
might be saved:"& with many passages to the same
effect. This is language, not seeming to accord with
that of dying for the elect only. They who hold the
latter are cautious of committing themselves, and of
raising what they think ill grounded expectations in
their hearers, by holding out such ample declarations
of divine love, extending to all mankind in the redemp-
tion. And were the blessed apostles of our Lord-
much more, was his adorable self not sufficiently cau-
tious of raising hopes, which could not be gratified,
and of making declarations which, according to the

•l.Johnii. 2. t John i. 29. \ vi. 33. § John iii. 17,

2 1 2 Comparison of the Controversy, fcrV.

common use of language, must be adjudged to be not
strictly true?

There is, besides, that whole class of texts which have
for their object an imitation of the excellences of God:
as those which incite us to be like him in doing good to
the unthankful and the evil;* to the being " partakers of
his holiness;"! and to be " partakers of the divine na-
ture. "J A moral resemblance of God is universally
allowed by Christians to be the perfection of man:
But with what reason on the Calvinistick scheme,
unless justice and benevolence are properties of a
quite different nature, as existing in the one and in the
other?

There may also be alleged all those texts, which
require faith in Christ, and censure the want of it as
sinful. " Repent ye and believe the gospel, " was the
first summons of our Saviour, as recorded by St. Mark:
Agreeably to which, the same blessed speaker uniform-
ly characterizes the want of faith, as the result of a faul-
ty state of mind. There is no need to dwell on this, be-
cause Calvinists, like others, consider faith as among
the exacted duties. On the system here sustained, any
person, convinced of sin, may reasonably reflect in this
manner — " Christ died to save sinners: I am of that de-
scription: he therefore died to save me: and how then
shall I escape if I neglect so great salvation?" But on the
contrary system, it would seem that he cannot be re-
quired to believe what may not be true. The thing, if
true, is so only on the condition of his being of the
number of the elect. Accordingly the requisition, as
applied to him, cannot be more than of faith, with the

* Maithew v. 45. t Hebrews xii. 10. \ 2. Peter i. 4.

with Holy Scripture generally. 215

reservation of his being within the terms. And if he
should be beyond them, it is difficult to conceive, how
ihe not believing of what is not true, can be made to
aggravate his condemnation.

It is very common, with those who deny the univer-
sality of redemption, to make their appeal to John x.
15 — "I lay down my life for the sheep." But who
were the identical sheep spoken of? Not all the elect;
because the blessed speaker says immediately after —
"Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold."
Therefore these were not among the persons spoken
of before. Our Lord had a definite object in his view,
consisting of some of those present at his discourse:
and it was to his purpose to describe the opposition of
character between them, and others bv whom he had
been rejected. His saying, under this limited view of
his subject, that he died for some, is not a denial that
he died for all: otherwise, it might be proved from Ga-
latians ii. 20, that he died for none besides St. Paul;
who says — " I live by the faith of the Son of God, wiio
loved me and gave himself for me." It is not here
unknown, that even this passage has been brought in
proof of the partiality of redemption. With little less
reason, some bring the passages which predicate re-
demption of the church, as " Christ loved the church
and gave himself for it."* But besides the irrelevancy
already noticed, this and every similar text is in direct
opposition to the system which they are brought to
sustain. Calvinists, in their ideas ot the "church," con-
sent with their opponents in saying, that in it, " the
evil are mingled with the good." Some indeed hare

*Ephesians v. 25.

2\4 Comparison of the Controversy \ £s?<\

adopted the phantasy of an invisible church, consisting
of holy and virtuous persons only: but this is not the
social body, spoken of by the apostle. In regard to
other texts brought together with the same view, who
knows not, that a truth applying universally, may oc-
casionally be recognised in its relation to some portion
of the whole?

Independently on the sense of the enumerated texts,
intimating that Christ died for all, that salvation is
offered to all, that the scriptures invite all, and that
faith is required of all; even the circumstance of being
within the covenant of grace affords ground of pre-
sumption, in regard to all to whom the promises of it
have been sealed by the divinely instituted introduction
to it, that they are not admitted to the church militant
on earth, without the privilege which may be improved,
of being finally of the church triumphant in heaven.
For how high a character is attributed in scripture, to
the divinely instituted society of the faithful! They
are called "the body" and " the spouse of Christ" —
"a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy na-
tion, a peculiar people." It would be easy to multiply
such evidences of the honour, with which the church
hath been adorned by her divine head; and that not
only about the time of her establishment, but many
ages before, by the mouths of the prophets, when in
vision they contemplated her with a holy rapture.
That she should be like a field, in which the wheat
should be encumbered with the tares; and like a net,
enclosing fishes good and bad; is indeed revealed in
terms not to be mistaken. But that men should be
invited into this holy association; not only invited, but

with Holy Scripture generally. 215

actually vested with all its privileges, as authoritatively
as the truth of God can warrant; and yet be of the
number of those, for whom there is not, and never was,
any sacrifice for sin; and who no farther differ from the
apostate angels, " reserved in chains of darkness to the
judgment ot the great day," than in being a disfigure-
ment of that church, of which it is nevertheless said,
that " Christ gave himself for it, that he might present it
to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle,
or any such thing;" seems one of the most manifest
incongruities, with which the divine word can be im-
peached.

Not only ecclesiastical privileges, but temporal mer-
cies are to the point pleaded for: that is, what are usual-
ly considered as temporal mercies, if they ought in-
deed to be esteemed such; if there is to be held a debt
of gratitude due on their account; and if they are not a
dote, dealt out to aggravate damnation. We are told,
indeed, that the mercy of God is " over all his works;"
that " he does good to the unthankful and the evil;"
and that he gives to men " rain from heaven and fruit-
ful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness;"
to the end " that they might seek after him and find
him." And many are the delightful strains, both in the
Old Testament and in the New, inviting to join in the
chorus of gratitude, which all nature should be con-
tinually sending up to her almighty Lord. But if the
damnation of a proportion of mankind be independent on
themselves, and in no way to be avoided by them; and
if, as all agree, the abuse of temporal mercies be a
ground of future condemnation; it is difficult to per-
ceive, how the persons alluded to, were they to be as-

216 Comparison of the Controversy ; &fc.

certained, could be called to confess a debt of gratitude.
So that when men are invited to this duty, as conspicu-
ous as any charged on them when properly applied,
there should still, according to the theory here objected
to, be a discrimination of persons, whether to be traced
or not, even by themselves. For surely it should be
held a duty, only in regard to those, of whom it should
at last appear, that the mercies spoken of are indeed
such; and not judgments in disguise.

If temporal mercies imply the truth here sustained,
more evidently may the same be said, of such as are
purely spiritual; and which are not denied by the op-
posite system to the reprobate. St. Peter speaks of the
giving of "all things that pertain unto life and godli.
ness:"* And this is in his address to persons of whose
apostasy he was afraid, as appears in chapter iii. 17.
There has been already mentioned the privilege of be-
ing brought within the visible fold of Christ's flock.
But besides this, there are the strivings of God's Holy
Spirit in the heart; there are gracious desires excited;
there are virtuous resolutions entered into; and there
is sometimes a persuasion — induced, it will be said in
errour, yet after prayer and seeking — that the divine
favour has been assured to the soul by correspondent
sensibilities. All these will be acknowledged to have
been found in persons, who have afterwards cast off
every appearance of devotion, and who have lived and
died in sin. Not only so; the recited particulars, except
perhaps the last of them, will be owned by Calvinists
as a divine operation on the mind.f But is it worthy

* 2. Peter i. 3.
t Calvin in a passage which may be more particularly noted

with Holy Scripture generally. 217

of God to suppose, that he would thus put forth his
holy energy, without intending to complete its work,
unless resisted by the person to be benefitted? It is said,
that all mankind incurred damnation, by the sin of
Adam: May not then the object of the divine decree
be supposed to have been accomplished, by a breach of
the alleged covenant of works, without the intervention
of a personal rejection of a covenant of grace? If, in
that affirmed covenant with Adam, his posterity were
federally included, and therefore bound; it is, neverthe-
less, acknowledged by early if not by modrn Calvinism,
that the representative had it in his power to have
obeyed. But here is a species of offence, not provided
for under the old covenant; and for which no new one
is conceived of. Is not this, even on Calvinistick princi-
ples, superfluity of rigour? And does it not amount to an
impeachment of the divine attributes, to guard against
which, that very scheme of a covenant in paradise has
been introduced? Doubtless every alarm of conscience,
every pang of penitence, and every longing of the soul
after lost perfection — sensibilities which are confessed
to come from God, and to have existed in men, who
yet have not been at last the subjects of gospel grace—*
may have been evidences to such persons at the time,
that thev have the ministrv of reconciliation offered to
them: offered in a saving sense, and under the possibi-
lity of acceptance.

It ought not to be said of inquiries, such as those
above recorded, that, to make them, is to arraign the

hereafter, affirms, that God manifests himself in a measure to some
minds, for the purpose of rendering them 'nexmsable According
to this, there is no exception from the general observation.
VOL. I. F f

\

218 Comparison of the Controversy, Wc.

wisdom of the moral government of God; which we
can never sufficiently revere, or speak of with too much
caution. The object is to show, that the matter con-
tended for, on the other side, cannot be any part of the
dispensation. It is no more than is done by the Calvi-
nists themselves, when falling in with the design of
their argument; as was shown in the passages quoted
from Turretine and Witsius under the former point.
There they were found saying, that God cannot con-
demn an innocent ereature to eternal torments. It was
then remarked, that their doctrine was true; and that it
extended further than to the subject to which it was
applied by them. But the liberty is here taken of going
further; and of saying, that the gracious Being spoken
of, had he given over sinners to hopeless misery, would
not waste on them those inward uasions, the apparent
tendencv of which is to make them renounce sin in fu-

it

ture, and avoid the punishment due to the past. And
if this position be correct, every drawing of divine
grace may be an evidence to the soul which feels it,
that there still remains the opportunity of choosing be-
tween life and death. Indeed, on any other supposition, it
is improperly that preachers of alldescripTions tell their
hearers of a day of grace: There is no such day, to
those who are under the decree of reprobation.

When there are in the scriptures so many passages,
of which the most obvious sense is universality of re-
redemption, not otherwise to be rendered partial, than
under limitations which are the fruit of refined reason-
ings and minute distinctions; it is a material objection
against these, that they represent the divine word as
expressed very incautiously on a point, in respect to

with Holy Scripture generally. 219

which men have the dictates of their rational nature to
counteract, for the reception of what is supposed to be
divine truth in opposition. It will hardly be denied,
that young persons, as they advance towards maturitv,
commonly suppose, from the reading and hearing of the
scriptures, and from the general system as it is gradu-
ally opened to their understandings, that salvation is
absolutely in their offer; until the sentiment receives a
check from the expounding of catechisms and other
means of instruction, directed purposely to the point.
Even such instruction, coming from venerated pastors
and parents, has much opposing sentiment to subdue;
and that in persons piously disposed, before entire ac-
quiescence in the truth of what is taught. Perhaps it
will be said, that this is the resistance of corrupt
nature, against the sovereignty of divine grace. Or
perhaps, it will be called the presumptuous prying of
human understanding, where reason should submit and
faith govern. The latter is the very argument of the
Romanists, against the intrusion of reason into the
merits of their doctrine of transubstantiation. And
there are surely some truths, as clearly perceived by the
understandings others are by the senses. Butadmitting
either or both of the objections stated; is it possible,
that the language of holy writ should be so little accom-
modated to its awful contents, as to designate " some"
under the denomination of "all" and a ^tew^ under that
of " the whole world?" and that it should hold out a
revealed will, in contrariety to a secret one; of which
it is supposed, that the existence is revealed also, al-
though the contents of it are unknown?

Such is the sense, here thought proper to be given

220 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

to the comparatively few texts quoted, and the host of
them alluded to: and it is surely that, which best suits
the idea of man's being a subject of punishment and of
reward. Calvin, indeed, in the chapter lately quoted,
has an answer to this also, in the remark, that the re.
ward is not to human merit, but to the divine gifts.
Far be it from the Christian, to set up the claim of
merit, in any shape; or to imagine himself possessed of
gifts, other than such as flow from God's free, though
not discriminating grace. But can it be thought, that
Calvin's view of the subject is correct, in distinguish-
ing between the persons and the gifts? Our blessed Sa-
viour says — " Your Father shall reward you openly;"*
and, "He shall reward every man according to his
works."f St. Paul says of Moses — " He had respect
unto the recompense of the reward.":}; And St. John says
— "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things
which we have wrought, but that we receive a full re-
ward." § Is it not enough, that the reward is acknow-
ledged to be of mere grace; that there must also be lost
sight of the agency to which it is attached? And fur-
ther, does it not destroy the very idea of the grace of
God, to contend, that it always attaches, not to the
creature, but to God himself in the creature? There is
indeed a complacency, which we all believe him to take
in his own adorable perfection; but it is not benevolence
—it is not grace.

This leads to the concluding of the present depart-
ment of the work, with the remark, that, on the sub-
ject of a dispensation which professes to be stamped
with the impression of "grace, mercy, and peace from

* Matt. vi. 4. f xvi. 27. $ Heb. xi. 26. § 2. St. John epis. 8,

with Holy Scripture generally. 221

God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Chist," it
becomes a religious duty to conceive of him in such a
manner, as may not hide from us the splendour of those
perfections. When we listen to him saying — "Give
me thine heart;" let not there be wanting a ground of
the exacted tribute of affection. When he savs — "If I be
a father, where is mine honour;" let there be found in
us such a conviction of paternal right, as shall make the
motive operative. And when we read, that he > ill
finally "judge the world in righteousness;" let us con-
ceive of this attribute, as also governing in the prepa-
ratory dispensation of the gospel. Yes, great Creator
and Preserver! Thou hast told us, that thou art good to
all! May we never, then, lose sight of thee, in this
thine endearing character! But may we always be kept
by thy grace, under such a sense of it, as to join, here
on earth, in that song of Moses and the Lamb, which
shall be sung eternally in heaven- — "Just and true are
thy ways, thou King of saints."

3 OF FREEWILL*

Doctrine of Imputation and a Covenant— Radical Corruption ol
Natuie— Texts— Oneness of the Church in all ages— What
Christ said of Infants — View of the Apostasy — Consequences
of opposite Theory — Objections guarded against.

There should be here remembered the particular in
which the parties are agreed; and the two particulars
in which they differ. The former is, the utter inability
of man as to recovery from the apostasy; and the ab-
solute need of the interposition of Divine Grace for the
accom lishiflg of the effect. The latter are the imputation
of the sin of Adam to his posterity; and the entire and
radical corruption of human nature. It must be noto-
rious, that these subjects have entered into the contro-
troversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians;
although, in the synod of Dort, as the latter had clearly
affirmed man's natural impotency, and as this was
among the tenets of the former also, no decree was
made by the one against, the other, f

* There may be propriety in again mentioning what was said un-
der ti. is point, in the first department of the work, on the term
freewill. It has been considered as inaccurate; because the will,
in respect to external force, cannot but be free. Accordingly, the
word is here considered as expressive of what the Greeks called
*fTf|«^(ev, or a power inherent to the mind.

t It may seem an omission, to have taken no notice of what has
been considered as another branch of the apostasy — the loss of
original righteousness. The reason is, that it has not entered into
the controversy. There is no difficulty in conceiving of devout and
holy afftctions, excited agreeable to a law of man's nature; and
then of the ceasing of these; so that he is left a mere natural man,

with Holy Scripture generally, 223

The doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam,
seems to rest on these grounds: that he was appointed
the representative of his future posterity; that there
was established a covenant of works, by which he
bound himself and all mankind to obedience; and that
the great Creator condescended to covenant, on the
condition of that obedience, everlasting life to him and
them. The premises being presumed, the consequence
of imputation follows.

But are these things so? And is there any evidence
of them in the Bible? First in regard to the representa-
tive character: It frequently occurs in human institutions;
as where a nobleman represents all his posterity, in res-
pect to the estate and the honours of the name. These
are positive privileges; not such as could not have been
rightfully denied; but flowing from the especial favour of
the social body, or of those who exercise its powers. To
inflict positive punishment on the children, for the parent's
crime; and that out of all proportion to any benefit deri-
ved from the civil relations in which they stand,is a species
of penal law, which cannot indeed be said never to have
been put in force; but has been in none other, than the
most barbarous of former times; and is looked back on
with universal detestation, under the influence of the more
improved maxims of the present day.

In the divine proceedings also, the idea of covenant in-
tervenes. For instance, there is that made with Abra-

in St. Paul's sense of the expression; or with properties only ac-
commodated to the wants of his temporary being And it will follow,
that whatever of the aforesaid affections are subsequently exc;ted
in him, must be under the agency of the Holy Spirit. This, the au-
thor supposes to be a part of the belief of the Christian church
generally.

224 Comparison of the Controversy , &fc.

ham, as recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis; and that
with the whole congregation of the children of Israel, as
it stands in the 24th chapter of Exodus, when Moses
sprinkled the blood and said — " Behold, the blood of the
covenant which the Lord hath made with you." That
these covenants were not only for Abraham and the Isra-
elites respectively, but for their posterities also, is certain;
and it is especially declared in the former instance by the
rite of circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant
in the flesh; not only in the person of Abraham, but in
his seed after him. This covenant, however, respected
peculiar privileges; and the consequence of disobedience,
merely as in contrariety to the covenant, was the loss of
these; to which the Israelites had no more natural right
than others: For as to any penalty in another life, it was
such a fruit of disobedience, as would attach to it with-
out consent on the part of the offender. There can be no
reasoning from transactions of the kind here spoken of,
to the covenant in question; in which there is supposed a
forfeiture of everlasting life, and an entailment of everlast-
ing misery, by representation; while yet, the persons so
deeply concerned had no voice in the appointment of their
proxy.

Adam being described as the representative of man-
kind; and there being further supposed, that God entered
into covenant with him, it is called the covenant of works,
to distinguish it from the subsequent one of grace. But
what ground is there of the distinction? And had Adam
retained his innocency, what would have been all the feli-
city which might have been allotted to him, but the effect
of pure grace — of the same grace, which had brought
himself, and all the fair creation surrounding him, into
being?

with Holy Scripture generally. 225

Where is the record — where is the hint given of this
covenant? The writer of this could never find a single
text alleged to the effect; unless by applying to it what is
said of the covenant in the law of Moses. This indeed
has been introduced, with a view to the subject; and
allusion has been made to what is said of the two cove-
nants,mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians;* although
it is there defined, that the first of them was that " from
Sinai, which gendereth unto bondage;" and therefore
cannot be a covenant made in paradise.

It is worth the while of an inquirer, to search for scrips
tural evidence on this point, in professor Witsius's cele-
brated treatise on the covenants: But the use here ex-
pected to result, is an entire conviction, that there is
nothing to be said. Had there been any authorities in
scripture, they certainly would not have been entirely
overlooked by this acute divine. But although we have,
in his work, a chapter on the parties to this covenant; an-
other on its condition; another on its promises; another
on its penal sanction; another on its sacraments; another
on the violation; and another on the abrogation of it; yet,
to show that such a covenant was ever made, there is ab-
solutely nothing: unless, as was said, the inquirer will ac-
cept of allegations, concerning the covenant made on Si-
nai, or with a text which will be noticed by and by. It
is true, that the said learned person, speaking of the Mo-
saicklawas a covenant, denominates it not only " legal,"
but " of nature:" And by this it seems insinuated, that,
as a natural covenant, it was laid on Adam by the con-
dition of his creation. But this, is to confound subjects
of a very different nature. Independently on any precise

* Chapter iv.
TOL. 1. Gg

226 Comparison of the Controversy, f-sfc.

stipulation on the part of God, we are under obligations
to obey him. If in the Abrahamick covenant, and in the
Mosaick, he stipulated especial benefits, in reward of t^at
obedience which was his due; this has nothing to do with
the relations, in which man stood in paradise; and in which
he now stands, except under such a peculiarity of cir-
cumstances as that alluded to. The text of scripture
said to apply directly to a covenant made in Eden, is
Hosea vi. 7. For, speaking of the first sin, Witsius
adds — " Thus Adam transgressed the covenant:" and
this with a reference to the aforesaid passage. It must
be a hard strain, that should give the words an appa-
rent bearing on the subject. The passage stands in the
translation thus — " They, like men, have transgressed
the covenant." That the translation, u men," is justi-
fied by common use of the original word, will not be
denied: And therefore, to translate it " Adam," in the
present instance, merely to suit the supposed fact,
would be a circular sort of reasoning, that only shows
the difficulty of obtaining scripture for the purpose.
But, even supposirg Adam to be spoken of by Hosea,
there would be no propriety in the application of the
passage. For although the word " covenant" is used
to denote a transaction, in which the Creator is a stipu-
lating party on one side, and the creature on the other;
yet it has additional senses, enumerated by Witsius
himself, in the third section of his first chapter. He
there notices three senses, one of which is that of a
precept: And so the result would be, as intended by
Hosea, that as Adam had transgressed the divine pre-
cept given in paradise, so the Israelites had broken the
preceptive economy of Sinai. Professor Turretine has

with Holy Scripture generally. 227

made a similar use of the aforesaid text; and indeed it
seems to have been a favourite one with Calvinistick
divines, on an occasion so very pressing.

Let there be taken the definition of the covenant,
said to have been made with Adam, as it is given by
Witsius himself; and let it be compared with what
scripture has revealed, concerning Adam in his first
estate. The definition is — " An agreement made be-
tween God and Adam, formed after the image of God,
as the head and chief of all mankind, by which Gcd
promised eternal life and happiness to him, if he yield-
ed the most perfect obedience to all his commands;
subjoining a threatening of death, if he transgressed in
the least point: And Adam accepted the condition."*
Now let it be asked: What evidence have we of such
a covenant, between the great Creator and his newly
formed creature? That the former designed a continua-
tion and even an increase of benefit, may be believed
from the consideration of his adorable perfections; and
from the ends which may reasonably be supposed to
have been in view, in his calling into existence of a new
order of intelligent beings, created in his image and
after his likeness. And that, on the part of man, there
was the most unlimited obligation of obedience, is
what it would be presumption to deny or question.
But when the beneficence on one side, and the sub-
mission on the other, are digested by human interpre-
tation into the form of a covenant, it is natural to de-
mand the authority for such a procedure. And when
it is with the view to raise from it a theory, that is to
have an influence on every branch of theological inqui-
* Booki. chap. 2, sect. 1.

228 Comparison of the Controversy, he.

ry; it becomes a matter of immense moment, to set oft
satisfactorily from the beginning point.

But with the supposed character of Adam and the
covenant, there is another principle connected; of
which no evidence, so far as the writer of this knows,
is even attempted. It is, that if Adam had persevered in
innocency, it would have availed, not for himself only,
but also for his posterity. This does not follow from
the nature of a covenant. In that with Abraham and
his seed, any individual of them might lose the benefit,
as it respected himself. If, as the doctrine of Calvin
confesses, it was left to Adam's self either to fall or to
persevere, analogy points to the inference, that, even
in the event of his perseverance, the same liberty would
have attached to every individual of his descendants.
Is there any thing contrary to this in scripture? Not a
word: and yet, the whole theory of Calvinism presumes
the probation of Adam to have been for his posterity, as
well as for himself. Otherwise, there would have been
no benefit to them, as the result of his obedience; to be
a counterpoise to the misery which was the conse-
quence of his fall.

But Professor Witsius thinks, that he removes the
difficulty by arguing, that " if Adam had, in his own
and our name, stood to the conditions of the covenant;
if, having finished the course of his probation, he had
been confirmed in happiness, and we and his posterity
in him; if, fully satisfied with the delight of animal life,
we had, together with him, been translated to the joys
of heaven; nobody would have complained, that he was
included in the head of mankind: Every one would
have commended both the wisdom and goodness of

with Holy Scripture generally. 229

God."* Here the professor seems to confound two
matters, in themselves distinct — the not complaining,
and the commending. If a father should bind himself
and his children in a covenant, by which, according to
the performance or the failure of some act on his part,
dependent wholly on his will, there were secured to all
of them the enjoyment of great dignities and riches; or
else to be brought on them a hopeless state of shame
and penury; in the event of the performance of the con-
dition, the children might not complain, but it is not
probable that they would approve. The professor in-
tends an addition to his argument, by going on to re-
mark, that no descendant of Adam can assuredly know,
whether, in the same circumstances, he would not have
done the same. " Dost thou," says this author, " most
iniquitous censurer of the ways of the Lord, boast thou
wouldest have better used thy freewill? Nay, on the
contrary, all thy actions cry aloud, that thou approvest,
that thou art highly pleased with, and always takest
example from that deed of thy first parent, about
which thou unjustly complainest."f But how irrele-
vant is this argument! which, from the circumstances
of a creature confessedly labouring under a diseased
nature, and according to the theory of the reasoner,
subjected to an inevitable necessity of sinning in every
action, infers what the same creature would do, under
that liberty which Calvinism does not deny to man in
paradise. It is true, that no man can know, whether,
in his person, the same liberty might not have had the
same unhappy issue. But there is as little right to pre-
sume of him the affirmative proposition; much less, on
* Book i. chap. 2, sect. 17. f Sect. 18.

230 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

the presumption of it, to declare him in reason subject-
ed to endless misery. On any other principle than that
here maintained, man must be supposed to have been
created sinful: which rests the matter on quite other
grounds.

Of the invention of federal headship and a covenant
of works, it would seem, that they must have been
designed as a mere rationale for the doctrine of the im-
putation of the sin of Adam, supposed to be taught in
the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.* Al-
though it is hoped, that this passage has been explained
in the former part of the work; yet, as it is the only place
in scripture usually alleged for the establishment of the
doctrine, there may be a use in so far recurring to the
subject, as to obtain a comprehensive view of the ar-
guments which prove, that the Calvinistick opinion
cannot be the matter intended.

1st. It is not credible, that, of a doctrine of such im-
portance, there should be no direct intimation, except in
a single passage of scripture, and that confessedly a di-
gression from the principal purpose of the writer. For
the doctrine, if true, has an intimate connexion with
doctrines of like importance with itself; and not only
so, ought to give a tincture to the devotions, which
are composed or uttered under the belief of it. It must
be incumbent on men, to pray to be relieved from so
great a burthen; and if they believe it to have been
removed from them, to be for ever grateful for the
benefit. Above all, the great duty of rerentance
should have respect to it: For although it seems diffi-
cult to conceive of one man's repenting for the sin of
another, yet, if that of Adam have been made ours by
* Verse 12 and following.

■with Holy Scripture generally. 231

the act of God, it must needs come within the design
of all those precepts, by which we are commanded to
repent.

2dly. It represents St. Paul as an insufficient rea-
soner. He was answering prejudices of Jewish origin,
and entertained by Jewish Christians. One medium of
proof with him, is an effect of Adam's sin; which it
would have been foreign to his design to have stated
in any other point of view, than as known and admitted
by those, whom it was his object to refute. But, what
evidence is there in scripture, or in the Talmudick
writers, or in the valuable remains transmitted by Jose-
phus, which gives the least hint of all mankind's in-
curring damnation by Adam's sin? There is not a
particle of record to this effect. Let the matter
be supposed designed of the universality of mortality
through Adam; and then the Apostle presumes nothing,
but what would be admitted by every Jew; and the
reasoning founded on such conceded fact, is pertinent
and conclusive.

3dly. The interpretation intended to support the opi-
nion, leads to consequences not admitted by its advocates;
and therefore avails them nothing. The extent of the
benefit by Christ, is evidently affirmed to equal, and even
to surpass, as is thought generally, that of the loss through
Adam. But this can be true, only on the supposition of
mortality as the loss, and of the contrary as the benefit.
The words alluded to are in the 18th and 19th verses.

4thly. The same opinion educes from the passage a
sense too far wide as well of reason as of fact, to be owned
by either side. For when it is said — "Death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned af-

232 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

ter the similitude of Adam's transgression;" if by
"death" be meant, as is stiffly contended relatively to the
12th verse, that which is eternal; it follows, that damna-
tion had been the lot of all who had lived before the gi-
ving of the law. For it will be in vain to say, that the pas-
sage has respect merely to the becoming liable to damna-
tion in paradise. It is here spoken of, if indeed that be
the sense of the word, as actually inflicted on the whole
race of mankind, during a long term, in the periods in
which they respectively lived: and a very strong expres-
sion is used, that of reigning over them. There is no get-
ting over. this difficulty, but by supposing the word death
to undergo an entire change- of meaning, between the 12th
verse and the 14th. And here let it be noted by the way,
that, in the intermediate verse, the only passage brought
from scripture to prove the imputation of the sin of
Adam to his posterity, the word imputation is used as ex-
pressive of the charging of the guilt of the sins of men
upon themselves; while there is no application of the same
word, although so favourable an opportunity offered, in
the extraordinary connexion which the Calvinistick theory
supposes.

5thly. It is no small difficulty, that we read in the pas-
sage, of some " who had not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression." If, as is alleged, all men sin-
ned in him, they surely did so after the similitude of his
transgression. Indeed, on this ground, every subsequent
sin of Adam is as much ours, as is that in paradise. And
so is every man's sin that of all his posterity to the end of
time.*

* The author of this, having always understood Dr. Wither-
spoon to have been a Calvinist to the extent of the system, was

with Holy Scripture generally, 233

6thly. The comparative novelty of the interpretation, is
a presumptive argument against it. It does not date its
origin, at least among Protestants, quite so high as the
memory of Calvin: For it is not justice to that celebrated
man, to suppose him the advocate of a doctrine, which now
makes so conspicuous a figure in the system called by
his name. Neither do we find in him the hypothesis of a
covenant of works and federal representation; which seem
to have been put in since, in order to prop up the doctrine
of imputation. Still, when the controversy arose betwen
the Calvinists and the Arminians, these matters were
zealously maintained by the former; and have been ac-
cordingly considered in this place.

In the passage already quoted from Calvin, in which
he says — " Infants themselves, as they bring their con-
demnation into the world with them, are rendered ob-
noxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by

surprised to find him not saying, in his Lectures, a sentence ex-
pressive of imputation. He refers, indeed, to the passage in the
5th of the Romans; but merely considers it as evidence, that
the corruption of mankind was derived from Adam. He also uses
the terms " federal head" and " covenant of works;" but in ex-
plaining his sense of the last term, he says — « The giving a spe-
cial command, with a threatening annexed, does evidently imply
in it such a covenant:" Whereas, the common use of the term
seems to require stipulation on the other side also. Even in
speaking of transmitted sin, he expresses himself in language far
short of that of his communion. For he says of Adam and his
posterity — " They lost a great part of the image of God, in which
they were created:" which is not the same with the being "made
opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." This pro-
fessor's well known learning and intelligence, forbid the supposi-
tion, that he delivered himself without due consideration on such
points, and in educating for the ministry.
VOL. I. H h

234 Comparison of the Controversy, £s?6\

the sinfulness of another;" he adds a sentiment, be the
weight of it what it may, applying to inherent depravity;
which is a matter distinct from imputation.

The parts of the passage which are thought the most
to favour the doctrine of imputation, are where it is said,
in verse 12 (according to the marginal reading, here ac-
knowledged to be correct) " In whom all have sinned;"
and in verse 19, " many were made sinners." To coun-
teract the application of these clauses, an instance was
given of the same manner of expression in 1. Kings i. 21.
But professor Witsius finds fault with Grotius, for quo-
ting that passage to the same effect; and says* that
Bathsheba did not there mean the undergoing of punish-
ment without fault, but the being found guilty of a trea-
sonable aiming at the kingdom. There is nothing in the
passage, to justify this construction. David had de-
signated his son Solomon, to the inheritance of the crown.
In the yet unsettled state of the monarchy, it does not
appear that there was any constitutional principle oppo-
sed to this; and on the contrary, the design of the king
had the divine sanction. Had Adonijah reigned, Bath-
sheba and Solomon would not have been rebels; but she
had good reason to believe, that the fate of rebels would
have been theirs.

Had Witsius succeeded in warding orTthe force of this
passage, there would still have been many other passages,
to the purpose of the criticism, which it was to support.
There shall be here a reference to two of them. In
Psalms xxxvii. 33, the words rendered, " will not con-
demn," would be, under a more strict translation, " will
not make him guilty." So in 2. Kings vii. 9, where it
* Book i. chap. viii. sect. 34.

with Holy Scripture generally. 235

is said " some mischief will come upon us," the literal
translation would be, "iniquity will meet us:" although
the innocency of the persons is beyond a doubt.

Among all the writers of sacred scripture, there is not
one who may so easily be supposed to have adopted this
short way of writing, as St. Paul. We find him doing it
on many subjects, not connected with the present. And
in regard to the present subject itself, we find him not
scrupling to say of the adorable Redeemer — " He was
made sin for us:" which seems a strong figure, although
Witsius thinks otherwise. He urges — and is supported
by the Septuagint, that the Greek word* sometimes sig-
nifies " a sacrifice for sin." Yet it is applied in a stronger
way here; although by a figure, founded on that idea. In
the passage, believers are called, not merely " righteous,"
but "the righteousness of God in Christ." Accordingly,
to complete the contrast, Christ must be considered (fi-
guratively) as not merely "a sinner," but " sin."

The same author supposes an insipid tautology in
the interpretation; it being, as he states, in effect to
say — "So death passed upon all, through whom all
die." But the two clauses are not the same; the latter
clause expressing not simply death; but this, in alliance
with the medium by which it came. He further objects,
that there being an acknowledged punishment of the
posterity of Adam for his sin, they must be adjudged
to have sinned in him; since punishment, without sin,
would be unjust. The reasoning would be good, if the
new condition of the human race were less marked by
benefit, than by infliction. The former may be abridged
without injustice; and even to the highest praise of the di-
vine benignity, if the end to be accomplished should bear

* AftxpTtct.

236 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

the impression of that attribute, as is here supposed to be
the case.

Now, let it be considered to what point tend all the
speculations concerning a covenant of works, and the
imputation of Adam's sin. It is for the purpose of ac-
commodating the whole system of theology, to the eternal
damnation of all mankind, incurred by that single act.
And professor Witsius thinks, that he finds the awful
sentiment included in the threatening in Genesis ii. 17;
the more literal translation of which would be — "Dying
thou shaltdie." The expression is certainly very strong;
and as if it had been said — "Thou shalt utterly die."
But is there no way of satisfying them to the extent, under
the primary and obvious meaning of the word " death,"
as denoting the whole extinction of being? This is the
sense which would occur to every mind, on reading the
transactions recorded in the beginning of Genesis. It
would require very unequivocal authority from the New
Testament, to support the other opinion: But of such au-
thority there is alleged no more, than what is supposed
to be in the much mistaken passage of the 5th chapter to
the Romans.

But to make amends for the deficiency of scripture,
reason is appealed to for the interpretation; as an evident
consequence of the circumstance, that when Adam sinned,
his whole posterity were in his loins. But is not the ope-
ration of this argument too extensive, for the maintainers
of it? We were all, say they, in the loins of Adam when
he sinned. And were we not equally so, when he repented;
if this happened, as is supposed? Or, if it did not happen,
does it not apply to the offspring of those, from whom
the imputed guilt has been removed? If then, on the

with Holy Scripture generally, 237

professed principle, men must needs be partakers of a
father's sin; surely it is an effect of the same, to give an
interest in his obedience. But this, it will be said, if to be
brought about in any way by another, must be the effect
of a new act of grace, which God may extend or limit at
his pleasure. Be it so: but at the same time let there be
dropped the argument of fitness, from our being in the
loins of our progenitor; which would extend as much to
the one case, as to the other. Independently on this, no
man possesses any benefit which is more the effect of grace,
than was the condition of Adam, under the promise made
to him in paradise.

It is time to proceed to the examination of the other
branch of Calvinistick doctrine — that of the entire and
radical corruption of human nature.

It is trusted, that there is no want of reverence of
the holy scriptures in the remark, that, in the inter-
preting of them, we should not altogether lose sight of
human nature, and of human life; such as they lie be-
fore us, and are the subjects of every day's experience.
Protestants very properly have recourse to evidence as
clear and not more so than this; when they appeal to
human sense, in contradiction of the Roman Catholick
interpretation of our Lord's words, in the institution of «
the Eucharist. The words, literally taken, are decisive
for the opinion which Protestants reject. But they say,
that this is over-ruled by the evidence of sense; and
that therefore, the command should be interpreted on
other grounds, contended to be reasonable in them-
selves, and in analogy with other passages of scripture.
Let it be here remarked, what extravagance would
result, were there admitted the principle, that whatever

238 Comparison of the Controversy, Esfr.

in scripture is descriptive of man should be interpreted
strictly, without reference to general fact on one hand,
and to the particular purpose of the writer on the other.
Thus, when Abraham describes man as being " but
dust and ashes;"* such a saying might prove him desti-
tute of an immortal spirit. The same doctrine, might
be deduced from what is said by the divine Being in
Genesis vi. 3 — " My spirit shall not always strive with
man; for that he also is flesh." And in like manner, in
regard to human life, what is said in Job v. 7 — " Man
is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward," strictly
applied, would prove that his condition admits of trou-
ble only; and that he is a stranger to every species of
satisfaction.

Equally far from all reasonable rule of interpretation,
and of facts existing before our eyes, it is here conceived
that they wander, who explain what is said of man's sinful
nature and condition, as though it involved a hatred of all
good and an inclination to all evil. But let the prominent
passages be examined.

Great stress is laid on Genesis vi. 5 — " God saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually:" and m viii. 21 — "The imagination of
mail's heart is evil from his youth." The former of
these passages evidently applies to a general depravity of
manners, the result of evil communication and bad exam-
ple; after the sons of God had contracted alliances with
the daughters of men: meaning the posterity of righteous
Seth, with that of wicked Cain, as is generally supposed.
And yet, however universal the affirmation, it was not

* Genesis xviii. 27.

with Holy Scripture generally. 239

intended strictly; because Noah and his family appear,
from other places, to have been exceptions from the gene-
ral profligacy. The latter of the two passages affirms,
what is not here denied, but on the contrary held up as an
important truth, that there is a corruption of human na-
ture; although not in the extent which Calvinism con-
tends for.

Perhaps there is no text, that has been oftener enlisted
in the service, than Job xiv. 4 — " Who can bring a clean
thing out of an unclean? Not one." The full effect of this
might be acknowledged; were it not an act of justice due
to holy writ, to rescue the passage from all application to
the subject. Whoever will read with attention that chap-
ter of the book of Job, must perceive it to be a plaintive
lamentation of the sorrows of humanity; and especially of
the shortness of life. What have these to do with cleanness
and uncleanness, in the ordinary senses of the words?
Nothing: and accordingly the word translated clean,*
besides the being used for "true" and "clean" in a
levitical and moral sense, signifies " brightness" as ascri-
bed to the heavens, in Exodus xxiv. 10, and Job xxxvii.
21. And what comes nearer to the present point, it is
applied to the glory of the human character and condition,
in Psalm Ixxxix 44: For we there read — " Thou hast
made his glory to cease and cast his throne down to the
ground." For " glory" we have " brightness" in the
margin; and it might have been " cleanness," with as
much propriety as there is put " a clean thing" in the
place in question. The word translated " unclean" has
its root in the other word; and is the contrary to it.
There is urged, to the present point, another quotation

240 Comparison of the Controversy , &fc.

from the same book — " How then can man be justified
with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a wo-
man?"* Moral purity, as pertaining to man, is not advo-
cated in this treatise. But that, in the text in question,
human nature is not held up as a mass of unmixed wick-
edness, is evident from the next verse; which shows the
comparative point of view in which the words are to be ta-
ken— " Behold, even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea,
the stars are not pure in his sieht."

Still more pointed language is thought to be found in
chapter xv. verses 14, 15, 16 — " What is man, that he
should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that
he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in
his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight:
How much more abominable and filthy is man, which
drinketh iniquity like water?" Here is another compari-
son. It is that of man, with a higher order of created be-
ings. But if the " drinking of iniquity like water" be
held expressive of a tendency to all manner of wicked-
ness, as a radical and universal property of human nature;
let it be remembered, that the speaker (Bildad) is not
always correct in the opinions which he delivers. In the
speeches of the three friends of Job, there is certainly
much brilliant and instructive sentiment: They are how-
ever reproved for having uttered some rash opinions, be-
fore the conclusion of the book.

What shall be said of Psalm li. 5 — " Behold, I was
shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me." The answer is — Let it be acknowledged, and not
without deep sensibility of the danger of our condition on
this account, that our earliest recollection may show us,

* XXV. 4.

with Holy Scripture generally. 241

how continually evil has assailed us under the specious
appearance of good; and how easily, any further than re-
sisted by the help of divine grace, it presses into its ser-
vice all our powers, physical, animal, and intellectual; all
which, however, bear abundant evidence, that they
were created for and accommodated to other objects
and pursuits. If there must be imposed a most rigor-
ous interpretation on the psalmist's words, indited at a
time when his mind was humbled under the sense of
crimes actually committed by him; and when he was
pouring out his heart in supplications for forgiveness,
almost indicative of despair; such an interpretation
would lead to a sense, which both the Calvinist and
Arminian would abhor; but from which, however,
some commentators have thought it necessary to vin-
dicate the passage. The truth is, the psalmist cannot
reasonably be supposed intending any datum, for the
determining on the constituent principles of human
nature. As found in himself, it was under a continual lia-
bility to evil. Everyman who contrasts human sinful-
ness and imperfection with the purity and the perfection
of the divine law, will be ready to say the same of
his own heart: And there is no contradiction of this,
in the argument of the present work. To construe the
abovementioned words of the psalmist, without regard
to the considerations here advanced, would be as un-
reasonable as to make the same use of what he says in
another place — " The wicked are estranged from the
womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking
lies."* In this Psalm, David is supposed to be de-
scribing the wickedness of Saul's counsellors, who

* Psalm lviii. 3.
vol. i i i

242 Comparison of the Controversy, Ssfc.

were instigating their master against the complainant.
Knowing their characters, he represents them as having
been wicked from very early life; which he expresses
under the terms — "As soon as they be born" and
"From their mother's womb: "strong language, indeed;
but involving absurdity, if taken according to the let-
ter. For how can a man have "gone astray and spoken
lies," from the early period referred to? There is ano-
ther instance to the purpose, where it is said — "Thou
dklst make me hope when I was upon my mother's
breasts."* Such a passage comes under the name of a
Hebraism.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and de-
sperately wicked:" says the prophet Jeremiah, adding
—"Who can know it?"f And this has been thought
pertinent to the present subj ct. There can be no doubt
of the wickedness, to which the heart of every man is
liable: And if we were to doubt that guilty passion
may wear deceitful appearances to the man who che-
rishes it in his bosom, we might be put to shame by
the importance with which even the heathen sages have
clothed the precept — "Know thyself." But that this
passage has in view the hearts of all men, may well be
questioned. Not long before, there are denounced, by
the mouth of the prophet, the divine judgments against
"the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his
arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord." Next,
there is contrasted a blessing on "the man that trust-
eth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." And
then come in the words in question; which are a reason
why we ought not to trust in man, whose heart we can*
* Psalm xxii. 9. f ch. xvii. 9.

with Holy Scripture generally. 243

not know, and why we ought to trust in God, who
sa} s of himself — "I the Lord search the hearts, I try the
reins, even to give every man according to his ways,
and according to the fruit of his doings."

The following text has been thought to involve the
sentiment in question: "Foolishness" (confessedly ano-
ther name for wickedness) " is bound in the heart of a
child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from
him."* It might have been supposed, that the passage
has nothing to do with the season of life, too
early for the rod of correction to be applied to it. But
in truth, the original word,f though applicable to
childhood, is not restricted to it. We find it applied in
many places to a progress towards maturity, much
beyond infancy. One instance shall suffice. The
young men, spoken of by Abraham in Genesis xxv.
and who had attended him in his war against the five
kings, are denoted by this term. The text means, that
wickedness may be incorporated with the inward cha-
racter, in very early life. More than this would not be
consistent with the intimated remedy; because some
children are restrained from vice and educated to reli-
gion and virtue, without the rod of correction; and very
many without so much use of it, as makes it the chief
instrument of discipline. If these sentiments be incor-
rect, it must have been a false boast of good Obadiah,
when he said — "I, thy servant, fear the Lord from my
youth: "J the very word being here used, which is
translated "child" in the text in question. If therefore
it should be affirmed, that the Hebrew word, although
admitting of the translation "young men" and even

* Prov. xxii. 15. t *"|yj I 1. Kings xix. 12.

244 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

"young women," embraces the sense of the very ear-
liest period of life; the same is as applicable to the pas-
sage in Kings, as to that in Proverbs. The Greek
word* which describes an infant strictly speaking, is
used by St. Paul where he tells Timothy — "From a
childf thou hast known the holy scriptures. "J Did the
Apostle mean, that Timothy had been instructed in the
scriptures, while at the breast? By no means. But he
left to the sense of propriety, to determine the
precise application of the expressions; which must
have imported, that the sacred oracles became known,
in proportion to that advance in years, which was suit-
ed to the intended use of making "wise unto salvation."
When we come down to the New Testament, there
are no passages more prominent than those which de-
scribe certain persons, as "enemies of God," as "the
children of wrath," as "sinners," and the like. On the
principle of comparing spiritual things with spiritual,
the first of these terms should be thought explained by
Colossians i. 21. where it is added — "By wicked
works:" which shows, that something distinct from
the condition of birth is the matter intended. But those
names, as they occur in the epistles of St. Paul, can-
not be understood, without regard had to the difference
of the state of the Gentiles, from that of the Jews; and
the Apostle's identifying of himself with the former,
as their Apostle. Perhaps, the most remarkable instance
of the two principles in connexion, is in the epistle to
the Ephesians; the passages of which, relative to thepre-
sent point, shall be here explained, agreeably to the
sentiment entertained, for the purpose of illustrating the
property affirmed to belong to the writings of St. Paul.

* Bpstpot; f 2. Tim. iii. 15. \ cltco fift<pu<;.

with Holy Scripture generally, 245

Having spoken of" the dispensation of the fulness of
times,"* in which God was to " gather together in one all
things in Christ," the Apostle adds — " In whom also we
have obtained an inheritance;" meaning we Christians of
the church of Rome, from whence the epistle was written.
He goes on, soon afterwards — "In whom ye also trusted,
after that ye heard the word of truth;"f that is, ye Chris-
tians of the church of Ephesus. The Apostle, after dis-
playing through the whole chapter the excellency of the
Gospel and the dignity of the person of Christ, says, in the
first verse of the next chapter — " And you hath he quick-
ened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in
time past ye walked, according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
that now workethin the children of disobedience." Then,
he again brings in the Gentile Christians of the church of
Rome, still making himself of their number — " Among
whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the
lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of
the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even
as others."| After again celebrating the saving grace of
the Gospel, he tells hisEphesian converts:} " Wherefore
remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the
flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is cal-
led the circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at
that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants
of promise, having no hope, and without God in the
world." Then the Apostle goes on to state the uniting
of the Jews and the Gentiles in the same dispensation of
the Gospel; which is the sentiment set out with — the ma-

* Chap. i. 10. t Verse 13. | Chap. ii. 3. § Verses 11, 12,

246 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

king of both one, by him who is our peace; " having abo-
lished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of command-
ments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of
twain one new man, so making peace. And that he might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having
slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace
to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh."*
The sacred penman winds up what is pertinent to the pre-
sent purpose, with the following inference — " Now,
therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of

God."f

It would seem, that there is here drawn a marked dis-
tinction of character between the Gentiles and the Jews,
before their respective reception of the Gospel. The
former were " the children of wrath even as others:" not
as all others, but as the Roman Gentiles, from among
whom the epistle was written. These converts had been,
collectively speaking, in the condition described above.
On the contrary, the converts from among the Jews had
been of" the commonwealth of Israel;'' they had posses-
sed" the covenants of promise;" they had been provided
with a ground " of hope;" and, considered as a people
owned by God, they had been " with him in the world:"
their legal economy having directed their attention to a
better, by which it was now to be superseded, after having
answered all the purposes of a covenant state, so long as
its obligation lasted.

Besides such passages as the above, clearly marking

the distinction between the state of the Gentiles and that

of the Jews; there are other passages in the writings of

St. Paul, which cannot be understood, without a refer-

* ChaD. ii. 14—17. t Verse 19.

with Holy Scripture generally* 247

ence to the same distinction. The places here meant,
are such as speak of extreme dissoluteness of manners in
professors of Christianity, before their conversion. One
place will be sufficient for a specimen; and it shall be Titus
iii. 3. " For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish,
disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures,
living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one ano-
ther." Now to show how far this is from being intended
as a description of human nature, it will be sufficient to
remark, that St. Paul never applies such language to the
natural condition of the Jews. Else, v\ hat shall we make
of that in which he says — "We who are Jews by nature'*
(meaning natural condition) "and not sinners of the Gen-
tiles."* Or of that in which he says— "Men and bre-
thren, I have lived in all good conscience before God, unto
this day."f It is true, that in the epistle to Titus, he
speaks in the first person plural: but this is only another
instance, in which he takes occasion to identify himself
with the Gentile Christians, and to speak as if he were
one of them. The truth is, the words in question were
intended of a collective body; and, independently on being
inapplicable to natural condition strictly speaking, can-
not be supposed to have applied to every individual in
practice. The sense of them is sufficiently supported by
the fact, that idolatry, with all its attendant licentiousness,
had very much abounded among the converts from hea-
" thenism to Christianity. The same Apostle, indeed, in his
epistle to the Romans, charges the Jewish community with
the like corruption in practice, as that of the heathen. .
Still, when we descend from the collective capacity to the
individual, the Jew was distinguished from the heathen
* Gal. ii. 15. f Acts xxiii. 1.

248 Comparison of the Controversy, k?c.

in this, that the former was owned of the visible church,
and in covenant with the God of Israel.

Without remarking the distinction here stated, there
are many sayings in scripture, which can never be made
to agree with the general spirit and design of it. But let
it be supposed, in respect to the Jews, that they were, as a
people, in covenant with God; every individual to be re-
sponsible for what he was, and for what he did, under the
conditions of it; and then of the Gentiles, that they en-
joyed no such benefit; and that, collectively, they were in
the practice of the aforementioned enormities in worship
and in morals; and then the terms — " aliens" — " children
of wrath," and the like, may be seen intended to desig-
nate Gentiles, without danger of administering to the ar-
rogancy of the Jews; who, as a nation, had little reason to
boast of a dispensation, under which they were nationally
guilty before God; and besides, the chief value of which
consisted in its being, as it were, a schoolmaster, to bring
them at last to Christ; under whom the Gentiles were to
be joined with them; both constituting one body; in the
new creation of which, the former disparity should be
abolished.

In going on to the passages not connected with the
stated peculiarities in the writings of St. Paul, the most
prominent meeting our attention, is that of the same
Apostle, in Romans.* There having been much
said on that passage in the first part of the present
work; nothing furiher shall be said here, except to
lament, that so many men, not only of intellectual abilities
and accomplishments, but as much as persons of any de-
scription to the perfection of evangelical morality, should
conceive of the passages as describing the inward cast of
* Ch. vii. 7, and the following.

•with Holy Scripture generally . 249

character, and the life, and conversation of a Christian.
For an illustration of this remark, it may be worth while
to refer any reader to what some eminent Calvinistick
writer has said, when professedly portraying the Chris-
tian state. For instance, let there be taken professor
Witsius: a man, who, so far as may be ascertained from
his writings, seems to have possessed the Christian spirit
in a very eminent degree. Let there then be read what
this religious and virtuous man has written, under the
heads of sanctification, of conservation, and of glorification
And then let there be asked — Is all this in the character
of that child of God, who may nevertheless be the person
described in the 7th chapter to the Romans, as doing
what he hates; as leaving undone, what he approves; as
brought under captivity to the law of sin; and as crying
out, under a sense of the misery of his condition — "Oh
wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the
body of this death?" It is not here, surely, that we can
recognise " the peace of God which passeth all under-
standing;" the " keeping of the body under and bringing
it into subjection;" and " the crucifying of the flesh with
its affections and lusts;" elsewhere held up as descriptive
of the Christian state. No doubt, it was highly impor-
tant to Calvinism, to press the passage in question into
its service; although the consequences of this would seem
to be, that in respect to " redeeming from all iniquity and
purifying to himself a peculiar people zealous of good
works," Christ has died in vain.

Analogous to the passage which has been under con-
sideration, and by a like mistake with that applied to
the unregenerate, is what we find in Gal. v. 17— "The

flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the
vol. k k

250 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

flesh; and these are contrary one to the other; so that ye
cannot do the things that ye would." Sometimes, a very
slight alteration of language gives the opportunity of a
very material alteration of sense: And this is observable
here. The translating of the Greek phrase* by — "So that
ye cannot do, "gives the appearance of an inference drawn
applicable to Christians, from what had gone before.
Nothing can be further from the thing intended; which
must be obvious on the more exact translation — "That
ye may not do. " The contrariety just before affirmed
is considered as tending to this effect; instead of the
Apostle's being represented as establishing it by infer-
ence. But besides, the idea of the applicability of the
passage to the Christian state is guarded against, both
in the verse going before and in that following. "This
I say then" (so begins the Apostle) "walk in the spirit;
and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." Then
comes in the contrariety of principles, in the passage
under consideration. After which there follows — "If
ye be led by the spirit ye are not under the law," that
is, under its condemning power. And then follows a
black catalogue of the lusts of the flesh; of which and
the like "I tell you before, "says the Apostle, "as I have
also told you in time past, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." This
whole passage may be considered as an illustration of
that in the Romans; and the united force of both, is the
giving of a view of contending principles in man, as
he is by nature; and the ascendency of the one or the
other of which, constitutes his character.

* itx fA* a. civ StMrt, TdVTx ir»it)Te.

with Holy Scripture geHeraUy. 251

Another passage is in 1. Corinthians ii. 14 — "The
natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of
God." Certainly not: but it is evident that "the na-
tural man"* is a sensual person, or one under the do-
minion of his sensitive nature. This man has no sensi-
bility to the things of God: but what is such a senti-
ment, to the purpose for which it is adduced?

To the above passage and those like it, there has
been thought a considerable resemblance in others,
which suppose an intimate connexion between sin and
human nature, under the denomination of '*flesh." The
being "born of the flesh," is put in opposition to the
being "born of the spirit;" and the being "carnal," is
mentioned as the same with being "sold under sin."
It cannot be denied, that the use of the words is often
such as has been stated, and that sinful practice is then
the same as the being "sold under sin." But is it not
also occasionally used, in a sense less odious and even
innocent? When our Saviour says — "Except those
days should be shortened there should no flesh be
saved, "f he adopts the vvord as descriptive of men in
general. St. Paul, who, more than any other of the sa-
cred writers, makes the word descriptive of moral
evil, yet says in 2. Corinthians vii. 5. — "When we
were come into Macedonia our flesh had no rest, but
we were troubled on every side." And in his first epis-
tle to the same people, he calls them "carnal," because
of prevailing attachments of different persons to their
respective favourite ministers. Now, although this me-
rited apostolick censure and correction; yet, being ad-
dressed to them who were "sanctified in Christ
Jesus," it must have been compatible with a measure

* ^W10* uvdpuTroi. f Matt. xxiv. 22.

252 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

of grace determining the Christian character, although
under manifest imperfection. Otherwise, the Apostle
addresses them in terms not applicable to them. Be-
sides which, lamentable must be the condition of innu-
merable persons in every age, who have manifested the
same weakness; not without similar evidence of since-
rity, although doubtless in alliance with great defalca-
tion from what the spirit of their holy religion calls for.
Tiie expression of "God's being manifest in the flesh,'7
with other like sayings concerning our Lord, might
have exempted the word from the charge of its deno-
ting an assemblage of properties essentially corrupt.
And indeed, if, under the great variety of meaning,
making it necessary to attend to circumstances in each
place, it often stands for sinful propensity, without at-
tachment or alloy; this is a use naturally resulting from
the evident fact, that our flesh or mortal nature is the
part of us in which sin principally manifests its domi-
nion: which very matter rather opposes than con-
firms the sentiment, that our whole nature is radically
sinful.

Of the theory here objected to, there has been sup-
posed an indirect proof, in all the passages in which we
are requested to be regenerated or renewed. But will
there be no end of straining metaphorical language,
beyond its intended application? If the analogy with
creation and atural birth mu^t be supported to the ex-
tent, there is here required nothing short of a repro-
duction of human powers. But none suppose this. In
Christian renovation, the powers of man are confessed
to be what they were before; with this difference in the
application, that they are drawn off from evil and di-

with Holy Scripture generally. 253

rected to good. A metaphor, like that applied to
the renewing of the mind, is applied to new prospects
relatively as well to body as to mind, where it issaid in
1. Peter i. 3. — " Which, according to his abundant
mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." Here, our
whole nature is represented as anticipating a new birth,
by restoration to a new life in heaven. Is this intended
of a new production of bodily and of mental powers?
Such an extravagant supposition is not made by any.
Similar to this new birth in neaven, is that of Christian-
ity on earth; in which the affections and the appetites
remain substantially the same; although the former are
directed to higher objects; and the latter are regulated,
not by sensual gratification, but by Christian ends. In
short man, as born of Adam, has a mere animal life:
but as born again in Christ, he has, under the opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit, a life of righteousness in the
world, and looks forward to a life of glory in the hea-
vens: which is a representation of Christian renovation,
not exacting the Calvinistick doctrine, concerning
the natural state of men. In the epistle of St. Paul to
Philemon* there is a passage which may strikingly show
how improper it is to construe strictly such figurative
terms as have been referred to— "Whom," says the
Apostle, meaning it of Onesimus — "I have begotten
in my bonds." Surely, it was not intended to arrogate
an agency which can belong only to the Spirit of God.
There is a large class of texts, which it is common
to bring against such sentiments as those contained in
the present treatise; even all which represent salvation
as not attainable, but through Christ and the merits of

* Verse 10.

254 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

his death — For "there is none other name under
heaven, given among men, whereby we must be
saved"* — "Who gave himself a ransom for alP'f
and — " he is the propitiation for our sins. "J God
forbid that a word should be here said, to limit
the extent of the salutary truth, held out in these pas-
sages and in many more. The subject is to be consider-
ed, as it regards — 1st, Adults, and then, infants. In
relation to the former, it is here agreed and contended,
that there is no man who has not "fallen short of the
glory of God," and therefore no man who has not need
of pardoning mercy, to be extended through a Re-
deemer. In relation to the latter, the subject concerns
them, as through Adam immortality has been lost to
them, and they have inherited from him a diseased na-
ture. Immortality can be regained by them only by
Christ, who "hath abolished death and brought life
and immortality to light." Their nature is sanctified by
the possession of grace bestowed in baptism: a grace
which if improved, is sufficient for the exigences of fu-
ture life; and therefore sufficient to prepare them for
early death. Let it be remembered, that only the in-
fants of Christian parents are spoken of, because of
their case only, the evangelical economy leads to the
contemplation; leaving us to judge of others, by the
analogy of God's moral government of the world; and
under assurances clearly and often made, that of fu-
ture condemnation there is no other ground, than that
tt "deeds done in the body."

The author is aware, that, on the present subject,
there have been brought some considerations and some

* Acts iv. 12. f 1. Tim. ii. 6. \ 1. John vi. 10.

with holy Scripture generally, 255

passages of scripture, which are left by him unnoticed.
The reason is, that they are such as contemplate a theo-
ry, diverse from the present. The Socinian doctrine
is here alluded to; which supposes that Adam would
have died, had he not sinned; that his death has no
effect on the condition of his posterity; that there was
no original righteousness in paradise; and that there is
no moral pollution inherent to man at present. These,
and the like opinions, are not the sense of the author of
this work; and therefore he finds himself under no obli-
gation of noticing objections, which have no bearing
on the one, although applicable to the other. He cannot
however leave this part of the subject, without noticing
a distinguishing characteristick of the scriptures; and
some express passages in them, which seem to him in
hostility with a view of human nature, exhibited by
Calvinism.

It is generally believed by Christians, that the church
now on earth is the continuation of a body essentially
the same, from the promise of a Redeemer in paradise,
to the consummation of his work in the end of time.
The sacrifices of Cain and Abel were seals of the cove-
nant of grace begun: and if so," these sons of the first
man must be considered as inheriting, by the right of
birth, an interest in what the sacrifices prefigured, and
a right to all its attendant privileges. When, in conse-
quence of the general prevalence of idolatry, it pleased
God to set apart a family, that, among one people at
least, there might be sustained the belief of the unity
of God, and the expectation of a Redeemer; and when,
for the accomplishing of this, God condescended to
enter into a covenant with that people in the person of

256 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

their progenitor; it was declared to be with him, and his
seed after him. And to show, that the benefits of the
covenant were theirs from their birth; within a few days
after it, they were to have the sign of the covenant in
the flesh. In the subsequent covenant between God
and his people by the ministry of Moses, none doubt,
that there was an inheritance from infancy of the spi-
ritual, as well as of the temporal promises attached to it.
When this was superseded by a covenant founded on
better promises, the ordinance initiatory to it, in the
" circumcision made w ithout hands," became the right,
as Christians in general in every age have held, not of
believers only, but of their infant offspring; agreeably
to that saying in Acts ii. 39 — " The promise is unto
you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.', Now,
that in this series of dispensations, originating in the
beginning and to reach to the end of time, the favour
of God should be declared and visible signs of it be-
stowed, at the early period when the subjects of them
were in the state supposed by Calvinism of extreme
pollution; and with dispositions which, when they
come to operate, must fix on what is unholy, mischie-
vous and impure; and admit no natural restraint, ex-
cept from principles resolving themselves into craft and
selfishness; is a species of economy, so utterly unwor-
thy of the attributes of God, as that there would seem
an impossibility of there being any evidence competent
to the establishment of it. In regard to texts of scrip-
ture, especially directed to the point, that humanity,
as coming into life, is not answerable to the picture
drawn, it is not natural to expect any to the effect. It

with Holy Scripture generally, 257

has been seen under another head, that Calvinistick
divines have had occasion to vindicate the divine Be.
ing from the supposition, that he could condemn an
innocent creature to eternal torments. They have
however demonstrated their point, by reason and by
inferences from general declarations; without being
able to produce a single passage, in which the affirma-
tion is directly and in precise or equivalent words con-
tained. And yet, to the point in question, there are
two express declarations of our Saviour, which apply
to it directly, although made with other views; and not
to contradict an opinion, of which there is no evidence
of its being at that time entertained by any. One of
these authorities is in Matthew xviii. 3 — " Except ye
be converted, and become as little children, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now what was
this conversion? Certainly it was from a corrupt state
of mind, produced by an intercourse with the world;
and issuing in an inordinate desire of its seducing ob-
jects. If it had been true of "the little child" which
our Saviour took, that his infant heart was at that mo-
ment the seat of passions essentially unholy and cor-
rupt, there would seem a most manifest unsuitableness
between the intended lesson, and the vehicle by which
it came. And here, lest it should seem, from what our
Saviour says in the sixth verse concerning offending
one of the little ones who believed in him, that the
child before spoken of was of years sufficiently ad-
vanced for the exercise of faith; it may be proper to
remark, that our Lord must be considered as identify-
ing the said little child with believers of lowly condi-
tion in society; and that with this agrees the original

VOL. I. L 1

258 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

word,* which may denote persons of this description.
The scope of the passage requires this construction:
for our Lord, to reprove the aspiring thoughts of his
disciples, had taken an infant strictly speaking, as the
original wordf denotes: and yet with this it was a na-
tural coincidence, to deliver a lesson against the con-
tempt of infcriours, and of persons of ordinary estima-
tion. The blessed speaker, however, still keeps the
stage of infancy within his view: for when he goes on
to the declaration — " I say unto you, that in heaven
their angels do always behold the face of my Father
which is in heaven;" it is of little consequence, whether
we interpret it of infants only, or of the little onesj in
g-eneral; since all so called are characterized from ccr-

o

tain attributes of infancy. Some construe the text the
last quoted, of the guardianship of angels; and others, of
the glorified spirits of tho^e in question. In either sense,
the record is an honour done to infancy, which would
hardly have been bestowed on it, if the idea of infancy,
recognised by Calvinism, were correct. To little pur-
pose it is sometimes remarked, that mere negative
virtue is the matter, for which infancy is held up by
way of example, in the passage. If, as Calvin has been
quoted, saying — " They bring their condemnation into
the world with them;" and if, as Calvinism uniformly
declares, they are averse to all good and inclined to all
evil; they were not an emblem for the purpose. An in-
fant hyena possesses as much negative harmlessness, as
the human infant; and yet it would hardly have been
thought in point, to have made the former the medium
of the instruction.

* pbticpm. \ zrxthov. % fux.pa*.

with Holy Scripture generally. 259

The other passage is in the 19th chapter, verse 14,
— " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come
unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." In
St. Mark x. 15, it is added — " Whosoever shall not
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall
not enter therein." The Christian church in general,
considers the precept as a warrant for infant baptism.
Why then should any part of that church sever the
precept from the reason given for it — that the king-
dom of heaven is of such? meaning not surely in igno-
rance, but in innocency. And why should there be
overlooked the remark in which the whole ends, that
the kingdom of God must be received by others, in
like manner as by them? meaning, doubtless, with their
sincerity and want of guile. How low a representation
of this transaction does it suppose, to say, that the in-
fants spoken of are full of disposition to all mischief;
and that the thing commended in them, is merely that
they are not yet at a time of life, in which it breaks forth
in action?

In addition to these express declarations of our Sa-
viour, there is a remarkable passage in 1. Corinthians
xiv. 20 — " In malice be ye children." The Greek
word,* translated " malice," has a sense much more
extensive than the English word, as in modern use. It
means evil disposition in the abstract. In regard to that,
we are instructed to resemble children: them in whom,
according to the Calvinistick theory, it the most essen-
tially inheres.

The very passage, so much a favourite with Calvin-
ism, which speaks of the hiding of the gospel from the

* KMKICC.

260 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

wise and prudent, and the revealing of it to babes,
supposes something opposed to mental depravity in in-
fancy. And of other passages amounting to implication,
many might be produced.

Further, on any other supposition, there would seem
no pertinency in what our Saviour says — -" Out of the
mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected
praise."* These words, as they stand in the Psalm, if
not to be construed strictly, imply, that even infants
may acceptably express the praises of the Creator. As
the same words are applied by Christ to children cele-
brating his entry into the temple, the argument is pro-
bably from a less to a greater; and signifies, that if in-
fants, in a very strict meaning of the word, may take on
their tongues songs of praise, more evidently so may
the young persons spoken of in the passage. And yet
even these would appear from the passage too young,
for considerations necessary to produce the mystical
conversion here in question.

In addition, there is the very express text in 1. Co-
rinthians vii. 14 — " Else were your children unclean;
but now are they holy." The Greek wordf is common-
ly translated " saints:" which shows, that the children
of Christian parents have an hereditary right to the
benefits of the Christian covenant; the seal of which is
baptism.

In order to serve the double purpose of guarding
against the confounding of the sentiments here advan-
ced with the Pelagian and Socinian errours; and of
pointing out, more distinctly than has yet been done, the
circumstances of man's condition, under which the
* Matthew xxi. 16. f *yi*t.

•with Holy Scripture generally. 261

texts referred to have been arranged; there shall be sta-
ted the sentiments of the author, concerning the effects
of the apostasy in paradise.

Whatever he has heard or read of this description,
falls under one or another of the following heads —
temporal death and its attendant ills — loss of original
righteousness — imputation of the sin of Adam — and
hereditary corruption.

The first is death with its attendant ills; meaning of
bodily pain and susceptibility of injury from the ele-
ments; which would end, if there were no other dispen-
sation of God to man, in the extinction of his being. It
is the grace of God, through Christ, that puts him on
a new probation. And there seems no other way of ac-
counting for there having been in the Jewish economy
implication merely — of which indeed there is much —
but no distinct revelation of a life to come; than by
supposing, that, the original sentence being seen con-
tinually fulfilling, there was no way of looking beyond
it, but through the medium of types and figures; which
represented something not yet revealed, yet giving oc-
casion of intermediate faith and consolation. The very
phrase of " bringing life and immortality to light," pre-
sumes there being no divine testimony to a future
state of being; except imperfectly, through the dispen-
sations preparatory to the gospel; and fully, by means
of its own bright discoveries. If so, every individual,
when he resigns his breath, finds a termination of his
whole interest and concern in the events of paradise.

The next particular, is the loss of original righte-
ousness; which consisted in willing agreeably to the
will of God and in doing according to his commands.

262 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

It supposes subjection of sense to reason; and a readi-
ness of mind to the contemplation of divine things. In
short, whatever, under present circumstances, ought to
belong to man, as a religious and moral being, is ascri-
bed to him by the subject; without he intermixture of
an interfering propensity to sin. There has been alleged
by the Socinians, that this could not have been the
condition of Adam; because such rectitude of disposi-
tion by nature, must exclude a choice between the rival
solicitations of good and evil. But this is an untenable
objection. It supposes imperfection in the angels; if
they be, as we suppose, without temptation to sin. It
even supposes imperfection in God, who "cannot be
tempted to evil;" and whose will is essentially good
and holy. The theory here maintained is most agree-
able to our ideas of an original creation; it harmonizes
with the change in the earth and in the elements; and
it is the express declaration of the passage of scripture
which says — "God hath made man upright; but they
have sought out many inventions."*

The third, is the imputation of Adam's sin, of which
the author, having rejected the doctrine altogether,
would say no more, were he not desirous of guarding
against some misstatement of the doctrine, as if it were
merely guilt charged because of hereditary depravity.
Accordingly, that there may be a distinct idea of the
matter spoken of, it is thus defined, and the mistate-
ment alluded to is guarded against by professor Tur-
retine — "If it be only so, that the sin of Adam is said
to be imputed to us mediately, because we are consti-
tuted guilty by God and are made obnoxious topun-

* Ecclesiastcs vii. 39.

with Holy Scripture generally. 263

ishment, because of the hereditary corruption which
we draw from Adam; there will not be properly any
imputation of the sin of Adam, but only of an inherent
stain ****. We teach, that the actual sin of Adam is
so in itself imputed to all descending from him in the
ordinary way, that, because of it, all are reckoned
guilty, and all may be punished, or at least may be ac-
counted worthy of punishment."*

Of the remaining particular — derived corruption —
the author will deliver his sentiments; such, as he con-
ceives to have been gathered by him from scripture.

Man, in his innocency, was so far from being under
a covenant of works, that it was a covenant of grace to
him altogether. By grace, he was called into existence.
By grace, he held whatever helped to contribute to the
blissful state bestowed on him. And by grace alone he
could have continued to enjoy it. That by apostasy he
might lessen these benefits to his posterity; and that these
might even thereby lose them, in an extinction of their
being, is certain. And in this, there is no contrariety to
any attribute of the divine nature; since the bestowing of
a temporary benefit is no evidence, that it ought to have
been made perpetual.

Adam fell; and by this event he incurred responsibility
to the threatening — "Dying thou shalt die;" that is,
"have thy being extinguished by a return to the earth,
out of which it was created." The same was incurred for
his posterity, if any were to proceed from him: for it can-
not be gathered from the narrative, whether death might
not have been made to do its work more agreeably to the
letter of the threatening, had not the new dispensation of
a Restorer intervened.

* Locns 9. sect. xxxv.

264 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

If this view of the subject be correct; the mercy of
God through Christ, which was coeval with the fall, re-
stores every mau to a personal responsibility fo; his own
conduct; for which he must be accountable to that God,
who shall judge all men according to their works. And
this is declared so clearly, as ought to overbear all oppo-
sing speculation, arising out of passages less clear; and
more connected with circumstances on which they are
dependent for explanation. The very being put into the
state described, supposes a responsibility of men, propor-
tioned to the lights which God has bestowed on them,
and the means which they have enjoyed. That all this
may be, through Christ, in favour of many who never
heard of him, is not only supported by passages of scrip-
ture, but is shown in the case of infants; of whom it is
believed by both of the litigant parties here in view, that
at least some are saved. And this makes it the easier to
be conceived, that the principle may be extended. Even
those Calvinists who, conforming to their publick creeds
and to the opinion of Calvin himself, pronounce of elect
infants only that they are saved, cannot deny that their
salvation is accomplished, under their ignorance of
the procuring cause: and if so, why may not the same
be believed of virtuous adults, labouring under ignorance
alike involuntary and invincible? Let there be remarked
the circumstances, under which men would have come
into being in paradise, and under which they at present
come; according to the opinion which has been stated.
Under the former circumstance, they would have been
peccable, as Adam himself was. Under the latter, they
are far more exposed to sin, but favoured with a more
beneficent dispensation, which supplies the mean of their
recovery.

with Holy Scripture generally, 265

Man, in his present condition, is indeed very liable to
sin, although not without a better pr nciple, condemning
it: and this is the struggle described by St. Paul, under
the representation of " a law in the members, warring
against the law in the mind;" and, except so far as it is
resisted and subdued by the aid of divine grace, "bring-
ing it under captivity to the law of sin."

But il one of the reasons for setting aside the doctrine
of condemnation to everlasting misery, as the effect of
Adam's sin, was its not being found in the account of the
apostasy in Genesis; may there not, in the same manner,
be alleged against this other doctrine of natural corrup-
tion, that the same book is silent on the subject? By no
means; and it may be distinctly traced, concise as is the
narrative. Mortality involved in itself liability to every
disease, to every species of violence, and to every priva-
tion, by which the effect might be accomplished. That
the elements also underwent a change, appears in the su-
perinduced necessity of clothing; which, although in the
first instance supplied by an extraordinary interposition
of the great Creator, was to be afterwards the product of
human industry. Added to these, there was the curse of ste-
rility on the earth, whose reluctant yielding of her treasures
could not but be fruitful of the misery of want. Now is
it not evident, what must be hereby brought about, by
the natural connexion between a cause and its effect?
Such a change in the human constitution could not but
be productive of imbecility of reason and strength of
passion. And such a change in outward nature, while it
produced, as was intended, more powerful incentives to
innocent desire, as accommodated to the supply of man's
necessities; so it of course produced a greater danger of

vol. i. Mm

266 Comparison of the Controversy , £sfc.

his carrying of that desire to an extreme, under the afore-
said impairing of his higher faculty of intellect.*

Let there be remarked the manner, in which these
causes are seen to operate; with the view of ascertaining,
whether they will not account for the abounding wicked-
ness of the world. And for this purpose, let the matter
be brought to the test of religious and moral duty.

* Since the drawing up of these papers, the author has met
with something so like them in a modern publication in England5
that he now takes occasion to subjoin the passage referred to. It
is in a letter, making one of a series of letters to the publisher, the
reverend Mr. Stedman, from the reverend Sir James Stonehouse,
a clergyman of the established church, and the reverend Job
Orton, a dissenting minister of great merit, and author of the Life
of Dr. Doddriige, prefixed to his works. The passage is From one
of Mr. Orton's letters. Speaking of original sin, he says— "What
I understand is (and which I take to be a fact) that as we are
bom with less perfect constitutions, so the passions are stronger
and less governable; and thereby, we are more easily led into sin.
I have known so many instances, in which persons have excused
their sins and bad tempers, by pleading original sin, that I would
be extremely cautious, how I gave the most distant encourage-
ment to such absurd and dangerous pleas."

On these principles, it is easy to answer an objection brought
against hereditary corruption, in the allegation, that as it is said
to be communicated by descent from sir.ful Adam, by parity of
reasoning, there should be transmission of holiness from regene-
rate parents to their offspring. Calvin [Lib. 2. chap. 1. sec 7.]
notices the objection, and endeavours to answer it by the remark,
that the former is in the course of nature, and the latter by superin-
duced grace. There seems no argument in this, on the ground
taken to prove transmission of a sinful nature — that every being,
holy or unholy, must produce its like. The maxim rests on a pre-
sumption, entirely distinct from a question which may be raised,
as to the channel by which the possessed properties were re-
ceived.

with Holy Scripture generally. 267

Human duty, agreeably to the catechism, in which the
division is here thought more correct than in the common
systems of ethicks, is divided into our duty to God, and
our duty to our neighbour: comprehending, under either
or both, whatever relates to the proper government of our-
selves.

In regard to God, he who writes never knew an in-
stance, in which, there being proposed to the mind of
a young person, the idea of such a being, with the perfec-
tions usually ascribed to him, the result was hatred; or
even any thing short of admiration and esteem. There
have been so many instances within his observation, of
its proving a theme dwelt on with delight, that he is war-
ranted in believing it a general trait of the youthful cha-
racter; although the contrary may sometimes happen; to
be accounted for by an extraordinary association of ideas;
the effect either of mistake in education, or the neglect of
it. That the young mind may afterwards become indis-
posed to the contemplation of the same adorable Being;
and may even become so far depraved, as never to think
of him but with disgust; and for ought here known with
hatred, although not met with in any instance, is conce-
ded. But this may be traced to the prevalence of inordi-
nate desire, in some shape or in another; which prompts
the consciousness, that the great Creator and Preserver
cannot be thought of, without self-reproach.

We also owe to God, the proper government of our-
selves. Now, it will not be denied, that all passions to the
contrary are desires, innocent and useful as implanted in
the constitution, yet running wide of their objects, or else
carried to an extreme. Beastly as gluttony is, no man
ever pronounced hunger an entailment on the fall and in

268 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

itself sinful; since Adam, in his innocency, was to eat of
the fruit of the trees of the garden: And the same may
be said of every other natural appetite, as implanted by
the Author of our Being. Now, however wide and dread-
ful the range of appetite, let loose for the disturbance of
human happiness, this is evidently the result of that in-
crease of desire and that decrease of the restraints of rea-
son, which were the unavoidable accompaniments of
what we find rtcorded concerning a change in Adam
and in all around him,

A similar series of sentiment may be applied, as affect-
ing the performance of a man's duty to his neighbour.
Every one, who ha^ a*:. ended to the operations of a young
mind, must have remarked in it unequivocal evidences of
gratitude, and of a disposition to offices of kindness. It
does not so soon prove its submission to the law of jus-
tier, and w ill accordingly grasp at what is not its own.
But this is owing- to there being required some know-
ledge of the distinction between "racum" and "tuum,"
as a ground on which the law may operate. The same
may be said of the law of truth. An inlant may violate it
by signs, before he has the power of utterance; finding in
it some gratification of appetite, and not having the least
idea of the effect of the subject on society. But in regard
to both these laws of honesty and of truth, there seem to
be no instances, in which young persons, properly in-
structed, more directly assent to their obligations, and
manifest a disposition to the practice of them; however
they may lose sight of them in succeeding life, through
the influence of temptation. But when there is annexed
the condition of proper instruction, there is implied con-
sistent example of ihe instructor. Even if some instances,

with Holy Scripture generauy. 269

to the contrary of what is stated, may come within the ex-
perience of others; yet, if the general fact be agreeable to
the former, it is sufficient to the argument. As there are
monsters in the natural world, there may, perhaps, be some-
thing analogous in the moral; although it is here doubted.

But if there be correctness in what has been laid
down as a property of very early years; how happens it,
that young persons are so often and so easily drawn
aside, to selfishness and injustice? It is from a grow-
ing acquaintance with their present, and with what may-
be their future wants, together with the difficulties at-
tending the acquisition of what is to supply them; and
of various ways in which they may come in competition
with their neighbours, for that which is their common
object of desire. Hence arise anger — jealousy — envy
— malice; with all the injurious treatment, which is the
result of them. Some of the passions, indeed, have been
distinguished from the other passions, by the epithet of
unnatural. But they all are equally unnatural in this re-
spect, that they arise from cupidity, carried to an ex-
treme; and equally natural in this, that they may be tra-
ced to principles, which are necessary and useful in the
human constitution.

The passion which has a connexion the least obvious
with the causes stated, is that of pride, in its modifica-
tions of contumacy to superiours, of arrogancy to in-
feriours, and of jealousy towards equals, and in various
other operations. Still, these things are resolvable into
the same causes; it being because of an apprehended
interference with the acquiring or the retaining of what
is made desirable, by real or imaginary wants, that men
cherish feelings so inimical to others and so tormenting

270 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

to themselves. And uniting with such a series of un»
social passions, there is the misdirection of that noble
ardour of the mind, which was given to excite it to
laudable and useful enterprise. For although one end
of this endowment is esteem; yet, combining with
ignoble principles of conduct, it defeats its own end,
by deeds which deserve universal detestation. Under
the perversion which has been described, it would be
as unreasonable to say, that the hands which steal
were not made to work; and that the tongue which
blasphemes was not made to speak the praises of
the Creator; as that the affection of the mind, which
issues in any abominable crime, was not implanted for
some purpose, worthy of the great Being who bestow-
ed it.

Now, let there be the inquiry, whether the fall of
Adam, as here stated, agrees with what we are taught
in scripture, concerning redemption.

So far as the doctrine relates to the being restored to
immortality, with new responsibility attached to it,
there must be a suitableness with the promise, of the
seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head; the
gain being thus accommodated to the more visible pro-
perty of the loss. But the more important part of the
subject respects the taint of nature; and prompts the
inquiry as to the way, in which the remedy is suited to
the disease. Here, all mankind out of the Christian
church may be left to the effect of the principles al-
ready stated, as to their condition. Concerning infants
brought to Christ by baptism, it is a scriptural truth,
not contradicted within the first fifteen hundred years
of the Christian era, that they are made his by baptis-

with Holy Scripture generally, 271

mal regeneration: under which term there is here in-
cluded, not a moral change; but partly the being be-
gotten again to immortality, spoken of in 1. Peter i. 3;
and partly the new character assured to them in a fede-
ral institution, in which the aids of the Holy Spirit are
stipulated to them on the part of God. The same ap-
plies to adults; except, that as the difference of the case
suggests, obedience is promised in person; and further,
that there must be repentance, which is inapplicable to
infants. In the event of subsequent sin, there is no dif-
ference between the two descriptions of persons. Re-
pentance is not denied: but, awful is the prospect,
unless the end of all be accomplished — that victory
which the Apostle, after describing the conflict in the
sinner's breast, mentions as the achievement of Chris-
tian faith; and which consists in being delivered " from
the body of this death." Without this, there would
not apply what he says of glorying in the fruit of such
a victory — " There is, therefore, now no condemnation
to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after
the flesh, but after the spirit."

When there is contemplated the theory here propo-
sed, of the consequences of Adam's sin; there is
mourned over, the contrariety in which it stands to the
system of many faithful ministers of that Gospel, which
we in common consider as the foundation of our faith.
But there arises a confirmation of what is here held,
from looking into the writings of sensible and learned
men on the other side; and from remarking the caution
with which, in general, they avoid the tracing of opi-
nions to their consequences: which would present a
picture of the world, different from the original, as it

272 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

stands before their eyes. For if what they say be cor-
rect, of a depravity universal and entire; it would sure-
ly follow of all men and women, not under the regene-
rating power of Christianity, that they stand ready for
any kind of wickedness, further than as they may be
restrained from it by some counteracting selfishness
If this be so, we may cabt our eyes around us, and say
of persons who fill the most respectable stands in so-
ciety— That man would fain murder such another,
who is a competitor with him in the road to publick
honour — That other man must needs be desirous of
making his own, the property of a certain orphan com-
mitted to his care — And that other, were he to follow
as his inclination leads, would be abandoned to lewdness
of every kind. Such are the men, and such is the
wickedness of their hearts; and such would be their
outrages, were they not kept within bounds, by con-
siderations which represent the temporal loss, as what
might probably be greater to them than the gain. And
further, it must be true of domestick life, on the prin-
ciples of such a theory, that, in regard to the greater
proportion of the world, it is the result of the most
grovelling motives, if the son do not take the life of the
father, the husband that of the wife, and the wife that
of the husband; whenever, in the respective cases, there
may be the prospect of an alteration for the better, in
the condition of the inimical parties. Calvin thus
avows the sentiment, in its extent — "If every soul be
subject to all these monstrous vices, as the Apostle
fearlessly pronounces, we clearly see what would be
the consequence, if the Lord should suffer the human
passions to go all the lengths to which they are inclined.

wkh Holy Scripture generally, 273

Tb"re is no furious beast, that would be agitated with
such ungovernable rage; there is no river, though ever
so rapid and violent, that would overflow its bounda-
ries with such impetuosity. In his elect, the Lord heals
these maladies, by a method which we shall hereafter
describe. In others, he restrains them, only to prevent
their ebullitions so far as he sees to be necessary for
the preservation of the universe. Hence, some by
shame, and some by fear of the laws, are prevented
from running into many kinds of pollutions, though
they cannot in any great degree dissemble their impu-
rity: others, because they think that a virtuous course
of life is advantageous, entertain some languid desires
after it: others go farther, and display more than com-
mon excellence, that by their majesty they may con-
fine the vulgar to their duty. Thus God, by his provi-
dence, restrains the perverseness of our nature from
breaking out into external acts, but does not purify it
within."*

It would be easy to cite sentiments from Calvinistick
divines, to the same effect. One more however shall
suffice. The learned and pious divine here in view —
Bishop Beveridge — in his Exposition cf the 9th Ar-
ticle of the Church of England, contrasting the present
state of man with that in which he was created, says —
f< So that he that before did not only not hate God but
love him, doth now not only not love him, but hate
him; his nature being now averse from good, and in-
clined to evil; as it was before averse from evil and in-
clined to good:" And again — " A wolf begets wolves,
not lambs; so he" (man) "begets sinners, not saints: and
* Book ii. chap. iii. sect. 3.

VOL. I. n n

274 Comparison of the Controversy, Sec.

hence, a child is a sinner as soon as horn; yea, as soon
as conceived, before any sin can be committed by it, it
hath sin conceived in it."

It is not always, that we find Calvinistick writers de-
lineating their doctrine in its extent, like Calvin and
Bishop Beveridge. On the other hand, it is not un-
common to find among the less informed advocates of
the theory, persons who are aware, that, in the extent
described, it is opposed to fact; and who endeavour to
guard against this, by " restraining," or what they
sometimes call " preventing grace." In doing this, they
change the meaning of the latter term, which is of well
known signification in theology, expressive of a sound
truth; that of the grace of God going before us in all
good, and disposing to it. The expression, " restrain-
ing grace," may also be correctly used, although not
in the sense here alluded to. That the holy spirit of
God, by suggesting salutary sentiment to the mind,
may keep a man back from an action which he wick-
edly wills to do, may be conceived of. This however
is not the thing, which the persons referred to mean. It is
that divine grace keeps the evil will from willing evil.
Under an utter incapacity of apprehending the distinc-
tion, no more shall be said concerning it. Neither Cal-
vin nor Bishop Beveridge could have said any thing so
unintelligible; and therefore the former, as no doubt the
latter would have done, places the restraint in motives
foreign to religion: thus speaking language which may
be understood, although describing mankind other-
wise than as we know them.

If infants were really, as they come into the world,
so much iike imps of hell, as they are described by the

with Holy Scripture generally. 275

theory alluded to; instead of watching as we do their
early efforts and emotions, it would be more consistent
conduct in a Christian, to conceive of them as of ser-
pents or of rats, from which we turn away with disgust,
even when we have no apprehension of their doing us
harm. But, when we see the state of matrimony enga-
ged in by a conscientious advocate of the theory, there
is a consolation in believing, that he has not an entire
confidence in the foundation of it; or, that he would not
voluntarily be the mean of increasing a progeny, decla-
red to be hated by God and deserving to be hated by
men also; however he may be impelled by an appetite,
which he might hope to keep down by strict abstinence
and by continual prayer.

It is no small evil, resulting from such mistaken re-
presentations of human nature, that many a man, far
from the temper and state essential to the lowest grade
of Christian standing, yet not a stranger to temporary
devotion and good desires, and further not conscious
of hatred to God, or of malice against men, yet taught
that the latter is always attendant on the unregenerate,
considers with satisfaction, that he therefore cannot be
of the number; while yet his delinquencies are such, that
it may confidently be said of them — " These spots are
not the spots of God's children."

But by what process of argument can the theory be
made to agree with the evident principle of common
sense, that an essential ingredient in sin is the exercise of
intellect? Or how shall we reconcile it to the equally rea-
sonable maxim of scripture, that "where there is no law,
there is no transgression?" We observe, in certain animals,
sensibilities like those which we brand as sinful passion in

276 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

mankind. Yet of sin we do not accuse them; and the idea,
that the justice of God cannot pass it by without an atone-
ment, never eni rs our minds. On the same principles,we
acquit ideots and madmen of crimes; although the latter
may be outrageous in the extreme. How then can there
be more sin in a human being, possessing less that locks
like intellect, than what may be found in a madman, or
in an ideot, or in a brute? The writer of this has been in
the habit of supposing, that the weak point in the sys-
tem here noticed, gave occasion to the introducing of
the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin; although
the necessity of it had not occurred to Calvin. Mankind
were to be considered as coming into the world, deser-
ving of the eternal wrath of God. But he cannot, it is
said, condemn an innocent creature to everlasting misery.
Sin, therefore, must attach to the infant, in one way or
another; and accordingly, Calvin supposed sin and the
attendant condemnation to belong to it from the mother's
womb. But was this possible; unless, with a measure of
intelligence suited to the case, the infant had done, or at
least willed, something, which might be construed into a
consent to the sin in paradise? Hence, to all appearance,
arose the necessity of introducing the novelty of an impu-
tation, by the just judgment of God, of a sin committed
by representation. It is only thus that an infant can, with
any appearance of consistency, be affirmed to be guilty as
soon as it is born; or, to use the more consistent words of
bishop Beveridge, as soon as it is conceived; because,
consent to a former sin by imitation requires the exercise
of the intellectual faculty.

It is with the most profound reverence, that there is
submitted the following intimation concerning the person

with Holy Scripture generally , 277

of the adorable Redeemer, as connected with the present
subject. It has frequently pressed on the mind of the au-
thor; and he thinks, that the withholding of it would not
be consistent with the justice due to the sacred cause of
truth. That in the person of Jesus, the divine nature was
united with the human — not body only, but soul also, is
the faith of Christians generally; and the excluding of the
human soul, is stigmatized as the heresy of the Apollina-
rians. But is it consistent with this doctrine, to conceive
of the soul of fallen man, essentially such as the Calvinis-
tick theory describes it? This objection had seemed im-
portant to the author, before he found in his reading any
thing in any author, which had a bearing on the point.
Nor did he meet with any notice of it, until his reading
of Witsius; whose answer, he must say, has much con-
firmed him in the conviction of the insuperable nature of
the difficulty proposed. This author, considering the
matter in relai ion to imputation only, has some minute
distinctions, not necessary to be repeated; and all turning
on the point, that the second Adam was not born accor-
ding to the ordinary course of nature; but in virtue of the
promise of the seed of the woman. Notwithstanding
this, however, there are the declarations in scripture, that
he "took on him the seed of Abraham;" that "in all
things he was made like unto his brethren;" and that as
"the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also
took part of the same;" with other things to the like ef-
fect; which seem to intimate what is directly contrary to
the design of the argument of Witsius. But even allow-
ing him its full effect, as imputation is concerned; it does
not touch the point of derivation. For, if "the word was
made flesh and dwelt among us," it matters not as to

278 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

this point, how far the humanity was derived from Adam.
There must have been a union of the word with the hu-
manity, under all its essential properties.

There is another impression on the author's mind on
the present subject, like the consideration introduced
above, affecting the divine character. He allude^ to the
asseverations in scripture, that man, not only as to his ori-
ginal state, but as to his present also, is in the image of
God. Thus, the reason given against the taking of human
life, is — "In the image of God made he man."* And it
is said by St. James concerning a licentious tongue —
"Therewith bless wc God, even the Father; and there-
with curse we men, which are made after the similitude
of God."f Are these things consistent with the idea,
that we have lost all traces of the divine image; and, as
some divines do not scruple to affirm, are by nature in the
jikeness of the devil?| It is here presumed, that they are
not. If it be answered, that the prohibition in Genesis,
and the reproof in St. James are because of the image
originally possessed; they are no more pertinent to their
purpose, than what might be affirmed of a fine picture,
would be pertinent, after the obliteration of all its linea-
ments; their place on the canvass being supplied by a
hideous visage, as unlike as possible to the other. If it
should be further answered, that reference is had to the
regaining of the image, it is irrelevant to the drifts of the

* Genesis ix. 6. f Ch. iii. 9.
| Even the last opinion is not always thought to reach the tone
of orthodoxy. For the writer of this, at a very early period of his
life, heard of a very popular Calvinistick clergyman's declaring
from the pulpit, that whereas some had characterized man as
half beast and half devil, he ought rather to be described as all
hcast and all devil.

with Holy Scripture generally, 279

passages, in their respective places; there might still be
reasons against murder, and against licentiousness of
tongue; but there could be no reason against them, ei-
her in the circumstance that man once was, or in that of
the possibility of his being destined to be in future, in the
image of his Creator. The mere possibility is adverted
to; because, according to the theory, the argument
against the murder of any man would be, that for
ought known to the murderer, the other may be one
of those, who are to bear the image of God on their
souls.

There have been mentioned some difficulties, the
solutions of which are not commonly attempted by
Calvinistick writers. But there is one difficulty, which
they often labour to remove. It is, that of their sys-
tem's apparently making of God the author of sin. A
specimen of the manner in which the consequence is
evaded, may be seen in Witsius.* The drift of his ar-
gument is, that God indeed excites and predetermines
the will of man to vicious actions, so far as they are
actions; and so, that it is not possible, but that thus
acted on, it shall act: but that, God not superadding
the moral quality of goodness, the action derives its
malignity from the creature's will; which cannot be
good, without a divine influx. And the position is laid
down concerning human nature, as well before the fall
as after it. Such is the way, in which Witsius provides
against the making of God the author of sin; for this
is pronounced by him to be blasphemy Can there be
the least pretence from scripture, for a distinction on
which so much is built? To do the professor justice.
* Book i. ch. 8. sec. 23 and seq.

280 Comparison of the Controversy r, fcfc.

he does not present any scriptural authority in proof of
it. Ought it not, then, to be evidence of the ex-
tremities to which the theory leads? It would seem,
indeed, that the learned author, aware how inadequate
some minds would be to the discovery of the consis-
tency of his positions, provides for such occasions by
remarking — "Though it be difficult, nay impossible
for us, to reconcile these truths with each other; yet
we ought not to deny what is manifest, on account of
that which is hard to be understood." Certainly not:
but the principle does not apply, where — as is concei-
ved in the present instance — the matter, far from
being manifest, has nothing in its favour., except its
being needed to support a system; and where, instead
of its being merely hard to be understood, it amounts
to a contradiction.

Such are the opinions here entertained of the con-
sequences of Adam's fall; and they seem to be far
from having a tendency to lessen the motives to any
virtue; but on the contrary, to be necessary to all re-
sponsibility of conscience. Could we look back on our
earlier thoughts and disposions, as having pointed to
every thing hateful in the sight of. God and man, we
could not feel the pain of self-condemnation, for any
excesses into which we may have fallen; or for any im-
perfections, in the performance of religious and moral
duties. We might perhaps bewail the misery of such a
nature, but could never be brought to any sensibility
of the sin of it.

The author, however, is not without the apprehen-
sion, that his sentiments will be misunderstood and
misapplied. One objection will be — and a formidable

with Holy Scripture generally, ,281

One indeed, if it be to the purpose— that they cherish
the pride of human nature; because they are opposed
to a system, which preeminently boasts of its enmity
to that evil principle in the heart of man. In theory,
there would not seem to be this result; so long as it is
confessed, that we are under a pressure of sin and in a
state of impotency, from which nothing but the divine
mercy can relieve us. Besides, we are not so ignorant
of Satan's devices as not to be aware, that the pride of
human nature may be displayed in endeavours to de-
base it. In practice, it is a delicate task to make an
estimate of the opposite influence of the theories; be-
cause of the invidious property of comparison. It is
trusted, however, that there can be no indecorum in
remarking, as the fruit of individual experience —
which perhaps has not been sufficiently extensive for a
criterion— that if the belief of the dark descriptions
which have been given of human nature, have generally
the effect of making men, more eminently than others,
meek, modest, and unassuming, under the sensibility of
so great a misery; it is what is here not known, or can
be conceded.

Further, it would be exceedingly unfair to infer
from what has been written, that the sinner is consider-
ed, on the account of his sins being the result of the
misdirection of good properties of his being, as having
the less occasion for the renovating work of grace. It
will hold for ever true, that " the carnal mind is enmi-
ty against God;" and that "to be carnally minded is
death." Not only so, the being in such a state poisons
every performance, which might in itself be the subject
of divine approbation. The sense entertained on this

Vol. i. * o

£282 Cfmparisori of the Controversy, £sV%

point, shall be illustrated by reference to a passage in
Dr. Witherspoon's fourteenth lecture; in regard to
which, the liberty is here taken of thinking the Doctor
correct in part, but not entirely. He represents his
theory as " by no means asserting, that every act" (of
the unregenerate man) " in every part of it is evil: Such
as to speak truth, to do justice, to show mercy; which
certainly an unholy man may do. Nay;" says he, " I
suppose even the greatest sinner that ever was, speaks
twentv true words, where he speaks one that is false.
But what is meant to be asserted is, that every action
of an unregenerate man is essentially defective as a
moral duty; because flowing from a wrong principle
and tending to a wrong end." 'Now, the Doctor is here
supposed so far right, as that the sinful state of man in
question forbids the acceptance of an act, not parta-
king of the vicious properties of that state. But to say
of the same man, that he cannot do any action in itself
fight, except from a wrong principle and with a view
to a wrong end, seems a carrying of the matter beyond
what observation warrants. The Doctor goes on to
show, what he means by a wrong end and motive; in-
stancing one man's being sober from a concern for his
health; and another's being frugal, to fill his purse. But
if even persons who " live without God in the world,"
as to any uniform sense of his authority and his pre-
sence, may do what is here stated, from higher consi-
derations than those in the supposition; much more, if
such persons may have temporary sensibilities, parta-
king of the spirit by which they should be habitually
governed; there must be an errour in laying down so
'general a position, as that which has been quoted from

with Holy Scripture generally, 285

a respectable and learned author. Of such an alliancej
we have continually instances before our eyes: and
there does not seem any possible danger in the distinc-
tion here laid down; because the character will still be
determined by the ruling- principle. A son, under the
just displeasure of his father, may, during his estrange-
ment, perform some actions which the father would be
far from considering as defective, either in principle
or in form: and yet these actions may have no effect
on the relative position of the parties; while there are
wanting the dutiful sorrow and submission, necessary
to the giving of acceptance to any performance of the
offender.

It is often asked — and with reason — If human na-
ture be so pure, as some have taken a pleasure in de-
scribing it; how does it happen, that of a race so virtuous
naturally, every individual, arrived at the use of reason,
incurs at least a measure of guilt; while every commu-
nity of them exhibit a mass of wickedness, which it is
horrible to contemplate? Such a question has no bear-
hig on the theory here laid down. According to it,
mankind have a disease of nature; being sensible of
sources of want, and surrounded by correspondent
temptations, which change weakness into sin. Here is
a cause, which will account for all prevalence of iniqui-
ty; any further than as it may be checked by opposite
testimony from the works and from the word of God,
in neither of which hath he left himself without a wit-
ness; by the consenting testimony of conscience to them
both, and by their being all directed to their proper
end, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is true,
that in estimating the comparative quantities *>f the

284 Comparison of the Controversy r, £ste.

good and the evil, some overlook much of the former,
which is the more private; and make the most of the
latter, which is always the more prominent to observa-
tion. Still, there is so much of this as to show, that
there are no duties more important, than those of
watchfulness and prayer. Every representation of hu-
man nature, which lessens the necessity of these, must
be built on errour. It is trusted, that no such conse-
quence results from the opinions which have been un-
folded; but on the contrary, that they are more fa-
vourable to those exercises, than a theory, which,
representing human nature as essentially in enmity to
every holy thought and every good desire, may prompt
the idea that there is propriety in sitting still in such a
state; until dragged from it by the resistless grace,
which is to be treated of in the ensuing subdivision of
the work.

4 OF GRACE.

The Arminian side taken—Texts declaring the general Tenour or5

the Christian Mission— Texts which make the Offer general

Texts which suppose the Possibility of Resistance— Texts on the

other Side— Would prove the Influence of Satan irresistible

Unnecessary Consequence drawn by Calvinists— Consequences
of the other Side — The question of Faith and Works— Distinc-
tion between absolute and covenanted Merit.

In discussing the point, it is again necessary to distin-
guish between what is held by the litigants in common,
and the matter on which they divide. That there is an
agency of the Holy Spirit on the human mind, is believ-
ed, as well by the Arminian as by the Calvinist. But
the latter, while he acknowledges a grace given to all and
not competent to salvation, contends for an effectual grace,
applied to the predestinate alone; and accomplishing its
object, with an energy that is sovereign and irresistible.
The Arminian knows of no saving grace, besides that
given to all; which he considers as persuasive and to be
resisted.

On the present point, the Arminian does not fail to re-
mark, and he is in no danger of contradiction — that the
more obvious sense of scripture is with him: its contents
being generally spoken of, as interesting alike to all.
And he argues from this, that if, in contrariety to offers
explicitly made, and which every man may read or hear,
there be a reserve, the effect of which, relatively to him-
self, he cannot know; there ought at least to be very lu-
minous evidence of an invisible hand, thus subducting
what a vibible and open hand has the appearance of be-

286 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

stowing: If indeed any evidence can be competent to the
conviction of the contrariety supposed; for the impossi-
bility of this he is not backward to affirm.

The opinion of the Arminians, is that which will be
here maintained. But to state all the passages of scrip-
ture which they think applicable to their purpose, would
be to transcribe a great part of the sacred volume. For
they contend, that there is not an admonition, or an ex-
postulation, or a reproof, or a precept, or a promise, or a
threatening, but what is predicated on the truth of their
opinion; and, independently on it, would be either de-
ception or mockery: Deception, if the party interested
were informed of the apparent benefit, but kept in igno-
rance of the drawback; and mockery, if, as is supposed in
the instance at issue, both the offer and the restraint arc
made known to him in the same heavenly message.

In addition, however, to this general consideration, there
are express texts of Scripture: And the first class of them
to be here mentioned are those which, in the very defining
of the evangelical mission, recognise the general interest
existing in it. It has been remarked under another head,
that the very word " Gospel," is the same with " good
news." To whom? it may be asked. Certainly to all
those to whom it has been authoritatively declared. And
who are they? It is defined in all such passages as that in
St. Luke xxiv. 47 ; where our Saviour, after his death,
instructed his disciples, that " Repentance and remission
of sins should be preached among all nations, beginning
at Jerusalem;" and that in St. Mark xiii. 10; where,
before his death, he told them — "The Gospel must first be
published among all nations." It is unnecessary, to guard
here against the criticism alleged on another point, in-

with Holy Scripture generally. 28?

tended to limit the description of all nations, to some of
every nation; not only because it would destroy the whole
spirit of the mission, but because the said criticism is not
even applied, in the present instance: the acknowledg-
ment being made, that the Gospel is indeed to be preach-
ed to all; while it is contended, that the end of this, to all
except the elect, is to render their damnation just.

The next class of authorities are express calls given
in Scripture, but given, it is alleged on the other side,
ineffectually. Thus, when to the call in the 14th chap-
ter of St. Luke, there were excuses made; of one, that
he had " bought a farm and must needs go and see it;"
of another, that he had il bought five yokes of oxen and
must go to prove them;" and of another, that he had
*' married a wife, and therefore could not come;" they are
all of them considered as bidden by the Master: as bid-
den, not, for any thing appearing, under a determination
that the offer shall be of no avail. Why does our Lord
complain — " Ye will not come to me, that ye might have
life?"* And why does he mourn over Jerusalem, saying—
" How often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,
and ye would not^'f if the event were to be brought
about by the resistless power of God — and so declared
to those complained of?

Even the invitations which imply a corresponding dis-
position on the part of those invited, as — " Come unto me
all ye that labour and are heavy laden," J have an unfavour-
able aspect on the opinion, of there being invited those
who cannot come. For since they of the said opinion
allow, that a man may have much sorrow for sin and a

• John v. 40. t Matt, xxiii. 37. $ Matt. xi. 28.

288 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

considerable tenderness of mind, directing his view to the
consolations of the Gospel, and yet not be under an
effectual call; as may appear by his living and dying with-
out reform; it follows, that even present desire can be no
evidence to the person conscious of it, that he is of the
number of those who have an interest in the promises
made to the penitent in scripture.

But what shall we say to those passages, in which re-
sistance is directly affirmed, as likely to happen on the
part of man? An instance is in Ephesians iv. 30 —
" Grieve not the holy spirit of God." Be it, as is af-
firmed, that this is said after the manner of men: Yet
surely it is a conceiving of the divine nature, in a simi-
lar manner to that in which we conceive of the human.
If so, there must be a resistance, in a measure at
least, of the governance of the divine spirit : And if he
may be resisted in a degree and for a time, why not in
full and finally? No— it will be said; this is guarded
against in the words which follow — "Whereby yeare seal-
ed unto the day of redemption." These words are amply
explained in the first chapter of this epistle, verse 13 — "In
whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with
that holy spirit of promise." Here we may perceive,
what the sealing was not, and what it was. It was not the
sealing of an individual for salvation, as a merchant seals a
package of goods, for the use to which it is destined—-
the comparison made on the other side. This could not
be, since the sealing is a matter distinct from the believ-
ing and subsequent to it. ft amounts to the same thing,
whether we content ourselves with the common transla-
tion; or render the words, as we may — " ye, believing,
were sealed, &c." What the sealing was, appears in the

with Holy Scripture generally, 289

expression — " The holy Spirit of promise; " which must
be the same called in Luke xxiv. 49, and in Acts i. 4,—
" The promise of the Father:" that is the Holy Ghost,
demonstrating his presence by miraculous gifts; first, on
the church of Jerusalem on the day of pentecost; and af-
terwards on various churches, of which that at Ephesus
must have been one. The members of this church, as a
body, must have had the sea! set on them, designating
their vocation to be a branch of the church; and to enjoy
a participation of the inestimable privileges involved in
it. In this sense, the foregoing comparison of the seal-
ing of goods will apply as strictly, as if the matter intend-
ed had been the sealing of the individuals.

Similar to the expression here commented on, but in-
deed still stronger, is that in 1. Thessalonians v. 19 —
"Quench not the Spirit." It matters not, whether his
ordinary or his extraordinary influence be the subject of
the precept. If there may be a defeat of his influence in
this, more evidently may it be in that. Again, there is
a strong passage in Revelations iii. 20- — u Behold, I stand
at the door and knock ; if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with
him and he with me." It is well remarked by Calvinists
and by others on this passage, that it puts off all pretence
of any thing being done by the will of man, without the
grace of God preventing; that is, going before. But
surely it teaches with equal clearnesss, that compliance or
resistance rests with man. That the omnipotence of God
can accomplish what he wills, no. one is hardy or foolish
enough to deny. But whether it will or will not be ex-
erted, according to the condition of the movement of the
human will ; and whether it may not nave been his high

vol.. x p P

290 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

pleasurej to establish the system of human affairs, on the
principle of the affiimative ; is another subject. Such a
system is consistent with the proposition laid down be-
fore, and is evidently the leading sentiment, of the pas-
s:i;;e under notice.

It Will hardly be denied, that the sense of scripture,
here supposed, is the more obvious of the two senses in
question ; however it may be contended, that the other
is the more sure, though recondite. Accordingly, it will
now be proper to attend to some leading authorities,
which are adduced to this effect.

First, let it be remarked, that there are held up all the
pahsages, in which, whatever we may possess of grace is
ascribed to God; as that in James i. 17 — *' Every good
gilt and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
from the Faiher of Lights;" that in 1. Corinthians iv. 7 —
" Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what
hast thou that thou didst not receive?" And to go from
grace generally, to the most prominent fruit of it — " By
grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your-
selves; it is the gift of God."* In regard to all such
pjs^ages, the answer is, that no question is raised, as to
who is the author of ail good. The difference is, as to
the manner in which it is bestowed by him. It would
be improper, however, to dismiss the last of the pas-
sages mentioned, without noticing the violence offered to
grammar, in order to bring it to bear on the question; so
as to prove the point of the irresistible grace of God.
That faith may be said to be his gift as well because of
its objects, as because of his grace inclining to it, is not
denied. And yet, even this is not the sentiment of the

* Ephtsians ii. 8.

with Holy Scripture generally. 291

passage. The word •• it,"* in the original, cannot be
made to agree in gender with " faith. "f Its ante-
cedent, therefore, is the whole preceding part of the sen-
tence—the being " saved by grace through faith." It
is this which is the gift of God. Neither will there be
any inconsistency with the interpretation, in what fol-
lows— "not of works," &c. — " for we are his work-
manship." Grace was the principle in the divine mind,
and workmanship was the grace carried into efiect. But
there is thus brought into view an expression, thought
to be pointedly characteristic^ of the irresistible grace of
God; since what can look more like the effect of me-
chanical process, than the being a workmanship? And
yet, to call so, a collective body of Christians, was no
more than had been said relative to the community of the
Jews, in many places, as in Isaiah xliii. 1. — " Thus saith
the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed
thee, O Israel." The polity of each was a divine work;
and nothing further is contained in the expression; al-
though it ought to be confessed equally the work of God;
whenever the hearts of his people are such as he is al-
ways endeavouring to make them, by the influences of
his holy Spirit.

Perhaps there has been no passage oftener quoted, than
that in Acts xvi. 14. — " And a certain woman named
Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord open-
ed, that she attended unto the things which were spoken
of Paul." What is there like irresistible grace, in the
conversion of the character here introduced? It is said of
her, that she " worshipped God;" being probably a prose-

* TWT8. f STtfli.

292 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

lyte of the gate. Surely the suasive motion of grace, Un-
der which she had already lived, is a cause sufficient t®
account for the effect of a ready ear given to the Chris-
tian doctrine, and to the evidences of the divine commis-
sion of those who preached it. In short, this exemplary
woman was under the influence of the spirit of God, be-
fore her hearing of the preaching of St. Paul: and there-
fore, nothing here said is to the purpose of the irresistible
grace of God, in the conversion of the sinner. It is
not uncommon, to find the place urged to that ef-
fect. There can be but one reason: and it is the hostili-
ty to svstem in the circumstance, of a predisposition in
the soil for the receiving of the seed of the word sown:
however unequivocally this may be ascribed to what is
called the preventing grace ol God.

But it is remarked, that there are a whole class of texts,
in which Christians are said to be begotten or to be born
again; or are compared to a new creation, or the like. Of
the passages referred to, some are designated by the sense
in one, and some by the sense in another, of the two fol-
lowing points of view: 1st, as expressing the sanctity of
the Christian calling, affecting the community of Chris-
tians; and in this respect, no stronger language is used
than there had been concerning the former chosen people;
to whom are applied expressions, which in the original
denote creating and forming; as in the passage from Isai-
ah above quoted, and evidently designed, not individu-
ally but collectively. The other point of view, is as ex-
acting renovation of the heart. But there must be re-
peated a remark before made, on the impropriety of giv-
ing [o scriptural metaphor an interpretation, that implies
a production of new powers; wliiie it is notorious, that

■with Holy Scripture generally. 29S

the best of saints carry with them out of the world no
other faculty, and no other capacity of any kind, than
such as had been in it; the difference between a state of
sin, and that of grace, being in the objects to which the
powers are directed.

The texts alluded to, are thought to derive great
weight from those of another description, in which we
are said to be " dead in trespasses and sins;"* in analogy
with which we are called on — " Av ake thou that sleepest,
and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."f
Does not this very passage show the danger of building
doctrine on a strict adherence to the letter of metaphori-
cal discourse? The same persons are asleep in one part
of the verse, and dead in the other: And in other places,
sinners are called on to awake out of sleep; as in Romans
xiii. 11. and in 1. Corinthians xv. 34. If, by a state of
death, there be merely intended that in which we should
have remained under the fall, in an utter want of prepara-
tion for immortality, it is heartily conceded. This is
enough for the point, that salvation is of grace; and yet
will never show, that the grace is irresistible.

but there remain other texts, which speak expressly
of the divine agency on the mind; and that, in a manner
thought descriptive of omnipotence, exerting itself in the
irresistible way in question. This is one of the points,
on which the Calvinist is thought to find especial difficul-
ty, in bringing passages which will apply. For this
reason, he is induced to heap together texts, which speak
of the grace of God in contradistinction from human pow-
er, and which his opponent claims as common to both
systems; constantly alleging, that the question is not of

* Eph. ii. l. f v. 14.

294 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

the grace of God, but of its overbearing influence. Ac-
cordingly, it is not here thought necessary, to advert to
texts of that description. There are however two texts
of another nature, and thought to go directly to the point;
one in the Old, and the other in the New Testament.
The former is in Jeremiah xx. 7 — " O Lord, thou art
stronger than I, and hast prevailed." But let the connexion
be ascertained. The prophet had faithfully discharged
his commission, but had seen no beneficial effects; and on
the contrary much evil to himself, resulting from it;
and this had thrown him into despondency. Hence his
complaint, in the words in question; the sense of which is,
that God had prevailed on him, against his will, to go on
his hitherto fruitless errand. The words were surely
reprehensible; and still more so were the words immedi-
ately preceding them — "Thou hast deceived me and I was
d ceived. " The case was this. When the command
had been given to go " a prophet unto the nations,"* the
designated messenger had answered — "Ah, Lord God,
behold I cannot speak, for I am a child. "f The Lord
had replied — " Say not, I am a child; for thou shalt go to
all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee
thou shalt speak:"! and then it is added — "Be not afraid
of their faces, for 1 am with thee to deliver thee, saith the
Lord."§ Now Jeremiah, on receiving the ill usage
recorded just before the words in question, apprehends a
failure of this promise; and discontentedly reminds his
heavenly Master, of his first unwillingness to go on the
errand; which, in his own estimation, had been unfruitful.
His words, taken with the light thrown on them by
the occasion, far from speaking the language of irresisti-
* Chap. i. 5. t Verse 6. \ Verse 7. § Verse 8.

with Holy Scripture generally. 295

ble grace, are in opposition to it. For that doctrine af-
firms an over-ruling of the will: Whereas here is an
over-ruling of the actions, in opposition to the will.

The text from the New Testament is in the 2d ch. v. 12
and 13 of the Epistle to the Philippians — " Wherefore,
my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my pre-
sence only, but now much more in my absence, work
out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it
is God which woi keth in you, both to will and to do, of
his good pleasure." In interpreting this text, the Armi-
nian fixes on the first of the verses and remarks, that the
improvement of the grace spoken of must depend on hu-
man choice and agency because of the excitement to the
" working out of our own salvation." On the contrarv
says the Calvinist, we are over-ruled to it, by the resist-
less grace of God; " who worketh in us to will and to do
of his own good pleasure;" that is sovereign will. On
the ground of either construction; if the apparent incon-
sistency between the two verses should be reconciled,
there will remain the circumstance, that the one is repre-
sented as containing a reason for the precept in the other:
And the pertinency of this does not conspicuously appear,
even admitting the truth of the two positions, according
to either system. But all the difficulty will be removed,
by substituting "among," for in,*a;.d "good will," or
"benevolence," for good pleasure, f which will be quite
consistent with the meanings of those words. Then the
sense will be as follows: The apostle had commended
his Philippiun converts for obeying, "not only in his
presence, but now much more in his absence:" a circum*
stance, from which he had probably apprehended a relax-

*

t. f ivfo

f». T tVOOKiK.

296 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

ation of their zeal. He then exhorts them to continue in
the same good way; still "working out their own salva-
tion with fear and trembling;" because, notwithstanding
the want of his bod'ly presence, the divine Being was
among them as much as ever, in the ministry of the word
and in the influences of his spirit; moving them, of his
benevolence, both to will and to do.

It is altogether unreasonable, when there are adduced,
as applicable to the present point, the passages which
speak of mighty operations of the Holy Spirit; clearly ap-
pearing, from the connexion, to be intended of a miracu-
lous agency, discernible by sense. Thus when it is said —
" According to the working of his mighty power;"* the
same power is immediately afcerwards described, as illus-
trating itself in the resurrection of Christ: So when we
read — " He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apos-
tlesbip of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me
toward the Gentiles;"f the mighty working must have
been what appeared in " the demonstration of power," on
which the apostolick preeminence was established. And
no doubt, the like is the sense in Colossians i. 29 — " His
working, uhich vvorketh in me mightily."

In regard to passages speaking of the operations of di-
vine grace; there are none which wear the appearance of
representing it to be irresistible, any moie than will
equally give occasion to apply other passages which relate
to the operations of Satan, to prove that resistless also.
For instance, some are spoken of, as being " taken cap-
tive by him at his will. "J So, we read of " the spirit
that now worketh in the children of disobedience. "$ It
is true, we are instructed — " Resist the devil and he will

* Eph. i. 9, f Gal. ii, 8. \ 2. Tim. ii. 26. § Eph. ii. 2.

with Holy Scripture generally, 297

flee from you." But as a counterpart to this, we have —
"Quench not the Spirit," and "grieve not the spirit" So
that there is no ground in the language of scripture, to
believe one irresistible, any more than the other. And
yet it is to be supposed, that no intelligent Christian
conceives of this, as applicable to the enemy of all
goodness.

Although, therefore, ;t is a divine truth, and ever to be
kept in view, both for caution and for consolation, that
there is an influence of the Spirit of God on the hearts
of men; yet it is to be considered of as suasive, arid not
over-ruling and irresistible. The contrary hypothesis
supposes a man a mere machine; and prevents his be-
ing a subject either of punishment or of reward. Not
only so, it seems eminently derogatory to Almighty
God, by representing him as proffering benefits, which
he is determined never to bestow; and which the party
to whom the offer is made, is under an invincible ne-
cessity of rejecting. For, however we may be caution-
ed, against admitting the voice of reason in the things
of God; yet, as was shown in another place, Calvinists
and Arminians alike appeal to its testimony, when it
suits their respective purposes; the former declaring,
that such ?nd such a matter cannot be ascribed to God,
because contrary to our natural apprehensions of his
attributes; and the latter only differing from them, in
ranking among such matters an apparent offer, accom-
panied by an actual, though concealed, refusal.*

* From what has fallen under the notice of the author of these
remarks, he has been led to suppose it frequent in persons educa-
te-] in the belief of Calvinism, when they b^gin to make serious
inquiry into religion, to be sensiMe of a painful pressure on their

VOL. I. Q^ q

298 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

The Calvinist is sensible of the pressure of the diffi-
culty above referred to; but adheres to his system, be-
cause of a double difficulty of another nature; that of
limiting the sovereign grace of God, and of adminis-
tering fuel to the flame of human arrogancy and pride.

But how do those consequences follow? The

minds, from the weight of its peculiar tenets. Many instances of
this sort have displayed themselves openly to the world. But it
is i ere thought, and in part known, that the retire* instances
o( it are much more frequent. The opinion is strengthened
by a passage in the 12th of Dr. Whkherspoon's Lectures^ in
which lie tells his students in divinity — « It will be perhaps
hard or imp ss ' !e for you to enter into this at once, as I
co fess it v as o me in early life." On this account the 're-
sent writer asks the question; whether, if it be impossible to find
an instance in the gospel age, or even for the first 400 years after-
wards, of an individual's declaring perplexity or distress of mind,
on the subject now in view — and this is here confidently believed
to be the fact—the 'requent existence of such a state of mind be
not in itself a proof, that the gr und of the difficulty has been in-
troduced into theology, since the days which have been referred to?
No doubt, the distress thus occasioned has its weight with many
Calvinistick divines, in the determination formed by them of not
making the doctrines of their theory, the subjects of indiscriminate
instruction. In this, however, their judgment is very different from
that of the learned president above mentioned; who, in his fare-
well sermon at Paisley, speaking of the duty of declaring all the
truths of God without exception, and after faulting various descrip-
tions of preachers who were deficient in this particular, goes on
as follows— "But of all others, the most wonderful set of men are
those, who are for concealing some of the truths of God, lest they
should be abused. The sovereignty of God, his eternal purpose,
and the freeness of his grace, are often passed by, and on this ri»
diculous pretence. I would despise the wisdom of such persons:
It is arrogance: It is impiety." Under the idea of the freeness of
grace, the preacher certainly understood that property of it, which
js called irresistible.

•with Holy Scripture generally, 299

question is not concerning what sovereign grace can
do, but relates to what it does under an instituted econo-
my. Perhaps, the obedience to be produced by such an
economy, is the only preparation for the enjoyment of
himself. Perhaps, on that account, he has endowed
the will with this selfmoving principle; which must
be as much his gift, as any other bestowed by him;
and seems comprehended in the idea of that image of
himself, in which we are said to have been created.
The necessarian scheme, indeed, strikes as much at
such a property of man in innocency, as in man fallen.
But not so the scheme properly Calvinistick; for this
supposes it to have been possessed by him, between the
creation and the fall. How does one of those, more
than the other, limit the sovereign grace of God? It
may be answered, that fallen man, impelled by his ap-
petites and his passions, would spread confusion
through the world. Not at all; while there is the pre«
science and the superintending providence of God; the
former anticipating all the designs of the human heart,
and the latter over-ruling them to an accomplishment
of the purposes of his own unerring mind.

As for pride, there would seem, in the subject, still less
ground for this. What! shall man be proud, because, al-
though affectionately invited to obedience by h;s Creator,
he has it in his power to perpetuate his rebellion; the al-
ternative being appointed for wise purposes, and among
otl'ers, that of rendering inexcusable an obstinate rejec-
tion of the offered mercy? It may be said, that, on the sys-
tem here advocated, it rests with man to make use of the
grace of God, or not: And Calvin has pronounced—
"He cannot arrogate any thing to himself, be it erer so

300 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

little, without God being robbed of his honour, and him-
self being endangered by presumptuous temerity.''*
Now were it so, that man in his present state, as in para-
dise, according to the acknowledgment of Calvin, were
possessed of full power to keep all the laws of God; it
would be in him no cause of pride, because he might
still be asked — "What hast thou that thou didst not
receive?" But the fact is not so; and he should know
this; in order that he may have recourse to the grace,
without which he can do nothing. But if, while he
looks to that grace and to that only, he should sup-
pose that his Creator has put in his power either to re-
ject or to improve it; the alternative does not seem
to intrench either on the honour due to God, or on the
humility which becomes man.

But let the other side be looked to; in order to the
inquiry, whether there be not a way, in which pride
may avail herself of the notion of a saving grace, given
only to a select few. Were the heavenly bodies intelli-
gent beings, there could be no crime in their recollect-
ing, that " there is one glory of the sun, another glory
of the moon, and another glory of the stars;" and that
" one star differeth from another star in glory." There
is none, in an angel's contemplating of himself as supe-
riour to a man; or in him, in knowing himself superiour
to a brute. But how important a discrimination between
man and man, is made by the doctrine of an especial
grace! That some know themselves to have been laid
hold on by this powerful energy, is supposed by the
system. It would seem, then, that these have a right to
contemplate themselves as a distinct order of beings;

* Book it. ch. 2. sect. I.

•with Holy Scripture generally. 301

And if so, considering the passions of the human heart,
what great temptation are they under, to an abuse of
the prerogative in their social intercourse! But it will
be said, that the call, designating the elect, establishes
them of the number of the holy also. As if we did not
know, however this may be said in speculation, what
great deficiences, in fact, are commonly admitted as
consistent with the Christian character! They who
have had experience of life, must have seen much of
this: And they who have not, may learn it from some
commentaries on the seventh chapter of the epistle to
the Romans. Let it not be said, that the person who is
the subject of special grace, knows not who of those
whom he sees may become finally subjects of it, like
himself. He may not absolutely know this; but he
knows of many, tha>: from their situations in life, and
their habits of thinking, there is little likelihood of it:
And in proportion to this, they must seem to him like
another species; and that, under the eternal judgments
of God. How the sentiment operates in regard to
the heathen, has been manifest under some trying
circumstances. It is within the memory of many,
how much perfidy, and how much murder were
the issue of it, on the frontiers of some parts of the
present United States; in which the settlers, in
other respects sober and orderly people, and ma-
king great profession of religion, considered unchris-
tianized people as not entitled either to justice or to
mercy. * And this was not the effect of passion, but

* The fact i e e affirmed, was especially notorious in the year
i764; when people of the description here mentioned perpetrated
the horrible massacre of Indian men, women, and children, in the
borough of Lancaster; and when, with an addition of force, they

302 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

constituted a part of the religion of the people here re.
fei red to. It will not be rash to affirm, that something
like this in principle, is to be discerned within the
bounds of civil communities denominated Christian.
This is remarked under full knowledge, that it is not
always an accompaniment of the theory here opposed;
but merely to incite the serious mind to the inquiry,
whether, wherever the contrary is found, it be not
from an association of Christian benevolence with a
gloomy principle; which has in itself a tendency to the
contrary, however counteracted in the case supposed.
When there are calculated the consequences of opi.
nions, by reasoning a priori; it cannot but be fair to
state one account, in contrariety to the other.*

came as far as Geimantown, in the way to Philadelphia, with the
avowed design of making a larger slaughtei of Indian men, wo-
men, and children, then in the barracks near the city, under the
protection of the proprietary government. The provocation urged
was, that the adult men of those two companies of Indians had been
concerned in murders on the frontiers; of the contrary of which,
the government was satisfied. But this eut of the question, the
lawfulness of killing Indians, as such, was known to be a very pre-
valent sentiment with those sanguinary professors of religion: and
the writer of this, then a youth, was often in the way of hearing
the same sentiment advocated by some inhabitants of the city, who
favoured their cause.

* On the subject of the comparative effect of the theories in
softening the odious passion of pride, it may be worth while to
remark, that in our Saviour's day, among the people with whom he
conversed, there were none so remarkable for it aa the Pharisees;
who followed the Stoicks in their doctrine of fate, which has at
least a near resemblance of the Calvinistick theory. The testimo-
ny of J .sephus to this effect, is in book xvii. chap. ii. sect 4, of
his J- wish Antiquities. This is not here recorded, for the purpose
of drawing comparisons among Christian professors; but to do
away a supposed ground of them.

•with Holy Scripture generally. 305

It is worthy of remark, to what difficulties and appa-
rent inconsistencies, Calvinistick divines are driven in
their publick ministrations, by the distinction of gene-
ral and especial grace. They are aware, how barren
of all practical use of preaching it would be, were they
continually bringing before their hearers the depend-
ence of the human will, on causes over which it has
no control: For on this ground, there would seem no
room for persuasion; and absolutely a snare to errour,
in an undistinguishing offer of gospel grace. But they
think it their duty to persuade, and to make an offer
without reserve. In this respect, they seem to take a
distinction, similar to that of the philosophers of old;
who had their exoterick and their esoterick doctrines;
the one for lettered disciples, and the other for the world.
But herein the philosophers seem to have been more
consistent than the divines, that the two doctrines
of the former were for two different descriptions
of people; whereas those of the latter are for the
same people, who learn them in their catechisms,
and other publick documents of their churches; and
who ought, at proper times, to forget as much as pos-
sible one of the doctrines, in order to profit by the
other. The resemblance between the subject and the
exoterick and the esoterick doctrines of the ancients,
is much stronger in the sentiments of some Calvinistick
divines, than in those of others. Of this a remarkable
instance may be noticed, in the conduct of the English
divines at the Synod of Dort; who recommended to the
States and to the deputies of that country, that the
matter of predestination (and the same would follow

304 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

of whatever is necessarily connected with it) should
not be indiscriminately inculcated. This seems the
distinction of the heathen philosophers precisely. The
divines spoken of were worthy men; and it was proba-
bly owing principally to them, that the Synod did not
go to the lengths aimed at by Gomarus and others, and
take the high ground of supralapsarian predestination.
Nevertheless, as scripture had been made the rule of
the decisions of the body, it is difficult to perceive any
reason of the recommended reserve, which did not also
extend to the locking up from the people, in an un-
known tongue, of at least considerable portions of the
scriptures. Calvin was more consistent than those
English divines. As quoted in another part of this
work, he thought the doctrine "should be published,
that he who hath ears to hear may hear."*

Another prominent objection to the doctrine of irre-
sistible and special grace, is the representation which
grows out of and is generally inculcated in connexion
with it, of a conversion to God from a state of sin, in-
cumbent on all persons, after they have attained to the
exercise of reason. In the whole New Testament, the
word "conversion" is used but once; and it is wheref
report of the conversion of the Gentiles is made to the
church of Jerusalem. The word " convert," as a sub-
stantive in either number, and the same word, as a verb,
ill any of its moods and tenses, appears in four passages

* See Brandt's History. The same English divines endeavoured,
but without success, to procure a censure on the piopositions, that
" God moves the longlies of men lo bhspheme him;" and that
" men can do no more go d, than v* bar they actually do."

t Acts xv. 3.

•with Holy Scripture generally, 305

only.* It must be acknowledged, that the original word
is sometimes translated " turn" or " turned;" which ap-
pears fr<m the concordance to be in seven instances; as
applicable to a change from evil to good. But of all the
places referred to, there is not one of them, wherein
either word is used, in which it does not designate a
change from a state exterior to the Christian covenant; or
else, from a state of sin, into which there has been an
apostasy under it. Of the latter, there are two instances
only; one in Luke xxii. 32 — where our Lord enjoins St;
Peter — " When thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren;" and the other in St. James, v. 19. which says
— " If any of you do err from the truth, and one convert
him." Neither of the words is ever used in such a con-
nexion as to show, that a person born and religiously
educated within the Christian church, and not fallen into
a course of sin, is to be considered as a child of wraths
until he have the sensibility of a conversion to a state of
grace. Parents are instructed! to bring up their chil-
dren "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" but
are not admonished of the necessity of labouring their
conversion. St. John congratulates " the elect lady,"$
that he had "found of her children walking in the truth,'*
but not that they had t>ecome converted to it. And St.

* This is to be understood exclusively of the quoting of Isaiah
vi. 10. The quotation appears in four different places; and, if the
application made in the New Testament should constitute another
instance of a use of the word, it can be one more instance only;
because, on all the four occasions it is to the same point; and on
three of them, it is in the record of the same transaction by so
many different Evangelists.

| Ephesians vi. 4. $ 2 Epistle 4.

VOL. I. H

306 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

Paul, writing to Timothy, calls to remembrance " the
faith which dwelt in his grandmother Lois, and his mo-
ther Eunice;" adding — " And I am persuaded that in thee
also :"* But of the conversion of Timothy, we have no
hint, here or elsewhere. On the contrary, where it is said
in the same Epistlef — "From a child thou hast known
the holy Scriptures,'' it is strongly intimated, that from
childhood he had experienced their salutary tendency of
making " wise unto salvation."

It will be an insufficient answer to these things, to al-
lege the infancy of Christianity, as having more connex-
ion with converts from without, than with subjects born
and growing up within. It had so: yet there are seve-
ral epistles of so late a date, that very many must have
grown up from the earliest infancy to years of maturity,
within the bounds of the communion, before the writing
of those epistles. But without apostasy intervening,
where is the record of any labours for their conversion?

It is here indeed recollected, that someCalvinistick di-
vines treat this subject in a way different from what might
be expected from their systems; acknowledging, that
there are many holy persons, who have become such by
less sensible operations of grace; so that they cannot re-
collect the times, when they felt themselves the objects of
the wrath of God. Others still insist on a more distinct
sensibility, leaving impressions of the circumstances of—
when where — and how. It would seem, that the sen-
timents of these are the more consistent with the general
doctrine; because of the young persons referred to, it is
impossible they should be conscious of there having been

* 2. Tim. i. 5. t "i- 15.

with Holy Scripture generally. 307

a time, when they were unendowed with a single virtu-
ous inclination; but on the contrary, the desires of their
hearts tended to every species of wickedness, of which
their experience had given them an idea.

In regard to infants, and very young persons generally,
it is difficult to reconcile the contemplated doctrine of
conversion, with the sentiments which Calvinistick divines
entertain, some that a few, and others that all such are
saved. Calvin affirms it of all deceased infants; whom
he supposes to have undergone a conversion in some
mysterious way. But in this, he is not followed by the
publick confessions of those Calvinistick churches, which
restrict the benefit to elect infants. It is probable, that
Calvin held the damnation of all unbaptized infants; be.
cause it is the professed opinion of Austin, whom Cal-
vin follows in almost all things included in the general
controversy. It is very certain, however, that many
Calvinistick divines unequivocally declare their belief of
the salvation of all infants. But whether they be some
or all, it is difficult to perceive how they could have un-
dergone the necessary conversion. These divines uni-
formly reject the charge sometimes brought against
them, of making a mere machine of man, as the subject
of the operation of divine grace; because, say they, this
acts through the medium of the will. But surely, the
choice of the will supposes an exercise of the intellect,
on the objects between which the choice is made. At
any rate, if there be a possibility of choice, without in-
telligence in the mind that chooses ; it will hardly be pre-
tended, that any such matter is spoken of in the Scrip-
tures. And therefore, on the ground of the opinion here

308 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

contradicted, we have no scriptural warrant for even the
hope of the salvation of a single infant. On the contra-
ry, the analogy of faith would lead to the belief of the
damnation of all the infants which have been born, or
even conceived, from the beginning of the life of Adam.
Although we might probably bring ourselves to believe
with Austin, who holds the above opinion with the ex-
ception of baptized infants, and others in covenant with
God before the Christian era, that the misery of the
great mass of all the rest is very small; yet it must be the
fruit of our own charity, and not founded on any authority
from the word of God. It would be great injustice in
him who writes these things, were he to hold out
the idea, that • such disgusting sentiments are main-
tained by Calvinistick divines — at least of the present day.
Of those within the spheres of his acquaintance, he knows
the contrary; and he believes it of the rest. What he ar-
gues is, that the sentiments arise out of their system; and
appear to have been perceived by the eminent person
from whom it takes its name. He endeavours, indeed, to
guard against the consequence, by supposed conversion.
But this idea is indefensible; not only because it has no
authority in scripture, but because it contemplates a
change, of which the being, supposed to undergo it, is
utterly unsusceptible.

These remarks are far from being designed to inti-
mate, that mere decorous deportment, in rising youth,
is the whole which their Christian profession calls for.
It exacts inward piety, and dispositions suited to its
holy genius. But it is contended, that this piety and
these dispositions may be excited and cultivated by

•with Holy Scripture generally. 309

religious education, and by good impressions, the result
of it ; although not without the genial influences of di-
vine grace; which, under the circumstances stated, is
never wanting, yet not acting irresistibly. But if it be
inferred, that such young persons may think them-
selves safe in the exercise of a mechanical devotion, the
effect of mere habit; or that they may go on through
life, without a serious concern for the ensuring of their
salvation; not this, but the contrary is the doctrine here
maintained.

Neither is the present representation intended to les-
sen the importance of the high duty of repentance, which
is incumbent on all; and yet not on all, in the sense in
which it is called, " repentance, from dead works." It
is here held, that without sensibility to the evil of sin,
there can be n^ Christian virtue; and no resolutions
pointing to it, which at all promise to be effectual. Too
often do many, who are within the Christian covenant,
fall into sin in act; and further, many fall, if not into this,
yet into that state of forgetfulness of God, which is in
itself essentially sinful. Great reason is there to call on
both these descriptions of persons, to repent and turn to
God; and to " do works meet for repentance." But
this is a different matter from the species of conversion,
here objected to; which is known and declared to be
what first brings into ? state of acceptance with God,
those who were before federally his, and yet actually the
children of the wicked one. Such a conversion, sup-
posed to be brought about by the irresistible agency of
the Holy Spirit, is an operation, to be for ever after an
evidence of the being of the number of the elect. The
sentiment is here conceived to be no part of the system

310 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

of divine tru h, but a human invention; and not only so,
to have a very dangerous tendency; since it consti-
tutes a supposed evidence of a state of grace, distinct
from that which consists in the constant and progressive
work, of putting " off the old man, which is corrupt ac-
cording to the deceitful lusts;" and of putting "on the
new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness
and true holiness."

In the former part of this work, there was noticed, as
engrafted on the present branch of the controversy,
another concerning the comparative value of faith and
works. It was there shown, that the pretended merit
which St. Paul attacks in the epistle to the Romans,
was not absolute; as though the persons argued against,
imagined that any such could exist, from themselves to
their Creator; but what may be here called covenant
merit, supposed to be grounded on promises made to an
observance of Mosaick law. Whereas the apostle shows,
that even under the old economy, faith in a future dispen-
sation was the mean of justification with God; the other
serving to manifest the deficiencies, which made that bet-
ter way of mercy necessary.

Although it seems proper to recur to the subject,
yet much need not be said on it; the principal writer
being St. Paul, whose meaning elsewhere may be open-
ed by the same key, which unlocks it in the epistle to"
the Romans. He continually opposes to the obser-
vance of the law— including not only the ceremonial
part, but also the moral, so far as it depended on posi-
tive institution — a faith, the ground of which had been
established before the giving of the other; and which
its institutions wtre intcuded to sustain. But at thr

with Holy Scripture generally. 311

same time, faith was so far from being contrasted with
moral virtue, that this was supposed to exist in the
other, as its principle.

Of the other apostolick writers of epistles, St. James,
St Peter, St. John and St. Jude, not one of them refers
to an existing controversy on the subject, except in
one place St. James, apparently for the purpose of
guarding against an abuse which had been made of the
doctrine of St. Paul. To counteract this, St. James
affirms justification by works, and not by faith only;
evidently using the words in senses quite wide of those
in the writings of his co-apostle. With this excep-
tion of checking errour, it seems that the apostles ge-
nerally had left the dispute so interesting to the convert-
ed Gentiles, to their peculiar apostle; and to those who
laboured under his direction. As for the four evan-
gelists, there is no reference in their Gospels, to such
a controversy in any shape. It was doubtless the
prominent object of their respective histories, to induce
faith in the Redeemer; but this, with a view to obe-
dience: and there does not appear to have been con-
templated a competition between the two.

Still, there being much said among Christian people
concerning faith and works, as though they were in
competition, there may be propriety in endeavouring
to establish a correct sentiment on the subject.

First then, were our works whatever self-flattery
might describe, we should be unprofitable servants: so
reason may tell us; and so our blessed Saviour has pro-
nounced, in a manner not to be misunderstood. But
besides, we are sinners; and owing, as we do, our whole
service to God, we have nothing in our own power.

312 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

that can be a commutation for the punishment due
to sin. It was Christ, who " bore our sins in his own
body on the tree:" he made "reconciliation by the
blood of the cross;" and by "a sacrifice for sin"—
for so Romans viii. 3, may be translated — he " con-
demned sin in the flesh." He was indeed the true sa-
crifice, typically represented by the sacrifices under
the law; the virtue of which was to make atonement,*
or reconciliation; as must therefore their antitype,
which is expressly said to be a fulfilling of them.

The way in which the merits of Christ avail us, is
not by imputation; which would included a transfer of
merit, and therefore detract from the freedom of the
grace; but it is the procuring cause. Thus, in the
case of subjects under the displeasure of their prince, if
he should pardon them in consideration and at the re-
quest of a son, raised high in his affection by anachiev.
ment eminently meritorious; it would be a different
matter from the imparting to them of the son's merit;
and from the rewarding of them on that account. In
the case supposed, there must be an acceptance of the
act of grace; to be a pledge of dutiful submission in
future. So, in the case of a Christian; there must be a
like acceptance by faith, considered not as opposed to
obedience, but as involving a beginning of it and the
principle from which it springs. The truth is, that as
faith, repentance, and obedience, are the means by
which the grace operates to our final salvation in hea-
ven,each of them is occasionally spoken of as the whole;
and with p-ood reason, because it implies the others.
Merit, none of them can have; but conditions, they all
are.

with Holy Scripture generally* 313

But such disclaiming of merit or- the part of man, is
not sufficient in the eye of Calvinism, without the im-
putation of extraneous merit on the part of God. Far
are the advocates of it in general, from meaning by this,
to dispense with holiness and good works. And yet it
would seem, as though the double performance were
superfluous To guard however against this objection,
there is remarked the impossibility of the enjoyment
of heavenly happiness, by persons inclined to sin, even
if they were admitted into heaven. So then, it is only
by circuitous reasoning, that the necessity of inherent
righteousness is to be made out. And besides, why
might not there be a preparation for the exigency in
regard to such persons, in like manner as in the provi-
sion for elect infants; who are described as unholy also?
Certain it is, that Antinomianism is a plant, which has
hadjts growth, principally, and perhaps entirely, in the
soil of Calvinism. And it is here believed, that no cir-
sumstance has more contributed to it, than the use of
a word confessedly found in the New Testament; but
applied by the Calvinistick theory, in a sense foreign
to any in which it is even alleged to be there found.
The word " impute,"* in its different modifications,
is found six times in the New Testament, applied to
the setting down of faith or of righteousness, to the
account of the persons in whom they are found; but in
no place as setting down the righteousness of Christ, to
the account of any. | It is a considerable license, to

t From the same original word with " impute" is the word
" reckoned," in Romans iv. 9 and 10; and evidently applied in the
same signification with the others.
VOL. I. S S

314 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

introduce into a branch of theology a term not known
in scripture, yet designed to be expressive of Christian
doctrine: but it is surely a much greater, to apply a
term, there known indeed in reference to the subject
in question; yet in a sense quite different from and irre-
concilable with the doctrine to be thus sustained .*

Although the idea of imputation is here rejected; yet
it is trusted, that, according to the view which has
been taken, the doctrine of justification by faith alone
is to be supported; without any derogation from good
works, which exist in it as their source. And this will
always be a leveller of human pride, if it should lift up
its head with the claim of merit.

So extravagant a claim, indeed, is not commonly
set up in controversy. It may, however, be the lan-
guage of the heart, when not heard in words. It is true,

* Some Calvinists have applied, in evidence of the imputed
righteousness of Christ, what is found (Revelations xix 8 ) " And
to her" (the Church) " was grafted, that she should be arrayed in
fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness
of saints." But what says the candid Calvinist, Dr. Doddridge, ta
this? After paraphrasing the last expression — "The righteous
acts of saints," he says in his notes—4' So Sulockuumt* evidently
signifies; and, therefore, though I make no dout^, but i: is with
regard to the obedience and righteousness of the Son of God, thai
all our righteous acts are accepted before God, and have accor-
dingly referred to this doctrine in the paraphrase" (and which the
writer of this remarks, may be believed without the doctrine ht re
in question) " yet I cannot suppose, that these words have that
reference which some have imagined, to the imputation of his
righteousness to us. And I hope Christian ditines will have the
couiage to speak with the scripture, even though it should be at
the expense of their reputation for orthodoxy with some, whe
protess, nevertheless, to make scripture their standard."

with Holy Scripture generally. 315

the Pharisee of old is described in the parable, intruding
into the presence of his Maker, with the boast — "God, I
thank thee, that I am not as other men." Many a mo-
dern Pharisee may have cherished the same faulty state
of heart, without its issuing in the same address. And
this is a reason for the taking of care to be clear of such
a stain, in the view of the Sovereign of heaven; even
when there is no part of our creed which Leans on such
an errour for its support.

Suppose, for instance, that a man, on the ground of
that comparative freedom from crime in conduct,
which is often joined with an entire want of sensibility
to divine truth, were to claim an interest in the gospel
promises; he should be instructed, that his negative and
pretended merit is nothing in the sight of a holy God:
and that although he will not be condemned for crimes
not committed, yet he is in a sinful state; and is as much
a fit object of mere mercy, as the confessed and noto-
rious sinner.

Or, take an instance of one who lives in a strict at-
tention to the observance of religion, and perhaps with,
conduct unstained by outward sin; yet conceiving of
those things as the consideration, on which the appro*
bation of God in this life, and his rewards in another, are
to be bestowed. Such a person, if his errour should ever
be corrected, must be brought down from the pinnacle
of human merit, and laid low before the footstool of
divine mercy.

Let it be remarked, that no case is here stated, of a
man leading a life of true obedience, or, as scripture
says — " Living godly, righteously, and soberly in this
present world;" and yet arrogating the favour of hea-

316 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

ven, as his due. It is supposed, that such fruit cannot
grow on the barren stock of pride; and therefore cannot
come in competition with evangelick faith, which is
their nourishment.

On the whole, it is here inferred, that the belief of
the necessity of the consenting will of man, to give
effect to the holy influences of divine grace, has no-
thing to do with the wild fancy, of there being merit
in human works; which is contrary, not only to many
express declarations in the gospel, but also to its whole
spirit and design; and must sink under the weight of
any evangelical prayer, that can be put up to the throne
of grace.

But, to return to the distinction between absolute
merit and that supposed to be founded on covenant.
The disregard of this distinction has led many into a
material errour, respecting the Jewish economy — that
of conceiving of the whole body of the Israelites, as
necessarily subjected to the curse of God, by the very
conditions of their law, which required unsmiling obe-
dience, not to be performed by any human creature:
so that, according to this notion, it did not appear, un-
til the manifestation of Christ, how any Israelite could
be saved. But is it to be supposed, that any people
would take on their consciences a stipulated obedience
to such a law — an obedience, like that pledged by the
people of Israel to the law promulgated on Sinai?
Surely not: and, however they must have submitted to
so inexorable a dispensation laid on them, they would
not have sealed their own condemnation, by coming un-
der engagements evidently impossible to be performed.
Neither is it conceiving worthily of the all- wise and all-

with Holy Scripture generally. 317

gracious God, to suppose that he would exact any
thing of this sort. The holy end, in there being requi-
red stipulation on the part of man, to meet promise on
the part of God, is, that by the union of these two
matters in the form of a covenant, the resulting obli-
gation may be the more impressive; and not for the
extorting of a previous consent, to gain the appearance
of justice in a penalty that is unavoidable. If, from
these general considerations, we proceed to an inspec-
tion of the legal economy; we find it abounding wi h
sacrifices, intended to make atonement for different
species of transgression. As t::ese sacrifice's prefigured
the great sacrifice to come, here was faith associated
with obedience, even under the prepararory dispensa-
tion. But when the object of that faith had appeared
in person, the seeking of salvation by the law, was an
abiding by the condemning property of it; and the put-
ting of the more merciful out of view. Accordingly, it
was pertinent in St. Paul, to caution the Jewish Chris-
tians against so great an errour; by intimating, that they
thereby subjected themselves to the consequences of
the threatening — "Cursed is every one, that continu-
cth not in all things which are written in the book of
the law, to do them." Not that this curse, as it stood
in the law, was not allied with a gracious provision, for
the relieving of the conscience from the weight of sin;
but because this was henceforth to be continued under
a new economy, by which the former was to be super-
seded. Although "the law made nothing perfect; but
the bringing in of a better hope did;" yet, even while
the law lasted, intimations of the better hope to come
were conspicuous appendages of the institution.

5 OF PERSEYEiniTCrc.

Dissent from the Calvinistick Doctrine — The contrary s conform,
able to the human Characier — P..ssaj;es from the Old Testa-
ment— From the New— Exhortations and Dissuasives— Pas-
sages alleged by Calvinists— Dangerous Tendency of the Doc-
trine.

IT seems an extraordinary instance of the effect of
established opinion, under circumstances which repre-
sent inquiry as sinful, that when the Arminians began
to examine the foundation of the prevalent theology
of the Low Countries, and to appeal to the world for the
result; they should at first exhibit the doctrine of the
final perseverance of the saints, as merely a question-
able point: a doctrine, of which it will not be rash to
affirm, although the proof will not be here brought, that
it was absolutely unknown in the church, until after the
beginning of the Reformation. In the preceding part
of this work, the epistle to the Romans was thought
silent as to any thing in favour of the doctrine, or con-
trary to it. In what is to follow, the latter will be upheld
as gospel truth.

Let it be remarked, that this is one of the last sub-
jects, on which, what is here conceived to be truth,
might be expected to be laid down in form, in scrip-
ture. On the contrary, it is so consistent with what
we know of the changeableness of the human charac-
ier, with the temptations of life, and with the remains
of evil, confessed to be an entailment on the regene-
rate; that there would seem little occasion of revealing
fo us, our being still peccabie, habitually and finally-:

•with Holy Scripture generally, 319

especially, as this attended our first estate in paradise,
blessed, as it was, with a more vigorous intellect, and a
subjection to it of the affections. Under these circum-
stances, no more can be looked for than the finding of
the truth insinuated or presumed, when some other
subject is in the contemplation of the writer; and of
evidence of this sort, there is abundance.

Not to omit the Old Testament altogether; there
are several passages in the third and the eighteenth
chapters of the prophecy of Ezekiel. the substance of
which is thus given in the twenty sixth verse of the
eighteenth chapter — "When a righteous man turneth
away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity,
and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done
shall he die." That is, say some, if such an apostasy
could happen, the effect would follow. The supposi-
tion, it seems, is merely made: but let it be asked —
For what purpose made, in the case in question? There
is also introduced the old and arbitrary distinction be-
tween a secret will and the revealed. The passage is
rendered still more explicit by the frequent repetition of
it, without such qualification as might prevent mistake.
There is also that passage in Psalm lxix. 28. — "Let
them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not
written with the righteous." It is not denied by Cal-
vinists generally, that the passage relates to another
life; there being a connexion with a .prophetick de-
scription of the sufferings of our Saviour. But there
have been various ways thought of, to evade an autho-
rity, apparently so express. It is supposed to be a ca-
tachresis, standing for the not being written in the

320 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

book; or to have been spoken after the manner of men;
or to have in view the excision of the Jewish nation,
for their rejecting of the Messiah; or to be resolvable
into the indeterminateness of metaphor or to the be-
ing written in the book, not efficaciously, but with a
view to profession only; or to recognise two species
of predestination, one of them incipient and the
other perfect. Let all these hypotheses have their due
weight; but it is here conceived, that the like may be de-
vised without end.

But the possibility of a fall from grace is interwoven in
the legal economy; being discernible in the very ground
work of it — the covenant nuide with Abraham. Of this
the sign was circumcision; to which was annexed the
promise — "I will establish my covenant between me
and thee and thy seed after thee." From this covenant,
there might confessedly be on the part of man a final fall.
But if any doubt, whether the promise were intended in
a spiritual sense and in its extent, they are referred
to Calvin;* who treats the subject as here stated; among
other things speaking of circumcision as regeneration,
involving the favour of God, remission of sins, and eter-
nal life. But it must be kept in view, that Calvinism, in
the days of Calvin, did not explicitly, or without some
intermixture of inconsistency, embrace the doctrine of
final perseverance.

In Luke viii. 13, there are spoken of those, ''who for
awhile believe, and in time of temp.ation fall aw:iy."
Yes — it is replied to this — because "they have no root"
in themselves. The teim "root" is a mere figine, ex-
pressing permanency. This, it is leue, they had not; and
* Book iv. ch. xvi. sect. 3, 4 and 6.

with Holy Scripture generally. 821

it is the very matter opposed to the doctrine; because
they believed and yet fell away. But it is rejoined, that
the faith was historical and not saving. Any authorities
may be got rid of, by thus creating distinctions, concern-
ing which there is not a word in scripture.

In St. Luke xii. 42, and following, our Lord de-
scribes a faithful servant, whom he should think wor-
thv of making a ruler over his household; that is, of
promoting to eminence in his church. The lowest
sense which can be given to this, characterizes every
Christian minister, with all the accomplishments re-
quisite in such a person. But is he above the possibili-
ty of final apostasy? Far from it: for he is threatened,
that in the event of an abuse of the authorities of his
station — "The Lord of that servant shall come in a day
when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he
is not aware; and will cut him in sunder, and will ap-
point him his portion with the unbelievers." The mar-
gin, instead of "cut him in sunder," has, "cut him off;"
that is, separate him from the body of the faithful:
which is equally agreeable to the original, and exhibits
a better sense. Here is Christian character on one hand;
and fall — final fall, on the other.

St. John xv. 6. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast

forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them,

and cast them into the lire, and they are burned." Here

is first pronounced a union of the believer with Christ, as

a branch with its proper vine. The branch was before

described, both as drawing nourishment and as bearing

fruit: which is a contradiction of the usual evasion, that

the severed branch represents a person who is merely

of the visible church, without being of the invisible
voj« r t t

322 Comparison of the Controversy \ &c.

communion of the faithful. No; he comes under one of
the strongest descriptions in scripture, of a spiritual mem-
bership of Chirst: yet, as the text shows, he may be at last
like a branch withered, gathered, cast into the fire, and
burnt.

Romans xiv. 15. "Destroy not him with thy meat,
for whom Christ died." The matter here guarded against,
is the undue use of Chiristian liberty: but why should
it be restrained, if the apprehended consequence were
such as could not happen? The place is contradictory to
the point of limited redemption; but it is equally so, of
this of final perseverance: for the person in contemplation
is a brother, supposed to be in Christian standing; from
which he is in danger of being cast down and destroyed.

1. Corinthians viii. 11. "And through thv knowledge
shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.'*
This passage is precisely the same in sense, with that
immedi tely preceding. It enjoins the same temperate
use of Christian liberty, and they are alike demonstrative
of general redemption, and of the possibility of a fall from
grace.

1. Cor. ix. 27. " I keep under my body, and bring
it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have
preached to others, I myself should be cast-away."
So says the great apostle of the Gentiles, with all his
attainments, and after all his labours. It is the wind-
ing up of an allegory; in which the Christian life had
been described, by an allusion to a race in the Grecian
games. A candidate for the prize had little chance of
gaining it, without the previous discipline of exercise
and abstinence: and this was submitted to, with a view
to an ornamental crown, which, at the end of the course,

with Holy Scripture generally, S23

was to reward the victor. St. Paul had undergone
Christian discipline, with a view to a heavenly crown.
He was however still aware, that the consequence of
his relaxing might be his being at last a cast away;* that
is, unapproved or rejected by the judge. It will be
in vain to attempt an explanation, founded on the con-
sistency of practice with precept in the present life.
Its race, like the race in the games, must be run, before
the decision can be given.

When the apostle tells the Corinthians, I. x. 12. —
"Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he
fall," he cannot but mean a fall that shall be final; be-
cause he is cautioning against what had happened to
the disobedient Israelites, who had been " overthrown
in the wilderness." As the apostasy of these was
without recovery, so must have been that, of which
the Corinthians were instructed to be aware.

1. Cor. xv. J, 2. "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto
you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also
ye have received, and wherein ye stand: by which also
ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto
you, unless ye have believed in vain." Here had been
a gospel preached and re ceived. Not only so, the peo-
ple addressed had possessed a standing in it: for the
Greek wordf is not " ye stand," but "ye have stood."
And such was their establishment therein, that salva-
tion would be the sure effect of their perseverance.
But here comes in, the exception— " Unless ye have
believed in vain." If there be any ground for the sub-
tilty of an historical faith, it cannot be alleged here;
because not consistent with the state, from which there

324 Compariso?! of the Controversy, &t\

is supposed a possibility of departing. Dr. Doddridge
has so far a leaning to his system, as that, instead of
bringing back the term, " ye stand," to a conformity
with the original, he goes still farther from it, by the
paraphrase — " Ye may be said to stand:" and he sup-
poses of the latter part of the words of the passage, that
the Greek favours their being construed into the same
sense with the seventeenth vtrse of the chapter — " And
if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain." But this
is quite wide of the sense of the apostle, in the place
in question; which implies a contingency, as to the
matter spoken of. But no such circumstance attached
to the resurrection of Christ.

The same apostle, in Galatians v. 4, announces, as
what must be the consequence of the intermixture of Ju-
daism with Christianity, by the Gentile Christians —
" Ye are lallen from grace." Perhaps this was said, un-
der the supposed condition of their not returning to the
integrity of the faith, as it had been planted among them
by the apostle. Still, there is presumed the possibility
of the event threatened. For there would be no terrour
in the threat, were it imagined, that the fall would take
place with the circumstance understood of subsequent
recovery. In the same epistle, it is said — " Have ye
suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain?"*
And vet these are people of whom he says in chapter
iv. verse 6 — ■-' Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth
the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father."

St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Thessalonians,t in-
forms them thus — " YV hen I could no longer forbear, I
* Chap. iii. verse 4. i Chap. iii. verse 5.

with Holy Scripture generally. 325

sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter
have tempted you, and our labour be in vain." Now,
let there be considered the character of the people, to
whom the apostle writes thus. In the beginning of the
epistle, he remembers their " work of faith, and labour
of love, and patience of hope, in our Lord Jesus Christ."
Not only so, he adds — " Knowing, brethren beloved,
your election of God." On which may be incidentally
noted, how far that must be from meaning an election
to life, founded or not founded on foreknowledge. But
he goes on — " For our gospel came not unto you in
word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost,
and in much assurance." These words are here con-
ceived to relate to miraculous demonstration of the
truth of the gospel: but if they apply, as Calvinists com-
monly suppose, in part to the work of the Holy Ghost
on the mind, their application will be the stronger on
that account. In either case, there is much to the pur-
pose in what follows — "And ye became f< llowers of
us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much
affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost; so that ye were
ensamples to all that believe, in Macedonia and Achaia."
Such were the saints, of whom St. Paul acknowledges
apprehensions — which however had become removed
— lest his labour among them had been in vain —
Would an inspired Apostle have intimated such a dan-
ger, if it had been impossible? Or would any Calvinist
divine of the present day intimate, that such a dan-
ger remained to those who were possessed of the to-
kens of election, here ascribed to the Thessalonian
Christians?

326 Comparison of the Controversy, he.

Constructed on a similar principle with that in the
passage the last referred to, but disclosing the sentiment
more largely, is a passage in the epistle to the Hebrews,
in the third and fourth chapters, beginning at the eighth
verse of the former. Here, the disobedient Israelites
are said to have hardened their hearts in the wilderness;
and on this ground is founded the lesson to the Hebrew
Christians — "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any
of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the
living God."* And as, relatively to those Israelites,
there had been made and kept the divine oath — " They
shall not enter into my rest;" so the danger is held forth
to those to whom the epistle is addressed — " Let us
therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering
into his rest, any of you should seem" [that is, be seen,
or adjudged, or proved; for the original may mean any
of these] "to come short of it."f

Throughout the whole epistle to the Hebrews, the
writer of it seems to labour under the apprehension of
an utter apostasy, of persons who had formerly both
professed the faith and suffered for it. And the most
alarming considerations which he brings before them,
are found in two passages, which speak decisively to
*he present purpose; although it must be confessed, that
♦ here is in each of them a difficulty, on which the ques-
tion is not dependent. The first of the passages, is in
chap. vi. 4, 5, 6 — " It is impossible for those who
were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly
gift $ and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and
have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of
* Chap. iii. verse 12. f Chap. iv. verse 1.

with Holy Scripture generally. 327

the world to conic, if they shall fall away, to renew
them again unto repentance." The other passage is as
follows — "If we sin wilfully, after that we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of
judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the
adversaries."*

To distinguish the case of the Hebrews from any
ordinary measure of delinquency, it has been justly
remarked, that absolute and entire apostasy must
have been the matter in contemplation; because they
had been treated by the Apostle, all along, as very
faulty; and yet not hopeless, as appears from the cau-
tion given.

And then, to distinguish their case from any that can
ordinarily happen, it is further justly remarked, that
there are expressions strongly descriptive of the having
been favoured with the highest evidence which could
have been bestowed, in the display of a miraculous
power before their eyes. Superadded to this, there
is evidently implied a very considerable measure
of the experience of the consolations of Christian
hope. And then, in regard to the expression in
the tenth chapter — " There remaineth no more sacri-
fice for sin;" it is well remarked, that the words sim-
ply express there being no other sacrifice, than that
which has been rejected: but whether it may or may
not be possible, to revert by repentance to that rejected
sacrifice, is a point on which nothing is either affirmed
or denied.

* Chap. x. verse 26.

328 Comparison oftlie Controversy, &>V.

On the ground of these remarks, it is not difficult to
reconcile the passages with the general sense of scrip-
ture; which does not deny the grace of repentance to
those, who, after baptism, have fallen into sin. But how
the passages can be reconciled to the doctrine, that
final apostasy is not a thing both possible and to be
feared, is more than can be here imagined.

Were this problematical, it might be determined by a
place, not far after the last of the recited passages. For
the apostle, having departed from the considerations
referred to, and entered on others collateral with them,
reverts to the former in the place now noticed; and
cautions the Hebrews thus — "Now the just shall
live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall
have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who
draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the
saving of the soul."* And he tells those Hebrews —
uYe have need of patience; that, after ye have done the
will of God, ye might receive the promise. "f From
these things it appears, that there were among the He-
brew converts some at least, who were so confirmed as
not to be the subjects of the holy jealousy, which the
apostle had all along expressed. And this is further
proved, by what is said in chapter vi. 9 — "Beloved, we
are persuaded better things of you, and things that ac-
company salvation, though we thus speak." But that
there were others who drew back unto perdition, after
they had received the knowledge of the truth and parta-
ken of the efficacy of the true sacrifice for sin, is a trait
of the passage which cannot be effaced from it. It is one
of the passages recited under the second point, on account

* Ch. x. 38, 39. f Ch. x. 36.

with Holy Scripture generally. 329

of which Dr. Campbell so severely censured Beza, for
his mistranslations of them in his version of the New
Testament. For the words — "My soul shall have no
pleasure in him," there is put a Latin substitute which
signifies — "It is not agreeable to my mind." So diffi-
cult did this translator find it, to reconcile the passage
with his system.*

* To the passage in Hebrews vi. 4, 5, 6, the construction has
been given, that the strong expression of having "tasted the gc^»d
word of God and the powers of the world to come," may be con-
sidered, like "the partaking of the Holy Ghost," to have been
intended of miraculous power, indulged to bad men. But this drags
the passage from the purpose of the Apostle; because it limits the
sense to hypocrites: whereas the whole epistle, and this part of it
in particular, was written to dissuade professing Chiristians gene-
rally from apostasy. It would have had but a very imperfect in-
fluence of this sort, to have affirmed the impossibility of renewing
to repentance those who had worked miracles, while they were
sinners. If this were set aside, the falling away, according to the
plan here remarked on, must have been from working miracles.
The renewing, indeed, is defined to be to repentance; but this sup-
poses the fall to be from grace. Besides, it does not appear in any
part of the New Testament, that a bad man was ever armed with
miraculous powers, for the propagation of Christianity. Simon
Magus solicited, but did not obtain it. And therefore, what our
Lord says in St. Matthew vii. 22, may be thought to apply to
intruders in the work, as in the case of the exorcists, mentioned
in Acts xix. 13, 14; which divine providence permitted, not as a
direct mean of propagating the faith, but to be overruled to its
advantage.

Others think, that tlie words now under consideration intimate
merely faint impressions — such as may be permitted to an unre-
generate man, oh Calvin's plan, in order to render his damnation
just: and this sense is thought to be favoured by the words "them
that have tasted" [yewxy-ivm.'] But under the Greek word, literally

VOL. I. U U

3'30 Comparison of the Controversy, bV.

Not unlike some of the passages quoted from St.
Paul, is that of 2. Peter ii. 20— "If after they have
escaped the pollutions of the world, through the know-
ledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they arc
again entangled therein and overcome; the latter end
is worse with them than the beginning.'' It would
seem as though the apostle could hardly have cho-
sen words more descriptive of the Christian state:
yet, the latter end of the persons spoken of was
worse than the beginning. And as if "the latter end"

used, there is included a thorough sensibility on the palate, of the
substance subjected to it: as in Luke siv. 24 — "None of those men
which were bidden shall taste of my supper." Even in Matthew
xxvii. 34 — "When he had tasted thereof, he would not drink" —
The taste was a sufficient experiment made of the quality of the
draught. When the term is used metaphorically, as in the place
in question, it means a sufficient acquaintance with the thing
spoken of; as where it is said in this epistle ii. 21, that he
should "taste death for every man;" which means entire subjection
to its power. It is also a material objection to the present com',
ment, in regard to all who have worn away any faint impressions
which they had received, that they are represented as for ever after
incapable of the grace, which is irresistible and saving.

To the extenuating expedients here noticed, and to any others
of the kind, the objection still occurs, of that species of falling
which alone can be brought into consistency with the affirmed
impossibility or extreme difficulty of renewing "again to repent-
ance" But what would seem to place the matter beyond ali
doubt, is the light which the passage receives from the concurring
sense of the other passage beginning at the twenty sixth verse of
the tenth chapter. The two passages evidently relate to the same
description of persons; who are (verse 29) said to have counted
the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified, an
unholy thing. What words could have expressed more strongly
their having been within the covenant of grace?

with Holy Scripture generally, 331

were thought in danger of being softened to a loose
signification, it is subjoined — "For it had been bet-
ter for them not to have known the way of righteous -
ness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the
holy commandment delivered unto them." If the mat-
ter intended had been a turning, from which there
might still have been another turn; it would not be bet-
ter never to have known the way of righteoosness. But
no; the apostle could have had in view nothing short
of hopeless ruin. It has, however, been said by some*
concerning the persons spoken of, although with extra-
ordinary violence to the passage, that they must have
been hypocrites and pretenders.

The same apostle had, in the foregoing chapter,
thus exhorted those to whom he wrote 2. Peter i, 10 —
"Wherefore the rather brethren, give diligence to make
your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things
ye shall never fall." Here is still recognised a fall, as
being possible to the elect. It is to be guarded against}
by their making of their calling and election sure; that
is stable or firm; which is the sense of the original
word.* Their election is acknowledged; but there is
required, that it should be rendered permanent. And
how was this to be done? It is declared in the very
passage; and was, by addingf "to faith, virtue; an
to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance;
and to temperance, patience; and to patience, god-
liness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to
brotherly kindness, charity." These are the very mat-
ters referred to by the illative particle, in the verse
under consideration. In the Alexandrine and other
* C$SfU*i. t Verses 5, 6, 7.

332 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

manuscripts, the true meaning is further identified, by its
being added to the injunction — "Make your calling and
election sure" — "by good works."* The Apostle had
addressed his enistle "to them that have obtained
like precious faith" with himself. If a fall from grace
be impossible, how could that faith have been made
more sure, by good works?

St. John says, in his second epistle, verse 8 — "Look
to yourselves, that we lose not those things which wc
have wrought" [or gained, says the margin] "but that
we receive a full reward." Here it is supposed, that what
had been gained might be at last lost, by an admission
of the heresy — for this the context contemplates, ver. 7,
that Jesus Christ was not come in the flesh.

Revelations iii. 1 1. "Hold that fast which thou hast,
that no man take thy crown." — It had been said just be-
fore, ver. 2 — "Be watchful, and strengthen the things
which remain, that are ready to die." Expressions of
this sort, coming from the mouth of him "which
searcheth the reins and hearts," must be predicated on
the uncertainty of human perseverance, and the danger
of final apostasy t from God.

In addition to positive texts of scripture to the pre-
sent point, it is usual to argue from the many exhorta-
tions to virtue and dissuasives from sin; which must
needs, as is justly remarked, be materially weakened by
the admission of the sentiment, that the worst against
which they are intended to guard is a temporary dere-
liction. To give but a single instance: St. Paul, in his
epistle to the Ephesians, after having saluted them as
"saints," as "faithful" and as "chosen before the founda-

* vtx real kxXmv epyav.

with Holy Scripture generally . 333

tion of the world, " exhorts them to "put on the
whole armour of God;"* and goes on, in a beautiful
allegory, founded on the then military art, to array the
Christian in the girdle of "truth; the breast plate of
righteousness; the shield of faith; the helmet of salva-
tion; and the sword of the Spirit." Was all this to
guard against a temporary inactivity in the field of battle?
or an entire prostration under the adversary's arm? The
latter idea is certainly the most agreeable to the whole
tenour of the passage.

And this is the more evident, when it is considered
who the adversary, principally contemplated in the pas-
sage, is. He is clearly there referred to; and again by
St. Peterf thus — "Be sober, be vigilant; because your
adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, vvalketh about,
seeking whom he may devour." Is this personage to
be supposed uninformed on a point, judged to be une-
quivocally declared in scripture? Or if informed, is
he so lavish of unavailing efforts, as to waste any on
those, in whom he discerns evidence of being within
the good shepherd's pale; and whom, if he should en-
tice them from it for a while, he must restore? This
is not consistent with his subtilty, as described to us.

The plan of this work requires, that attention be now
paid to the scriptural authorities, by which the doctrine
of final perseverance is supported. And the substance
of them shall be taken from professor Turretine, in
the order in which they have been arranged by him.

1. There are all the texts, which establish the doc-
trine of election; meaning in the Calvinistick sense of
the word. Those quoted are Hebrews vi. 17, Romans
* vi. 1 1, and following, f l.t. 8.

334 Comparison of the Controversy, &c

ix. 11. 2. Timothy ii. 19, Romans viii. 29, 30, On
the system here sustained, there can be expected no
other answer, than a denial of the premises which lead
to the conclusion.

2. There are passages, which relate to the immuta-
bility of the convenant of grace, as Jeremiah xxxi. 52,
33, and xxxii. 40. Their purport may be perceived,
by a recital of the 32d and 33d verses of the 31st chap-
ter— "Not according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand,
to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which my co-
venant they brake, although I was an husband to them,
saith the Lord.) But this shall be the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel: After those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God,
and they shall be my people." Answer: It will not be
denied, that the passages in question relate primarily to
the captivity of Babylon. But even taking the second-
ary sense, supported by some places in the New Testa-
ment; it may be conceded, that the covenant is un-
changeable; and yet contended further, that it is accom-
panied by conditions; which must always be supposed
to be performed by one of the parties, in order to make
the promises of the other party binding. Besides, such
texts relate to the Jews as a nation, and cannot be appli-
ed individually, unless in the way of analogy.

3. The conditional nature of promises furnishes a suf-
ficient answer to the next description of texts, advanced
by Turretine, and reciting promises, as in Deuteronomy
xxxi. 8, and Hebrews xiii. 5. The latter of which says
— •" I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." The

with Holy Scripture generally. 33 5

passages parallel to these are Hosea ii. 19, John x. 27,
28, and Matthew xvi. 18. The last is supposed by
Protestants generally, to contain a promise not to indi-
viduals, but to the Church as a social body.

4. An argument is drawn from ..he merits and effica-
cy of the death of Christ, as applied to the subject in
John vi. 37 and 39; and in xvii. 22. The first of these
says — u All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;
and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.'-'
There can be no doubt of the abundant merit of the
death of Christ, in reference to the end for which it was
ordained. It was a property of this, that men must en-
dure to the end, in order to be saved by it. But whe-
ther this be a necessary consequence of being once in
grace, is a question left by the other subject, exactly as
it was found. It is an honouring of Christ after a mis-
taken manner, to apply his merits to points, on the mere
ground of our conceiving of them as suitably connected
with it. "On some such ground as this, Cardinal Cajetan
argued with Luther, for a fund of supererogatory works:
and some have thought it injurious to the same merits,
that even the sins of the elect, lived and died in, should
interpose to hinder their salvation, purchased for them
by so great a price.

5. From the union of the faithful with Christ, ex-
pressed Romans viii. 38 and 1. Corinthians vi. 17. The
former was considered in the first department of this
work; and the latter says — " He that is joined unto the
Lord is one spirit." But from present union, the impos-
sibility of future separation cannot be inferred. Else,
how was Adam deprived of his early glory? And how
happened it, that " the angels kept not their first estate?'*

336 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

6. From the efficacy of the intercession of the Re-
deemer, expressed John xi. 42. and Luke xxii. 32.
The former says — " I knew that thou nearest me al-
ways;" and the latter — " I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not." The sense of these texts is satisfied, by
their being supposed to relate to the ordinary, although
not irresistible aids of grace. However sure these, to all
who seek them; yet prayer to that effect is made a duty,
with the view to the cultivating of a sense of dependence
on God. The duty rests on us, not as respects our-
selves only, but as it involves the debt of intercession for
others. And it became our Lord, who was to be a pat-
tern to us in ail things, thus to intercede for his immedi-
ate friends and followers.

7. From the guardianship and sealing of the Holy
Spirit, declared in John xiv. 17, Galatians iv. 6, Ephe-
sians i. 13. and iv. 30. As to the guardianship spoken
of, the sentiment — ,c I will pray the Father, and he shall
give you another comforter" — and the like — is sufficient-
ly sustained, if our everlasting interests are protected
against all enemies besides ourselves. The idea of a
seal is evidently metaphorical: and they who think it con-
clusive to argue from metaphor, should remember in re-
gard to this, that the impression of a seal may be discon-
tinued, because of some change taking place in the sub-
stance, on which it was made. However, it is appre-
hended, that the sealing spoken of is of the Church, by
the miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit.

8. " The gifts and calling of God are without repen-
tance."* It is answered here, as in the former part of
the work, that if these gifts are lost, it is from human

* Rom. xi. 29.

with Hohj Scripture generally. 337

changeableness; and not from repentance or change in
the divine mind.

9. From the nature of the spiritual life, which is de-
scribed to be perpetual or eternal, in John v. 24 — vi.
40, and 1 . John v. 13. The first says — " He that hear-
eth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;
but is passed from death unto life." These passages
are expressive of the certainty of the love of God; but
by no means prove, that it may not be disappointed of
its object, by the inconstancy of man. A beneficent
father might make very ample declarations, to assure
his children of his unalterable affection, and of its fol-
lowing of them to every period of their respective lives;
and yet would be utterly misunderstood, if supposed to
mean, that they were under a necessity of being bene-
fitted by his goodness.

10. The Professor finds what he thinks an illustrious
authority, where it is said* — " Whosoever is born
of God cannot commit sin; for his seed remaineth
in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
If this passage should be construed literally, as affirming
that the regenerate cannot sin, it would be not only an
errour, but destructive of the scheme which it is intended
to support. To guard against this, it has been judged
necessary to understand it of final sin: which, however,
is not intimated in the passage. There is, indeed, stress
laid on the seed's remaining. But to what is this ap-
plied? It is, not the future state of the person in ques-
tion, but his not sinning. He cannot live in sin, while

* I. John iii. 9.
VOL. I. ^ X

338 Comparison of the Controversy ; &c.

that seed is in him; and this is the most the words ex-
press. But St. Peter speaks the still stronger language
of an "incorruptible seed."* Yes, the seed is incor-
ruptible, but the soil may prove barren. But to return
to the passage: it ought to be interpreted by the pur-
pose of the writer; which was simply, as the connexion
shows, to affirm the indissoluble alliance subsisting be-
tween the Christian character and a holy life and con-
versation. If we must still listen to metaphor, brought
in support of doctrine, it should be remembered, that
he who is born, although he lives and acts, may die,
The meaning can amount to no more, than that while
a man lives under the influence of the high and holy
principle, implanted in him by the regenerating influ-
ence of Christianity, he cannot deliberately or habi-
tually sin.

The 11th consists of metaphor altogether; urging the
comparisons which have been made of the spiritual life;
first, to " incorruptible seed," as in the passage noticed
above; then to a "living fountain;" as in John iv. 14;
and then, to " trees planted by streams of water;" as in
Psalm i. 3; and then, to a house built upon a rock; as
in Matthew vii. 24. All which contain simply the en-
couraging assurance, of the never failing supports of
divine grace. But how far men will avail themselves
of this, the passages say not.

12. St John says of apostates, they "went out from
us, but they were not of us."f Answer: he says this of
somej who had obtruded themselves on the faithful, un-
der the cover of false appearances. But there are apos-
tates of another description; who, as is said in another
* !. Epis. i. 23. f 1. Epis. ii. 19.

with Holy Scripture generally. 339

place, "for a while believe, and in time of* temptation
fall away." The place in question, is as if in some ortho-
dox church of modern times, the more vexatious and
visionary members were to separate and form a new pro-
fession; and it were then said of them, what the Apostle
said of those of old like them: meaning, that however
within the communion, they hid never entered into the
spirit of its institutions.

It would be improper to leave the doctrine of the
final perseverance of the saints, without remarking the
dangerous aspect which it wears, in relation to sinful
security and even licentious living. That it has had
this effect in many instances, is so well attested, that
the fact will hardly be denied; although it will be re-
marked, that the persons in question were never, as
they supposed themselves, in grace. Yet, to all appear-
ance, they had been under the same convictions of con-
science; and had been favoured with the assurances
thought to be possessed by those, who have been faith-
ful to the end.

Independently on what is usually brought under the
name of immorality, there have been those, who have
indulged themselves in habits utterly inconsistent with
the purity of Christian morals; and again, others, not
conscious of habitual devotion, and of keeping God
always before them, who yet occasionally have looked
back on what they called their first love, and have been
confident, that, however smothered the flame of it for a
while, it could never be extinguished. These different
descriptions of people, if the theory here advocated
be true, had no interest " in the kingdom of Christ
and of God," during the seasons of their respectire

340 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

delinquency. Their former convictions and sensibilities
may or may not have returned; but their only interme-
diate effect, was the aggravation of sin.

It is here acknowledged, that gracious truths ought
not to be suppressed, merely because the wicked
abuse them to their destruction. But it ought to be
acknowledged on the other hand, that an opinion,
so easily abused as the one in question, should be well
weighed and clearly proved, before it be affirmed for
truth; and especially of such a grade, as that without it,
neither the sovereignty nor the truth of God can be sus-
tained.

CONCLUSION,

The Subject should be excluded from Theology — Transactions
in the Synod of Dort — Dean Hall's Sermon — Dr. Priestley's
Acknowledgment — Late Introduction of Calvinism,

THE author hopes he has made it appear, that the
subordinate parts of the Calvinistick system, instead of
being founded on scripture, are the result of the opinion
on the first and leading point; all the rest being accom-
modated to preconceived ideas of the divine sovereign-
ty; and originating in a wish to exhibit it, in a consis-
tency with what is considered as a defensible scheme
of moral government. He therefore desires to revert
to that original ground; and, contemplating the whole
subject of predestination in any other point of view
than as relative to the visible church, to infer the wis-
dom of excluding it from Christian theology; and of
leaving it to be acted on, if at all, by philosophical spe-
culation.

He further wishes to illustrate this sentiment, by ad-
verting to the controversy between the Calvinistsand the
Arminians, in the Synod of Dort. For he thinks he per-
ceives in the transactions of that body, as related by the
historian, Brandt, a manifest injury to the cause of the
Arminians, in their meeting of their adversaries so far,
as with them to apply certain passages of scripture to
predestination, in the sense in which the word is usually
understood; but affirming it to be grounded on the
Deity's prescience of the characters and the conduct of
men respectively. If the sentiment here sustained be

342 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

correct, the Arminians, instead of endeavouring to prove
their sense of the doctrine by the scriptures, as the Cal-
vinists endeavoured to prove theirs, should have denied,
that there was any express decision of so high an au-
thority on the case; and should have contended, con-
cerning those of the points which are wrapped up in
metaphysical difficulty, that they ought not to be em-
bodied with evangelical instruction, or make a part of it
in any way; and that if they should be thought fit subjects
of disputation in the schools, yet even in this line, what
seems true in theory cannot be true in any apparent con-
sequence, contradicting our clearest conceptions of the
moral attributes of God; and that if, under this view, there
should appear to be truth against truth, the most reasona-
ble and safe determination is, to resolve the apparent con-
trariety into the imperfection of the human intellect: at all
events, not daring either to lessen the sovereignty of God,
on the one hand, or to impeach his goodness and his jus-
tice on the other; since, in regard to the former, there
should be remembered what is intimated in scripture —
" He giveth not account of any of his matters;" and,
in regard to the latter, it cannot be unbecoming, in a pro-
fessor of the Christian faith, to say with the Father of
the faithful — " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do
right?"

Every reader of the transactions of the Synod of Dort
must have noticed the pertinacity, with which the pre-
sident, Bogerman, insisted with the remonstrants, from
time to time, that they should confine themselves to the
proof of their own opinions, and not digress into a cri-
mination of the opinions of their opponents; which, it
was said, were not before the Synod; and the equal

with Holy Scripture generally. 343

pertinacity, with which Episcopius and his brethren disre-
garded the admonition. Now, if the positions maintained
by these, relatively to all the five points, had rested on
so many and such unequivocal authorities in scripture,
as the single point of a redemption designed lor all men,
it may be believed, that no material inconvenience
would have resulted from the limits so prescribed. But
after they had affirmed for many years, in reasonings of
great length and intricacy, that there was a conditional
election of individuals, founded on their foreseen obedi-
ence; when this distinction had extended its influence,
over all affirmed by them on the subject of grace; when
they had appealed, in evidence of their position, to the
very passages of scripture, which their adversaries had
appealed to for the contrary; and when these had been
accused by them, for many years preceding, of contra-
dicting scripture in their discourses; and of filling them
with matter, not merely foreign to it and unedifying, but
having a tendency to puzzle and to disturb; it is not to
be wondered at, that they were continually stepping
aside from the path marked out to them. The Synod
have been much blamed on this account, by some; but,
as is here conceived, not with demonstrable propriety;
because the Arminians, in the preceding stages of the
controversy, had made the affirmative of the points the
most prominent. Of this they stood accused; being be-
fore the Synod, under a citation to support what they
had affirmed. The case would have been different,
had they treated predestination in the usual sense, as
mere philosophy; bui affirmed, without reserve, the
universality of divine grace: which was not only demon-
strable by clear texts of scripture, but professed by the

344 Cojnparison of the Controversy, &fc.

c*hurch, whose divines, of all the foreigners, held the
first rank; and whose opinions had great weight in the
assembly.

The disadvantage of the Arminians, here stated, was
especially conspicuous in the matter of reprobation.
They were continually reminded, and with appearance
of reason, that there being such a doctrine made no part
of the system which they were cited to support; and in
addition, that it became such saints as them [this was
sarcasm] to look at the comforts of election, and not on
the gloomy side of reprobation. It was indeed the case,
that while some of the Calvinisms considered the decree
as having respect, alike directly, to the salvation of the
elect, and to the damnation of the reprobate; there were
others, who affected to consider the latter as passed
over merely. As these things seem the same in rea-
son, so they are the same in scripture. For, if the
choice of Isaac and of Jacob respected them personally,
and not their posterities, as existing in them, and if the
election of them were with a view to their condition in
another life, the like applies to the rejection of Ishmael
and of Esau, whose damnation must be equally consider-
ed, as coming within the limits of the decree. The same
must be preeminently true of the case of Pharaoh; whose
damnation there is the less pretence for representing to be
merelv the result of the election of another. The whole
tenour of the epistle to the Romans, on the Calvinistick
plan of interpretation, represents the fitting of the vessels
of wrath lor destruction, to be as much a direct object of
the act of predestination, as the preparing of the vessels
of mercy ibrgloiy. Nevertheless, there existed in the
Synod the difference which has been stated: and therefore,

with Holy Scripture generally, 345

on how much more tenable ground would the Ar-
minians have stood, if, instead of resting their cause on
passages explained by them in one way, and by their
adversaries in another, but bv both as relative to another
life, it had been contended, that the passages had no rela-
tion to the subject; and that accordingly, Christianity
was unnecessarily encumbered with the doctrine taught?
Here, they would have proved, from the writings of one
description of their adversaries, what would not have
been justified by the other of them, that there had been
taught reprobation, as the direct act of God, although not
found in scripture. In regard to those who had not
taught the doctrine in this explicit form, it might have
been charged as the consequence of what' they had
taught of another sort. And it must even have been
owned by those who denied the correctness of the in-
ference, that the Arminians who made it were entitled
to the opportunity of supporting their charge, before
they should be condemned as false accusers of their
brethren.

It is difficult to perceive how, on this ground, they
could have failed to be supported by the English di-
vines, consistently with the decisions of their church.
Brandt ascribes to them, that the second article under-
went a considerable alteration, from what it had been
when drafted. For it had been said, that unbelievers
will be damned for original, as well as for actual sin:
which was struck out at the instance of those divines;
lest it should militate against the doctrine of their church,
that original sin is done away in baptism. On the article
as carried, two of them were in the affirmative, and two

in the negative. Among the 'atter was the Bishop of
vol. i. Y y

346 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

Landaff; who explained, as intended of all sorts of men,
what is said in the 31st article of his church, which de-
fines— "The offering of Christ once made," to be "that
perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all
the sins of the whole world, both original and actual."
This article appears, indeed, to have occasioned some
embarrassment to the English divines; and to have pro-
duced a correspondence with their superiours at home.
It was probably from a similar inducement, that they ex-
horted the body to great moderation on the fifth point;
which is, indeed, in direct contrariety to the doctrine of
the church of England, of baptismal regeneration. And
even in regard to the first point, they advised, that the
doctrine of predestination should not be indiscriminately
handled.

Although the author has vindicated the Synod and
their president in a single matter; yet he would not be
understood, as extending the vindication generally.
The intemperate ebullitions of his passions were such,
as it would be difficult to find any persons of the pre-
sent day to advocate. And as to the Synod itself, it is
probable, that at this distance of time, its proceedings
must be generally looked back on, not only as having
been much governed by the then existing state of po-
liticks in the Netherlands, and even in England; but as
exhibiting effects of the passions of the members gene-
rally, not to be reconciled with the requisitions of Chris-
tian charity. The correctness of these positions is rested
not only on the narrative of Brandt, but also on the ac-
counts of the proceedings sent to the English Ambassa-
dour by the Rev. Mr. Hales, his chaplain, who attended
the deliberations of the Synod; and by the Rev. Walter

with Holy Scrip titre generally. 347

Balquancal who was a member of it, representing the

church of Scotland. Nevertheless, the Synod seems to

have been unduly censured, as to the particulars which it

has been thought proper to notice in this place: and

they are stated only to show, that the Arminians

would have stood on stronger ground, had they rested

their cause on the affimative of the second question. The

negative on the first, on the fourth, and on the fifth,

would have been obvious inferences; with which they

might have been satisfied, without affirming any doctrine

of their own on the first point; but showing, that the

predestination spoken of in scripture related to another

subject.

There having been introduced an allusion to the Ar-
minian cause in the Synod of Dort, it was impossible to
overlook what was found so much to the purpose of the
preceding distinction between Christian faith and philo-
sophical speculation, in dean (afterwards bishop) Hall's
sermon at the opening of that assembly. The author had
entertained the design of extracting the part of the dean's
-discourse, which applies: but as the same sentiments are
more compressed in a tract of the same excellent person
called "Via media," it is judged, that the extract may
with equal propriety be made from that.*

* The historian, Brandt, who, however, being of the remonstrant
party, may have been biassed, says of this holy man, that he was
supposed to have left the Synod, because he foresaw the intem-
perance of their proceedings. The cause assigned was ill hea'tn;
in con-sequence of which, he was excused by his sovereign <rom
further attendance. Besides, in his speech to the states at Ms de-
parture, he expressed great regret at leaving the Synod; the socie-
ty of which he described as next to that in heaven: which however,

348 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

In the said tract, Dr. Hall, considering both sides as
agreed on fundamentals, urges the King (James I.) to si-
lence controversy on the rest.* And then he goes on
thus: "If any man herein complain of usurpation on the
conscience and unjust servitude, let him be taught the dif-
ference between matters of faith and scholastick dis-
quisitions. Those have God for their author; these, the
brains of men. Those are contained in the scriptures,
either in express terms or by irrefragable consequences;
these are only deduced thence by such crooked infer-
ences, as cannot command assent. Those are for the pul-
pit; these for the schools. In those, the heart is tied to
believe; the tongue must be free to speak. In these, the
heart may be free, the tongue may be bound." What
makes the preceding passage pertinent to the present pur-
pose, is, its cautioning against the handling of certain
doctrines, as had been done by others, on principles
which have been compared in this work to the exoterick
and isotorick doctrines of the ancients: the truth of the
doctrines being dependent on reasonings, which originate

may be thought accountable for by the circumstance, that
whatever spirit may be supposed to have actuated the body, Dr
Hall found among its members many excellent persons, with whose
society he could not but have been delitrbted. Be these things as
they may; his sermon, at the opening of the assembly, involves a
strong crimination of the spirit of some of their subsequent pro-
ceedings.

* It is a strong instance of the deep-rooted prejudice of the
time, that so good and so wise a man as bishop Hall thought it
justifiable in him, as a Christian minister, to advise the civil ma-
gistrate to the execution of his authority for the suppression of
errour in religion.

with Holy Scripture generally. 349

*n philosophy; and are therefore foreign to the Christian
revelation.

Of that new philosophy by which the Calvinistick
doctrines are now currently defended, it is said by one of
its ablest and most zealous advocates (Dr. Priestley) in
his tract on philosophical necessity — "I do not think the
sacred writers were, strictly speaking, necessarians; for
they were not philosophers."* And yet he quotes sun-
dry passages conformable, as he thinks, to the necessarian
scheme; attributing them to the devotion of the sacred
penmen.f

Independently on the scheme here referred to, the hope
is indulged of there having been shown, that there is no
ground in scripture for the doctrine of predestination, in
the sense in which the word is commonly used; nor for
the tenets which are its usual accompaniments. If so,
they rest on human conjecture and human reasonings:
and the belief of this will be the more confirmed, if it
should be proved, as may be done, that they began to
be introduced about 400 years after the promulgation
of Christianity; from the supposition of aid, in contrariety
to a doctrine unsound in its foundation and pernicious
in its consequences; but to be disproved, without resort
to so desperate an expedient. That the fact, relative to
the early church, is as here stated, was amply confessed

* Sect. xi.
t The author believes, with Dr. Priestley, that it was no object
of vhe inspired writers, to connect their doctrine with philosophi-
cal speculation in any way; but at the same time supposes, that
had St. Paul been a decided necessarian, he would never have
used an expression so evidently favouring the uvre^sa-ix of the
Greek philosophers, as that of i^ho-im sriei ra ths 6tAyi*.et,To<; [power
over his own will] in 1. Cor. viii. 37.

350 Comparison of the Controversy , £fc.

by Calvin; and if he be correct, the church, previous to
the fifth century, had not found verified what St. Paul
affirms of scripture, that it is "profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur-
nished unto all good works. "*

* 2. Tim. iii. 16, 17.

APPENDIX,

No. 1 OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY.

Consciousness opposed to Necessity — Dr. Clarke's Distinction be-
tween the Mind and a Balance— Consequences of supposing the
Mind acted on as a Lever — Objection of Confusion — Necessity
overthrows Praise and Blame — Lord Kaims — Bishop Berkeley
— David Hume — Restrictions on Speculation — Danger of ex-
tending necessity to God— Mr. Leibnitz — Dr. Priestley— Presi-
dent Edwards.

THE author of this work, in the department of it
immediately preceding, has had occasion to refer to
important changes made in the Calvinistick theory, by
its availing of itself of the aid of what is said to be the
more modern doctrine of philosophical necessity. It
has been matter of surprise to him, that no Calvinist
of the old school, so far as is here known, stepped
forward in the beginning, to forbid the banns of this
unnatural marriage. This has not since been done,
to any considerable extent, within the knowledge of him
who writes. It is however hoped, that there has been
no impropriety, in the interference of one who is not
of the family, to pronounce the alliance unlawful.

In doing this, it was explicitly declared, that the ques-
tion of the truth of philosophical necessity was foreign
to the views of the present treatise; which were direct-
ed to matters of revelation only. It has, however, been
suggested by subsequent reflection, that there may
be use in a brief examination of the merits of this up-
start and intrusive doctrine; still under the declaration,

152 Appendix, No. 1.

that what shaH be advanced, ought not to be considered
as involving in it the merits of any other argument which
has been handled.

If any man attend to what passes in his own mind, it
must be evident to him, that at least, he seems to have
been endowed by the Creator with a power, by which
he fixes his attention on one subject, and refuses it to
another; or passes from that to this, by a self determined
direction of his will. If there should be exceptions to
this — for instance when the mind is occupied by some
extraordinary event, either of joy or of sorrow — it will be
no objection to the remark, as applying generally. And
even in regard to any such subject, carrying with it an
extraordinary pressure; we are conscious of an inward
energy, which, if exerted, makes it give way to thoughts
of another nature, prompted either by duty or by dis-
cretion. It is probable there is no man, who, having
never heard or read any metaphysical discussion of the
subject, would not pronounce without hesitation, that he
is conscious of such a power, the evidence of it being
obtained by reflecting on the movements of his own mind.

Mr. Leibnitz seems sensible, that it would be unsafe
to his theory, to rest it on consciousness disengaged from
supposed metaphysical fitness. For in his controversy
with Dr. Clarke, he writes thus: u We cannot, strictly
speaking, be sensible of our not depending on other cau-
ses; for we cannot always perceive the causes (they being
often imperceptible) on which our resolutions depend.
It is as if a needle, touched with a loadstone, was sensi-
ble of and pleased with its turning towards the north.
For it would believe, that it turned itself independently
on any other cause, not perceiving the insensible

Of Philosophical Necessity. 353

motions of the magnetick matter. A number of great
and small motions, internal and external, concur with us,
which generally we are not sensible of," This extract
shows, that the prevailing tendency of the advocates of
necessity is to appeal, not to consciousness, but to some-
thing on which it does not operate.

It is here supposed, that in the controversy on the pre-
sent subject, much obscurity has arisen from the ambigu-
ous use of the word " motive." It is that which deter-
mines the choice. But there is no necessity, that the de-
terminer should be something exterior to the mind;
and it may be, that the movements of this are determin-
ed by a principle inherent to itself. This sentiment may
be illustrated by the following passage from Dr. Clarke,
in his controversy with Mr. Leibnitz: " There is no
similitude between a balance being moved by weights or
impulse; and a mind moving itself, or acting upon a view
of certain motives. The former is entirely passive;
which is absolute necessity: The other not only is acted
upon, but acts; which is the essence of liberty. The
motive is something extrinsick to the mind. The im-
pression is the perceptive quality: The doing is the
power of self-motion. The confounding of the motive
with the principle of action, is the ground of the whole
errour; and leads men to think, that the mind is no more
active, than a balance would be with the power of per-
ception."

Besides the matter of consciousness already stated, it
would seem, mat when there is an aim to a certain end,
there being two means equally agreeable, we adopt one
mean, without any consciousness of a motive to it in
preference to the other: which seems a decisive instance

vol. i. z z

354 Appendix, No. 1.

of choosing without motive, considered as something dis-
tinct from the mind itself. President Edwards, in his cele-
brated treatise on freewill,* found himself under the ne-
cessity of acknowledging that there are some cases, in
which a man, not finding in himself a preference to one
of two ways, gives himself up to accident. President Ed-
wards indeed remarks, and justly, that what men call
accident is subject to fixed laws. Still, so far as the will
is concerned, it takes a course that finally fixes it on one
side of the alternative, in preference to the other; although
there was no such preference in the mind itself. For, as
to the giving up to accident; it is here presumed, that no
man will declare himself generally, much less always
conscious of any act of the mind to that effect.

From what source then, and by what process, are
there deduced reasonings in contrariety to what has been
here stated? To the writer of this, it seems the result
of men's speculating concerning the perfections of God,
and the order of the universe, with a view to the de-
termining of what is fit to be believed of both. Un-
der the influence of considerations resulting from spe-
culations of this description, Leibnitz pronounces, that
a man cannot pass from the state of rest to that of mo-
tion, without having a reason, although it may be so
minute as to escape his observation, for putting his
right or his left foot foremost, as the case may have
happened. But how did Mr. Leibnitz know this?
Notwithstanding his great name, does it not look
like what the logicians call a " petitio principii," made
for no other reason, than its being exacted by his sys-
tem? It would rather seem, that the man wills the

* Part ii. sect. 6.

Of Philosophical Necessity. 355

putting forward of one of his feet, not for any rea-
son making the motion of this preferable to the motion
of the other; but because the motion of one of them,
no matter which, being necessary to the end in view,
it is by an inherent power, that he determines between
the two.

Even when we deliberately compare objects which
offer themselves to our choice; it would seem, that we
are equal to the giving of preference, independently on
any reasons which can be assigned by way of motives;
and sometimes, even in contrariety to them. Here,
however, an advocate of necessity would give the cau-
tion, not to estimate the effect of motive by its intrin-
sick weight, but by the force accompanying it to the
mind on which it fall's. Is it indeed so? And must
there be something in minds themselves, which will
occasion a motive to have different degrees of force on
different minds; and even on the same mind, at differ-
ent times? How very unlike to the physical connex-
ion between a cause and its effect; to which however,
there is said to be an exact analogy, between the mo-
tive and the act of willing!

But the opposite theory represents, that man is act-
ed on by reasons, just as a weight is acted on by a lever
or by a pulley; without any difference between the man
and the weight, except that the former is conscious
and the latter not so, of the course in which he is pro-
pelled. But let us inquire, whether this be consistent
with what wre know of the effect of motive on act. A
man is standing at a certain place, without inducement
to move from it, until tempted by some gratification at
a given distance, on the right; and by another, in all

356 Appendix, No. 1.

respects equal, on the left. According to the theory,
he would remain immoveable; although ever so much
pressed by inclination, to the enjoyment of one or the
other. To vary the hypothesis, let the offers be sup-
posed made from stations not exactly to the right and
the left, but from angles at an equal degree from right
and left respectively. In this case, the man would
move in an intermediate line, always keeping himself at
an equal distance from the equal objects of his choice;
and never possessing himself of either.

It has been remarked, that the arguments for the
theory are deduced from topicks extraneous to the mind
of man. And it is not to be denied, that the subject
is attended with difficulty, when seen in the point of
view, that connects it with the eternal administration of
the moral government of God. But the difficulty is
removed, by considering the subject of an antecedent
eternity, not only in itself but in all its relations, as be-
yond the conception, and interdicted to the curiosity, of
men. And that this is true in scripture, as well as in
reason, it has been one ; urpose of the preceding dis-
quisitions to demonstrate.

But there has been brought an argument of another
kind; grounded on the absurdity of the hypothesis, that
the beauty, the order, and the harmony of this fair crea-
tion, has been subjected to what is called the freewill of
millions of intelligent creatures, under the influence of
so much depraved passion, as we know to be in man-
kind: which, it is said, would defeat whatever wisdom
was intended to be manifested in the design. The an-
swer is, that doubtless this would be the effect, if these
wayward wills were let loose, without the superintendence

Of Philosophical Necessity. ' 357

of a divine will, over-ruling them to its purposes,
by means of the connexion between cause and effect
impressed on matter: it being doubtless within the con-
templation of the providence of God, what effect the
self-determining mind of man would have on nature, in
every event which would occur. This may be illustra-
ted, by the improvement usually made of that passage in
the Psalms — " He maketh the wrath of man to praise
him." Men may will, 'what is in opposition to the will
of God. Known to him beforehand, however, are the de-
signs to which their wickedness will incite them; and he
is competent to the accomplishing of his own designs,
by adjusting to them all natural objects, in number,
weight, and measure. This is the view taken of the
subject — and that philosophically as is here conceived —
by a celebrated poet, when he says:

" And binding Natuie fast in fate,
" Left free the human will."

But are there no difficulties attendant on the necessa-
rian scheme? There are many and great; of which the
most prominent shall be stated.

It overthrows the foundation of moral praise and
blame. If a man should have done you some substan-
tial service, and an opportunity of a return should offer;
however you may comply with the dictates of your
understanding, pointing out to you a general fitness and
utility in the encouragement of beneficence; yet you
surely would not think such a person entitled to the
gratitude of your heart. Or if a man have injured yout
feel, if you please, the wrong sustained; but do not ag-
gravate the conduct of the offender, by the supposition
of his having wickedly violated the laws of God and

358 Appendix, No. 1.

man. To take the matter in another point of view; let
it be supposed, that you sit as a judge, in the condem-
nation of a criminal. Doubtless, you are bound by
oath and by the publick good, to pronounce the sentence
which the law inflicts: But what ought to be your
feelings, when you consider, that the punishment to be
pronounced by you, is but one link in an indissoluble
chain, having its beginning in the throne of God; and
running through this and every future event, in the des-
tination of the offender? On the contrary, the uni-
form tenour of a well spent life, and even the most splen-
did services to individuals and to the publick, are no more
a call for esteem or for affection, under the operation of
the principles contemplated, than are those objects of
outward nature, which are unconsciously made to con-
tribute to our preservation or to our comfort. The
sentiment may be applied to domestick life. In the re-
lations between husband and wife, parent and child,
master and servant; the theory must be put out of view,
before there can be a distinction made between misfor-
tune and crime; or between a benefit meritoriously con-
ferred, and that which it did not rest with the party
either to withhold or to bestow.

We are told indeed — and this is a conspicuous feature
in the celebrated essay of lord Kaims — of the discovery
made in late ages, of the non-existence of colour; and of
the little effect of the discovery, on any transactions in
which the colour of body is concerned. But the subjects
rest on such different grounds and apply so differently,
that there can be no reasoning from one of them to the
other. If a dressy gentleman should conceive of his
figure in society, as dependent on a certain colour of his

Of Philosophical Necessity. 359

coat; or if a lady should conceive the like, of a certain
colour of her gown; in these cases, the motive of choice
is not at all dependent on the circumstance, that the
colour is merely the effect of the configuration of the
particles of which the material is composed. The beau
and the belle, though taught to apprehend this, would
yet perceive, that their persons are not affected by it,
in the eye of the beholder. It is not so, in the other de-
partment; in which the system may be consistent with
pleasure on one hand, or with disgust on the other; but
not with the sense either of virtue or of vice.

There is a still more important difficulty, in the con-
nexion of the subject with responsibility. Under the
operation of the theory, a man may be sensible of mise-
ry, but surely cannot be conscious of guilt. At least, if
he accuse himself of the latter, it must be, by putting
of the former for a time out of his mind. This, it is con-
fessed, may be accomplished by that self- determining
power, which is here supposed to enter into the more
probable side of the question. And there is encourage-
ment to the exercise of the power, when the sinner
recollects, that, until death shall have set its seal to his
condition, there is room for hope, that he may be of
the number of the elect; which however, without re-
pentance, cannot be. But when he shall have reached
the world of spirits; how he can condemn himself
for the rejecting of offers never made, and the defeat-
ing of grace never given; having been placed in cir-
cumstances under which it was impossible they should
have effect; or how conscience can aggravate any other
species of misery, which divine Omnipotence may be
supposed to inflict, is very difficult to be conceived of.

360 Appendix, No. 1.

And yet, that very circumstance is generally spoken of
by Christians of every denomination, as the principal
source of unhappiness to sinners, in another state of
being.

To him who writes this it is well known, that many
an ingenuous Calvinist would confess the pressure of
the difficulties mentioned; but would say, that in the
Arminian scheme, he finds difficulties still more press-
ing. Ought he not then to give a willing ear to consi-
derations intended to evince, that both the schemes are
unsupported by the gospel; so far as they speculate on
the eternity of God, or connect his sovereignty and hu-
man agency together? That " there are secret things
belonging to the Lord our God," is clearly taught in
scripture: And what can more properly be considered
as of the number of them, than the subject now in con-
templation?

But it may be said, even on the supposition of the
silence of scripture — Shall the active mind of man be
excluded altogether from this field of philosophical inves-
tigation? The only answer pertinent to the present de-
sign is, that it should at least be under the restriction, of
presuming latent errour in reasonings, which sirike at
any of the divine perfections; or represent human nature,
differently from what observation and experience prove
of it.

If we take up the subject, as it respects the per-
fections of God; it is surely a suitable submission
of human reason to say, that there must be some-
where a defect in any chain of reasoning, however
unable we mav find ourselves for the discovery of
the weak link, when it terminates in the representing

Of Ph ilosophical Necessity. 361

of him as wielding the sceptre of his resistless sove-
reignty, in order to demonstrate the extent of his
power; in a way which, according to the maxims go-
verning good men — the only way of onr forming of any
apprehension as to what is to he believed concerning
God — is not consistent either with benevolence or with
justice.

In the other respect also, as the subject relates to the
properties of human nature, under our observation and
our experience; there cannot be truth in a theory, how-
ever plausible, that contradicts them. The sentiment
may be illustrated, as it applies on another subject.
Bishop Berkeley, to whom Mr. Pope ascribes " every
virtue under heaven," perceiving no necessary relation
between an idea, and matter of which it is the image,
fell into a track of argument, ending in the disbelief of a
material universe. Whoever has perused the disquisi-
tions of that very ingenious and very amiable bishop,
must perceive, that it is not easy to detect the errour of
his reasonings. But is a man, conscious of his inability
to refute them, to acquiesce in the conclusion? Not at
all. Mankind, not excepting the author of the theory
and his followers, have always acted in contrariety to it
in common life. It contradicts the judgments, formed
on all the occasions coming before us; and on which, as
there is a call for very little process of the reasoning fa-
pulty, there is the less danger of its being led astray.

Bishop Berkeley was led into an hypothesis so extraor-
dinary, by the combination of a pious disposition, with
the belief of a theory of the human mind, that had be-
come prevalent in his day; and some parts of which had
not yet been contemplated in all their consequences. But

vol. i.

a 3

362 Appendix, No. 1.

after him came David Hume; who, from the opposite
principle of irreligion, but proceeding on the same theo-
ry, struck at the root of all certainty, on religious and
moral subjects; representing man as a mere bundle of
ideas, brought together in accidental association. Dr.
Beattie, in speaking of Mr. Hume's representation of
human nature, has noticed the compliment paid to Shak-
speare— -that another order of intelligent beings, without
converse with man, might form a conception of him from
the writings of the poet: and then the doctor asks, whe-
ther the same or any thing like it can be affirmed, of Mr.
Hume's professed delineation of the nature of the same
being; which is indeed wide of any knowledge to be ac-
quired of it, from conversation with one another. Such
theories may be ingenious; but without considering whe-
ther we are able to confute them, it is rational to pro-
nounce, thatthev cannot be true.

If philosophical necessity be judged by this standard,
there seems nothing which can prevent its sinking un-
der the weight of opposite experience and observation.
And what makes the writer of this the more lament,
that Calvinism should take shelter under the wings of
such a useless kinJ of metaphy sicks, is his remarking,
not only tha: it is welcome to the minds of many thinking
Deists; but that it is apt to be so, in proportion as they
find in materialism the same charms to captivate them. As
we form our ideas of the perfections of God, by ascribing
to him, in the highest sense, what we find excellent in
the creature; it is natural to transfer the idea of necessity
— that being supposed the most perfect of all schemes —
from the universe to the Creator.

Something of the sort seems confessed by Leibnitz,
in his pronouncing, that God cannot make two particles

Of Philosophical Necessity. 363

of matter, in all respects alike; because each particle
must occupy a certain portion of space; and were the
two particles in all respects alike, there could be no rea-
son in the divine mind, for placing either particle in the
space occupied by it, rather than in that occupied by the
other. It might be made a question, whether this Leib-
nitzian concession, which is indeed an unavoidable re-
suit, do not interfere essentially with the distinguishing
circumstance of Calvinistick predestination, that it is
independent on any thing foreseen in the elect or in the
reprobate. For it would seem, according to the
scheme of Leibnitz, that there must be as much difficul-
ty in choosing between two such beings, as between two
similar particles of matter. But, putting this question of
consistency aside, there would seem in the aforesaid po-
sition of Leibnitz, something indicating a near kindred
between materialism and philosophical necessity.

It is here supposed to be the opinion of Christians
generally, that when God created man, he might have
withheld the act of his omnipotence. But how this is
consistent with what necessity would lead us to think
of him, is not apparent. We know, that, among the
heathen, the fatalists considered the gods themselves
as subject to the decrees of fate. This is mythology;
but the principles wrapt up in it, were the result of
deep thought. The system was consistent: and it is to
be feared, that some religious necessarians have adopt-
ed it, without perceiving the consequences in which it
ends.

The late Dr. Priestley, in his tract on philosophical
necessity, seems to have avoided looking on the subject,
in the point of view in which it may be thought to

364 Appendix, No. L

intrench on the freedom of the divine mind. He has, in-
deed, treated of this, in relation to his opinion of mate-
rialism; with which he certainly combined the kindred
opinion of necessity. But how far the subject affects
the freedom of the divine operation, he has not there
inquired. If the writer of this were to reason, according
to his own ideas of propriety, from the premises of
others; he would be led to the position, that'the neces-
sarian scheme must extend to the Deity himself. Dr.
Priestley, indeed, distinguishes his own necessity from
that of the ancients, in the point, that to the latter, even
the gods were subject. But under this, may not the
very sentiment of what is now called philosophical ne-
cessity have been concealed, in the remote ages in
which the mythology was framed? It is well Known,
that this fictitious person, intended to be emblematical
t)f abstract opinion, was born and cfadled in Egypt,
and not in Greece; in which much of the original
symbols was lost or overlooked. But, whatever may
have been the opinions of the ancient philosophers,
we have too many evidences among the modern, that
the mixture of necessity and materialism, advocated by
Dr. Priestley, has a tendency to the more sublimated
philosophy of that kind, denominated from Spinoza.

President Edwards seems to have been less shy than
Dr. Priestley, of the bearing of his principles on the pre-
sent subject. He has spoken of it in this point of view,
in the seventh and eighth sections of the fourth part of
his Inquiry. In the seventh, he argues that the opera-
tions of the divine mind are not the less free, because
they are and must be always directed to ends of the
most consummate wisdom: and he quotes Dr. Clarke

Of Philosophical Necessity. 365

to the same effect. In the eighth section, he treats of
that which is the main point, the choice of the divine
mind, in an alternative, in which either side would be
consistent with supreme wisdom. Here he throws on
those who differ from him, the burthen of the proof,
that any such alternative can exist: whereas, he ought
rather to have taken on himself the proof, that it is im-
possible. So far as we can judge, it was not essential
to the wisdom of the divine workmanship, that in the
system which we inhabit, there should be the precise
number of planets, which make their circuits round the
sun; so that there being one more or one less, would
have made the system less wise. Supposing it to be as
president Edwards states, that, according to Sir Isaac
Newton's laws, an atom more or less would have deran-
ged the whole system of the universe; yet it will hardly be
affirmed, that the relative positions of the bodies of
which the universe is composed, might not have been
such, as to have conformed to the addition or the sub-
traction of the atom. So in the scale of animal life, ano-
ther species more or another less, would not seem to de-
tract from the general design exhibited: and this in-
stance is the more remarkable, if, as is supposed, some
species formerly appearing, have been lost. The sub-
ject might be placed in various other points of view:
and the application to it of the system of necessity
seems to exact a demonstration, that all nature could
have been no other, than as we see it. President Ed-
wards, particularly, takes up the position of Leibnitz, of
the impossibility of there being two particles of matter
alike. In discussing this point, he goes into many
very minute distinctions; which it is less to the present

366 Appendix, No, 1.

purpose to examine, than to remark, that they im-
ply the application of necessity in this extent; and that
therefore, there results the importance of every man's
seriously considering, before he adopts the sentiment
and other sentiments akin to it, how exactly it coincides
with the ancient doctrine of fate, exercising sovereignty
over the gods; and even how little distant it is from the
modern doctrine of Spinoza, who had no other idea of
God, than as an energy arising out of the organization
and the operations of matter. The mutual relation of
these things, was certainly not perceived by president
Edwards; or he would have rejected metaphysical ne-
cessity, as one of his successours, Dr. Witherspoon,
has done; which appears in a quotation already made
from him. He doubtless saw the danger: and his hesi-
tation may be an example to the like in others; before
they consider Calvinism and necessity, as tied together in
an indissoluble connexion.

Not only is such care necessary, as the subject af-
fects the divine Being; but it is also incumbent, in re-
ference to moral virtue. When lord Kaims wrote his
Essay on Liberty and Necessity, he seemed aware, that
the general prevalence of his principles, notwithstand-
ing his comparison of the nonentity of colour, might
have an unhappy influence on morals. But he thought
he perceived sufficient security against this; in the cir-
cumstance, that the system would be confined to the
philosophick few. Little was it imagined by this accom-
plished scholar, that only a few years were requisite, to
give an opportunity to philosophick zealots, of applying
the wildest theories of philosophy to what they thought
the reforming of the affairs of men: and as little did it

Of Philosophical Necessity. 367

occur to him, that there would be, at this time, so great
a proportion of civilized society, who would know
enough of philosophy , to be misled by the fallacies which
it gives birth to; without that sufficient knowledge of
it, which might correct them. But independently on
this, what a strange opinion of the divine wisdom must
be possessed by the man who supposes, that God has
subjected the species to the influence of certain princi-
ples; and made them conducive to publick and private
happiness, by a salutary deception; but has not screen-
ed the falsehood from the discerning eyes of the philo-
sophick few! We approve and disapprove of actions
of ourselves and others, on grounds of a moral nature;
and not at all connected with, or rather in contrariety to
any notions, which the theory of necessity suggests.
That we should do so, is confessed by lord Kaims to
be necessary to the virtue of, at least, the mass of the
human kind. But it seems presumed of the great con-
triver of the drama of human life, that he had not the
sagacity to reserve, to the close of it, a secret which is
interwoven with the whole plot, and necessary for the
conducting of it to a prosperous issue.

When the Essay of lord Kaims was first published
in Scotland, many religious persons of the established
church of that country were much offended at the threat-
ened injury to morals, in the resting of them on decep-
tion. And when the Essay came to the knowledge of
president Edwards, who, about the same time, had in-
terwoven the two systems of Calvinism and Necessity,
in the treatise which has been referred to, he made some
strictures on the other performance, designed to show
wherein it differed from his scheme, especially in the

368 Appendix, No. 1.

point here contemplated. Like a religious man, he
shows himself averse to the idea of salutary deception,
and of virtue founded on it: and to make it appear,
how distant himself and lord Kaims were in that parti,
cular, he refers to his "Inquiry."* The diversity is
manifest; but on which side there is the most strict
deduction from the premises held in common, may be
made a question.

In the said section, president Edwards undertakes to
disprove the position, that "it is agreeable to common
sense, and the natural notions of mankind, to suppose
moral necessity to be inconsistent with praise and
blame, reward and punishment." And he brings two
arguments to the purpose.

The first is, in substance, that the mass of mankind,
under the government of common sense, and not per-
plexing themselves with the metaphysical distinctions
of philosophy, look for no further liberty, than that
which is opposed to constraint. So that if a man act
from his own will, and not from the compulsion of ano-
ther, they praise or censure, withont concerning them-
selves with the inquiry, how far the will itself is free
from influence.

But when we speak of the dictate of the common
sense of mankind; we should suppose to be fairly be-
fore that faculty the subject, on which it is said to
speak. Otherwise, what we call common sense, may be
no more than common ignorance. Young people, until
better informed, take the sun and moon to have flat
surfaces: and the world itself was taken by all its in-
habitants for many ages, and is now taken by many

* Part iv. sect. 4.

Of Philosophical Necessity, 359

nations, to be an extended plane, with the sun and the
moon revolving round it. Yet, these apprehensions will
hardly be called the dictates of common sense. It is cer-
tainly the case, as president Edwards states, that children
and common people look no further for the ground of
merit or of demerit in action, than that it should be
from the will or intention of the agent. But the ques-
tion should occur — Is not this from the supposition of
spontaniety; although they may not have heard of that
or of any kindred name, invented by philosophy? And
were they told, and to give credit to metaphysicians for
a sentiment, that the will itself is acted on by causes
over which the agent has no control; would they not
then think him as little the subject of praise or blame,
as a weight moved by a pulley or by a lever? It is here
supposed, that such would be the result.

The second argument is, that if the common sense
of mankind were to withhold praise and blame from
actions, because of moral necessity or impossibility;
the nearer any action should approach to this, the less
cause of praise or blame would there be attached to it:
whereas the contrary appears, in men's being always
disposed to commend a virtuous aciion the more highly,
and to condemn a vicious action the more severely, be-
cause of their respectively issuing from the natural, the

habitual, and the confirmed dispositions of the doers of
them.

But there should be a distinction taken, between es-
teem and disesteem on one hand, and praise and blame
on the other. We certainly esteem or disesteem a man
the more, for the ease with which his desires centre in
what is virtuous, or for his uncontrollable propensity to

vol.. i b 3

370 Appendix, No. 1.

vice: but we are so far from thinking him the subject
of praise or blame, proportionably to such a character-
istick; that we praise him the more for a virtuous action
achieved at the expense of the resistance of strong natu-
ral propensity; and we blame him the more, for his being
ensnared into evil practices, in violation of amiable ten-
dencies to their opposites. In the case which president
Edwards supposes, of a man whose injurious conduct
should proceed from a haughty and malicious dispo-
sition; although we should the more reprobate his char-
acter on that account; vet we should not think of it,
as giving the more cause of blame and punishment.
The reason why we should conceive of any blame to
lie, or of any punishment to be deserved, is, that the
party is possessed of counteracting principles; by which,
but for his own delinquency, his evil propensities might
have been checked. A wolf, a viper, or any other
mischievous animal may be an object of our dislike,
but cannot be of our blame; because we suppose him
to act according to the law oT his nature, and without
a controlling principle. The like would be our estimate
of the haughty and malicious man supposed by president
Edwards; if we knew him to be, as much as the other
animals referred to, under an impulse that is unavoid-
able and uncontrollable.

From the premises it is concluded, that lord Kaims,
with a consistency from which president Edwards, how-
ever generally consistent, was caused by his piety to re-
volt, was right, according to the principles entertained by
both, in the point of a delusive sense of liberty and of
its being the foundation of moral praise and blame. It
is true, that the learned judge, perceiving the offence

Of Philosophical Necessity. 371

which his doctrine gave, and which was the greater be-
cause his station required a membership of the esta-
blished church of Scotland, made it an object to allay the
dissatisfaction in a subsequent edition of his essay: for
he explicitly relinquished his alarming position; and, in
favour of the principles of his performance thus purged,
he quoted passages from the works of sundry Calvinistick
divines; and among them, from the Inquiry of president
Edwards, then recently published and become an ob-
ject of attention. How far the peculiar situation of his
lordship, and how far the love of virtue generally as-
cribed to him, and not contradicted by any viciousness
of conduct, may have operated in the change, is not
here made a matter of investigation. To him who
writes, it appears, that the ground remains, on which
the offensive principle was a superstructure. Nor is
there any thing to guard against the consequent mis-
chief; except the position, strongly insisted on, that
however men may reason for necessity in their closets,
they will carry nothing of it with them, into their con-
duct. Even in stating this, lord Kaims goes on grounds
directly contrary to any which could have been admit-
ted by president Edwards, as a religious Necessarian or
Calvinist. For the former has represented the Deity, as
providing against the consequences of the belief of ne-
cessity, by instincts tending to the practice of what is
right; and too powerful to be controlled by the feeble
effort of speculative opinion. Thus, the very principle
of the retractation leaves the original sentiment in full
force, so far as the present subject is concerned. If Dr.
Priestley be correct, in ascribing the combining of philo-
sophical necessity with Calvinism to president Edwards;

372 Appendix, No. 1.

it is a singular coincidence of circumstances, that while
he was employed in this work, a gentleman, who, to all
appearance was an unbeliever in Christianity, was
aiming a blow at it under the cover of that necessity; and
afterwards called in the treatise of president Edwards
to his assistance. This is a consideration, which tends
to confirm the sentiment here sustained, of the unsuita-
bleness of the alliance.

These are the ideas of the author, on the subject
of philosophical necessity. The use contemplated in
the recording of them, is the inducing of a suspicion
of the validity of Calvinism; on account of its thus hav-
ing recourse to a weapon, which, if not forged on the
foreign anvil of infidelity, has at least been polished by
its hands. Were Calvin to make his appearance at
the present day, he might reasonably demand to be in-
formed, what relation there is in these remarks on phi-
losophical necessity, to the system left behind him in
his Institutes; gloomy and ill founded, as is here con-
ceived; yet consistent in itself, ably supported, and ex-
pressed with admirable lutinity. The acknowledgment
would be m r!e, that there is no necessary relation be-
tween the two. But to prove that there has been a
change in the system, reference would be had to modern
Calvinistick wmers, the most noted for their talents and
for their lea ning. And this is, in itself, a reason for the
suspicion, that although the appeal is still made " to the
law and to the testimony," there is not so much con-
fidence in their aid, as when these were thought the
only ground, which there was occasion to have re-
course to.

APPENDIX No 3.

An Analysis of the Rev. Jonathan Edwards's Inter-
pretation of the last ten Verses, in the fifth Chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans.* —

General remarks on Man's Ruin and Redemption — President Ed-
wards's Remarkson the 13ih and 14th Verses — His Answers to
Objections — Faults found by him with two dissenting Minis-
ters—Instance of his Consistency.

The interpretation here referred to, is in president Ed-
wards's Treatise of Original Sin. The book had never
been seen by the author of the present work, until after
his finishing of the part to which this is an appendix.
The treatise on original sin, like that of the same writer
on freewill, is here thought to manifest strong marks
of his metaphysical and acute mind. A very great
proportion of the book being directed against the Soci-
nian principles of Dr. Taylor, to whose book on the
same subject it is an answer, has no bearing on the pre-
sent work. And of what may be considered as apply-
ing, it is here supposed, that no occasion is given for a
reconsideration of the subject; except, in what the in-
genious author has said on the above named passage in
the epistle to the Romans; in which there are some mat-
ters, not found in Calvinistick writers the most com-
monly met with.

The writer of this knows of no Calvinist, more enti-
tled to the praise of consistency than president Edwards.
There is a complaint frequently made by the advocates
of the system maintained by him, that their opponents
charge them with consequences not fairly drawn. But

• See vol. 6. of the 1st. Am. Ed. of his works, p. 352, et seq.

y

374 Appendix, No. 2.

it is here believed, that some of the most forbidding of
those consequences may be found distinctly drawn; not
from oversight or want of circumspection in the author,
which would be contrary to his known character; but,
as was hinted, from that consistency of reasoning, which
seems to have reconciled him to any consequences, on
which he may have been landed by deductions, thought
by him to have been safely begun and closely linked
together.

On the subject of hereditary sinful disposition, this
part of the character of president Edwards appears con-
spicuous. For instead of making the frequent distinc-
tion of actions formally good, yet not so in regard to
the want of the true governing principle, he represents
all the thoughts and the desires of man, as in themselves
essentially unholy and mischievous. Thus* of Ro-
mans iii. 10 — 18, quoted from the fourteenth Psalm,
which he considers as descriptive of human na-
ture, instead of a corrupt state of society taken
collectively, agreeably to what is here thought the evi-
dent drift both of the apostle and of the Psalmist; it is
said among other things thus: — " The expressions
also are evidently chosen to denote a most extreme and
desperate wickedness of heart. An exceeding de-
pravity is ascribed to every part: to the throat, the
scent of an open sepulchre; to the tongue and lips, de-
ceit and the poison of asps; to the mouth, cursing and
bitterness: of their feet it is said, they are swift to shed
blood: and with regard to the whole man it is said,
destruction and misery are in their ways." Many
other extracts might be made, to show, that these and
the like things are what all men are supposed to be

* Page 335, vol. vi. 1st Amer. Edition of his works.

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 375

impelled to by natural inclination, until this is rectified
by conversion. And instead of such representations
as are made even by some Calvinists, from the passage
in Matthew xviii. 35, concerning infants, presi-
dent Edwards contends, that the commendation is
merely negative. " For let their nature," says he,*
" be ever so corrupt, yet surely it is no wonder that
they be not guilty of positive wicked action, before they
are capable of any moral action at all. A young viper
has a malignant nature, though incapable of doing a
malignant action, and at present appearing a harm-
less creature."

On the subject of imputation also, to which the en-
suing analysis will be confined; president Edwards seems
more unqualified and less regardful of offensive con-
quences, than the advocates of the system generally.
These presume, as the pre-requisite of imputation, the
consent of the descendant, by sin existing in itself, to
the sin of the forefather. And although such consent
may be no more than the thought or the inclination
which exists in embryo; yet herein is believed a pro-
vision, against the objection of either creating in a state
of guilt, or damning in a state of innocency. Not so pre-
sident Edwards; who pleads for the reasonableness of a
divine constitution; according to which, as an injury to
the root of a tree affects its branches in every leaf; so
God might reasonably cause, that the sinful will of a fe-
deral head should immediately produce sin in the wills
of all the persons united with it under covenant. And
even the consequence of this, as involving the damna-
tion of infants, was evidently what his mind did

* Page 475.

376 Appendix, No, 2.

not revolt from. But these are matters, which will
be more fully opened in what follows. The disqui-
sition of president Edwards is divided into two parts.

SECTION I.

Here are eight remarks of president Edwards on the
interpretation to which he objects.

The first, turns on the meaning of the word "death."
That the original and obvious meaning is a termina-
tion of life, is not denied by him. And that it receives
a more extended sense, so as to include future misery,
does not seem to have been denied by the writer whom
he opposes. The question remains — Which is the
sense, in the place? President Edwards argues for the lat-
ter, from a similar use in the last verse of the next chap-
ter, and in the last verse of the present. In regard to
the former, he is certainly correct; there being in that
chapter a transition to matters of Christian practice.
But it is conceived, that he is not correct in regard to
the other place; and that his mistake turns on the equi-
vocal sense of the words " eternal life." That they
may express celestial happiness, placed in contrast to
eternal misery, is conceded. In themselves, however,
they mean no more than a never ending existence;
which is contrasted by the apostle, pertinently to his
argument, with an extinction of being. But why did
president Edwards go below the passage, in quest of the
meaning of the word "death;" when it is used in the
verse but one before the passage; where we are said to
be " reconciled to God" by the death of Christ? And
the words " die" and " died" are used just before. If
these words, in the places cited, relate to temporal

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 377

death—- as will doubtless be acknowledged — they are
more decisive of the sense in the twelfth verse, than
any thing below it, even had that been as president Ed-
wards states; which is conceived to be not the fact. He is
indeed aware of the advantage, which the connexion
gives to his opponent: and to do it away, he produces
passages, in which the two senses of life and death are
promiscuously Ubed; as John xi. 25, 26; and Matthew
x. 39. And he shows, from modes of speech in com-
mon life, how, in different sentences, one sentence may
have respect to one part, and another sentence to a dif-
ferent part, of the same subject. Nothing of this is
denied. But it is contended, that the sense of the word
" death" here advocated, arises out of the very design
of the apostle's discourse; which was the running of a
parallel between the loss of immortality in Adam, and
the regaining of it in Christ.

President Edwards's second remark, has no influence
on the system here sustained; however it may apply to that
which he opposes. It was a point with the latter, to
deny that the sin of Adam affected any besides himself.
In refutation, president Edwards pertinently says, that on
such a ground, it was nothing to the purpose in the
apostle to state, that " by one man sin entered into the
world;" because the object was to show, not how it be-
gan in a single instance, but how it got abroad and
abounded.

Alike foreign to the present argument, is his third

remark — that oft the principles opposed to his, the

force of the causal particles "through" and " by" is

done away. It is so; unless in the sin of Adam there be

vqi. i. c3

378 Appendix, No. 2.

seen a causality, in reference to the mortality of his
whole posterity.

It may also be said of the fourth, that it treats of
something foreign to the present object. The remark
is in opposition to a position of Dr. Taylor, that the en-
tailment of mortality was not a dispensation of displea-
sure, but an exercise of grace and kindness. The au-
thor of this, not having access to Dr. Taylor's work,
does not know his sense on the present point, further
than as he gathers it from the work of the opponent.
If Dr. Taylor meant no more, than that the punishment
was inflicted, under the design of making it finally sub-
servient to good; it is difficult to perceive the errour.
But it would rather appear, from the statement on the
other side, that he contended for its being no punish-
ment at all: which is contrary to the whole tenour of the
history.

The weight of the fifth remark of president Edwards, is
against what is here conceived to be the true construc-
tion of the thirteenth and fourteenth verses of the pas-
sage— " For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin
is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless,
death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans-
gression." In order to perceive the principle on which
the advocated sense is grounded, it should be remem-
bered, that the argument of the apostle is directed against
persons, among whom it must have been a familiar idea,
that death had been a specifick penalty, consequent on
the breach of a positive, institution. He makes this a
postulatum; remarking, as a necessary appendage to i^

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans, 379

that since from Adam to Moses there was no law with
this penalty; and since there was required such a law,
with such a penalty, in order to the effect; all of
the human race, intervening between Adam and Moses,
had incurred the death inflicted for Adam's sin on all.
These were points, which the aim of the apostle's ar-
gument made no call on him to prove; and he refers to
them as acknowledged principles; in order to show,
what he had especially in view, that the death of Christ
was for all, both Jews and Gentiles. President Edwards
treats the passage, as if the apostle were endeavouring
to prove, what he is here supposed to have presumed:
and therefore, the charge of inconsequential reasoning
does not lie against the sense here contended for, how-
ever it may have lain against that of Dr. Taylor. For
the same reason, there is nothing to the present pur-
pose, however pertinent it may have been in answer to
the same gentleman, in all president Edwards has said
concerning the right of God to inflict death, as the
punishment of breaches of the law of nature. There is
no doubt of this; although Jews and Christians must
believe, that it was actually inflicted for the breach of
positive law. And this fact might reasonably be-
not proved, but — appealed to by St Paul, because of
its subserviency to a matter beyond it in his contem-
plation. It is here conceived, that the interpretation
given will derive an accession of strength, if, on the
very respectable authority of the Alexandrian manu-
script, we read " was not imputed"* instead of " is
not imputed;"t this bearing the appearance of an

* «* tXXoytre. f the ftooytireu.

380 Appendix, JYo. 2.

abstract proposition; and the other agreeing better with
a fact referred to. If the criticism be correct; the latter
part of the verse should be rendered — " there being no
law."*

The sixth remark may be considered as confined to
the peculiarities of Dr. Taylor's scheme; and to argue
well, that there could be no grace in redemption, which
yet the passage is acknowledged to affirm, if there had
been no penalty on the apostasy.

The seventh remark relates to the signification of
the words "judgment," " condemnation," "justifica-
tion" and " righteousness." President Edwards's charge
of misusing the first two, no further applies to the pre-
sent system, than as it may be said to involve judg-
ment and condemnation passed on innocent persons:
there being acknowledged, that the loss of immortality
was through Adam to his posterity. To prepare for
an answer to this, there should be noted — what will
not be denied — that the words in question, as used in
the New Testament, are not confined to what awaits
mankind in eternity. As the subject then regards tem-
poral death, that is, an abridgment of the divine boun-
ty to the species; and as the words, in die place under
consideration, have not a moral but a forensick meaning;
they might very well be used to express a change of the
divine dispensations, without being designed to charge
crime by imputation, where there was none in fact.
Under this judicial construction of the word, one of the
evangelists does not scruple to imply, that his blessed
Master was a malefactor, where it is said — "There
were also two other malefactors led with him to be put

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 881

to death."* Some indeed, from what is here conceiv-
ed to be misapplied delicacy, endeavour to avoid this, by
putting a stop between "other," which they change
into " others," and " malefactors." This not only ren-
ders the words in combination an unusual expression;
but is alien from the spirit of the remark made by St.
Mark xv. 28, that in the circumstance stated, there was
fulfilled the prediction — " He was numbered with the
transgressors:" that is, he was one of them, in the ju-
dicial meaning of the word.f In regard to the words
" righteousness" and "justification," Dr. Taylor may
have applied them, as president Edwards states, to the
universal resurrection at the last day. Without enter-
ing into the question, how far this may appear from
other places, to be an effect of the character sustained
by the Redeemer, it is here considered as a sense fo-
reign to the passage. As this was explained in the first
part of the present work, "the all" on whom the jus-
tification and righteousness came, were the Jews and
the Gentiles; considered collectively, or as bodies: and
for a medium of proof of this, there is fitly introduced

* Luke xxiii 32.

t It may seem, that the expression utrepu KXKxpyot" should be
interpreted like certain places, in which the word " cenp" or
" av6pazr*i" is attached to another word; as " u^txpot" in Acts ii.
37, and elsewhere- — " g»i/wye«" in Luke ii. 15. and " jSxriX;~" in
Matthew xviii, 23. and so "«&Ap«i yvvx7>cst" in 1. Corinthians ix.
5. But the phraseology, in these instances, is a peculiarity found
in the best greek writers: and not, as is here conceived, exten-
ding further, to the disjoining %f words placed in obvious concord
of an adjective with a substantive, as in the instance here con-
templated.

382 Appendix, No. 2.

the fact, that death had come on all by the first trans-
gression.*

* President Edwards, under this remark, is compelled by hie
system to make a very forced interpretation of the meaning of
" righteousness," said to come " on all;" and of the effect of
« obedience," meaning that of Christ, as having the same extent.
For he interprets the expression, as meaning all who believe in
Christ, in order to get rid of the construction which applies the
" all" to the collective bodies of Jews and Gentiles. And Dr Tay-
lor having forced on the attention of President Edwards the simi*
lar passage in 1. Corinthians xv. 22 — " As in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive;" he evades the force of it by
saying, that under the idea of the resurrection, there is seldom
included, in the New Testament, that of the wicked, it being only
to misery. Why does he speak of the New Testament onlyj
when, in the very few places of the Old, declaratory of the resurrec.
tion, it is said in one of them [Daniel xii. 2.] — " And many of them
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasb-
ing life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt?" But a6
he confines himself to the New Testament, how express is that
in John v. 28. 29 — " The hour is coming, in the which, all that are
in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that
have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have
done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." And again, Acts
xxiv. 15 — " There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the
just and unjust." The resurrection of the wicked is therefore
directly mentioned; if not often, yet sometimes and very explicit-
ly. But besides, it is noticed, without direct mention, in all the
places which speak of a general judgment; and especially those
which specify the different issues of it to the righteous and to the
wicked. What though the former are speaially named, in one
place, " the children of the resurrection?" This is when they are
contrasted with " the children ol this world;" regard being had to
an opposition, not of character- but ot condition. " The children
of this world marry and are &iven in marriage:" But not so* the

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 383

The last remark of president Edwards, is what he sup-
poses the unreasonableness of the interpretation put on
the words — " By one man's disobedience many were
made sinners." The offensive interpretation and that
here advocated is, that by the sin of A.dam, all were in
such sort constituted sinners, as that they sustained the
consequences of sin. No doubt it is one of the instances,
of which however there are many, of St. Paul's giving
of energy to his discourse, by unusual modes of speech.
And in a preceding subdivision of the present part of
the work, an instance was given, thought to be even
more remarkable than that in question, where our Sa-
viour is said to have been " made sin for us."* In addi-
tion to this, some passages of the Old Testament have
been referred to, where the word "sinners" is used,
merely on the ground, that the persons to whom it was

children of the resurrection; whether they be the same or others.
It would therefore seem, that "the all" who died in Adam, cannot
be more in number, than " the all" who are made alive in Christ:"
that is, put into a life of responsibility and of hope; in which they
would never have been, but through Gospel grace.

* Of this text it is said, that it may strietly be construed to
mean — " A sacrifice for sin;" the Greek word [ctfcxpwfc] being
sometimes so used. But it cannot have been so used in this place;
in which there is evidently designed an opposition, between the
terms " sin" and " righteousness." Christ was a sacrifice for sin.
But his being so was not precisely the sentiment in the mind of
the apostle. Although not precisely the same, it is necessary to
the interpretation of the place. As in the next clause, persons
made righteous by faith must be supposed, for the sustaining of
the figure of tighteousness in the abstract, so there must be a
similar supposition of Christ being a sin-offering, agreeably to
the use of the Greek word by the seventy, to sustain the equally
strong figure of his being made sin.

384 Appendix ■, No. 2.

applied were considered the objects of punishment, as it
sinners. President Edwards would ward off this by the
circumstance, that in all such cases, the persons were so
denominated from the accusation of sin thrown on them,
although unjustly. But it is evident, that St. Paul, in
the place in question, is using judicial language, and
speaking under judicial forms: And it was a sustaining;
of the character of a discourse of this description, to
mention those as sinners, who had fallen under the ef-
fects of a judicial sentence. It is a very minute distinc-
tion made by president Edwards, in relation to passages in
the Old Testament, in which the word "sinners" is ap-
plied to innocent persons; that it was because they were
to be treated, as if they were the former. He urges,
that they were or would be so, in the estimation of
those who punished. But no good reason can be given,
why the historians should speak agreeably to such false
conception, if the term in question did not apply by
custom, independently both on guilt and on the suppo-
sition of it.

SECTION II.

AS the first section had been devoted to the demo-
lishing of the interpretation of an opponent; the present
is occupied in laying down the author's own: beginning
with the scope of the epistle, as declared in the chapters
preceding the chapter, of which the verses in question
are a part.

The first property of the epistle, supposed by presi-
dent Edwards, is, its treating largely of the depravity and
ruin of mankind, in their natural state. But it has been
contended in the first department of this work, and h

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans, 385

here repeated, that the natural state of man, be this
what it may, is not the subject treated of in those early
chapters. There are enumerated in them some crimes,
for which man has no natural appetite; and others, which
mark indeed a depraved state of society, but were never
in any community found descriptive of all the members
of it. The other sense, however, although in opposition
to the plainest language, must be persevered in by the
Caivinist, in his interpretation of the early parts of that
epistle, in order to lay a foundation for his exposition of
all that follows.

Again, it is remarked, how full the beginning of the
epistle is of displays of the grace of Christ in redemption;
for which president Edwards thinks there could have
been no foundation, but on the supposition of human guilt,
independently on the acts of those on which it lay. Guilt
or no guilt, the procuring of benefit not otherwise to be
obtained, gives room for the acknowledgment of grace.
But besides this, one part of the benefit was to obtain
the pardon of sin, not laid by imputation, but commit-
ted in person.

There is another remark made — That St. Paul, after
having spoken, in the preceding chapter, of the depen-
dence of mankind on the righteousness of Christ, had,
in the early parts of this very fifth chapter, spoken of the
utter sinfulness and ruin of all men. But it has been be-
fore, and is now denied, that he speaks on any such sub-
ject, in the initiatory verses of this chapter. However
true the position that there is sinfulness in all men, the
point handled in the place in question, is the sinfulness
of the Gentiles in particular; who, being out of cove-
nant with God, and having gone into the greatest
vol. i. d 3

386 Appendix, No, 2.

excesses of idolatry, are described as enemies: a term
never applied to the Jews; who, however personally-
wicked, were nationally possessed of the adoption and
the covenants.*

From these general remarks, president Edwards pro-
ceeds to some more special; taking notice, that a leading
object of the apostle was to contradict the extravagant

* President Edwards objects to the idea orthe apostle's identify-
ing of himself with the Gentile Christians; w here he is supposed to
have them especially in view, under the denomination of " ene-
mies," and other expressions to the same effect. The reasons of
this construction having been given elsewhere; no more shall be
said of it here, except to guard against some peculiarities in
president Edwards. He likens it to a father's identifying of him-
self with his children, or a physician with his patients, under the
pronoun " we " But these are not parallel cases; because there
would not, in either of theni, be a character in common to the
persons spoken of. Now, St. Paul was speaking, not of Gentiles
living in heathen practices — which president Edwards seems, in
his objection, to suppose— but of Gentile Christians, forming a
body of which the apostle was a member. Another case, supposed
by president Edwards, seems more to the purpose. It is that of a
missionary to distant subjects falien into infidelity, and brought
back by him to the faith. If such a missionary, discoursing of
the comparative pretensions of his especial flock, were to speak of
himself as one of them, it is difficult to discern any violence, which,
however, president Edwards thinks he sees, to customary language.
But his interpretation of the passage in the Acts — " We who are
Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles;" is here thought
very extraordinary. He says, it is not as adopting the expression,
but as disapproving of it. Surely, there is nothing like an intimation
of this. It is true, that St. Paul blames St. Peter, for making a dis-
tinction between Jews and Gentiles, after that the partition wall
had been broken down. He does not intimate, however, that there
had been no such wall; but the contrary.

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 387

notion entertained by the Jews of their law. Such an
object is thought to fall in with the idea of his leading
up of their attention, to sin's entering into the world by
Adam, the common father of Jew and Gentile: Which,
with several coincident remarks, must have been in-
tended in contradiction of the theory, making the sin
of Adam merely personal in its consequences.

From this,'president Edwards goes into remarks on the
13th and 14th verses, similar to those in his first section
a/id already attended to; and which are here preparato-
ry to his own interpretation of the 14th — "Neverthe-
less, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned, after the similitude of Adam's
transgression." These words he interprets, with many
others, of infants. Now, setting aside that the position
of an infant's committing of sin is shocking to com-
mon sense — and it will not be pretended that there can
be found another text in scripture for its support — it
seems absolutely inconsistent with what is said in the
verse immediately preceding — "Sin is not imputed
where there is no law.'' To infants there could be no
law: Which, to make it obligatory, exacts the use of
intellect. Accordingly, that in the 13th verse, such a
position should be laid down, and that in the next verse
there should be a discourse of infants sinning, though
not after the similitude of Adam's transgression, is one
of the most extraordinary instances of interpretation to
be met with; and renders such constructive sinning too
much like those fictions of law, which the exigency of
human affairs has made expedient, but for which there
can be no occasion in the divine economy.

388 Appendix , No. 2.

Next, president Edwards gives a paraphrase of those
two verses, constructed on his own principles. And here
he takes,as his leading idea, a design in the apostle to con^
tradict the extravagant notion entertained by the Jews,
of their law. But, such a design by no means draws after
it the consequence of infants sinning; and of all men be-
ing accounted guilty for Adam's sin. That by this sin
immortality was lost, both to Jew and Gentile, in their
common parent, was sufficient to be a foundation for
the analogy of their regaining of it also by a common
head, who should stand in the same relation to them
both. Therefore, as the words of these two verses do
not express any thing to the purpose to which they have
been applied, so neither does their general scope, even
as laid open with that intent.

What follows, in this section, is principally recapitu-
lation, dependent for correctness on the presumption of
the truth of what had gone before; except that president
Edwards, although he acknowledges some difficulty in
the 13th verse and in the next which has been the last
under consideration, insists, that the passage in general,
is one of the plainest in scripture. It will be allowed by
all, that the difficulty lies principally in those very verses,
from which, the one or the other interpretation of sin
and death will have an influence on all the rest. It would
further seem, that on the one hypothesis or the other,
there are modes of expression which can be accounted
for no otherwise, than by the occasional and very pecu-
liar brevity of St. Paul: of which, if there were no
other evidence, there would be sufficient in the fre-
quent introduction of words, in this passage, not found

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 389

in the original; but which the translators were under the
necessity of introducing; taking care, agreeably to their
usual fidelity, to express them in italicks. So that there
seems no ground for the loud complaint which presi-
dent Edwards makes, against those of the opposite
system, of their straining of expressions and their
racking of words and phrases. There can be no princi-
ples adopted for the explaining of the passage, on
which it will not appear that extraordinary phraseology
is a conspicuous property of it.

President Edwards, towards the end of his treatise,
answers objections, which he supposes to be brought
against his theory in general. The objections will be
here considered, no further than as they relate to the
point of imputation, grounded on the aforesaid passage.

One of the objections he represents as founded on
the description of the last judgment; expressly said
to be conducted, in reference to every individual, ac-
cording to his works. The answer given is, that the end
of the judgment is to ascertain the primary distinction
of the difference of state, and the secondary distinction
of the difference of degrees; and that the question of the
imputation of Adam's sin enters not into either. The
reply is, that the object is not to ascertain the one or the
other; but to acquit or condemn, according to known
and, humanly speaking, recorded works. Now, if eternal
damnation should be understood under the term
"death," as coming on all men originally for Adam's
sin; they who are not released from that state by the
mercy of God through Christ, absolutely sink under
the weight of that sin. And the most remarkable appli-
cation of the principle is to all infants, except the elect.

590 Appendix, No. 2.

Another objection is, from there not being a single
instance in scripture, of the use of the word "impute,"
in the sense supposed; although it is used in the sense
of a reference to personal sin. The author opposed had
said, that it is often so used; which occasions president
Edwards to remark, that it is twice only. He does not,
however, allege a single instance of the use of the word
in the sense denied by the objection. Yet he is aware,
that other words will be said to have been used, which
plainly import the imputation of personal sin. But so
likewise, says he, of the other subject. It may be de-
manded— where? His answer is, by adducing instances
from the passage here in question; for no other does he
instance. But this cannot be allowed in argument. And
there remains the objection, that, in the only place cited
to establish the imputation of the sin of Adam, the
word "imputed" is indeed used, but applicable to the
charcinp- of men with the demerit of their own sins.

President Edwards further answers an objection,
made aganist his whole theory, of mankind being affect-
ed by the sin of their forefathers; that so little is said
of it in the scriptures. So far as this relates to other
consequences than the matter in question, it is here con-
ceived, that there is abundant proof in scripture. But
not so of the interpretation; which, if found in the 5th
chapter to the Romans, is acknowledged to be there
only. Now, on a subject which the advocates of the in-
terpretation hold to be so important, how can they ac-
count for the utter silence of all sacred writers, except
St. Paul; and of his also, except in this single sup-
posed instance? But, says president Edwards, the
same was the case of the doctrine of the resur-
rection among the Jews; which our Saviour himself

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 391

no otherwise educed from the Old Testament, than
in the way of inference and construction. True: be-
cause it was a part of the divine economy, that an ex-
press revelation of the resurrection was referred to ano-
ther dispensation; since said, on that very account, to
have "brought life and immortality to light." But he
further says, that some of the perfections of God are
scarcely mentioned in the scriptures; and instances infi-
nity, omnipresence, andomniscience. The very idea of a
divine Being necessaril) involves whatever can contri-
bute to perfection: whereas it will not be said, that our
being affected by Adan's sin necessarily extends to
every possible way, in which a sovereign Being can
cause it to extend, for a display of his omnipotence.
Besides, president Edvards seems not accurate, in so
stating infinity, as if it were of itself an attribute, dis-
tinct from the other attr butes of the divine nature. It
seems more proper to saj of them all, that they are infi-
nite. Wherever, therefore, the power, or the wisdom, or
the goodness of God is displayed, as being without
bounds, infinity is ascribed to him. As to the two
other attributes, they are found in many more places of
scripture, than might bs supposed from the statement
of president Edwards: Onnipresence in many texts;* and
omniscience in many othtrs.t Indeed these attributes are
implied in the very idea cf a divine being; whereas it can-
not be said of imputation, that it is involved in any other

* • Jer. xxiii. 24. Acts xvi. 27, 23. Job xxiii. 8, 9, 10. and 1.
Kings viii. 27. Psalm cxxxis. 7, 8, 9, 10.

t In Psalm xciv. 9, 10. Pnv. v. 21. Job. xxxiv. 21, 1. Chron.
xxviii. 9. 1. Sam. xvi. 7. and 1. John iii. 20; besides, very many
places, wherein one or another of these attributes is implied.

S92 Appendix, No. 2.

subject; unless it be the single one, of attaching justice to
the damnation of those who had not nier ted it in person.

In reference to this reserve of scripture, president
Edwards has given, from a Swiss writer, a string of au-
thorities copied from Jewish writers, descriptive of the
corrupt nature of mankind. It is remarkable, that
among those authorities, there is not one which bears
on the point of imputation. The authorities are here
allowed to avail, to the purpose of contradicting an at-
tempted disproof of hereditary stain: But they are at the
same time a strong negative testimony, that the ancient
Jews had no idea of such a doctrine as that supposed
to be in the 5th chapter to the Romans. And if so, it seems
little likely, that St. Paul, in controversy, should endea-
vour to prove the matter befo*e him; by referring to
another matter, of which the people, whose prejudices
he was contradicting, could ha\e had no conception.

But the most extraordinary of president Edwards's
answers to objections, and here reserved to be the last
noticed, is what he says in opposition to the affirmed in-
justice and unreasonableness of the doctrine of imputa-
tion. He undertakes to prove, lhat it is entirely just and
reasonable; and he lays the main stress on all mankind's
being considered as one with AJam; just as the head and
all the parts of the body, and as the root of a tree and all
its branches are respectively on?. He takes up the lat-
ter comparison; and making the supposition of its having
been the will of the Creator, tiat of this tree, compre-
hending all humanity, the root and the branches had
been coexistent, he perceives no injustice and no unrea-
sonableness in its being ordained, that the heart of the
root becoming depraved, the h?arts of all the branches

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 393

should be infected; and that the former being forsaken
of God, so likewise should be the latter. Since, then
we are constantly supported in being by the agency of
God; and it is merely of his will and constitution, that
identity is in succession; what would be just and reason-
able in a coexistent identity, is the same in that which is
successive. It is evident, that the whole question turns on
the divine economy, in the supposed case of the coexist-
ence of the root and the branches, and in what is affirmed
concerning it, of which president Edwards thinks, that
the equity is unquestionable. It is difficult to account for
the difference of association, in which the same subject
appears to different minds, in their search of truth. But
however just and reasonable such an economy in the eye
of president Edwards, it appears to him who writes this^
to be more answerable to the representations given of the
Typhon of the Egyptians, and the Arimanius of the Per-
sians, than to what the scriptures teach of the ways of
Him, -'who hath righteousness and judgment for the ha-
bitation of his seat."

The following is a sketch of the reasoning of pre-
sident Edwards, on the subject of identity. He lays down
the position, which the author whom he opposes had
maintained also, that we are upheld in existence by a
continual divine agency. He remarks, that the existence
of any created substance, at the present moment, can-
not be the effect of its existence in the moment prece-
ding. Therefore, the cause of its continuance in succes-
sive periods is the divine constitution simply; the ope-
ration of which he argues to be accordingly equivalent
to a new production out of nothing, at each successive

moment. This arguing is to show, that if God annexes

e 3

394 Appendix, No. 2.

identity to these successive productions (or what
amounts to them) out of nothing, he may with equal
reason annex oneness, or identity to such a relative con-
dition of all mankind, as resembles the root and
all the branches of a tree: And if to such a collective
body coexisting, to the same also in succession.
Although the writer of this considers the fallacy of such
metaphy sicks as sufficiently exposed, by a comparing of
them with the position in which they are designed to
terminate; yet he judges it not improper, to notice what
appears to him the defective link in the chain. It is the
contemplating of the continuance of a being in succes-
sive existence, and the continued reproduction of it,
as the same thing. Under the former circumstance, the
being is a fit subject of the consciousness, which consti-
tutes identity: but not so under the latter. What the
omnipotence of God can effect, is not here in question.
Doubtless, his power is equal to the making of A, suppose
himself guilty of the crimes committed by B; and to
possess all the feelings attached to a seeming conscious-
ness of them. The contrariety of this to the wisdom and
benevolence of God, is the thing maintained: but sure-
ly not with more reason, than in the kind of conscious-
ness supposed by president Edwards, whether it be in
coexistence or in succession.

Perhaps it may be thought, that the peculiarities of
the learned president respecting identity and divine con-
stitution were cherished by him with the view of mitiga-
ting the rigour of imputing the sin of Adam to his un-
born posterity. But no such difficulty occurred: on the
contrary, he affirms the imputation, over and over,
contending for the justice of it. It is probable, that

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 395

when he projected the scheme of divine constitution,
as stated in the illustration of the tree and its branches,
it was in discharge of what was spoken of in the
first part of this work, as a subject of his abhor-
rence— endeavours to trim off the kiuti of Calvinism.
The notion of federal headship, had been an expedient
for the reconciling of the doctrine of imputation, with
the attributes of God. But the thought of a divine con-
stitution, was more in alliance with the satisfaction felt
by this author, in die contemplation of the exercise
of the sovereignty of God, in hardening and damning
whom he will.

Of tliis treatise of president Edwards it may seem
remarkable, that, although entitled to rank with his
treatise on Freewill in point of ingenuity, it has not the
like celebrity with the latter work, among the advo-
cates of Calvinism. The author of the present work
thinks it may be accounted for, from the consistency
maintained by president Edwards, in his pursuing of his
opinions into all their consequences. From these, a very
great proportion of the advocates of the system will
always turn aside with horrour; however consenting to
the principles from which they are fairly drawn. An in-
stance of this his consistency, shall be given from the
section of his book the last under discussion. He finds
fault with the writings of two dissenting divines, whose
names are not mentioned; and who, although they ac-
knowledged the imputation of Adam's sin, could not
reconcile themselves to the hard case of the damnation
of infants. To get rid of this, they supposed, that the
first sin was not imputed to infants in the same degree,
as to Adam himself. One of the divines was in hopes

396 Appendix, JSfo. 2.

of providing, in this way, a retreat for the little wretches,
in annihilation. The other thought himself entitled to
affirm, that their condition would not be worse than non-
existence. All this is much to the dissatisfaction of
president Edwards; who, arguing more logically from
the data held in common, rejects such softening ex-
pedients, invented for the easing of the feelings of hu-
manity. The expedients may be evidences of the be-
nevolence of the ministers alluded to; but are not in har-
mony with the principle of the general doctrine; and
cannot pretend to derive support from any passage in
the scriptures.

This analvsis shall be concluded with another in-
stance oi the consistency of the same eminent divine,
relative, not indeed immediately to the question of
imputation; but to another, which has been treated of
in the preceding part of the v\ork; and which is indeed
connected with the whole subject. The fact to be re-
corded is taken from his life, prefixed to his Treatise on
Religious Affections.

President Edwards began his ministry as colleague
of his maternal gram-father, in Northampton, Massa-
chusetts. The latter, during a long residence in that
place, had encouraged the members of his congregation
to present themselves at tl e communion, provided their
lives were correct; and although they might not have
undergone that sensible conversion, which their system
called for. Not that he undervalued this; but because of
a distinction which subsisted in his mind, between a
federal and a real holii e.-s. President Ednards, after the
decease of his grandfather, and alter himself had been a
pastor of tiiC congregation, and had lived in great

Of part of the fifth Chapter of Romans. 397

harmony with them for twenty three years, scrupled the
propriety of that distinction; and was at last brought to
the point, that he could not, in conscience, admit to the
communion, without previous conversion. This excited
a flame, which produced a separation of the pastor from
his flock; of whom there were two hundred votes against
twenty, for his immediate removal. This narrative is
here given, to show the issue in which consistent reason-
ing, from what is supposed a mistaken datum, cannot
fail to terminate. President Edwards, who possessed
great sincerity, and at the same time strong powers of
mind, reconciled himself to any consequences of his
consistency; but never suspected the soundness of a
principle, held sacred in his communion. The minister
of a church which teaches, that, in baptism, infants are
made " members of Christ, children of God, and inheri-
tors of the kingdom of heaven," may afterwards consi-
der them, when arrived at maturity of reason and discre-
tion, as entitled to participate of the eucharist; provided
there be nothing in their lives, unsuitable to such a
privilege: Not, however, because inward piety is held
unnecessary; but because it can be known no otherwise,
than by visible profession and corresponding fruit. But
under the other theory, it would seem as if the conver-
sion were a pre-requisite; and that if the pastor be not
satisfied of the fact, without knowing the circumstances
of "when," "how," and "where," he has a right to
demand them. They who cannot reconcile themselves
to this, and who think it an unfounded discipline, are
concerned to correct the errour, not in the stream, but at
its source.

PAR Till.

A Comparison of the Controversy between the Calvi-
nists and the Arminians, with the Opinions of the
early Fathers.

INTRODUCTION.

The Kind of Evidence to be educed from the Fathers — The early
Fathers, silent on the Points denominated Calvinism — This
continued, until the Time of St. Austiu — Calvin acknowledges
the Fact.

THERE ought to be clearly understood the purpose,
for which reference is made to an authority extraneous
to holy scripture: especially as there are some, who
criminate every appeal to the fathers; as if it were a re-
moving of the cause from before the tribunal of the para-
mount authority of the law and the testimony. It is
accordingly here declared, that no idea is entertained of
going beyond the limits of the canon, for the establish,
ing of any opinion, not found in the books of which it
is composed. But it is conceived, that the sense of the
times immediately following the apostles must, as a
fact, be a strong testimony on the question of what was
the faith, which the apostles handed to them; and, in
that point of view, may give considerable aid in the in-
terpreting of scripture. This is no more than what is
attributed to them, by the admission of their testimony,
in regard to what books are to be received as the wri-
tings of the apostles. The argument, as applying to
any leading doctrine or institution of Christianity, in
proof of its having been held at the time in question.

•with the Early Fathers. 399

appears to the writer of this equally cogent, as when
applied to the genuineness of the book, in which the
doctrine or the institution is supposed to be found.

But the argument appears to him even to increase in
weight, when applied in the negative form; or, when it
is pleaded that a certain doctrine could not have been
delivered by the apostles, because not found in the
remains of early times; and especially, those of them
written with the professed view of declaring their faith
before the world.

When we come to apply the argument to the pecu-
liarities of Calvinism; it ought to be remembered, thut
they are held up as constituent principles of Christian
truth, being preeminently entitled by the advocates of
them to the doctrines of grace; under the opinion that the
opposite theory, by ascribing something to man, is sub-
versive of the glory of the grace of God. And it is said,
that the declarations of scripture, relative to the points at
issue, are so many thunderbolts, designed to level the
mountains of human pride. Were there not still, then,
the same mountains, on the ground of human nature?
Or was the distinguishing feature of the Gospel, that it
was of grace, overlooked b\ those who drank of the
stream the nearest to its source"? The ea* ly writers do
indeed declare, over and over, that salvation is of grace.
But that the sentiment is, in a single instance, connected
with any one peculiar tenet of the Calvinistick theory, is
here conceived impossible to be found.

The argument is even stronger, than if there were pro-
fessed to be given authorities, in express contradiction of
the tenets referred to: that is, than if the passages to be
adduced were not only inconsistent with them — for such

400 Comparison of the Controversy ', Uc.

are found and will be brought forward — but than if they
bore the appearance of designed contradiction. For that
would suppose another theory, and another party advo-
cating it; who might perhaps have said for themselves,
what has not reached us: and it will be in vain to ac-
count for the dead silence prevailing, by a presumed
unanimity in doctrine. The passion of Christ; the re-
conciliation of which it is the mean, his resurrection
and his ascension, were acknowledged by all who were
contemplated by the church as christian. Yet these
things are often introduced, on account of the practical
effects to which they lead: effects which, in the opinion
of the Calvinist, there was equally a call for the pub-
lishing of the doctrines of the decrees of God, his irre-
sistible grace, and the radical corruption of human nature.
It is to the credit of Calvin's candour, that he gives up
all plea of his system's being countenanced by any of the
fathers, before St. Austin: for he acknowledges this, in
several places, in reference to freewill; which has an
influence over his whole scheme. He says — " The early
fathers appear to me to have thus extolled human power,
from a fear, lest if they openly confessed its impotence,
they might in the first place incur the derision of the
philosophers, with whom they were then contending; and
in the next pLce, might administer to the flesh, of itself na-
turally too torpid to all that is good, a fresh occasion of
slothfulness.* However candid this acknowledgment on
the part of Calvin; yet it may be supposed, that he was
mistaken in the first of these motives, as influencing the
early fathers. For it is unlikely, that the men who did

* Book 2. ch. 2. Sect. 4.

with the Early Fathers. 401

not shrink from the encountering of the ridicule of the
philosophers in the more essential doctrines of the Chris-
tian Religion, should be shy of it on a point, on which
their sentiments would have been much countenanced by-
one species of philosophy — that of the stoicks.

Again he says — - Perhaps I may be thoughtto have
raised a great prejudice against myself, by confessing
that all the ecclesiastical writers, except Augustine,
have treated this subject," free-will, " with such ambi-
guities or variations, that nothing certain can be learned
from their writings. For some will interpret this, as
though I intended to deprive them of the right of giving
their suffrages, because their opinions are all adverse to
mine. But I have had no other object in view, than
simply and faithfully to consult the benefit of pious
minds, who, if they wait to discover the sentiments of
the fathers on this subject, will fluctuate in perpetual un-
certainty."

Again, speaking of the divine influence, he says —
" And he moves the will, not in such a manner, that,
according to the system maintained and believed for
many ages, it would afterwards be at our option, either
to obey the impulse, or to resist it; but by an efficacious
influence."*

With the same candour, he acknowledges, concerning
predestination, that the opinion of grounding it on pre-
science has had great advocates [auctores] in all ages.f

It might have been expected, after such explicit ac-
knowledgments of Calvin himself, that Calvinistick
writers would have given up as desperate, the expecta-

* Book 2. ch. 3. Sect. 10. f Book 3. ch. 22? Sect. I.
VOL. I. f3

402 Comparison of the Controversy, &fa.

tion of extracting any thing to their purpose, from the
fathers. It has, indeed, been endeavoured by very few,
and those not the most distinguished of the school.
Nevertheless, as some have undertaken to make this
barren field productive; not indeed by alleging any con-
tinued discourse to the effect, but by taking hold, here
and there, of words and clauses, some notice of this ex.
cess of zeal will be incumbent.

l OF PREDESTINATION.

Apostolick Fathers — Accounts of them by Mr. Toplady, Dr.
Haweis, end Mr. Milner — Succeeding Fathers — The Time
when Predestination, in the Philosophical Sense, was introdu-
ced—Fathers later than the above— Consequence— Change
effected by St. Austin — Interposition of the Papal See— The
Subject purely Metaphysical.

ON the subject of this department, the first recourse
must be had to the Apostolick Fathers; so called from
the circumstance, that their lives were partly coincident
with those of the apostles. From the scanty, though
golden remains of these holy men, controversial inge-
nuity has endeavoured to draw, for the confirmation of
the Calvinistick system, not- — as was intimated in the
introduction — doctrine laid down in form; not supposed
saving truths, dwelt on for the uses to which they are
believed to apply; but detached parts of sentences; which,
even if they were to the purpose of those who quote
them, as indeed they are not, would at the same time be
evidence, that the doctrines at issue were of no very
prominent importance, in the estimation of the writers
by whom they are so incidentally alluded to.

The passages shall be taken as found cited by Mr.
Toplady, a clergyman of the church of England, noticed
in a preceding part of this work; whose zeal, however,
is supposed by the writer of this, to have carried him to
a length of torture of the scraps taken from these fathers,
which is not here recollected to have been found in
any other author. An extraordinary degree of zeal for
what he supposed to be the truth, is the only mean

404 Comparison of the Controversy, &?c.

through which charity can reconcile his talent, at finding
out his opinions in some passages; on which, so far as is
known, none before him professed to find them. Cer-
tain it is, that on the doctrine of predestination and its
kindred points, the divine here spoken of has heaped up
authorities, not found in the books of the most acknow-
ledged merit in his way. He ascribes there being no
opposition to the anti-calvinistick opinions, to the cir-
cumstance that, in the early ages, the adverse opinions
were universally held. If this had been the fact, it
would account for there being no opposition to the sup-
posed errours; but surely, not for the withholding of what
are affirmed to be such important truths.

The above is not the worst effect of the zeal of Mr. Top-
lady: for it is desirable to ascribe to the same cause the
confidence with which he accuses, condemns, and be-
stows hard names on those who differ from him. Among
the most remarkable instances of this, is the abuse,
amounting to vulgarity, which he lavishes most plentifully
on two persons against whom he writes,* Had these men
been knowingly and confessedly blasphemers of the grace
of God — as Mr. Toplady doubtless thought them vir-
tually— a Christian divine ought not to have considered
himself released by that circumstance, from subjection
to the spirit, and obedience to the precepts of his holy
religion.

But his wrath is not confined to those with whom
he had become heated in controversy: for he bestows no
small portions of it on deceased characters, held hon-
ourable in their generations; and not only his wrath, but
his contempt; in defiance of publick opinion, as to mat-
* Mr. John Wesley, and Mr. Walter Sellon.

with the Early Fathers. 405

ters, concerning which no truth could be supposed at
stake. Of the latter there is a signal instance, where he
speaks of "that poor, dull, blind creature" (as he is
pleased to call him) "Bishop Taylor." Mr. Toplady
must have conceived very highly indeed of his own ta-
lents, if he thought them of a higher grade than those
of persons, who have esteemed bishop Taylor, not only
a very pious and a very learned man, but also writer of
brilliant genius and extraordinary eloquence.

The writer of this work hopes he has shown himself
careful in the progress of it, to avoid personal censure,
beyond what was involved in competition of opinion. In
the present instance, he has deviated from his general line
of conduct, for these two reasons — That Mr. Toplady's
departure from Christian charity is here thought so
enormous, as to render it doubtful, how far his writings
can with propriety be noticed, without a protest against
the spirit which they breathe, in relation to those who
differ from them — and because the* writing so intempe-
rately, without any apparent consciousness of the impro-
prietvof it, is a melancholy, but edifying proof, how much
the precepts of Christian meekness are apt to sink in im-
portance, under an overweening zeal for speculative
opinion.

In examining the epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas,
Mr. Toplady* thinks it " more than probable" (for fur-
ther is not professed) "that he was far from being startled
at the doctrine of reprobation." Stress is laid, on its
being said that — " Christ chose his own apostles;" and
that, " it was requisite that he (Christ) should suffer on
the tree:" which last is construed in favour of necessity,

* Vol. i. page 118.

406 Comparison of the Controversy \ &c.

Other authorities of the like kind are produced; but ac-
cording to the interpretation given of them, scores to the
same purpose might be taken out of the writings of
known and professed Arminians.

When Mr. Topi -.dy comes to the interesting epistle
of St. Clement, he finds a sentiment which would be
indeed to the purpose, if the passage were disjoined
from the context; and if the translator of it were indul-
ged in choosing a pronoun, different from that which the
context dictates. The apostolick and blessed writer of
the epistle had been reciting, from the divine word, pro-
mises of pardon to the penitent, and threatenings against
the impenitent and rebellious; and with those, he had
intermixed sundry admonitions to obedience in various
ways. Then, with an evident reference to these pro-
mises, he speaks what may be translated literally as fol-
lows.* " Therefore, being willing that all his beloved
should be partakers of repentance, he has established"
[here a pronoun is wanting: if supplied, it ought to
relate to the premises] "by his own omnipotent will.',
But Mr. Topladyf has translated the last clause — " He
has established them firmly" [meaning his beloved] "by
his own almighty purpose." This makes it inapplica-
ble to what went before; with which it is connected by
the illative, " therefore," omitted by Mr. Toplady; and
further, destroys all pertinency to the admonition of the
apostle. Calvinists hold, that they who are once in
grace cannot finally fall. But no rational man among
them ever made it an inference, from earnest admoni-
tions and entreaties; and that this should have been done

* Clem. Ep. 1. ad. Cor. §. viii. Cot. ed. torn. 1. p. 152.
t Page 123.

with the Early Fathers. 407

by Saint Clement, whose very object in writing was to
impeach of great faults, and to call wandering sinners to
repentance, would have been a kind of address, one of
the most incongruous that could have been devised.

There are other passages cited to the purpose; but
so evidently foreign to it, that there can be no occasion
to repeat them. Some of them apply to divine provi-
dence, and to the sovereignty of God in nature. These
subjects were doubtless considered as inseparably con-
nected with the question of predestination, in the mind
of Mr. Toplady; but he must have known, that in the
conceptions of others, they were distinct.

But does not St. Clement, like St. Paul, make use of
the term " elect?" He does; and like St. Paul, in a sense
different from that supported by Mr. Toplady; as ap-
pears in the second section, where he tells those whom
he addresses, in reference to their former laudable con-
duct— M There was among you, by night and day, a
solicitude for the whole brotherhood: that with mercy
and conscience, the number of the elect might be saved;"
strongly implying, that some of the elect, meaning of
the visible church, might not finally be saved.

The manner in which Dr. Haweis, another Calvinis-
tick clergyman of the church of England, mentions the
epistle of St. Clement, in a work which he has called—
"An History of the Christian Church," is worthy of no-
tice. Notwithstanding that writers talent at the disco-
very of what he thinks corrupt doctrine in the fathers,
he found in this favoured epistle* " no deviation per-
ceivable, in doctrine or practice, from the apostolick
model." Is this negative merit all? And had St. Clement
* Chap, ii. sect. ii. Cent, i.

408 Comparison of the Controversy \ &c

nothing to say of the grace of the Gospel, in so long an
epistle to the Corinthians? He certainly had; and yet,
nothing that can be supposed illustrative of the par-
ticular view of the subject, familiar to Dr. Haweis.

As in the case of Mr. Toplady, so in this of Dr.
Haweis, the author conceives himself called on by pro-
priety, to record an expression of his disapprobation, ex-
tending to the character of the man. In this point of view,
the opinion is here given — and an appeal is made for
the correctness of it to the judgment of any candid per-
son, who may have the patience to examine into the
grounds of it — that the history in question is no more
than a cursory expression of the author's sentiments of
characters and events, with very little regard to the
documents, on which the exhibition should have been
founded. In some publications, in which the sense of
this writer has been quoted, it is mentioned that he is a
divine of the church of England; evidently with the
expectation that it would give weight to his name,
with readers of a certain description. For this reason,
there is propriety in informing such readers, that Dr.
Haweis, although an ordained and beneficed minister
of said church, was in the habit of openly giving his
patronage to societies, withdrawing from its communion
and rejecting the obligation of its institutions. By
what processes of reasoning he may have reconciled
such conduct to consistency of character and fidelity to
engagements, is here unknown. The only reason for
recording the fact, is, that it may be a protest against
any use of his authority, as that of a clergyman of the
ehurch of England.

with the Early Fathers. 409

From St. Clement, Mr. Toplady passes to St Igna-
tius. And as the venerable father has been conceived by
him to speak to some other points of the controversy,
besides this of predestination; they shall be all presented
in one view; it being not thought of sufficient moment
to divide the attention, by an arrangement of them under
their respective points. The same reasons will apply
to the indiscriminate citation of passages from some
other early writers, who will be introduced into this di-
vision of the work.

The first of the epistles of St. Ignatius remarked on
by Mr. Toplady. is that to the Smyrneans; from which
he thinks it worth his while to fasten on one passage,
expressing the writer's confidence in their stability;
another, affirming that Christ suffered on our account,
that we might be saved; and another, expressing that
repentance is difficult, but in the power of Christ; as if
to him it could be difficult on any other account, than
because requiring the cooperation of man. But the
most material mistake, in respect to this epistle, is in
the exordium of it; in which Mr. Toplady* introduces
the favourite Calvinistick word "indefectible," as a
translation of a wordf which signifies no such thing,
but "not behind," or "not deficient," or "stable," which
last word materially differs from a word expressive of
the impossibility of a fall.

In the introduction of the epistle to the Ephesians,
Mr. Toplady could not fail to notice the word " pre-
destinated," as applied to the church. Yes, to the church;
every member of which, according to his interpretation,
is pronounced by the saint to be predestinated to heaven;

* Page 129. f xniftpvnt.
VOL. I. G 3

410 Comparison of the Controversy, he.

as if he could assuredly know, that there were not
among them an individual, who was a professor in
hypocrisy, or in form. How long after the apostles, did
there exist such a measure of information, if it were
possessed by them; as indeed cannot reasonably be sup-
posed? According to the same writer, perseverance is
contained where it is said — " The church is as firmly
united to Christ, as he to the Father." And the Cal-
vinistick sense of the corruption of human nature
opens on the mind of the interpreter, in the assertion,
that " carnal men are not able to perform spiritual
things."

In commenting on the introduction of the epistle to
the Philadelphians, Mr. Toplady* considers what is
said of God's " establishing of the clergy" [meaning in
their official capacity] "according to his own will;" as
if it were intended of establishing them by his own will,
in grace. And in this epistle, there occurs another of
the same writer's extraordinary translations. Ignatius
speaks of some, who had endeavoured to draw him from
his purpose, according to the flesh. But says he, " my
spit it" [by which he seems, from the connexion, to
mean the spirit of G jd in me] " is not seduced, being
from God." But this is rendered — " The spirit is not
to be seduced;" and it is applied as if the meaning were
— " There is no seduction of the spirits of believers."
The sense of the writer of the epistle is neither more nor
less, than that he was not to be dissuaded from his pur-
pose of meeting martyrdom.

In treating of die epistle to the Tral'ians,f Mr. Top-
lady bends a sentence to his theory, by keeping out of
view the heresy of the Gnosticks; to which, according to

* Page 131. t Page 132, sect. 11.

with the Early Fathers, 411

the connexion, it has a manifest reference. In the twelfth
section, he finds it hard to get rid of an intimation evi-
dently against him; when the writer exhorts the church
whom he was addressing, to pray for him, lest he should
be found a cast-away.*

In referring to the epistle to the Romans,! there is a
notorious change of the sense of a passage, in the Jd.
section. The martyr says, that Christianity [as the Greek
copy of Vossius has it] or a Christian, agreeably to
the Latin copy of Usher, is "the work of greatness."
There is evidently wanting another substantive; which
should be either greatness of speech, if the first copy be
followed, or greatness of mind, according to the last, in
order to accommodate to the respective standards. Mr.
Toplady has evidently followed, or trod in the steps of
some one who followed, the copy of Usher. But on
what authority Mr. Toplady translated % " the mighty
operation of the divine agency" cannot be here conjec-
tured. There is nothing in the context, which justifies
such a freedom.

It would seem, that the edition of Isaac Vossius, ta«
ken from the Medicean library, being in the language in
which the epistles were written, must be of more au-
thority generally than that of Archbishop Usher, given
from a manuscript in Caius College, Cambridge. But
this does not apply to the epistle to the Romans, which
was not found in the Medicean manuscript Le Clerc,
the learned annotator on Cotelerius, thinks that the
words in the Greek copy of this author, agree best with
the connexion: But Archbishop Wake has followed
the latin copy, in his translation of this epistle; noting
in the margin, the differences of the other. The em-

* xfoKifAoi. f Page 133. \ ntyttus.

412 Comparison of the Controversy, £sfc.

barrassed state of the passage renders it hardly worth
the pains cl any man to supply it with conjectural addi-
tions, for the support of any doctrine whatsoever.

It may be o the purpose not to leave Ignatius, with-
out taking notice of a quotation from him in Gerard
Vossius,* in which this writer thinks he finds an authori-
ty for the doctrine of the imputation of the sia of Adam.
The quotation consists of two Greek words. f It seems
strange, that a man of such sagacity should find so much
within that small compass. But be it there or not, the
words are only in the interpolated epistles of Ignatius,
and therefore not his.

So much light has been thrown on the question of the
authenticity of these compositions, since the time Ge-
rard Vossius; especially by the edition obtained and
edited by his son Isaac, and the latin translation of arch-
bishop Usher, that the said Gerard is not to be blamed
for his mistake here noticed. Less indulgence is di e
to a late work; % which says, under the ai tide "Bishop,"
speaking of Ignatius — " As several of the epistles ascri-
bed to him are spurious, no great stress can be laid on
his authority." While yet the said work, under the
article " Apollinarians," quotes the same Ignatius as of
their opinion; although it is not in the genuine epistles,
but in those confessedly interpolated, that the sentiment
alluded to is met with. It is not a little in favour of the
genuine epistles, that in the two instances here alluded
to, even the interpolated are thought deserving of
attention, when apparently favourable to the purpose of
writers, whose systems of ecclesiastical discipline na-
turally influenced to the rejection of both.

* Lib. 2. pan 1. page 159. f 7r<x,X*ietv }v<r<nQtt*i.
% Dr. Rees's Cyclopedia*

with the Early Fathers. 413

After Ignatius, Mr. Toplady* takes notice of the
epistle of the church of Smyrna, relating to the
martyrdom of their bishop St. Polycarp. Among other
things, the church relates,! tnat tne pagans refused to
them the remains of their deceased pastor, lest they
should worship them; not knowing, say they, that Chris-
tians " could not leave him who died for their sins; and
worship another." Doubtless, they could not: for at
the moment of worshipping another, they would cease
to be Christians. But what has this to do with the im-
possibility of falling from grace — the purpose to which
it has been applied ?

Surely, the author here introduced had better have
submitted to the authority of Calvin; who, as already
quoted, acknowledged that the early ecclesiastical wri-
terswere against him. Mr. Top'.ady, indeed, with the
exception of those very early ones referred to, is inclined
to give up the fathers. For he says, that he once be-
stowed on them considerable time and attention, but
found the employment barren and unimproving. He
acknowledges, that there are some excellent things; but,
says he, the golden grains are almost lost, amidst an
infinity of rubbish. It must be evident to every intelli-
gent reader of this writer's works, that there could not
be to his eye any golden grains, but such as he con-
ceived to sparkle with the peculiarities of his favourite
doctrines. And if he had but comprehended the apos-
tolick fathers, under his sentence of condemnation,
there would have been no need to remark on his ex-
tremely prejudiced exhibition of some passages in their
writings. Dr. Haweis, however, does not hesitate to
* Page 134. t Sect. xvii.

414 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

rank the apostolick fathers "low on the scale of ex-
cellence; whether in precision of doctrine, clearness of
argument, knowledge and comment of scripture, beauty
of style, or forcibleness of application, compared with
many of a more modern date."* As to style and some
other matters, they have nothing to do in the present
inquiry. There are certainly many things in the wri-
tings of these men, which speak immediately to the
heart. They are principally taken up with Christian
morals; not however without a reference to their foun-
dation in Christ's redemption. But when Dr. Haweis
s,peaks of their want ot precision of doctrine, it may
fairly be inferred from the general tenour of his work,
that, under the term, he contemplated an entire absence
of the doctrines, which were with him the substance of
Christian verity. Dr. Haweis acknowledges of Ignatius
in particular, that, "in doctrine, he does not seem to have
degenerated from the truth as it is in Jesus:" A cold
compliment; and of which no further proof is given,
than that " the superscription of the epistle to the
church of Ephesus, marks strongly the doctrines of
grace."f That is, it has the word predestinated; but
whether in the sense of the writer who makes the
remark, or in that contended for in this work, is the
question.

The author cannot leave this subject of the apostolick
fathers, without recommending it to the serious consi-
deration of any sincere inquirer, into whose hands his
remarks may come. Particularly, he wishes to suggest
to such a person, how improbable it is, had what is now
called Calvinism been a part of the profession of the
* Chap. ii. sect. ii. Cent. i. | Chap. iv. Cent. ii.

\

with the Early Fathers. 415

age that no one of these writers should have spoken
expressly to any of the five points, on which the con-
troversy hangs. But, if there should be any doubt of
this fact, the author would not wish to make it more
sure, than to rest it on the issue of inquiry into the
fidelity of those, who, running ahead of the most dis-
tinguished champion of their cause, endeavour to esta-
blish it by so desperate an adventure, as that of an ap-
peal to the apostolick fathers.

In short, it is impossible to find in them the least coun-
tenance of Calvinism; unless this may be supposed to
arise from the mere use of the words " predestinated,"
and " elect." It is no wonder that they should continue,
after the example of St. Paul, in the occasional appli-
cation of these epithets, so long as the Jewish economy
subsisted; in order to assert, in opposition to the sub-
jects of it, the vocation of the Gentiles to the church,
agreeably to divine purpose, declared long before the
giving of the law\ It is not a little remarkable, that, in
the fathers immediately succeeding:, there is very rare
recourse, if any, to the same way of denominating the
Christian character. And the change was natural, as
soon as the old economy was confessedly put an end to,
by the destruction of the temple, and the dispersion of
the Jewish nation. For then there ensued, as there should
have ensued long before, the full effect of " the breaking
down of the partition wall;" and of "Jew and Gentile
being one in Christ,"

Since the work of Mr. Toplady and of Dr. Haweis,
there has come into notice a production, which has ex-
cited attention in England, and has been reprinted in
the United States — " A history of the Christian Church,

416 Comparison of the Controversy ', feY.

by the Rev. Joseph Milner," who seems to have been
a clergyman of the church of England, of some celebrity.
Like the two authors above-mentioned, he is a Cylvin-
ist; and although not so intolerant as they in reference
to opposite opinion, never finds ( hristian doctrine in
its integrity, except in alliance with Calvinism, or in
what he thinks he perceives the complexion of that
theory. Very unlike to Mr. Toplady, in discovering
no more than a few grains of gold in the writings of the
fathers, Mr. Milner seems to have thought them to
abound in ingots of that metal, as appears from his
many quotations from their works. These he would
not have made with such decided approbation and
praise, if he had been of the aforesaid opinion of Mr.
Toplady; or if he had consented to the representations
of Dr. Haweis, so evidently expressive of contempt.
In one respect, there is the same professed object of
the last mentioned historian and of Mr. Milner; that
they both aim at a search after the invisible church of
Christ, or the influence of the Christian religion over the
hearts of its professors. Now, although the true object
of ecclesiastical history is such publick characters and
events, as have had a visible influence on its concerns;
and the measures of real piety, in different times and
places, cannot be estimated by the documents which
have been handed down in them respectively; the mass
of which, in any time or place, must have depended on
some circumstances not connected with the numbers
of real christians; yet, that where any thing occurs in
antiquity, tending to adorn the profession, the historian
may laudably and profitably display the same, is not to
be disputed. Mr. Milner has selected specimens of this

with the Early Fathers,, 417

yp\&. judgment; and in doing so, has not confined him-
self to extracts savouring of Calvinism; although, he
evidently thought, that when this was wanting, there
was not an entirely correct view of the dispensation of
grace. It may be proper, to point out another material
difference between the two historians. It has been re-
marked of Dr. Haweis, that however prejudiced against
some fathers of the church, celebrated by her in all the
ages succeeding them, he possessed abundance of a
singular kind of charity, in supposing piety to abound
in heretical and schismatical communions; even where
there were no documents in his support. Not so Mr.
Milner; who, on the contrary, is not sparing of his cen-
sures on people of that description.

The stating of these facts is intended principally with
a relation to Mr. Toplady. If, in what appeared to him
in the shape of Calvinism, in the apostolick fathers,
nothing of the kind was seen by Mr. Milner, who
agreed with him in principle, but is here supposed to
have stood higher in the publick mind, as to a compa-
rative estimate of their abilities; it is a circumstance
on which there may fairly be laid a stress; and it will
not be unreasonable in us to ascribe to bias to system in
the other writers in question, there being found stronger
traces of it in them, than in their more ingenious co-
adjutor.

The only evidence of his system, which he discovers
in the epistle of St. Clement, is the father's use of the
terms "election," and "elect:" of which no more needs
be here said.

From the epistles of St. Ignatius, the only extract
made as having a bearing on any point of Calvinism, is

vol. i h 3

418 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

in the already noticed superscription to the church ol
Ephesus; who are said to be " predestinated before the
world, to be perpetually permanent in glory, immovable,
united, and elect in the genuine suffering "* And is it
possible, that a man of Mr. Milner's judgment and ac-
quirements could suppose, that the martyr would have
addressed such language to all the members of any
church? Yes, it is supposable, because the same con-
struction is given to the like language from St, Paul.
But it is still conceived, that so manifest an impropriety
of address ought to rescue both the words of the apostle
and those of the bishop of Antioch, from so dangerous
an interpretation; and refer them to the church as a
community, and to their militant state on earth.

On going beyond theapostolick fathers, it is necessa-
ry to quit Mr. Toplady; because he did not consider
any beyond them as worthy of his notice. Not so
Dr. Haweis; who* professing to write a history, found
himself under the necessity of weighing the merits of
distinguished characters, within the bounds of his nar-
rative; if it were only to show how much, when weigh-
ed in his balance, they were wanting. This writer
professes, that through the whole tract of time, run over
in his cursory history (so called) he is " inquiring
after God's secret ones, the remnant whom the world
knoweth not, the chosen, and called, and faithful:"! un-
doubtedly meaning, by that description, persons who
held the doctrines since held by Calvin; because he in-
cludes under the description given, none but such as
held those doctrines; or rather such as he supposed to

*Chap. i. Cent. ii. page 156. Amer. ed. f Vol. i. page 345.

-with the Early Fathers. 419

hold them, in consequence of something which gave
him a favourable opinion of their characters: For as
to any writings of theirs tending to that point, there
are absolutely none. It is surprising, that of those
whom he supposes — and on good grounds — to be holy
men, not an individual is found, who proclaimed to the
world, in any known work, the doctrines of grace in
Dr. Haweis's sense of the expression, to be a protest
against the notorious dearth of them, discoverable in all
the works which have been transmitted to us.

It was a singular enterprise in the author here noti-
ced, to undertake to write a history on the plan expres-
sed in the quoted words, and under similar expressions
in different parts of his work. It has been justly re-
marked of civil history, that it would give us a more
unfavourable opinion of mankind, than is just; were we
not to recollect, that from the very nature of the pro-
vince of the historian, his attention is much more drawn
to daring crime, which forces itself on the publick eye,
than to modest \ irtue, which delights rather in retire-
ment from it. The same has happened, in regard to
ecclesiastical transactions. In the record of them, we
are shocked by the instances of ambition and crooked
cunning which we meet with; although, doubtless, we
are also gratified by opposite instances of sublime vir-
tue. In addition to these, there was an immense mass
of piety, the existence of which has been manifested in
its effects; while the possesors of it have been unknown

to fame.

If, in persons of the last description, Dr Haweis

should think he finds his "secret ones;" still, there will

lie on him the task of proving, that they had embraced

420' Comparison of the Controversy > &c.

the all important points, as he considers them, of his the-
ory. But this he presumes all along. Besides, he does
not doubt, "but among the bishops themselves there
were blessed men, of true faith and primitive manners,
such asHosiusof Corduba, and Paphnutius, and many
others in the established church as well as among the
N >vatian, Donatist and Melesian prelates."* Any rea-
der, uninformed in history, but knowing Dr. Haweis's
standard of eclesiastical integrity, would suppose that
there were some evidences of the orthodoxy of these
persons, in his sense of the word. But it may safely be
affirmed, that not a particle of evidence can be given, of
their having held the doctrines of Grace, as maintained
afterwards by Austin; and recently by Dr. Haweis and
other followers of Calvin. Of Hosius it is certain, that
he commanded the veneration of the whole Christian
world. But this does him little honour; if they had de-
parted so far from the truth, as the narrative of Dr.
Haweis supposes. The strict life of Paphnutius is men-
tioned, merely because of the weight which it gave to a
very correct sentiment expressed by him, in the council
of Nice, on the subject oi mar iage; and nothing further
is known of his opinions, except, that he was on the
orthodox side, on the subject of the Arian heresy. Of
the other descriptions of persons mentioned, it is certain
that they caused needless divisions in the church: and
although a beneficed clergyman, who professedly coun-
tenanced the like separations from the church of which
he was a minister, might, on that account entertain a
prepossession in their favour; yet, how he came by his
knowledge of their evangelical character, according to

* Vol. i. page 299.

•with the Early Fathers. 421

his own idea of the terms, is wholly unaccountable. In
short, the passage quoted and others like it, are indirect
ways of intimating, what could not, consistently with
decorum, have been affirmed — that in those days there
were some at least, who believed the doctrines now
generally known under the name of Calvinism, and held
up by Dr. Havveis and others, as exclusively entitled to
the honourable commendation of being the doctrines of
Grace.

It is then no small evidence of there having been no
such theory in the early ages, that it was not found by
Dr. Haweis, who set off professedly in search of it. And
the author to whom the plan of the present work invites
attention in the first place, is Justin Martyr; a man cele-
brated in his own, and in every succeeding age; and con-
stantly appealed to, in proof of the worship and the dis-
cipline of the primitive church. But of this eminent
character, Dr. Haweis only " hopes that the root of the
matter was in him;"* and this, from reverence of him
as a martyr. The historian finds many things suspici-
ous in the martyr's writings; among which, the only
matter to the present purpose, is "his reasoning on the
freedom of the human will, nearly" [he might have said
exactly] "in the strain of the modern followers of Armi*
nius."f That Justin speaks very unlike a Calvinist
is evident, where he saysj. — "That we should have exist-
ed in the beginning, was not of ourselves, but to follow
those things which are agreeable to him," (God)
"choosing them by the help of those rational powers,
given to us by him, he persuades us and draws us to
the faith."§

* Vol. i. page 188. f Page 189 J P?ge 15 Ed. Thirley

422 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

Mr. Milner, noticing the passage from Justin, in
which he speaks of " a self determining power in
man,"* and in which to the same Justin, there is as-
cribed his " using of much the same kind of reasoning
on the subject of freewill, as has been fashionable since
the days of Arminius," adds — " he seems to have been
the first of all sincere Christians, who introduced this
foreign plant into Christian ground." There will
be occasion to notice, that there is some appearance in
Justin of those philoscphick views of freewill and pre-
destination, which were distinctly opened in the third
century, and were very familiar in the fourth, and which
were in direct contrariety to Calvinism. Accordingly,
as there is an agreement with Mr. Milner in the fact,
that Justin innovated in the particular referred to, it may
be proper to notice the point of difference. According
to Mr. Milner, Calvinism now began to give way to
what has been called Arminianism, in modern times.
According to the present writer, scriptural predestina-
tion discontinued to be spoken of, because of the dis-
continuance of the ground of the controversy, which
gave occasion to what we read concerning it in the
writings of the apostles. If, as Mr. Milner thought,
Calvinism received its mortal blow in the primitive
church, from the stroke of Justin, it must be confessed
to have expired afterwards without a groan. This seems
implied, indeed, in what Mr. Milner afterwards adds —
1 * The language of the church was silently and gradually
changed, in this respect, from that more simple and scrip-
tural mode of speaking used by Clement and Ignatius,
who knew the election of grace, but not the self-deter-
mining power of the human will."

* Voi. i- page 199.

-with the Early Fathers. 425

In short, it is here conceived, that there are two ma-
terial defects in .the present part of Mr. Milner's v. ork:
First, that while he faults Justin, for the profession of
Arminianism, he gives very insufficient cause for the
complimenting of Clement and Ignatius, with that of
Calvinism: Aid secondly, that if the change begun by
Justin, were of the description ascribed to him, it is im-
possible to account for his high and universal reputa-
tion in the church; no champion of the truth appearing
to protest against his errour.

In the second apology of this blessed martyr,* we find
the scheme of the Stoicks censured; and in opposition to
it, he writes as follows — " But lest any, from what we
have said above, should think that we say, that whatever

i

things come to pass, are brought about by necessity of
fate, because we have said that they were foreknown,
we will also refute that. For, learning from the same
prophets, that punishments, and torments, and rewards
also, will be assigned to every one, according to the
deserts of his works, we affirm it to be true. If this be
not so, but all things are destined by fate, there would
be nothing in our power. For, if it is of fate, that this
man is good, and that other evil; neither is the former
to be approved of, nor the latter blamed. And unless
mankind had a power, by freewill, both to shun what
is base, and to practise what is honest, there would be
no foundation of blame of those things which are done.
But that men, by free choice, live virtuously, or fall
through sin, we prove in this manner. We observe the
same man carried to contrary things. But if it were de-
termined by fate, that he should be good or evil; he

* Page 64, Thirlby.

424 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

would never be capable of contraries, and change so
often. Neither indeed would some be good, and others
bad: For either we must resolve, that fate is the cause
of evil; and that she does things contrary to herself; or,
that which we have before said must be seen to be true,
that virtue and vice are nothing, and that good and evil
exist in opinion only; which, as true reason declares, is
the highest impiety and injustice." The martyr goes
on to other similar remarks; concluding the subject with
affirming, that his doctrine was that of the prophetick
spirit; and quoting to this purpose Deuteronomy xxx.
15 — 19, and Isaiah i. 16 — 20.

If any one should be disposed to deny, that there is
a resemblance between the Stoical doctrines of fate, and
the predestination maintained by Calvinists, it would
be little to the purpose; because the reasoning of the
writer goes as much to the merits of the one, as to those
of the other. There shall be but one more passage
brought from the same author, although many things
might be copied from him to the same effect. In his
dialogue with Trypho the Jew,* he says — " For God,
willing that angels and men should be, through freewill,
every one of his own power, that each might do as he
was able, created them such."

All this we read in a work, written within half a cen-
tury after the last of the apostles; not left by the author
in his closet, but addressed to the civilized world, in
favour of the faith which he professed. In particular,
his apologies are directed, the first of them to the empe-
rour, and the second to the senate; and profess to give
the sense not merely of the author, but of the whole body

* Page 332, Thirlby.

with the Early Fathers, . 425

of professing Christians; and this at a time, especially
calling for fidelity and circumspection; it being during
the rage of a bloody persecution. Accordingly, Justin
has been here introduced, not for the sake of his own
opinion merely, but as giving testimony to the faith of
the Christians of his day. For, had his testimony been
considered by them as false, it is to the last degree im-
probable, that his memory would have been so honour-
ed, as we know it to have been, ever since. What
would be said by the members of any modern Calvinis-
tick church, were an individual of their body to give
an account of their belief, under such representations
as those which have been recited? The answer may
convey some idea of the antidote, which would have
come down with the supposed poison of Justin, had the
church of his day been of the faith, to which the charac-
ter of Calvinism is at the present time attached. If this
be not presumable, what is to become of the army of
martyrs, by whose blood we have supposed the church
to have been watered, during at least the first three cen-
turies of the Christian era?

The writer next claiming attention is Ireneus. As
Justin lived in the middle, so Ireneus in the close, of the
second century. Considering that he wrote against
the heresies of his time, it would have been natural for
him to have included the sentiments in contrariety to
Calvinism, had they then been deemed heretical. If it
should still be insisted on, that they had not yet show-
ed their heads, the contrary is evident in Ireneus him-
self, particularly in the 71st and 72d chapters of his 4th
book; which are full of matter to the purpose. A part
of the 7 1st only shall be cited. It is well known, that the
vol. i. i 3

426 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

original Greek of this work is lost; nothing remaining
but a translation of it, in very bad Latin; in which the
passage intended to be here given in Knglish, is as fol-
lows— " But another thing which he" [meaning God3
" says — how often would I have gathered your children
and ye would not — hath manifested the old law of the
liberty of man; because God made him free from the
beginning, having his own power, as also his own soul,
to make voluntarily a use of the disposition of God, and
not forced on the part of God. For there is no torce
from God, but a favourable disposition" [or wishj ** is
always present to him. And because of this, he gives
to all good counsel. But he has placed a power of
choice in man, as in the angels. For the angels
were made rational, that they who should obey, might
possess good; given indeed by God, but preserved by
themselves, l&wt they who did not obey, are justly
not found with the good, and receive merited punish*
ment: because God indeed ku d!\ gave the good; but
they did not diligently keep it, nor esteemed it precious;
but despised the supereminence of goodness.'* In the
reminder of tins chapter anci in the 'ir2u, vi hich is much
longer, the ^.ood b>:*iop ot Lyons, goes on in a strain
of reasoning, evidently as anti-calvinistick as ever was
written by Armmius or any of his followers.

rI heire is something si' 9-nlar in Dr. Huweis's treat-
ment of the character of this celebrated person. ** He
quits" (says Di. Raweis) "the scriptural grounds of
God's eiecuon, and gnt * , — and supposes all that self-
sufficiency of the human intellect, and human agen-
cy, which bespeaks a man too little acquainted with his
own heart."* Not a circun. stance of this sort appears

• Vol. 1. page 190.J

•with the Early Fathers. 427

in Ireneus; unless it be discoverable in the single in-
stance of his sentiments, on points now comprehended
under the Calvinistick controversy. After so harsh a
sentence passed on Ireneus, Dr. Havveis had a delicate
task to perform. That bishop presided in the church
of Lyons, when, under the persecution of the emperour
Severus, the streets flowed with Christian blood. This
rests on the testimony of the ancient martyrologies, and
on the authority of Gregory of Tours; a writer of the
sixth century, and one not altogether to be relied on;
yet, who could have been under no temptation to have
described a persecution which never happened, and
might even, if false, have been contradicted in his day.
Neither is the silence of Eusebius, a disproof of an
event, which might have happened among a people,
who at the time had little intercourse with the coun-
tries coming under the view of that historian; although
he has given a particular account of a bloody persecu-
tion in the same city, about twenty years before. Grego-
ry was himself an inhabitant of Gaul; and might, there-
fore, even a long time after the persecution under Seve-
rus, have obtained particular knowledge of transactions
in that country, not accessible to F.usebius. Be all
this as it may, the general massacre, and the martyrdom
of the bishop, rest on precisely the same evidence. But
Dr. Haweis, not wishing to give up the former, de-
scribes it in glowing colours, saying of the constancy
displayed— -" I read, I wonder, and adore!" At the
same time, it not being convenient to indulge the bishop
with the credit of his part in the bloody sacrifice, which,
to be sure, would have been incongruous, after the de-
claration of his entertaining corrupt opinions from the

428 Comparison of the Controversy, &c,

want of a proper knowledge of his heart; it is added—
u Whether Ireneus fell in the general massacre, or was
reserved for a future martyrdom, is not absolutely cer-
tain."* Now, it is neither more nor less certain, than
the rest of the narrative of the massacre. And there-
fore, there was no reason to distinguish one part of it
from another; especially, as Dr. Haweis allows, that the
first strokes of vengeance would naturally alight on
those who presided in the Christian assemblies.

There may be use, in noticing a different treatment
shown to Ireneus by Mr. Milner, from that of Dr.
Haweis. The latter inferred from the Arminianism of
the very early father, that he was a stranger to his own
heart. The former, after noticing also his Arminian-
ism, adds — "There is not much of pathetick, practical,
or experimental religion in the work" (on the early he-
resies.) "The author's plan, which led him to keep up
a constant attention to speculative errours, did not ad-
mit it. Yet there is every where so serious and grave
a spirit, and now and then such displays of goodness,
as show him very capable of writing what might have
been singularly useful to the church in all ages."f It
has been seen, that Dr. Haweis, besides pronouncing
of the same venerable person, that he was a stranger to
his own heart, made a feeble attempt to throw discredit
©n the history of his martyrdom.

But the question concerning the character of Ireneus,
goes much further than is here stated. What are we
to think of the flock, among whom the character of this
bishop, so much a stranger to his own heart and to the
doctrines of grace, was in the highest estimation; and
» Page 192. f Vol. 1. page 262.

with the Early Fathers. 429

who yet, as Dr. Haweis himself believes, were offered
up in hecatombs on the altar of persecution? Or ra-
ther, what are we to think of the Christian church of that
day in general; who so embalmed his memory, that its
fragrance is still fresh to all those who have not adopted
the maxim of — no Calvinist, no Christian? What an
apostasy must there have been, within about a century
of the last of the apostle^! an apostasy so entire, that no
one was heard to lift up his voice against prevalent corrup-
tion, and to show, that even martyrdom was to be no
cover of errour, striking at the very essence of evangeli.
cal truth?

There is a passage in Ireneus, which must have
been peculiarly offensive to the mind of Dr. Haweis.
It is in the 48th chapter of the 4th book, in which the
saint interprets the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, in
direct contrariety to the Calvinistick system, making it
consist in the delivering of him up to the consequences of
his own wilful unbelief. And on the same plan, there
are interpreted Isaiah vi. 10. 2. Corinthians iv. 4, and
others, all of them prominent texts with the favourers of
the scheme here objected to; but which Ireneus ex-
plains, as laying guilt wholly at the door of men, which
he says, indisposes them to the reception of divine illu-
mination; as a disorder in the eye may make it averse to
the light of the sun.

And there is yet another passage in the 76th chapter
of the same book; is which this father, after stating, that
God had left in the power of every man to improve his
grace or to remain in disobedience, adds — "From his
prescience of future things, he decreed heaven to those
who should believe, and hell to those who should be
unbelievers.' *

430 Comparison oft^e Controversy, &r.

After these express testimonies agai ist the system,
it seems a small matter to mention that there are two
chapters in Ireneus, the 12th and 13th of the 3d book,
in which he professs to give the substance of what had
been delivered by the writers of the four gospels and
by the other apostles; but in which there is nothing of
the subject here contemplated. And yet, even this si-
lence is full of information. It shows that these subjects,
as matters of controversy in the church, were at that
time unknown.

In the same age with Ireneus, lived Tertullian. Not-
withstanding the mixture of character truly ascribed to
him by Dr. Haweis, no man is considered as better ac-
quainted with the state of the church in his own day, or
as more faithful in reporting it. Cyprian, whose ortho-
doxy has escaped impeachment, even from Dr. Kaweis,
was accustomed to call Tertullian his master. And it is
a known fact, that he was never thought heterodox, any
further than as relates to the lattei part ol his life, and to
the errour of Montanism into which he then fell. His
admirable apology, addressed to the Roman senate, is,
of itself, sufficient to render his name respectable in the
Christian church. This celebrated work was written
long before his fall: and if the doctrines called Calvin-
istick were such as pervades the whole system of reveal-
ed truth; it might be expected, that at least some
slight traces of them would appear. But nothing of the
kind is even alleged. In regard to his other works, this
is not all. VVc find in them positive evidence of anti cal-
vinistick sentiment And yet, that he was ever dis^dvan.
tageously noted on this account, lor varying from the cur-
rent sense of the church, no man will presume to say.
On the point of predestination, indeed, nothing directly

with the Early Fathers. 431

to the present purpose can be taken from Tertullian;
because be is silent on the subject. But on the kindred
question of freewill, he is explicit, as will be shown in
the proper place. It should still be remembered, as to
the former subject, that silence, considering the many
works of the author spoken of, is the highest evidence
that could have been exhibited, of the truth of the senti-
ment sustained. Opinion, had it been delivered, must
have been liable to misconception. But when no trait
of opinion is to be found, there seems in the circum-
stance ample proof of the want of interest in the subject.
Cotemporary with Tertullian, there was Clemens of
Alexandria. It will hardly be said, that in the writings
of this learned man, there is to be met with, any thing
favourable to Calvinism; although, had it entered into
his system, it might have been expected to have shown
its influence, at least in his book called Pcedagogus;
which is an extensive delineation of Christian duty: a
work of a kind of which there is probably no instance
from under the pen of a Calvinist, without its savouring
very strongly of his opinions, on the subjects of predes-
tination and grace. But nothing of this falls from the
pen of Clemens. On the contrary, it is worth while to
notice the manner in which he uses the. word, "predes-
tination;" it being precisely in conformity with the
sense contended for in the explanation of the same
word, as used in scripture. The passage here alluded
to is in his Stromata, and in the 765th page of Sylla-
burgius's edition of this father's works. Speaking of the
one church, existing in the unity of the same faith, he
defines the said church to consist of the persons whom
God had " predestinated before the 'foundation of the-

432 Comparison of the Controversy, &?c.

world;" thus showing, that the predestination spoken of
related to profession in this world; and not as of neces-
sary consequence, to salvation in the next.

This very passage of Clemens is adduced by Vos-
sius,* in establishment, not of the point here sustained,
but to prove, that the fathers held a predestination
founded on prescience. The writer of these remarks
takes the liberty of thinking, although with much re-
verence of the memory of so learned and sincere a man
as Gerard Vossius, that he is not accurate in the above
particular; and that the predestination of Clemens, like
that of St. Paul, respects a state of covenant with God
in the present life. It is however evident, that the dili-
gent inquirer here spoken of, could find nothing in the
fathers respecting the predestinated conditions of indi-
viduals in another life, whether founded on prescience
or independent on it, until it was apparent to him in a
passage of Clemens of Alexandria; whose philosophical
character, as well as the time in which he lived, must
make us the less wonder, if there should be in him an
intimation of the doctrine, as it was unquestionably
current in the fourth century; although in a much more
moderate form than that afterwards given to it by
Austin. In the third century, Vossius does not add to
the name of Clemens, any other than that of Origen and
even in doing this, he acknowledges some ground of
doubt, how far the opinion of the latter ought to be of
any avail as to the present point; because of the notion
ascribed to him of the pre-existence of human souls.
It is further remarkable, that Vossius quotes Beza, say-
ing, that Origen drove most of the fathers, both Greek

* Book 6. Thesis 8.

with the Early Fathers, 433

and Latin, into this most base crrour, as he calls it, of
a conditional decree. How far so great an influence is
to be ascribed to Origen, the writer of this will not un-
dertake to say: but he judges Beza to be right in the
opinion, that it was in or near the time of Origen, when
there arose the idea of individual election, connected
with the other idea of its being founded on prescience;
there having been no separation between the two, until
it was accomplished by Austin.

There should be particular notice taken of the period,
in which a predestination, founded on prescience, and
both subjects as they relate to another life, first show
their heads, in the works of Christian writers. Clemens
of Alexandria has been quoted to this effect; although,
as the present writer supposes, under a mistake. There
is, however, a sentiment to the same effect in Ireneus^
a cotemporary of Clemens, in a passage which was
before recited. There has been also thought something
to the same effect, in a passage of Justin; which, how-
ever, does not seem to the writer of this to come under
the denomination treated of; because, although Justin
speaks of prescience, it is not as having a connexion
with predestination. The passage alluded to,* is where
the martyr speaks of the delay of the destruction of the
world, " until the number of the just be fulfilled; until
he" (Christ) " shall have struck down the demons op-
posing him;" adding — "And until there shall be fulfill-
ed the number of those who were foreknown by him,
as who would be good and virtuous mem" If, however,
k should be thought that the passage speaks as well of

* Page 68. Ed. Thirlby.
VOL. I. K 3

434 Comparison of the Controversy, SsrV.

predestination as of prescience; it will only show, that
Justin brought into t^is department of theology some-
what of the philosophy, which he professed before his
conversion to Christianity. Vossius cites even the RO'
man Clement to the same effect: but the work from
which he brings his quotation is the Recognitions; now
well understood to be unworthy of any credit.

If Ireneus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian,
be considered as authors of the second century, there
seems no occasion to take notice of any of the third;
except of Origen, among the Greeks; and of Cyprian,
Arnobius, and Minutius Felix, among the Latins; what
we have from others being mere fragments. And even
those mentioned, are not introduced to make citations
from them, for the reasons which will be here given.

There can be no use in making extracts of the little
that appears to the effect, in the writings of Origen.
For, although that little is directly to the purpose of a
predestination founded on prescience, which is here
allowed to have crept into the church in the time of
Origen; yet, we know not how far it may have been his
opinion, or that of his translator, Rufinus, through
whose hands alone we have any of the works of the
other, except of his book against Celsus; and by whom
great liberties with them are supposed have been taken.
Besides, Origen's well known fancy of the transmigra-
tion of souls, is so connected with the present subject,
that there is no knowing how far the one may have been
affected by the other. This use, however, may be made
of the name of Origen; that his writing so much, and on
such a variety of matter, and yet, his saying of little or
nothing on predestination, is a proof, that it was not

with the Early Fathers. 435

much a subject of discussion, or of religious instruction,
in his day. The fact may be easily accounted for. He
lived at a time, when the scriptural use of the word had
become little attended to, because the occasion of it had
ceased; and when what is here considered as the more
modern and metaphysical use of it had not yet appeared;
or at least, had not become familiar. Notwithstanding
all the intemperate abuse of Origen after his death, suc-
ceeding to the honour in which he had been held during
his life, it is here supposed, that his testimony would at
all times have been held good, except where his peculiar
fancies were concerned.

On descending to the Latin writers, Cyprian, Arno-
bius, and Minutius; we find in them, to the point of
predestination, absolutely nothing. This is especially
remarkable in regard to Cyprian, as his works are many
and large.

When the character and the writings of Cyprian
come to be noticed by Mr. Milner, there begins
to be manifested the contrariety in which his system
stands — however little the circumstance may have been
perceived by him — to that of the church of which he was
a minister. One passage only shall be quoted to the
effect. " In Cyprian's time," says Mr. Milner, " to
call baptism itself the new birth, was not very danger-
ous. In our age it is poison itself."* And yet no one
can deny, that the baptismal offices are full of this sup-
posed poison. But why was it not very dangerous in,
the time of Cyprian? Was it, that all baptized persons
were afterwards adorned by Christian rectitude? The
contrary appears, in the glowing accounts which wc
* Vol. 1. page 315. Am. Ed.

436 Comparison of the Controversy, &Y.

have of the great declension, before the beginning of
the Decian persecution. Of this, Mr. Milner himself says
— " The long" (preceding) " peace and prosperity had
corrupted both," (the eastern and the western churches)
" and men in the former part of this century had forgot-
ten that a Christian life, was that of a stranger."! How
then is it possible, that what is now poison in the church
of England, should be ' not very dangerous in the time
of Cyprian?" But it is evident, that the ideas of bap-
tism and regeneration, entertained by this father and by
the said church, must differ from those of Mr. Milner.
That the writings referred to, should be barren of
the subject in question, is a fact which may also be ac-
counted for. It is well known, that during the coex-
istence of the Greek and Latin empires, whatever me-
taphysical subtilties were started in the church, began
generally in the former empire; however they may have
afterwards travelled to the latter. There have been al-
ready recited hints of what may be called the metaphy-
sical doctrine of predestination, from Ireneus; and per-
haps from the Alexandrian Clemens and from Justin.
The first of these, although he finally settled in the
western empire and had his bishoprick there, was a na-
tive of Asia; had his education among the Greeks; and
wrote in their language: the present remains of him in
latin being, as was before stated, a translation. The
two others, if they are to be reckoned on the present oc-
casion, were Greeks; in respect as well to residence, as to
birth. Now, the metaphysical sense of the present ques-
tion may reasonably be supposed not to have interested
the western division of the empire, whatever influence

* Vol. 1. page 369,

with the Early Fathers. 437

it may have had in the eastern; which however, as is
here believed, was not considerable. Neither is the in-
attention to the subject to be wondered at. There was
no longer that mixture of Judaism with Christianity,
which required the opposition of the national predesti-
nation of scripture. There had not arisen the heresy of
the denial of the grace of God, which was conceived as
calling for the absolute predestination of St. Austin;
It is true, that intermediately to these two stages of the
subject, the disposition of the Greeks to metaphysical
s-ubtilties, had led them to a conditional predestination;
applying to individuals, what the scriptures had said
of nations. But it required time to establish these, as
prominent subjects of theological discussion.

Justice is not always done to the fathers, on the sub-
ject of mixing the dogmas of philosophy with the doc-
trines of the Christian religion. The practice, however
finally prevalent in the church, was begun by hereticks.
There is a striking authority for this assertion in Ter-
tullian's book — " de Piescriptionibus;" confessedly one
of the ablest of his works. He ascribes all the errours
of hereticks, to their being introduced into Christianity
from the philosophical sects, to which the patrons of
these errours were respectively addicted. An appeal
thus made in the face of the world, in favour of the in-
tegrity of the church in that particular, in Tertullian's
day, is no small evidence of the fact until that time.
That there was afterwards a deplorable falling off,
must be acknowledged.

When we come down to the fourth century, it is
natural to make a pause, and to look back on the pre-
ceding centuries, under the light furnished by the re-

438 Comparison of the Controversy ', fcfc.

cords of their transactions, as they stand in Eusebius.
It is well known, that we have no other work, commu-
nicating to us so much knowledge of the times in-
tervening between the gospel age, and that in which he
lived. The amazing successes of the heralds of the re-
ligion of Jesus, in different quarters of the globe; the
persecutions brought on Christians, and the fortitude
with which they sustained them; the notices of the
works of Christian apologists since lost, generally gi-
ving details of the subjects ofetheir compositions; the
accounts of bishops who had filled the most populous
sees, not without delineations of the most conspicuous
properties of their characters; these and many other
subjects are parts of the history of Eusebius: and they
are all such as afford openings for something to be
said of the sovereignty of God, in a discriminate election,
of deliverance from the weight of the imputation of
Adam's sin, and of a grace irresistibly over-ruling all
the faculties of the soul; if these or the like tenets had.
been thought branches of evangelical truth. But under
the influence of such a theory, how muse we be disap-
pointed, not to find any thing coming from one quarter
or another; and neither on the affirmative nor on the
negative side of the questions, since become so famous!
Of the subjects treated of by Eusebius, none gave
such scope for what we have in vain looked for; or
rather none so loudly called for it, had there been
any thing of the kind to be recorded, as his professed
design to give accounts of all hereticks, and heresies.
Had predestination and its kindred points, been at all a
subject of discussion, there must have been something

with the Early Fathers, 4S9

which would have been branded as heresy by some.
Where is it? Certainly in no chapter of Eusebius's
work. Nothing appears in it, that throws light on
any of the questions comprehended under the general
subject, since exciting so much contention throughout
the Christian world. Had then heresy taken possession
of all Christendom, or was there not a single heretick,
as to doctrines supposed to be levelled at the very seat
of heresy, in human pride? One or the other of these
extravagant suppositions must be niade, if the fact re-
ferred to is to be accounted for. But what gives the
greatest interest to the point of view in which the work
of Eusebius is here alluded to, is the melancholy pic-
ture arising on us from it, of the condition of former
confessors, saints, and martyrs. They who are cele-
brated as such, must have lived and died without any
acquaintance with what are called preeminently the
doctrines of grace. For if the peculiarities of Calvinism
deserve such a name, and if they were then known and
held, that not a gleam of them should appear in the
lives and deaths found in the history of Eusebius, and
most of all, in the Triumphs of Martyrs under torture
or in the flames, is one of the most improbable suppo-
sitions which can be made; especially when all parties in
religious controversy are in the habit of appealing to
the book, as a faithful narrative of the events which it
professes to record. Even Dr. Haweis, although he
takes notice* of Eusebius's being " a favourite at
court," and that this was "no good sign for a bishop;1'
yetf admits him to be " remarkable for his knowledge,

* Vol. i. 330. t lb. 329.

440 Comparison of the Controversy^ Esfc.

reading, and ecclesiastical investigations " He indeed,
adds — " Every thing I have seen and read, confirms me
in his partiality, credulity, and unfair representations:"
but this was " wherever the interests of the party which
he espoused were concerned." By this Dr. Haweis, could
not have intended any thing relative to the present
question; but has in view the Arian heresy, of which he
supposed Eusebius to be a favourer; although, as is
subjoined, he is vindicated from it by the learned trans-
lator of Mosheim, and it might have been still added,
by many others, much higher in the estimation of the
world for learning and judgment, than Dr. Haweis.

But to go on with the fathers of the fourth century:
the authorities against the sense of Austin and of Calvin,
are so abundant, that they have not met the resistance
of the feeble attempts made by some, in relation to
earlier fathers. There shall be recited a few of the au-
thorities; not for the purpose of supporting what has
been considered the scriptural doctrine under the pre-
sent point; but to show, that the predestination dis-
coursed of in that age, although here thought an intru-
sion of philosophy into the dominion of the religion of
the gospel,, was under the view of its being founded on
prescience: for although this aspect of the doctrine is
here supposed to be quite different from the scriptural;
vet, by keeping within view the change which the
doctrine must have undergone, before it became pre-
sented in this form, we shall best perceive the steps, by
which it passed from its scriptural to its metaphysical
meaning.

The succeeding quotations shall be taken, as the
•passages stand in Vossius's history of the Pelagian

with the Farly Fathers. 441

controversy, Book 6, Thesis 8:h. Ada few authors
shall suffice, from each of the two great branches, then
considered as constituting the one Christian church.

To begin with latin writers: Jerome, whose I igh rank
in the list of Christian writers there can be no occasion
to establish, delivers himself as follows — "The heat of
the sun is one, and according to the different qualities of
bodies subjected to its influence, it makes some liquid
and others hard; it dissolves some, and binds others; for
wax is melted and clay is hardened, and yet the nature
of heat is not different. So likewise is the goodness and
clemency of God. The vessels of wrath fitted for destruc-
tion, that is the people of Israel, it hardens. But the ves-
sels of mercy which he hath prepared for glory, whom
he hath called, that is us, who are not only from the
Jews but also from the Gentiles, he does not save inde-
pendently on the dictates of reason and without judi-
cial verity, but from causes going before, because some
have not received the Son of God, but others were wil-
ling to receive him of their own accord. But these ves-
sels of Mercy are not only a people of the Gentiles, but
also they who, from among the Jews, were willing to be-
lieve, and the result is their being one people of believers.
By which it is manifested, that the choice is not of na-
tions, but of the w ills of men."* Thus writes St. Jerome,
as zealous an adversary of Pelagius, as St. Austin him-
self; and yet, as Vossius remarks, treading in the steps
of those who had gone before him, on the subject of the
quotation given.

But it may be worth while, in consideration of the
celebrity of this father, to attend to a kw more extracts

* Page 5 55.
VOL. I. 1 3

442 Comparison of the Controversy, &e.

from his Works* He says— "According to which he
purposed to save by faith alone, whom he*' (God) "fore*
knew as believers, and whom he freely called to salva*
tion, them, doing works tending to salvation, much
more will he glorify.*'* Again, discoursing on the
Words**-" Who separated me from my mother's
womb,*'f he states an objection of certain hereticks,
afterwards proceeding thus — "To which it may be sim-
ply answered, that this comes from the prescience of
God, that whom he knows as one who will be just, he
loves before his birth, and whom he knows as a sinner*
he hates before he sins. Not that either in love or in
hatred there is iniquity with God, but that he ought not
any otherwise to reckon those, of whom he knows that
they Will be either sinners or just. It is for us, as men, to
judge only of the present; but for him, to whom things
future are as though already done, to form his judg-
ment from the end, and not from the beginning." J

To Jerome shall succeed Hilary, the Roman deacon,
or whoever was the author of the work commonly as-
cribed to him. If Hilary were the author, any objec-
tions of his day to his orthodoxy do not extend to the
present point, on which he stands uncontradicted. And
therefore fault found with him in other respects, even
makes in favour of his authority in this particular. Be*
sides, it is common to appeal to his writings, as illustra-
tive of the doctrine of the church, at the time in which
he lived.

Hilary writes thus — "Those whom he" (God) "fore-
knew as devoted to him, them he chose to receive
the promised rewards. '*<) Again— " He would have it
understood, that they are worthy who are the children of
* Page 555. f Gal. i. 15. * Page 555. § Page 554.

with the Early Fathers. 443

promise; that is, whom God foreknew as those who
would receive his promise." And again— "The pre-
science of God is that, by which he holds it ascertained
what will be every one's will in which he will remain, by
which he will be either condemned or crowned." And
again, discoursing on that in St. John — "None of them
is lost but the son of perdition,"* he says— "So likewise
of those whom God foreknew as believers, none of them
is deprived of the promise, because it is so done, as
God foreknew it would be."f

Other latin writers are cited by Vossius, but one
more only shall be here mentioned. It is Austin, who may
be considered in two characters on the present question;
as adopting, first, the current opinions of his age, and
afterwards in the Pelagian controversy, opinions until
then unheard of in the Christian church.

Speaking of what is said in Ephesians i. 4— "Accord-
ing as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of
the world," he remarks— -p"I do not see on what grounds
it is said, unless from prescience of deserts— that is of
faith and works of piety. "[{[Discoursing of Jacob, he says
— "He was not chosen, that he might be good, but being
good, he was in a capacity to be chosen. "( And speak-
ing of the elect— "God chose them according to his own
favour, and according to their righteousness. "||

Vossius notices, that after Austin's change of senti-
ment, and in his book of Retractations, in which, with
the greatest candour, he acknowledges many errours
appearing in his early works, he did not retract the above
positions: which seems a strong proof, that he considef-

• xvii. 12. t P»Se 555- t PaS* 5*7, $ Pa§fc.*ff.

il Page 557.

444 Comparison of Hie Controversy \ &c

ed his lately adopted sentiments on the subject of predes-
tination, as an innovation, and not to be too boldly ob-
truded on the Christian world; which might have seem-
ed chargeable on a retractation, that must have invol-
ved in it a censure oh all who had gone before him.

From Latin writers, the transition is to the Greek:
and the beginning shall be with Basil, who acquired the
title of " the great." This eminent man writes as fol-
lows*— " Although the apostle says, that the vessels of
wrath are fitted for destruction; let us not think, that
Pharaoh was made bad. For thus, the faults would be
transferred to his Maker. But, when you hear of ves-
sels, understand that every one of us is made for some
use: as in a great house, one vessel is made of gold,
another of silver, another of shell, and another of wood.
Therefore, the will of every one is compared to materials
of this sort. For, the golden vessel is he, who is sincepe
and without guile in his mind and manners. The silver
vessel is he, who is a little inferiour to the other in dig-
nity and value. That of shell and of clay, who is wise to
earthly things, and fit to be broken and destroyed. That
of wood is he, who is easily debased by sin, and affords
fuel for eternal fire. So likewise, he is a vessel of wrath,
who, like a vessel, receives into himself every operation
of the devil; and because of the filth which it has from
corruption, is fit for no use, but is worthy to perish.
Wherefore, when there was need that Pharaoh should
be dty.royed, the wise Ruler of our spirits sustained him
so far, as that he might be a conspicuous and famous
example lo ali; and rendered useful to others, because of
the evils born with (since he himself was incapable, on

* Page 563.

with the Early Fathers. 445

-account of his great wickedness.) He hardened him,
aggravating the evil by long suffering; that at last, his
iniquity growing to the height, the judgment of God
on him might be shown to be the more just. Therefore,
inflicting the plagues sparingly on him in the beginning,
and increasing his hardness by little and little, he did
not soften him; but found him, as a despiser of God
in the beginning, so, after the punishments brought on
him, bearing them by long habit. And even thus, he
did not deliver him over to death, until he threw himself
Headlong into it; while, trusting in the arrogancy of his
heart, he dared to enter on the road of the just; and
thought that the Red Sea might be passed, as by the peo-
ple of God, so by him also." In this passage, there may
be clearly perceived the anti-calvinistick principles, on
which the case of Pharaoh is explained. His wickedness
was from himself; while yet, God so ordered the course
of nature, as that his own high designs should be car-
ried into effect.

The next named shall be Cyril, of Alexandria; not so
much from respect to his character, which is here con-
ceived to have been marked by anti-christian violence;
as because he rose on the controversies of his day, to be
a sort of oracle in theology. Paraphrasing St. Matthew
xx. 23 — "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is
not mine to give;" he says* — " It is not mine to grant
to your request, the highest honour which is reserved
in the foreknowledge of the Father, for those whom the
highest decree of effort in contending shall have com*
mended to it."

* Page 565.

446 Comparison of the Controversy, &fa.

It is not consistent with the design here entertained,
to go below the fourth century, in quest of authorities
to the effect stated. Vossius, however, has done this;
and there is the use resulting from it, that it shows the
long continuance in the Greek church of a predestina-
tion founded on prescience. St. Austin had driven it
out of the Latin church, long before the days of many
of the writers whom Vossius cites. Nevertheless, as
there is regarded the limit of the fourth century; the only
remaining writer who shall be noticed, is St. Chrysostom.
In the character however of this celebrated man, there
are some circumstances, which seem to demand especial
attention to his doctrine.

Chrysostom, speaking of the sentences pronounced on
Jacob and Esau, says — '• This was not rashly done,
but that there might be fulfilled the prediction of God
concerning works; which saith, Jacob have I loved* but
Esau have I hated. For, since God foreknew the future,
he predicted the virtue of the former, and the wicked-
ness of the latter."* In another place, the same father
speaks thus of the same case of Jacob and Esau— -
" That it may appear, says he, the apostle, that the elec-
tion was made according to foreknowledge. "f And in
another place, commenting on the eleventh chapter of
the epistle to the Romans, he says — " His people,
whom he had before foreknown to be fit, and to be re-
cipients of the faith." Other passages might be cited
from the voluminous works of the same author; but they
are rendered unnecessary, by the explicitness with which
Calvin mentions his name and his opinions, as in oppo-
sition to his own theory.

* Page 552. f Page 553.

with the Early Fathers. 447

To show still further the notoriety of the fact, the
following epitome of Chrysostom's sentiments on pre-
destination, is here transcribed from Du Pin's review
of his publications. Du Pin, having exhibited his au-
thor's doctrine on the subject of freewill, states these as
the conclusions which he draws from them — " God did
not predestinate men, but as he foresaw their merits:
Foreknowledge is not the cause of the event of things,
but God foresaw them, because they shall happen. He
calls all men; Jesus Christ died for all men; he prepared
his grace for all; he predestinates those whom he foresaw
would use his grace well."

But, as was already intimated, the name of Chrysostom
deserves to have an especial stress laid on it, because of
his fervent piety and his eminent reputation throughout
the Christian world; for a time indeed under a cloud, in
consequence of a party made against him by the em-
press Eudocia; but abundantly cleared and an object of
universal homage, after his decease*

For his opinions have been here brought forward, not
so much to show what he thought, as fof the bearing of
the fact on the question of the creed of Christian people
of his day. Although he died in banishment, yet it was
not long afterwards, when his remains were translated,
by imperial order, from the place of his death in an in-
hospitable country, to be buried in the capital of the
empire, and in the church, in which persuasion had so
Often hung upon his lips. His corpse being brought by
water, and having to cross the Propontis in the way, the
waves of this sea are said to have been covered by boats
and vessels, filled with spectators of the procession. On
its reaching of Constantinople, it was carried to the

448 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

place ofits deposit, in the chariot of the reigning empe-
rour; who, attending with his sisters, put his face to the
coffin, and threw his mantle over it, in testimony of his
sense of the wrong done by his father and his mother, to
the venerable deceased. Even they who, in the lifetime
of the holy man, had entertained prejudices against his
character, now joined in the general voice of Christen-
dom, which had been loud in his favour while he lived.
And thus, as Dr. Cave remarks, in the conclusion of his
history of this great man — "After all the envy and ma-
lice of men against him, God brought forth his righteous-
ness as the light, and his judgment as noon day; and
showed, that however oppressed for a while, the memo-
ry of the just shall be blessed, and his name be had in
everlasting remembrance."

Such was the reputation of the confessedly anti-calvi-
nistick Chrysostom. But is it not astonishing, if the Cal-
vinistick theory be correct, that not an individual should
have stepped forward to impeach the bishop of an im-
perial city, for departing from the doctrines of grace; and
to tarnish a reputation, which flourished with a denial of
them? And yet among calumnies the most cruel, a
charge, so reasonable as this would have been on the
principles supposed, is not to be met with. Not only so,
when Austin, within less than a century afterwards,
broached opinions in contrariety to those of Chrysostom,
it does not appear, that the recent popularity of the mo-
dern doctrine had the effect of bringing the more ancient
under condemnation. The reason is obvious. The for-
mer was rendered diffident, by a consciousness of its re-
cent origin. The general and just indignation against
the Pelagian heresy, prepared the way for the reception

•with the Early Fathers* 449

of the opinions of Austin, but could not so far stem the
stream of past habits of thinking, as to find dangerous er-
rour in those of Chrysostom. Indeed, this could not have
been done, without involving Austin himself in heresy,
during thr greater part of his ministry. For, as was in-
timated before, he had written as much like an Armi-
nian, as Chrysostom himself; nor did he discover the er-
rour, if it were one, until he was carried to a different
theory, in the heat of his opposition to Pelagius. In
short, if Chrysostom, throughout his life, and if Austin
during the greater part of his, are supposed to have
been strangers to Christian verity; it is a charge, which
drags all Christendom along with them.

What then shall we say to these things? Could the
great lights of the Christian church, while she was yet
bright with the glory of her recent martyrs, have pro-
claimed, in the most populous cities of the Roman
empire, the doctrines which have been cited from
them? Could they have done this, not only without con-
tradiction, but while they continued to fill the highest
rank of honour and estimation? And yet, shall they be
supposed to have done it on the ruins of a preceding
doctrine, like that now called the Calvinistick; which
must thus be supposed to have gone down, no one
knows how, and to have perished, as to any record of
its past establishment? This is too extravagant a sup-
position, to be admitted; and should be precluded by
the acknowledgment of Calvin, adverted to in the be-
ginning. For it has been seen, that he charges the
fathers with conceding too much, lest they should draw
on themselves the ridicule of the philosophers; quoting,
in another place, many passages to this effect; and saying.

vol. i. ¥ 3

450 Comparison of the Controversy, &<r.

that he should have quoted more, had he not been re
strained, by the apprehension of being accused of craftily
passing by what made the most against him. There was
therefore too much of the same matter, even for the
limits of his large volume; and this is the reason of his
acknowledging of the fact so amply and unequivocally, as
it must be confessed he has done; and in language, that
applies not to the fourth century only, but to all the
time preceding: so that while Mr. Toplady endea-
vours, by partial quotations, to divert a few fragments
of sentences to the Calvinistick theology; Calvin is so
ingenuous, as to renounce all endeavours of this sort.
Dr. Haweis, indeed, has not been so quick-sighted as
Mr. Toplady, in the discovery of supposed truth, in
the quarter here referred to; but has taken another
course, that of denying the character of Christian, to
almost all the celebrated characters of their respective
ages; endeavouring to make up for the loss of Christian
virtue in those who have themselves written, or who
have been written of by others, by the strange charity
of the supposition, that truth and real piety must have
existed among, and been confined to persons, who
have neither written themselves, nor have had their
merits recorded by their cotemporarics. Even with
this help to calculation, he would have found it difficult
to have made up the army of saints and martyrs, had
he not called in to his assistance the hereticks of the
respective ages, supposing them to have possessed vir-
tuei of which history has left no record, and doubting
of the reality of crimes, of which the most unequivocal
testimony appears.

But to return to Austin and his cotemporaries, and

with the Early Fathers. 451

to those who, like Chrysostom and others noticed, lived
not long before him: It is evident, that at the time when
the Pelagian heresy arose, it might be said, during the
whole tract of dme before (but the subject leads to the
notice of that period in particular) the Christian church
was entirely a stranger to the doctrines now called Cal-
vinistick, so that it might be said, in the words of the
psalmist, on the supposition that the said doctrine held
so important a station as some suppose, in the scale of
Christian theology, that " truth was perished from the
earth;" until she arose at the call of Austin, to combat
the heresy of the Pelagians.

This was indeed a very bold errour, dispensing with
the necessity of divine grace; which the church of God
had always taught to be essential to the beginning of all
good in man, and to its subsequent increase and perfec-
tion. Austin might have been sufficiently fortified
against the assault of the Pelagians, by the scriptures;
and if it had been necessary, by what had been held by
all the Christian bishops who had lived before him. But
those people so pressed him with difficulties, attendant
on subjects brought under notice by their heresy, that
his ardent mind, instead of resolving those difficulties in-
to the imperfection of the human powers, seized on any
dogma, that seemed fruitful of philosophical answers to
his opponents. And the further it was from their opi-
nions, the more welcome it became to the mind of
Austin.

To show how different was the mind of Austin be-
fore the appearance of Pelagius, the following is here
given from what he says, when commenting on John
viii. 47 — "He that is of God, heareth God's word."

452 Comparison of the Controversy, Csfc.

What follows? — "Ye therefore hear them not, because
ye are not of God, is affirmed of those who are not only
corrupted by sin — for this is an evil common to all —
but also foreknown as persons who would not believe
with that faith, by which alone they might be freed
from the obligation of their sins." And there is more
to the same purpose.

If the Calvinistick doctrine be indeed of the essence
of grace, as some suppose, it might have been expect-
ed, that when the light of truth arose at last on the mind
of Austin, he would have perceived, that he had hither-
to been a stranger to the free grace of God. But no:
for although he taught otherwise than he had done for-
merly; yet he does not appear to have conceived of his
new theory, that it was essential to Christian verity; as it
seems to others, who have followed him in his doc-
trine.

It might also have been expected, that the fathers
who had lived before him, both Greek and Latin, would
have been declared to have lived and died under griev-
ous errour; and that the Christian world had been under
the like errour, in admiring such men asChrysostom and
Nazianzen, while living; and in honouring their me-
mories, after they were dead. But no such thing hap-
pened; and they were happier in this respect, than Ori-
gen was in another; whose memory was roughly han-
dled, because of errours transmitted to posterity in his
works. Whence this difference? It was, because all
men were aware of the novelty of Austin's second
thoughts. They were made current by his high repu-
tation, and by the merited abhorrence of the opinions
of his opponents; but still, under the recollection that

with the Early Fathers. 453

the former were unknown, until the errour of the latter
brought them into notice.

But after all, the system of Austin was not altogether
that, which has since been denominated from the
name of Calvin. What is called the perseverance of the
saints, is in direct contradiction of the former system,
and it has nothing of what has been since called the co-
venant of works; invented for the giving of an air of jus-
tice to the imputation of Adam's sin. Even this does
not appear in so offensive a shape as in the modern doc-
trine: for although, according to the representation of
Austin, all incur eternal damnation bv the fault of the
first man; yet it is rather through the medium of a
contamination of nature, than by the transfer of his
personal sin, in consequence of his being consider-
ed in the character of a federal representative. Of free-
will, Austin did not suppose that it is utterly lost; and he
only held it to be much weakened; so as not to be compe-
tent to any good, without the grace of God: And in
this, no Arminian dissents from him. The last mention-
ed matter is also placed in different points of view, in the
ancient system and in the modern. For although Aus-
tin held, like those who had gone before him, that with-
out it we can do nothing; yet he represents it as acting
without violence to the will. Notwithstanding all these
points of difference, the sentiments of St. Austin must
be confessed to be Calvinistick, in respect to the inde-
pendence of predestination on works or faith foreseen.

The author finds it proper, in this place, to state what
he thinks the changes which the doctrine of predestina-
tion has undergone, from the time of the apostles to that
of St. Austin.

454 Comparison of the Controversy \ £sfc.

1st. As the term is used in the scriptures, it has re-
ference no further than to the election of Gentiles, to be
ii the same state of visible covenant with those of the
Jews, who should embrace the faith of Christ. And
there v\as great occasion to exhibit this subject under
the view of an antecedent divine determination; in order
to guard against the objections which would otherwise
have arisen out of the clear evidences in the Old Testa-
ment, that the Jews were the peculiar people of God,
and that their law was a dispensation divinety instituted
for perpetuity. And further, the same reason which in-
duced the use of the words predestination and election
in the holy scriptures, extended to the use of them in
the same sense; while there continued in the church anv
remnant of the distinction between Jewish and Gen-
tile Christians. This may reasonably be supposed to
have comprehended the term in which St. Ignatius
wrote; but more forcibly applies to the day of the Ro-
man Clement, who had been a companion of St. Paul;
and who, like the apostle, uses the same words in re-
ference to the same subject.

2dly. When there ceased the dispute to which the said
subject had given occasion, there would naturally fol-
low a disuse of the terms attached to it. And this
is conceived to be the reason, of there being so little
use of the terms in any sense, between the beginning of
the second century and the beginning of the fourth:
which will evidently appear to those, who shall peruse
the authors within those limits, with a view to the pre-
sent question.

3dly. At about the period the last mentioned, some of
the most distinguished writers of the Christian church.

with the Early Fathers. 455

beginning to have a reference in their writings to ques-
tions agitated among the philosophers, occasionally touch
on the question which relates to freewill, as it is call-
ed.* And in so doing, they universally — as is a point
not denied — deliver their sentiments in favour of that
attribute of the mind, and in contrariety to the doctrine
of the Stoicks, which affirmed a fate, subjecting gods
and men to what had been preordained. The result of
this, was the taking of predestination from its original
sphere, and the applying of it to individual condition in
another life; still however in connexion with prescience,
on which predestination was held to have been grounded.

But 4thly. At length arose St. Austin; who, in his
early writings, trod in the steps of his predecessors; but
having his mind afterwards irritated in his controversy
with the Pelagians, conceived, that the further he remo-
ved from them, the nearer he came to the truth. This
led him into the track of a discriminating predestination;
which precluded a great proportion of mankind from
the possibility of being saved. His great name gave a
currency to his opinions; and their being countenanced
by those who sat at the time and for some time following
in the papal chair, riveted the hard chain on succeeding
ages. For the same church, which had sainted Chrys-
ostom and others, the teachers of a predestination foun-
ded on prescience, enjoined silence on all those who
complained of the harshness of some of the opinions of
St. Austin; although they were no more Pelagians than
himself.

The most remarkable interposition of a bishop of

Rome, in defence of the doctrines of St. Austin, was

* The " Liberum Arbitrium," of the Laiins and the "«vr£|«sW
of the Greeks.

456 Comparison of the Controversy, bV.

that of Pope Coeiestine, his cotemporary. This prelate,
after the death of the other, censured some French pres-
byters, who had faulted his doctrine; and the French
bishops, who had let such conduct pass in silence. Coe-
iestine drew up nine articles, under the name of Apho-
risms, against the opinions opposed to those of Austin;
which articles relate to grace and original sin, and say
nothing of predestination.

Further, Ccelestine added to his articles a declaration,
in which he alluded to some deep and perplexing diffi-
culties, which he wished to avoid. The Roman catho-
lick historian, Du Pin, remarks, that some supposed the
deep and perplexing difficulties to be the efficacy of
grace and gratuitous predestination. But the said histo-
rian, although he will not affirm that these are articles of
faith, is of opinion that Ccelestine lays down the first of
them and supposes the other, in the Aphorism; and that
therefore, under the name of deep and perplexing diffi-
culties, there were alluded to other matters, which are
specified by the historian. And besides, as he remarks,
the adversaries of Austin having principally opposed
him on these two points; Ccelestine, whose purpose it
was to confute them, could not but maintain those doc-
trines.

Du Pin's opinion is confirmed by the subsequent re-
nutation of Austin, within the see of Rome; however
inconsistent this may seem, with her veneration for
Chrysostom, Nazianzen, and many others. And per-
haps it is not a little owing to this circumstance, that
the see of Rome has not found herself at liberty, in later
ages, to speak explicitly to the present point; but has
generally had recourse to language, which opposing
parties have construed to their respective purposes.

with the Early Fathers. 457

In the council of Trent, when, after a long course of
metaphysical investigation, the decrees were at last
formed, the combatants, on each side, claimed to them-
selves the victory. Afterwards, in the dispute between the
Jansenists and the Jesuits, although the court of Rome
began in the same wary disposition; yet, they had not
the forbearance to continue in it. In the first investi-
gations which the controversy occasioned, the express
decisions of Austin kept at bay the ascendency of the
interest of the Jesuits, and suspended the determinations
of the popes. Even afterwards, when the bull of con-
demnation fell on five propositions of Jansenius, it was
still with a salvo for the credit of St. Austin, whom, it
was said, Jansenius had ill explained. To him who
now writes it appears, that, in the bustle made by this
business in France, each party was compelled by its
situation, to attack its adversary on grounds different
from those on which it conceived the merits of its cause
to rest. The Jesuits, with their favourers, the papal and
the regal courts, were averse to the opinions of St.
Austin; but could no otherwise condemn them, than
under the name of the opinions of Jansenius. On the
other hand, the Jansenists, who believed the proposi-
tions which the papal bull condemned, instead of hazard-
ing the expedient of denying the authority of the bull,
had recourse to that of disputing the correctness of the
quotations. And, although this brought on the carpet
a new question, whether the pope were infallible in fact
as well as in faith; yet, in resisting the pretensions of the
former, they were sure of support, not only from the
parliament and the people, but also from that great
number of the French clergy, who were zealous asser-
vol. i> N 3

458 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

tors of the liberties of the Gallican church. These cir-
cumstances are stated, merely as illustrative of the
perplexity which is here supposed to have grown in the
Roman catholick church, out of a cos trariety existing
between the opinions of the early fathers and those of
Austin; sanctioned by that publick authority of his day,
which declared in favour of his doctrines. In that
church, considering her claim to an uninterrupted inte-
grity of faith, any determination, applying to the hinge
on which the controversy concerning predestination
turns, could not but displace either the name of Austin,
or the names of Chrysostom and many others, from the
catalogue of saints. On this account, there cannot be
denied the praise of discretion to the council of Trent,
in regard to the general controversy; and to the court of
Rome also, for a while, in the controversy about Janse-
nius. But, in regard to protestant churches, who profess
to venerate the fathers, and yet not to follow them any
further than they follow scripture, it is to be wished,
that they would cut the knot which they will never be
able to untie; excluding the subject from the sacred
sphere of theology, and referrng it to that of metaphy-
sical philosophy.

Among the quotations of M . Milner from St. Aus-
tin, he has brou ht fo/ward the father's application of
the passage in the seventh chapter to the Romans, con-
cerning the struggle between the flesh and the spirit;
which he makes descriptive of the apostle himself, before
his acceptance of gospel grace. This is a construction of
the passage, confessedly subversive of Calvinism But
Austin had not yet laid the foundation of the system.

Further, on the subject of universal redemption, on
which the father had been reserved, Mr. Milner de-

with the Early Fathers. 459.

livers himself in favour of the doctrine, adding — " The
notion of particular redemption was unknown to the
ancients, and I wish it had remained equally unknown
to the moderns."* Calvin would not have owned him
for a disciple, with such a sentiment; and it may be
questioned, how far it is fair for Mr. Milner to call his
own opinions by the name of Calvinism, when they do
not hang together with the consistency of that system;
and when, in a very important point, they are zealously
contradicted by the eminent man, in whose name they
appear to glory.

But, in regard to the same father, the most glaring in*
consistency of Mr. Milner, is his not noticing of the poi-
son of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; accord-
ing to the character which he had given of the doctrine,
when found in Cyprian. Mr. Milner apologizes for the
latter father, on the principle of the supposed purity of
the Christian church, at the earlier period: he would
not have pleaded any thing of this sort, as reaching
to the age of St. Austin. But this father is as ex-
press to the point, as Cyprian had been; or, as is the
church of England at the present day. Not only so,
perceiving it to press on his novel system, he relieved
this by the distinction of all grace given to the elect in
baptism, except the grace of perseverance.

Concerning the subjects which have been referred to,
it is well known how very much men in the pursuit of
useful learning, are disgusted by the useless and often
unintelligible discussions, which have grown out of
them; and also, how much men of profane wit have

♦ Vol. i page 445.

460 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

amused themselves and ethers, at the expense of those
who have been so unprofitably employed. On the other
hand, if these subjects are constituent parts of our holy
religion, there is an irreligious levity, in discounte-
nancing argument designed to explain and recommend
them. But if the opinion here maintained be correct, of
their being an excrescence on the body of revealed
truth; it may be cut off, without danger to the constitu-
tion on which it has fastened;

*r

% OF REDEMPTION.

The Question not found in a controversial Form, in the Early Fa-
thers—Passages from them— Inadmissibility of Evasion.

IF the Fathers were anti-calvinistick, on the first
point of the controversy, it may easily be presumed that
they were the same, on the other four points. Accor-
dingly, we find them such; and that in the most decisive
of all shapes, not as contradicting the opposite opinions,
which do not appear to have existed in the minds of
any persons; but as incidentally dropping sentiments,
which Calvinism cannot reconcile to its doctrines.

On consulting the very early fathers, relatively to the
point of the universality of Christ's redemption, we
should look in vain for its being laid down in a contro-
versial form. This very circumstance is evidence, that
no controversy had been yet raised, by an endeavour at
the limitation of its extent. Enough however is occa-
sionally dropped, to show that such a limitation could
not have been the current doctrine.

Ireneus, has been attended to, on the subject of elec-
tion. Let him be heard again on the present subject; on
which he speaks expressly, when he describes Christ
as " made the mediator between God and men; propiti-
tiating for all, the Father, against whom we have
sinned."*

Let Clemens of Alexandria speak next. He savs—
" The Lord, since he loves mankind, exhorts all to an

•Book 5. ch. 17.

462 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

acknowledgment of the truth."* Again — c* Hear, you
who are afar off and vou who are near; the word is hid
from none; the law is common; the light has shone on
all men.''| Again this author, commenting on the di-
vine offers to the wicked in sundry places of scripture,
remarks, as the result — " It clearly demonstrates both
of these points, that God foreknew the future; and that
his benignity, gave to freewill an opportunity of repen-
tance.":}: This is said, immediately after noticing the
case of Pharaoh, concerning whom God said to Mo-
ses— " Go and tell him to let my people depart; howbeit
I know, that he will not let them go." Clemens says
also in his Stromata — " Since all men are called, they
who are willing to hear, are denominated the called, "$
(meaning emphatically) And again — " All things are
equally proposed to all, by the divine Being; and him-
self is without blame. "|| And again in the same —
M Never then were mankind held in hatred by the Sa-
viour; who, because of his excellent kindness to men,
did not despise the weakness of human flesh, but having
put it on him, came to the common salvation of men."
And soon after — " The eternal word is the same to
every one, and the common Saviour of all men."

Orisren has been allowed to be a standard of Christian

o

doctrine of his day; except in points, for which his name
was called in question long after his decease. This
learned man, If commenting on that passage of the gos-
pel, in which Christ invites to himself the weary and
heavy laden, under the promise that he will give them
rest, makes the offer coextensive with the propensity to

* In his exhortation f Ibid. \ Foe '"go^us chap. 9.
§ Book J. II Book 7. J. Against Cclsus, book 3.

with the Early Fathers* 463

siil; speaking; thus — " Therefore all men, labouring and
heavy laden on account of an inbred propensity to sin,
are caned by the word of God to accept of rest."

The same Origen, speaking of Jesus, says concer-
ning him — " Being willing to heal, not those only who
are in one corner of the world, but all that is in it and
those who are every where: for he came the saviour of
all men."* And in the same work — speaking of the
Almighty Father, he says — " Not sparing his Son, but
delivering him up for us all; being his Lumb, that he
might take away the sin of the world; dying, the Lamb
of God fur every one."f Further, in his Latin tracts on
St. Matthewf he delivers himself as follows: — " Con-
sider, that he" (Christ) " says that the kingdom was
prepared from the foundation of the world for none but
the righteous; and that therefore Christ, their king, will
give it to them; but that everlasting fire was prepared
for the devil and his angels; and not, as the kingdom for
the righteous, for those to whom it is said: Depart from
me, ye cursed. Because, so far as in him lies, he elec-
ted men, not to perdition, but to life and joy. But sin-
ners join themselves to the devil. And as they who
are saved are made equal to the angels and become chil-
dren of the resurrection, and the sons of God and angels;
so, they who perish are equalled to the angels of the de-
vil and become his children."

Many such passages as the above might be taken from
Origen; and they ought to weigh, certainly not the less
and perhaps the more, for the faults found in him in
other respects; since the persecution which infested the
memory of him would not have failed to have seized on

* Book 4. against Cvhus. T Book 8. \ xxv. 3-L

464 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

any thing chargeable with false opinion. Even in his
lifetime, and in the height of his reputation, it would
have been impossible to have obtruded on the Christian
world such material innovations on their system, as the
above are considered to be by some.

There can be no question of the orthodoxy of Cyprian;
who compares the universality of divine grace to that
of the light of the sun: "For," says he, "if this is poured
on all alike, how much more does Christ, the true sun,
bestow equally on all in his church the light of eternal
life."*

Arnobius has never been supposed to have given any
other than a true account of Christianity, in the contrast
in which he has placed it with the religion of the Gen-
tiles. This author, professedly answering the objec-
tion that all do not receive the benefit, although all are
called, says — " The fountain of life is laid open to all;
and no one is prohibited or driven away from the right
of drinking, "f

Gregory of Nazianzum, so much celebrated as a
model of Christian piety and humility, eloquently sets
oft the sentiment here sustained, where he says — " The
little currents of his" (Christ's) " blood have restored
the whole world; and is to all men, that which rennet is
to milk; gathering and joining us in one. Oh great and
holy passover, and atonement of the whole world!"
And, to show that the expression, " the whole world,"
is not used loosely and carelessly, he opposes universal
redemption to what would have been partial: " Not,"
says he, "of a small part of the world, nor for a little
while, but of the whole world, and a never dying expia-
tion."J

* Ep. 76, ad Magnum, t Bock 11. $ Orat. 41.

with the Early Fathers. 4*65

Cyril, of Alexandria says—*" One, excelling all in
dignity, placed his life for all:" And then he goes on to
explain his sense of this universality, by making it co-
extensive with mortality.

The celebrated Athanasius is full of the sentiment:
And it is to be hoped, that his merit in combating for
the Christian faith in one department, has not been coun-
terbalanced by his sacrificing of it in another. In his
Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, he says — " It
was necessary that death should be born for all, in order
that there might be paid the debt due from all." And
again — " He" (Christ) " died for the redemption of all."
And again — " He quickly consummated the death en-
dured by him for the salvation of all."

But it would be tedious to select sayings of this sort
from the writings of Athanasius, in which they abound
so much. He is generally venerated by Calvinists, for
his zeal against the Arian heresy; but surely no man's
language was further removed from theirs than his must
be seen to have been, in this treatise of his on the in-
carnation of the word; in another, in Exposition of the
Faith; and in others of his numerous compositions.

The inconsistency of Dr. Haweis is especially con-
spicuous, in the instance of his character of Athanasius.
The great leader of the opposition to the heresy of
Arius might of course, on that account, look for some
mercy at the hands of the depraver of the characters of
the fathers generally; not excepting those who were as
inimical to the cause of Arius, as Athanasius himself.
Accordingly, after many commendations of his doctrine,
Dr. Haweis says — " Take him for all in all, he seems

* Ad Egy p. Monachos.
Vol., i o 3 >

466 Comparison of the Controversy, Esfc.

the brightest ornament of that high station, to which he.
had been advanced. I shall look for greater Christians
in humbler life, no where for a n;ort able defender of
the cause of God and truth."* After this, it is natu-
ral to look for some little evidence of a title to such a
character; or at least, some slight expression of what
Dr. Haweis considers as orthodoxy, on some one of the
Calvinistick points. But no instance of this is produced,
from any of the numerous works of Athanasius. The
truth is, that no instance of it was to be found; and not
this only, but that there were to be found divers con-
tradictions of the leading points of that theory, of which
there are instances in the quotations made. The over-
looking of these, is a great relaxation from the severity of
the system of Dr. Haweis; which can be accounted for,
only by a counterbalance of the merits of the same
character, on other points. In any one destitute of
the like advantage, the asserting of the universality of
Christ's redemption, would probably have been treat-
ed as an invasion of the prerogative of the divine sove-
reignty.

Epiphanius says — "First he" (Christ) "offered himself,
that he might set aside the sacrifice of the old Testament,
when he offered up a more perfect and a living one for
the whole world,"*

The author of the book entitled: "Of the Call of the
Gentiles," which, although erroneously ascribed as to
the authorship, is confessedly full of true Christian doc-
trine, Records as follows, in book 2, chapter 16, entitled
''That Christ died for all — There is no reason to
*loubt, that Christ died for sinners, of which number he
was not himself one. Did not Christ die for all? But
* 1. vol. 329. | Hseres. 55.

with the Early Fathers. 467

wherefore did Christ die for all?" And afterwards —
"All, whether circ.umeis.ion or uncircumcision, is in-
cluded under sin; and one guilty state lay heavily on
all; and among the m »re and the less wicked, there
was no one who could have been saved, without the
redemption of Christ: which redemption brought it-
self to the whole world; and was, without discrimina-
tion, made known to all."

Jerome, in his second book against the Pelagians,
says — "God, hath pity on the human race and is not
willing that what he hath made should perish." Again —
"He" (God) "wills that all should be saved and come to
the acknowledgment of the truth." And again — "It is
of the will of the Lord, that all should be saved and
come to the knowledge ot the truth."

In the selection of the preceding quotations, regard
has been had to the brevity of the passages: But there
shall be a larger extract from Chrysostom, who thus
comments in his 7th homily, on John i. 9. — "If he"
(Christ) "thus enlightens every man that comes into
the world, how happens it, that men remain unenlighten-
ed; since all know not the worship of Christ? How
then does he enlighten every man? He does this, as
much as in him lies. If any, of their own accord, shut-
ting the eyes of their minds, will not direct their sight
to the rays of this light; it is not from the nature of the
light that they remain in darkness; but it is of the per-
sonal wickedness of those who render themselves un-
worthy of so great a gift. For if grace is spread over all,
it does not fly from nor slight the Jew, nor the Greek,
nor the Barbarian, nor the Scythian, nor the freenwm,
nor the slave, nor the male, nor the female, nor the old,

468 Comparison of the Controversy ', &rt\

nor the young. It is the same to all; it easily manifests
itself to all; it honours all alike. But they who neglect
to enjoy the gilt, may weigh this their blindness in the
>ame equal balance. For since the entrance is laid open
to all, and forbidden to none; it is only from their own
wickedness, that abandoned and depraved men refuse to

enter.*'

And the same eloquent preacher, discoursing, in his
16th homily, on the 9th chapter of the epistle to the He-
brews, says — "It is not lawful to say, I cannot; and to
accuse the" [Supreme]"workman. For if he has made us
impotent — thus he" (St. Paul) "has afterwards taught
— it is his reproach. Whence is it then, says he, that
many cannot — whence, that many will not? For all can,
if they will. Moreover, St. Paul also says, I would that
all men were even as I, because he knew that all might
be as he. For he would not have said so, if it could not
have been."

Even Austin, before his controversy with the Pela-
gians, discoursing on psalm 95, speaks as follows —
"The Redeemer shed his blood and purchased the
world. Do you ask what he purchased? Observe what
he gave, and learn from it what he purchased. The
blood of Christ was the price. Of so great a price, what
is the value? W hat lu the whole world? What but all
nations?"

It would be easy to swell the size of this detail to a
great exte t. But the author desists from what he thinks
a needless enlargement. He knows at the same time,
that the remark applied to scripture authorities, distin-
guishing between ail men, and all sorts oi mtn, will
claim a piace in this department also. Bat setting aside

with the Early Fathers. 469

the very injudicious language, which, on the principle
of this interpretation, has been made choice of by men
eminent in their respective days; and further, how in-
cautious it must have been in them, to be so heedless of
the errours to which their writings would be abused; to
give even plausibility to the distinction, it should at least
appear, that the same writers have, in other passages of
their works, expressed sentiments hostile to the doc-
trine of the universality of Christ's redemption — that
the opinion should appear somewhere concerning the
death of Christ, of its being designed for a limited and
elect number only; and of its being over-ruled, in regard
to all others, so as to make it the mean of their damna-
tion. But it will not be said, that there have been
made any declarations to this effect; which would have
been a more definitive phraseology, limiting the extent
of a way of speaking, otherwise appearing so loose and
so full of danger.

3 OF FREEWILL.

A Caution — Sundry Fathers — The Subject as it respects

Original Sin.

BEFORE we enter on this point, as it respects the
fathers, it may be proper to guard against misconcep-
tion. They so abound with passages ascribing all good
to the grace of God, that it would be a great errour to
suppose them attributing any thing to the will of fallen
man, so as that it may be operative of good, of its own
power and virtue. All is ascribed to grace; but this,
consistently with human liberty, under the operation
of the same, while, without it, there is no liberty, but
the will is enslaved by sin.

We have a whole host of authorities in favour of
what is understood by the word freewill; whether cor-
rectly used or not; and so far as is here recollected, not
a single authority to the contrary. Most of the pas-
sages quoted under the former point, apply equally to
the present, and it is here thought more proper to re-
fer to, than to repeat them. But a few others, applying
more pointedly to freewill, may be acceptable.

There has been already given from Justin, on the sub-
ject of predestination something which applies to this
point also: But the following are more especially perti-
nent: In the first apology there is — " If man have not a
power, by freewill, to avoid what is evil and to pursue
what is good, no blame can attach to his actions, whatever
they may be. But that it is of free choice either to live

•with the Early Fathers. 471

rightly or to sin, we show thus."* Again, in the dialogue
after stating that it was in the power of God to have cre-
ated the multitude of men at once, he goes on to show,
that the divine plan took another course, thus — " But,
as he knew would be fit, he made both angels and men
with freewill, to do well and justly; and he appointed
the different times, according as it seemed good to him,
that they should be endued with this freewill, and bee. use,
at the same time, he knew it would be good, he set forih
his judgments both general and particular; there being
yet maintained that free power of the will."t

Ireneus writes thus — " They who have done good
shall have glory and honour, because they have done
good; when it was in their power, not to have done
it. But they who do it not, shall receive the just judg-
ment of God, because they have not done good, when
they might have done it."|

There follow two other quotations from Ireneus.
"But since all are of the same nature, and endued with
power to retain and to work what is good, and also en-
dued with power again to lose and not perform it; and
since they are accordingly discriminated by men; how
much more must it be so with God! Some are com-
mended, and obtain a worthy testimony of their good
choice and perseverance: But others are censured, and
obtain a merited loss; because they have hated what
is just and good."§ And soon after — " If then, it were
not in us to do or not to do these things; what reason
had the apostle, and much more the Lord himself, to
give advice to do some things and from some things to

* Thirlby page 64. t Thirlby page 356. \ Book 4. ch. 71,
§ Book. 4. ch. 72.

472 Comparison of the Controversy ', &?c.

abstain? But since man is possessed of freedom from
the beginning; and God is possessed of freedom, ac-
cording to whose image man was made; there is always
given to him the advice to hold to the good, which is
performed by that obedience which is to God. And not
only in works, but also in faith, God has preserved to man
a will free and with the power of self determination. "

Tertullian, against Marcion, writes thus — " Nei-
ther the reward of good nor that of evil could be justly
dispensed to him, who should have been good or evil
of necessity, and not of will."* Here from the opposition
stated between necessity and will, it appears, that by
the latter is understood a faculty with self determina-
tion.

To the above there may be added the quotation fol-
lowing:— " Some think, that God must necessarily
bestow on the unworthy, what he has promised; and they
make his liberty a slavery. But if of necessity he be-
stows on us the symbol of his death" (meaning baptism)
ct he does it unwillingly. But who permits that to re-
main, which he does contrary to his will? For do not
many afterwards fall away? Is not the gift taken
away from many? These are they who creep in,
who having entered on the faith of penitence, build
on the sand their house which is soon to fall."f The
passage is not only to the purpose for which it is produ-
ced, but is hostile to the point of final perseverance.
And yet, it does not seem to have been an object to con*
demn the doctrine; but the contrary to it is taken for
granted. This is in consistency with what the present
work maintains, of the comparatively recent origin of the
* Rook 2. chap. 5. t Adv. Hcrmogenenv

with the Early Fathers. 473

opinion; and of its being utterly unknown in the ages
here spoken of.

Tertullian is indeed very copious on the present sub-
ject. There shall be further given, not verbatim, but
in a summary way, what he says concerning it in his 2d,
book against Marc ion. He sets forth, that man was
formed with freewill; and that in no one thing was
the image of God more conspicuous than in this. He
further says, that this property of man's condition is
confirmed by the law enjoined on him; because neither
a law nor a threatening of death could have been given
to one, who had not in his power the obedience which the
law required. So far, Tertullian stands opposed to the
necessarian scheme only: But what follows, is contra-
ry alike to that and to Calvinism proper. For he goes
on to say, that the same applies to subsequent laws; the
discipline of which requires, that man should be free in
his will, to obey or to contemn. Much follows to the
same effect.

Tertullian elsewhere blames the same Marcion, for
obtruding the principles of the Stoical philosophy on
the Christian system. And he evidently considers him
as contemplating Adam under a necessity of sinning.
The point to which Marcion applied the doctrine of ne-
cessity was to prove, that Adam could not have been
created by a being infinitely wise, powerful, and good;
but, as the creed of this heretick pronounced, by a
middle deity, between one essentially good and another
essentially evil. This impious tenet would have been
answered by a Calvinist, without reconciling, as is
done by Tertullian, the prescience of God with the con-
dition of man as a being, " suae potestatis," or, who has a

vl. i. r 3

474 Comparison of the Controversy, bV.

power over his actions. But Tertuliian held nothing
in common with the Calvinists, as to this point. And yet,
however much complaint was made of him because of his
fall to Montanism, there has been nothing heard of his
being objected to in early times, as a denier of the free
and sovereign grace of God.

Clemens of Alexandria, in his Stromata, writes thus
— >"If they do not repent, they shall be judged; some,
because having it in their power, they would not exer-
cise faith in God; and others, because having a will to
that effect, they have not exerted themselves to be
faithful."*

The following authorities are from St. Cyprian —
" Christ did not chide, or heavily threaten those who
departed from him; but rather, turning to his apostles,
he said: Will ye also go away? herein regarding the pro-
vision, by which man, left to his liberty and constituted
in his own will, himself pursues for himself, either death
or life."! — "The liberty of believing or not believing,
placed in the will in Deuteronomy: Behold I have set
belore you life and death. "J

After such citations from the first three centuries, it
must be superfluous to superadd the numerous con-
curring testimonies of the fourth. They combine to
show, that in the ages of martyrs, there was professed
publickly, and without reproach, and in various part.- of
Christendom, and by the most eminent doctors of the
chuich, the very sentiment branded by Calvin with the
accusation of arrogance, and affirmed by him to be the
inspirer of that selfsufficiency, by which men are car-

* U. . .-.8. f e k '■ Ep. 3. a<3, Coti.cliuH).
| liuoK 3 uu Quiriiiuru Teriium, 52.

with the Early Fathers. 475

ried to destruction. Strange, that so deadly a tree should
be productive of so fine a fruit!

For the establishing that Chrysostom thought as is here
stated, in this particular, Calvin's complaint of him on
that account, will be a sufficient testimony: but there
shall be given a quotation from Nazianzen and another
from Jerome. The former says — " We are required to
believe in paradise, that we may enjoy its felicity: We
have received a commandment, that by obeying it, we
may attain to glory. Not that God is ignorant of what
is to come to pass, but that he gives the sanction of his
law to the freedom of the will." Jerome comments on
Is. 1. 19, 20, thus — " It saves freewill, that, on either
side, the punishment or the reward may be not of the
prejudging of God, but of the good deeds of the re-
spective persons."

Not only do such men as Chrysostom, Gregory Na*
zianzen, and Jerome, declare their minds openly and
frequently, on that power in man which is denominated
by the term freewill; but the same has been done by
Austin, both before and after his controversy with the
Pelagians. He continually affirms the existence of free-
will in man; and that not lost, although considerably
impaired by the apostasy. And it is a freewill distinctly
opposed, not to. force only, but to necessity likewise.
Whether Austin were consistent in this, it is not to the
purpose to determine. But it is certain, that justice has
not been done, on this point, to the celebrated father
spoken of. Calvin, who commends and follows him in
so many particulars, but not in this, has not passed the
suitable censure on him, for an opinion so radically cor-
rupt in the view of that reformer. Austin has been often

476 Comparison of the Controversy ', Este.

cited, as laying the foundation, on which the doctrine of
necessity has been since built, iiut it is here conceived,
that this is very far from being a correct statement of his
sentiments. If any inquiry should be made into the fact,
considerable aid may be obtained from the work of Ge-
rard Vossius, which brings into one point of view, the
numerous passages found to the purpose in the differ-
ent works of Austin, from which it will appear, that he
was as strenuous an asserter of freewill as Chiysostom.
himself; who is especially blamed by Caivm on this ac-
count.

In another place, there will be given some of the tes-
timonies to this effect, as collected by Vossius. But
there shall be here given a passage to the purpose, not
noticed by him. And it is selected because of the re-
markable circumstance, that it is in a work of the fa-
ther, composed some time after the beginning <4 the Pela-
gian controversy, but befoie he had written against the
broachers of it . The passage is his comment on 1. John
iii. 3. and is as follows: " Observe, how he does not
take away freewill, in saying he purifieth himself.
Who purines us, but Gcd? But God does not pu-
rify >ou against your will. Therefore, because you
join your will to God, you purify yourself." The
discourses on St. John's gospel and epistle are sup-
posed to have been written about the year 416. And
it was in the 422d that St. Austin began to publish
in the controversy

Agreeably to the plan of the present work it will be
here proper to consider the point in question, as it re-
spects the doctrine of original sin.

with the Early Fathers. 477

The challenge may be confidently made, for the pro-
ducing of a single passage from any writer for the
first 400 years, giving the least countenance to the doc-
trine of the imputation of Adam's sin; in such sort, as
that all mankind incurred eternal damnation on its ac-
count. The writer of this was indeed surprised, at find-
ing the idea expressed in the definition of original sin, in
the very place in which Vossius is going on to show the
consent of the fathers in that doctrine. But great was
the author's surprise, at the inconsistency of this learned
man; when, on examining the authorities, it appeared,
that none of them go to the said point; although there are
very many pertinent to the other points in his definition;
which are temporal death, and the loss of original recti-
tude.

To search the fathers for a specifick contradiction of
the comparatively modern doctrine above objected to,
would be a fruitless labour: since it could hardly be ex-
pected to find any thing to this effect; if, as is here sup-
posed, the idea was unknown at the time in question. It
is accordingly conceived to be the proper way of treat-
ing the present subject, to take a view of some of Vos-
sius's citations; and to show, how far they are from ap-
plying, as to the point here particularly in view.

The writer of this does not know or recoil' ct any
author, who has endeavoured to elicit a Calvinisiick
point out of Justin, except the above named Gerard
Vossius; a man not only very learned, but also very
candid; which is so eminently a part of his character,
that, although a minister oi a Calvinisuck church, and
living at a time, when the fire of animosity w! ich had
flamed at Dort was scarcely beginning to subside, he

478 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

had the courage to encounter obloquy and even perse-
cution, by exhibiting, in the book here referred to, the
unanimous sense of the fathers against the doctrine of
predestination and some other points, as held by Cal-
vinists.

Yet, the same excellent man* undertakes to give their
consent in the doctrine of original sin, considered as
comprehending these three particulars — Privation of
original righteousness, subjection to temporal death, and
eternal separation from God: and under the last, ther
is evidently not contemplated an entire extinction of
being. But the greater number of the authorities which
Vossius produces, apply no further than to temporal
death; and some few of them apply to a corruption of
nature; while, to the purpose of eternal separation from
God, there is not a sentence. As a specimen, it is pro-
posed to give a few of his citations, and to begin with
one from Justin. This father speaks, concerning the
Redeemer, to the following effect — " He did not endure
to be born and to be crucified, as if he had need of these
things; but he submitted to them for the sake of the
human race; which, through Adam, had fallen under
death and the seduction of the serpent: to say nothing
of the proper fault of every one, acting wickedly for

himself."t

In this, there is surely nothing bordering on the idea
of imputation, as held by Calvinists. But it should be
remarked, injustice to Vossius, that, writing as he did
against the Pelagian heresy, he might not have thought
it incumbent on him, to take notice wherein his quoted
passages did not go to all the three points mentioned
* Book 2, part 1, thesis 1. f Page 159.

with the Early Fathers. 479

by him, as included within the idea of original sin.
They all made against the Pelagians, who held that sin
to be merely personal. Had Vossius written with a
professed view to the matter here intended to be esta-
blished, he would probably have been more guarded.
And perhaps it is but just to remark further, that there
does not appear what measure of punishment he consi-
dered as attached to a separation from the presence of
God. He quotes Austin, as saying of infants dying un-
baptized, that although they are damned, yet it " is by
a damnation the lightest of all;"* and he will not say,
that it would have been better for them never to have
been born. But these are evidently concessions of the
generosity of those who make them, and not pretended
to be grounded on any scripture warrant. It does not
appear, that in the first three centuries, any difficulty
arose on the subject of the salvation of infants. But on
the ground of Austin's theory, and since on that of Cal-
vin, the difficulty has seemed to press not a little. On
that of either, the consequence in the mind of the writer
of this would be, that the whole mass of infants, be-
ing incapable of faith and repentance, are indiscrimi-
nately assigned to hell. But Austin conceived of the
effects of parental sin, as done away by grace infused in
baptism; so that baptized infants were rescued from the
general condemnation to everlasting misery. Calvinist
churches of the present day, generally make the excep-
tion, not of baptized, but of elect infants. They reject
the baptismal regeneration of Austin; but how the pro-
gress from nature to grace is conducted in favour of the
infants on whom the divine election falls, these churches
* Darnnaiione levissiraa omnium.

480 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

have not given any account of, so far as is known to the
author of this work. Probably, the personal belief of all
intelligent Calvinists of the present day, is in favour of
the salvation of all infants. But this, like the concessions
of Austin, is evidently the result of their own generosity,
in contrariety to the conclusions to which their system
directly leads.

But to return to the fathers: Vossius> among the
evidences of their consent, as to the property of ori-
ginal sin here in question, quotes two passages from
Ireneus, taken from Austin, contra Julianum, Lib.
1. ch. 11. He says [Austin here quotes from Ire-
neus, B. 4. ch. 5 ] — " Men cannot be saved from the
old blow of the serpent, unless they believe in him who,
in the likeness of sinful flesh, being lifted up from the
earth on the tree of martyrdom, hath both drawn all
things to himself and restored the dead." Again — " As
the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it
may be released by a virgin; the virginal disobedience
being balanced by virginal obedience. For, the sin of
the first man being amended by the correction of the
only begotten; and the wisdom of the serpent being
vanquished by the simplicity of the dove; v.c are re-
leased from the chain, by which we had become tied to
death."*

Another authority of Austin, and from him taken by
Vossius, is that of Origen; who says — " The maledic-
tion of Adam is common to all men; and there is not a
woman, of whom there may not be said, what was said
<>f the (first) woman."!

* Ireneus, book 5, ch. 1 6. f Contra Celsum Lib. 4.

with the Early Fathers. 481

Austin goes on, and Vossius from 1 im, to cite au-
thorities which all apply to t'ie question between them
and the Pelagians; and yet not one to the question here
handled — the being obnoxious to eternal condemnation.
Indeed, the general tenour of their authorities especially
applies to the circumstance of the mortality induced, by
the fall which had been directly contradicted by the Pe •
lagians. Accordingly, although when the inquiry is
concerning (not the name but) the doctrine of original
sin, Vossius pertinently remarks, that Austin has
been unjustly censured as having introduced it into
Christian theology; yet there is a difference between
the subject to which his cited authorities apply it, and
that to which it has been applied by Calvinism— a
state of existence in an eternal separation from God.

There is something remarkable in the terms, in which
Vossius defines this attribute of original sin; and
what he says shall be here translated, in order to show
still further the difficulties in which learned and judicious
men entangle themselves, when they go beyond the
scriptural account of this matter, and superadd what is
necessary to accommodate it to a system. After stating
the first and the second particular, in which he defines
original sin to consist, he says of the remaining one—
" The third is the worst; partly, because it is the irrepa-
rable loss of grace and glory; partly, because it not only
devest, of good things, but also (at least in those who suf-
fer punishment for actual faults) it inflicts the penalties
of the heaviest torments. It must be evident to every
one who considers the words comprehended in the pa.
renthesis, that the consequences of the system are such
as constrain its advocates, in order to make it as little
vol. i. 0*3

482 Comparison of the Controversy, &V.

as possible offensive as well to reason as to feeling, to
have resort to a future condition, neither of happiness
nor of misery; of which scripture gives no account.
And surely, there ought to be a jealousy of a process of
reasoning, of which such is the result.

From the whole, it is here concluded, that nothing is
to be gathered from the fathers, carrying the doctrine
in question further than subjection to temporal death
with its attendant evils; and what such a change natur-
ally induced — weakness of intellectual powers, and
strength of appetite; of which the one more exposed
to sin, and the other became less a restraint from it,
than was agreeable to the original constitution of human
nature.

There is a remarkable passage in St. Austin, in which
he gives an explanation of original sin, similar to that
which is sustained in this work. The passage is in his
discourses on the gospel of St. John, and is as follows,
being a comment on chapter 3, verse 37. "He did
not say, the wrath of God shall come on him;
but the wrath of God remaineth on him. All who are
born, have with them the wTrath of God. What wrath
of God? That which the first man Adam received.
For if the first man sinned and heard — Dying, thou shalt
die, he became mortal, and we began to be born mortal.
We were born with the wrath of God. From thence came
the Son, not having sin, and as he was clothed with flesh,
he was clothed with mortality. If he shared the anger
of God with us, shall we be backward to share the grace
of God with him? Whoever therefore will not believe
in the Son, the wrath of God remaineth on him. What
wrath? That of which the apostle speaks. For we were

■with the Early Fathers* 463

ourselves the children of wrath, even as others. All are
the children of wrath, because coming under the curse
of death."*

This was written, like the passage the last quoted from
the father, after the beginning of the Pelagians, but be-
fore his publick controversy with them. It is evident,
that he considered the threatening in paradise as accom-
plished by mortality; although doubtless, this with all
its natural effects.

• Volume 9. page 29.

4 OF GRACE.

The Question stated, as it respects the Fathers — Passages from
them— Of the Subject, as it regards Faith and Works.

BEFORE an entrance on this subject, as it respects
the fathers, it may be proper to ascertain, in what way
we may expect the matter found in them to apply to the
sentiment here sustained, supposing it to be correct.

It would be in vain to search in them for direct con-
tradictions of the doctrine of the irresistible grace of
God; because, as is contended in opposition to this doc-
trine, the idea having not occurred in those early days,
it would be unreasonable to expect to find contradicted
on the one hand, what had not been vet affirmed on the
other. Nevertheless, the fathers abound with declara-
tions, ascribing all good in man to the holy inspiration
of the spirit of God. And the only way in which they
can be expected to apply to the present purpose, is their
falling short of the terms expressive of the doctrine of
the Calvinists. If the doctrine of the grace of God be
declared in such terms, as that neither the freedom nor
the need of it is impaired by the supposition, that it may
bt either complied with or resisted; this is all that can rea-
sonably be expected, in favour ot the system here main-
tained. Nothing stronger could well have been express-
ed, while dispute on the subject was unknown. The
same reasoning does not apply, in favour of the opinion
here opposed. If it be essential, as is affirmed, to the
glory ol the divine sovereignty, some evidence of the
belief of it, by some one living in so long a tract of time,

with the Early Fathers-. 485

might have been expected. Or rather; in works so full
of piety and humility, abounding within that tract of
time, there would have been traces of the sentiment, vi-
sible over the whole face of them.

Justin, in his dialogue with Try pho, addressing him-
self to that person and his companions, says — "Do you
th.'nk, O man, that, we could have understood these
things in the scriptures, unless by his" (God's) "plea-
sure willing it, we had received grace to understand
them?" And just before he had said — "Unless, there-
fore, any one receive of the grace of God, to understand
the things that are said and written by the prophets, he
will not be the wiser for the things which appear to be
said or to be done: if he have not also wherewithal to
give the reason of them."

Ireneus remarks thus—" Paul, declaring the wick-
edness of man, says, I know, that in my flesh dwells no
good thing; intimating, that the good of our salvation
is not of ourselves, but of God."* Again — "The Lord
hath taught us, that none can know God, without God's
teaching of them: That is, without God himself, he
cannot be known. "f And again — " As the dry earth,
if it does not receive moisture, does not fructify; so we
being dry wood, shall never bring forth the fruit of life,
without the rain of heaven." J It is evident, that the last
quotation, being figurative, must be construed agreea-
bly to a law applicable to all figurative writing; which
requires stress to be laid on the point of comparison.
This is the equal necessity of rain in one case, and of
grace in the other. The subjects, which are earth and
* Book 3, ch. 22. f Book 4, ch. 14. \ Book 3, ch. 19.

486 Comparison of the Controversy , is?c.

man, must be taken according to their respective pro-
perties.

From Ireneus, there may be a proper transition to Cle-
mens of Alexandria. " Toward which" [that is good*]
" we have the greatest need of divine grace, of correct
instruction, of a chaste and clear affection of the mind,
and of a drawing of the Father to himself."f Again —
"He" [that is Christ] "calls Peter happy, because
flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but his
Father, who is in heaven; making it manifest, that to
know the Son of the Almighty Father is not from the
flesh, which was carried in the womb; but from the pa-
ternal power itself."|

Tertullian follows: In his book de Anima, he
says — " To whom is the truth discovered, without
God? To whom is God known, without Christ? To
whom is Christ displayed, without the holy Spirit?"^
Again, speaking of the effect of grace, he says —
" This will be the power of divine grace, being more
powerful than nature, and having in us the free power
of the will subjected toitself."||

In the spirit of the same sentiment, St. Cyprian
says — " Whatever is good is not ascribed to the virtue
of man, but is ptedicated as of the j;ift of God." And
soon after — " All that we can do is of God. From
thence we live; from thence we have power; from thence,
having taken and renewed strength, while we are here
stationed, we perceive tiie tokens of the future." And
again— "Only let fear be the guardian of innocency,
that the Lord, who has mercifully influenced by the
falling of his heavenly indulgence on our minds, be re-

* To KaAov. f Stromata b. 5. $ B- 6. $ Cl . 1. flCi:. 2!.

y

with the Early Fathers. 487

tained by the entertainment of a mind delighting in his
righteous operation."

Origen says — " Those things, without a better in-
spiration and a more divine virtue cannot come into the
contemplation of men. For as no man knows the
things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in hirn,
so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of
God."* And again — " But I know, that this argument
has need of very many confirmations; God by his grace
enlightening the mind, that is worth}' of the knowledge
pf such things."!

These instances may be sufficient for the purpose,
for which they are adduced, that is to show the manner
in which the early writers speak of the grace of God; a
manner fully accommodated to the idea of giving all
possible glory to him; and also to the producing of the
most profound humility in themselves; but entirely des-
titute of that metaphysical form, into which the dictrine
of grace has been since fashioned; and of which we
know, that it has a tendency to create distinctions with-
out meaning, and to foster disputes without end. The
notion of a grace irresistible, and pronounced effica-
cious, to distinguish it from that which the scriptures
expressly speak of as what we may resist and grieve,
seems to have been absolutely unknown in the ages of
martyrs and confessors. Were they the less sensible
of the power of religion? For an answer to this, look
at their lives — Look at their deaths — And look at the
effects of both, in the conversion of an unbelieving
world. When Austin engaged Pelagius, he did not
fail to avail himself of the armour left to his hand, by
* Lib. 4. contra Celsum. f Lib. 5.

488 Comparison of the Controversy, £ste.

the combatants who had gone before him. Strange;
that he should produce such passages as those which
have been recited; and not perceive, that, from his no-
vel doctrine of predestination, there followed another
doctrine, which put his predecessors in the wrong if he
were in the right. It followed of course, yet he does
not appear to have seen it, in its extent; since he has
some saving for the freedom of the will; which Calvin,
by more consistent reasoning, discarded.

Perhaps it may seem expedient, under this point,
that there should be said something on the question oc-
casioning the controversy concerning faith and works.
But there is little to be said on it here; because we
scarcely find any thing to the purpose, in the early fa-
thers. St. Paul's controversy with the Jewish Chris-
tians, had not reference to merit strictly speaking; as if
this people imagined God to be obligated by their obe-
dience as such. No, it was what may be called a co-
venant merit; or a claim founded on promise; such as
the Christian is warranted to claim in consequence of
divine assurances, in themselves of mere Grace. In
this, as applied to the works of the Mosaick law, those
Jewish Christians were under an errour; having not been
sufficiently attentive to the end of the law, recently re-
vealed. Still, it seems to have been the result, not so
much of arrogancy, as of the not looking beyond the let-
ter, to the spirit of the economy under which they had
Jived.

By the time that the church had become deprived of
the apostles, and of the men to whom there can be
applied, with any propriety, the name of apostolick
lathers, all ground of that dispute had been done away,

with the Early Fathers, 489

by the evident ceasing of the polity and dispersion of
the nation of the Jews. Hence it happened, as might
have been expected, that we hear no mor of the ques-
tion of the comparative efficacy of faith and works-
Christian preachers did indeed inculcate faith in Christ;
and so they did holiness of heart and life, in every way,
and neither the one nor the other to be accepted, other,
wise than through grace.

When Pelagius at last appeared, with so much noise
about the sufficiency of nature; Austin and others who
opposed him, in establishing the orthodox point, that
all strength possessed by man is from Divine assistance,
were naturally led to insist much on the kindred truth,
that all acceptance of him is of Divine mercy: not that
this was more essentially a part of the system of Aus-
tin, than of that of Cyprian or of Chrysostom; but be-
cause these had less occasion to insist on it, and to
make it a prominent part of what they taught. How it
happened, in subsequent ages, that, in the same church
which continued so loudly to proclaim the orthodoxy of
Austin, there should arise the kind of merit attributed
in the same church to human works, this is not the
place to inquire. It will be sufficient to remark of the
ages in view, that they were between the time when
the question turned on the interference of Jewish pre-
judice with Christian liberty, and another tract of time,
when a question, like that in words and not in sub-
stance, was ingrafted on the opposition seen to exist
between a merit originating in monkish superstition
and the honour due to the mediatorial righteousness of
the Redeemer. That there was such a tract of time, in

vol. i. R 3

490 Comparison of the Controversy, &fc.

which controversy implicating this was unknown, is
evident even in the circumstance, that there is no re-
ference to errour on that point, and no necessity of de-
claring the opposite t. uths, in such apologies as those
of Justin, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix, professedly
written to give a true account of Christianity to the
world.

3 OF PERSEVERANCE.

St. Austin did not extend his System to this Point — Sundry Fa-
thers— A Concession of Gerard Vossius — The Opinion of Cal-
vin, not altogether consistent with present Calvinism — Result,

ON this subject Calvinism has the least to say, in
regard to the appearance of it in any theological writer
during the early ages. Astothe few scraps of sentences
in which an overweaning zeal has supposed the doc-
trine to appear, they are in the fathers called apostolick
and have been considered under the first point. Later
supposed authorities than these, the author does not re-
member to have met with.

Even when Austin had invented what is now consi-
dered as the Calvinistick doctrine of predestination, he
did not perceive the effect of it, in the final perseverance
of the saints. This did not occur to any, until the era of
the reformation; nor even in the early part of that, as
may be inferred from a passage, which will be quoted
under this point from Calvin. If there beany exception
from the truth of this remark, it is in the instance of the
controversy raised in the 9th century by Godescalius,
who is thought by some, to have hit on the doctrine of
the perseverance of the saints. There is indeed a diffi-
culty in perceiving wherein this persecuted monk differ-
ed from Austin in his doctrines, except in his bold
avowal of all their consequences.

As to Austin, he held perseverance to be a special gift,
vouchsafed to some and denied to others, both of whom
had been brought into a state of salvation, by other in-
ftuences^of grace. It was indeed impossible, hi any other

492 Comparison of the Controversy, he.

way, to reconcile to the mind the modern doctrine of
decrees, without a relinquishment of all the leading
ideas entertained on the subject of baptism, in every
preceding period of the church It had been en.itled
"Illumination" and "Regeneration;" and no one had
ever called in question the position, that duly given and
received, it was an introduction of the baptized person
to all the benefits of the Christian covenant; which
were considered as sealed to them, in this initiatory or-
dinance of Christ's religion. To have made an entire
change in the language and in the habits of thinking,
then prevailing on a subject which came home to every
bosom, would have seemed, in the age in question, to
have been a tearing up of the foundation. The only sub-
stitute, was that which Austin thought of. This solved
the difficulty for a time; but was at last renounced, as
an excrescence on the predestination scheme, which it
might profitably part with.

The following are specimens of Austin's manner of
expressing himself, on the present subject. In his book
written expressly concerning it, he says — "Why, of
two pious persons, perseverance is given to one and not
given to the other, are among the more inscrutable
judgments of God."* As Vossius remarks, there could
not have been here understood a feigned piety; because,
just before, the faith spoken of had been defined that
"which ivorketh by love." And soon alter, the persons
spoken ol had been all described as justified by faith.
Again — "Why it is granted to some, that they should be
taken from life in a justified state, while other justified
persons are kept, by a longer life, in the same dangers*

* Chapter 8.

with the Early Fathers. 493

until they fall from justification, who have known the
design of God?"*

It would be endless to quote passages to the same ef-
fect, from this celebrated father. And it is observable,
that he does not give his opinion, as if it were on a con-
troverted point. There was indeed a controversy, as to
the general necessity of grace; in which the Pelagians
had argued, that if this were divinely given, it would
not happen, that some should fall away from justifica-
tion. That some fell away, was admitted on both sides
for truth. But Austin warded off the argument bv
saying, that all grace was given, except the grace of per-
severance. And this continued, uniformly, to be the
opinion of the church into which Austin's ascendency-
introduced it, until after the reformation.

The following is a remark, which Vossius makes of
the fathers generally, in relation to the present subject:
and the remark must seem the more worthy of notice,
when it is considered as coming from a learned divine of
a Calvinistick church. Speaking of the opinion oppo-
sed to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints,
he says in his 6th book under thesis 12, to this effect —
That they only of his day denied the former opinion
to be the common one of the fathers, who, howevef
learned perhaps in other respects, were strangers to an-
tiquity. And he further says of them, that they have
their minds so enslaved by the opinions of others, as
rather to see with their eyes, than with their own.

The same Vossius, has referred to sundry of the fa-
thers before Austin; and noted to the purpose, passages
of their works; naming Justin, Clemens of Alexan-
dria, Cyprian, Tertullian and others. Although the

* Chapter 14*

494 Comparison of the Controversy \ Este.

author of the present work has had recourse to the
greater number of the passages, and judges the use thus
made of them to be correct; vet he avoids the reciting
of them; on the principle, that they are merely inciden-
tal sayings, without any recognising of the subject, as
professedly under discussion. And indeed, what is
here thought to make the most strongly against the Cal-
vinists, is there not being in those days any express al-
lusion, either on the one side or on the other, to a point
which they now think so important to Christian verity.

Perhaps, what will the most conspicuously demon-
strate the recent origin of the doctrine here in question,
is the producing of the passage already alluded to in
Calvin himself. He says thus — " Therefore, since we
all naturally labour under the same disease, they alone
recover to whom the Lord hath been pleased to apply
his healing hand. The rest, whom he passeth by in
righteous judgment, putrify in their corruption, until
they are entirely consumed."* And then he goes on to
state, that "as it is from the same cause, that some perse-
vere to the end, and others decline and fall in the midst
of their course; perseverance itself also is a gift of God,
which he bestows, not on all men promiscuously, but
imparts to whom he pleases." And he adds, that "if we
inquire the cause of the difference, why some persevere
with constaney, and others fall through instability, no
other can be found, but that God sustains the former by
his power, that they perish not; and does not communi-
cate the same strength to the latter, that they may be
examples of inconstancy."

From this passage it appears, how long a time there
was required after the gospel age, to mould what arc

* Book 2, ch. 5, sect. 3.

with the Early Fathers. 495

called the Calvinistick doctrines into the systematick
shape in which they are now found. Protestants think —
and justly, as is here conceived — that they sufficiently
refute the pretensions of the papal hierarchy; when they
trace the steps by which it attained to its present gigan-
tick stature, by natural deductions from principles spe-
ciously introduced; and of which the first patrons could
never have imagined the result. The author does not
intend this remark in the way of reproach; but as a
hint to the sincere inquirer, to trace the history of the
opinions here controverted. For, if the scriptures be
the rule of faith; whatever helps to the understanding
of them may be derived from facts, which existed in
the ages immediately subsequent to the time of the
-apostles; there can be no better disproof of any body
of doctrine, than its being shown to have been gradually
built up, improved, and perfected into a system; not
known until within ages comparatively modern.

COyCLFSION.

Application of Authorities to the General Question of the Five
Points — The Importance of this Branch of the Subject to Pro-
testantism.

ALTHOUGH, in the introduction, there was given
a caution against the supposition, that the fathers were
to be set up, as suppty ing what might be imagined to
have been omitted in the scriptures; yet it is here again
notified, that the former are cited merely in attestation
of facts; but of these, as helping much in the inquiry
into the sense of scripture.

In order to perceive in what manner the argument ap-
plies, there may be propriety in taking a summary retro-
spect of the matters supposed to have been ascertained.

On the subject of predestination, the object has been
to show, that, in the age of the apostles, and for at least
a hundred years after them, it was never held as ap-
plying any otherwise, than to a participation of the be-
nefits of the Christian covenant, and to the question of
the description of persons to whom these belonged; that
for about a hundred years afterwards in the Greek
church, and for about double that term in the Latin,
^here does not appear to have been any question raised,
which can give an insight into what was thought or said,
■ hat by degrees an opinion, purely metaphysical, and
vet bvno means Clavinistick, appears to have been in-
grafted on the mere words of the scripture, there appli-
ed to another question, which had long since been put

with the Early Fathers. 497

to rest; and that at last, owing to incidents which have
been stated, the Calvinistick opinion had its rise in the
beginning of the fifth century: which brings it to a pe-
riod, more distant, by about a hundred years from the
beginning of the Christian dispensation, than is that in
which we live from the beginning of the reformation.
So that, through all this tract of time, the Calvinistick
opinion must have been dormant, and unseen in scrip-
ture; if it be really there, as is supposedly Calvinism.

Next, in regard to universal redemption, it has been
shown, that the expressions of the fathers are general,
in favour of all mankind. The scriptures, indeed, are
the same, as is conceded; but to do away the force of
the concession, a distinction is taken between a will re-
vealed, and another secret: a distinction necessary to the
fathers in the interpreting of scripture, if it be so to us;
while yet, it is not alleged, that there is any thing to that
effect, in any one of them.

Under the third point, it has appeared, that however
express the fathers to the effect of the sin of Adam,
in the mortality of his posterity, and in an attendant de-
bility and vitiation of their powers; what they say does
not extend to the Calvinistick sentiment or imputation.
Even in regard to inbred corruption, it amounts to
no more, than what was intimated by St. Paul, un-
der the idea of a law in the members, warring against a
better law in the mind.*

The fourth point, so far as it is agreed on by both
parties in the controversy, is very luminous in the au-
thors cited, and in many more which might have been
cited to the purpose. They declare, that salvation is

* Romans vii. 23.
VOL. I. S 3

498 Comparison of the Controversy ', &fc.

altogether of grace, and that every thing holy in man
is produced in him by the operation of the Holy
Spirit. But w hen to this there is added such an irresisti-
ble energy, as makes man wholly passive in the busi-
ness of his salvation, there is no document establish-
ing the point, that such an idea had been entertained.

Lastly, concerning final perseverance; it has appeared,
that the contrary to it was the current doctrine of the
church, not only during the four hundred years in
which its kindred doctrines were unknown also, but
even after the admission of these; the natural conse-
quence of which, in regard to this particular, was over-
looked from Austin's time until the reformation; above
eleven hundred years afterwards.

It is then contended, that these facts have a weighty
bearing on the question of the sense of scripture, in
which it is supposed by the advocates of the Calvin-
istick doctrines, that they are held up in so important
a point of view, as that, by denying them, we contra-
dict the sovereignty of God existing in nature, and
his equally sovereign grace, manifested in the Gospel.
Did ever any religious sect — did ever any association,
for the accomplishment of a laudable object, so soon
forget the most distinguishing characteristicks of the
bond of union, into which they had been brought by
their immediate forefathers? Did ever any tendency to
such a dereliction manifest itself, without there being at
least some to lift up their voices against the deteriora-
tion of the body? That some should soon begin to in-
sinuate novelties into the system; that they should be
ingenious, in discovering what might be plausibly
brought forward as a sanction for them, in any slight
circumstance; and that they should at last succeed, in

with the Early Fathers. 49£

conciliating their brethren to the design; is accountable
for, from what we know of human nature. It is the
effect of that imperfection* which led the Jews gradually
to submit to the inventions of will worship; until at last,
they " made the word of God of none effect through
their traditions." And their example has been imitated
in the Christian church, by similar additions to Chris-
tian faith and duty. Of these we can trace the rise and
progress, accounting for them in the circumstances of
intervening times; but for so sudden and so great a
change as must have taken place, according to the prin-
ciples opposed to those here sustained, it is utterly im-
possible to account, from any thing we know of man
and of the experience of the world.

It appears to the writer of this, that they from whom
he dissents, are drawn, by their courses of reasoning, into
a track, by which they give a great advantage to another
denomination of fellow Christians, from whom they and
the Episcopal church dissent — those of the church of
Rome. Protestanism has a right to avail itself of the evi.
dences which appear in the early times, of the gradual
manner in which the errours of that church obtruded
themselves on Christendom. But, in order to serve this
purpose, it is necessary, not only to give credit to record-
ed facts of the ages soon after the apostles, but to
reason from them to the belief and the practice of
that age itself. They who entertain the Calvinistick
opinions, reasonably plead for the bringing of all
things to the test of scripture; but are backward to
admit the portion of light which arises from the imme-
diately succeeding times, towards the ascertaining of its
meaning. And further, the history ol the controversy in

500 Comparison of the Controversy, bV.

question., goes a great way towards contradicting the
claim of infallibility set up by that church. Although
it is generally supposed by her members to rest in a
general council, yet the sources of the unerring direc-
tion of such a body, are held to be in the sound faith of
its constituent members, sustained by traditionary infor-
mation, handed down among them from tiic apostles.
Now, let it be remembered, in what manner this claim
operates, in regard to the subject here stated. To begin
with the time of Chrysostom, who has spoken often of a
predestination founded on prescience. This eloquent
bishop stood high in the estimation of the church of
Rome; which indeed, at that time, claimed no jurisdic-
tion beyond her bounds; yet took a decided part with
Chrysostom, against his enemies, and embalmed his
memory. There will not be denied by any well inform-
ed Roman Catholick, what is stated by Calvin, although
so adverse to his theory, that the sentiments of the
Christian bishops of Chrysostom's day, were conform-
able to his on the present subject, as already given. But
soon after that father, came Austin, who taught, at first
indeed like his predecessors; but afterwards, a predesti-
nation not founded on prescience. In this, he was fol-
lowed by Christian churches generally, from their zeal
against Pelagianism; and by the church of Rome in
particular; whose bishop, Celestine, sharply reproved
certain bishops in Gaul, for their having endured the
faulting of some of the harshest of the opinions of
'that father, by some of their respective priests. Aus-
tin reigned triumphant, from his own age to that of the
reformation, both in the churches and in the schools; to
the e-idnsion of any pubiick proceeding derogatory to

-with the Early Fathers, 501

his doctrine, unless there should be thought an excep-
tion in the case of poor Godeschalc; which, however, in-
terested but a small part of the church, although the
permitting of the cruel treatment of him has always
seemed surprising on the part of Rome; because,
between hisopinions and those of Austin, which she pa-
tronized, there are but slight shades of difference. After
the beginning of the reformation, there came the coun-
cil of Trent. It is impossible, but that the learned of this
body must have perceived the inconsistency between the
doctrine of Chrysostom and that of Austin. Both of them,
however, were too fast bound on the church of Rome to
be disengaged, consistently with her professed princi-
ple. The course taken by the council, under the pres-
sure of this difficulty, was the most discreet that can be
imagined. They had the address to frame their decrees
in a manner so accomodated to the opposite sentiments
which had been delivered by the theologians during the
preceding discussions, that these combatants continued
their metaphysical war after the decision of the council;
each side contending, that it was in their favour. In
the 17th century, Jansenism became in France, what
Calvinism was in England. On each side of the question,
different bishops took different sides. And yet, in the
breasts of these bishops were the sources of traditionary
truth, from whence there was to have issued an authori-
tative declaration of it, had any council been called for
such a purpose. The whole thread of the history ol this
controversy, is unfavourable to the claim of the infallibili-
ty of the Roman Church; but the early period oi it is
peculiarly so. For there we have an instance of the
change of sentiment of Christian bishops generally, with-

502 Comparison of the Controversy, &c.

in the compass of an age. The change extended also to
the bishop of Rome himself, and to his church consider-
ed within its provincial bounds; the only bounds within
which he was considered as acting with authority, until
within a short period of the time when the change took
place.

When the writer of this speaks of the church of Rome
as not extending her authority beyond her bounds un-
til a certain period referred to, he means it exclusively
of any proceedings of the bishops of that church, on the
ground of the common concern which was supposed
obligatory on all bishops, for the maintaining of the inte-
grity of the Christian faith throughout the world. In the
case of essential errour, any one bishop would have been
thought justifiable in rejecting the communion of ano-
ther. The period referred to, is the time of the decrees
of the council of Sardica, which extended the jurisdic-
tion of the bishop of Rome, as it did also the jurisdic-
tions of three other bishops, beyond their respective
provincial limits. *

Let there then be due stress laid, not only on what
the fathers testify; but on the effect of their testimony,
In ascertaining the states of opinion in times before
them. St. Paul gives the instruction to a Christian
bishop — " The things that thou hast heard of me,
among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faith-
ful men, who shall be able to teach others also."* And
St. Peter savs — "I will endeavour that ye may be able,
after my decease, to have these things always in remem-
brance, "f No doubt, the care which they and other
apostles exercised to transmit the faith entire, must have
» 2. Tim. ii. 2. t 2. i. \$.

with the Early Pothers. 503

had some traditionary effect on times succeeding. If
any one ask — On what pr.nciple is the degree of it to be
estimated? The answer is — By what is known of human
nature and the laws which govern it, in all similar cir-
cumstances of importance. That perpetuity is not to be
expected, there is abundant evidence in every line, to
which the principle may be applied. On this account,
there is reason to rejoice, that God has vouchsafed to
give a more permanent rule in the scriptures; which,
agreeably to this his design, have been preserved in
such integrity under the operation of his providence,
that contending parties almost universally consent in
them, however they may differ in their interpretations.
And it is here conceived, that the difference would be.
much less in this respect, if, agreeably to the medium
intended to be observed in this division of the work,
due deference were paid to the testimonies of the writers
of the church, in the first three centuries; yet, not with-
out making; a considerable distinction between those
who were near the source of inspiration, and those who
were more remote from it.

The author, in the conclusion of these remarks, has
his mind impressed by that passage of scripture, in
which, on the opening of the fifth seal, there were display-
ed, in prophetick vision, under the altar — " The souls
of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the
testimony which they held:"* Words designed to ap-
ply to the martyrs, during the early persecutions. And
the question forced itself on his mind — Is it possible,
that these holy men should have been commended as
'^faithful unto the death," without a correct apprehen-

* Rev. vi. 9".

'504 Comparison of the Controversy, fcfc.

sion of the saving truths of the profession for which
they suffered? This must have been their condi-
tion, if what is now called Calvinism be of the essence
of divine truth. For, of election and reprobation, as
exhibited by that theory; of the imputation of the sin of
Adam; of a natural inclination m all men to all manner
of wickedness; of an irresistible grace; and of the im-
possibility of falling from it finally; there is not a record
to show, that they were taught, or even heard of, in the
ages anticipated in the prophecy which has been quoted.
And yet, of the martyrs suffering within that term, it is
said— "White robes were given to them;" expressive
of the honour by which they are distinguished in the
state of rest, wherein they look forward to the con-
summation of bliss, as well in body as in soul. If Cal-
vinism was unknown to these, it cannot make any part
of " the faith which was once delivered to the saints."

PART III.
AN APPENDIX;

Containing an Argument against Calvinism, from some
Circumstances attending the Introduction of it into
the Church.

Design — Late Introduction of the Theory of St. Austin — Its Con-
trariety to the precedent Faith of the Church— He at first agreed

' with the early Fathers — His Innovation offended many — It ap-
peared in a mis-shapen Form — Opposite Positions of ' his Father
— He never censured as essentially erroneous, the Opinions
which he had abandoned— A Circumstance, showing his Pro-
pensity to needless Speculation — Inference.

IN this third part of the present work, there have
been occasionally remarks, tending to the point to be
here maintained; yet directed, severally, to the more
restiicted purposes, for the sake of which they were
made. It has therefore been judged to have a tendency
to the object of the whole, to embody the remarks
into an argument against the Calvinistick system gene-
rally. The argument will relate to those innovations
made in theology, in the beginning of the fifth century,
which have all along been held out, as the substance
of the Calvinistick theory.

But there is another reason, in thus bringing into view
the remarks which have been made on the changes in-
troduced by Austin. It is, that there is thought a use
in setting down from this father, some passages on one

VOL. I. t 3

506 appendix,

side, and some on the other, of the controversy; in or-
der to give strength to the argument, intended to be
drawn from the change which took place in himself, and
in a very great proportion of the Christian world.

The first matter to be noticed, is the introduction of
the system at so late a period; and then, principally
owing to the combination of the influence of a single
doctor of the church, with circumstances favourable to
the effect which followed. Exclusively of the question —
How far the theory is taught in the scriptures, which is the
principal point at issue; the present writer may reason-
ably proceed on the ground, that of the remains of the
fathers of the church, transmitted to these times, there
is no evidence of the Calvinistick sides of what have
been called the five points.

There shall be here made a very brief reference to
what has been already cited from Calvin himself, to this
effect— It has been seen, that concerning the question of
freewill, which enters into every department of the con-
troversy, he considered the fathers as allowing too much
to natuie: which he supposed to be owing to their
dread oi provoking the ridicule of the philosophers. He
was aware of his seeming to do a prejudice to his cause,
in making the confession. Nevertheless, it is amply
made; and as to predestination founded on prescience,
he says it has had great advocates in all ages. Of advo-
cates of his own opinion in the Christian church, he
does not mention any, and therefore it is presumable
that none were to be found.

Of the presumption concerning Arminian w ters to
the same purpose, there shall be mentioned that of
bishop Burnet only. It is in the preface to his exposition;

An Argument against Calvinism, 507

where he says — «« I folio w the doctrine of the Greek
church, from which St. Austin departed, and formed a
new system."*

It would be easy to multiply authorities, in which
this matter is taken for granted: but let it suffice to
name one more authority — that of a Calvinistick divine
already noticed — Gerard Vossius. After having given
quotations in his work, from page 550 to 571, he says—
" Augustine, that he might the more bravely encoun-
ter Pelagius, added this appendix to the opinion which
had been common to the fathers; and defended by him-
self, after he became a bishop — That grace is offered
to one in preference to another, and is more efficacious
in one than in another, comes from the absolute decree
of God." Vossius then goes on to prove what he af-
firms, by quotations. It is not here known, that the
assertion of this respectable writer has been assailed;
although it has been long before the world, in a work
of so high a reputation, as that of his history of the
Pelagian controversy.

It has been noticed concerning a late writer in the con-
troversy, Mr. Toplady, that he conceived of his ha-
ving discovered, in writers antecedent to Austin, some
fragments of sentences savouring of Calvinism. Pro-
bably, other such writers as Mr. Toplady might be
found on inquiry. But it is here presumed, that their
labours in this line will be generally perceived to be re-
solvable into such an extraordinary degree of zeal for their
cause, that, in point of authority, they will not be put
in competition with authors, so much higher in reputa-
tion for talents and learning: among whom is Calvin

* Page 6.

oOS Appendix.

himself; who cannot be supposed to have been so in-
cautious, as to have unnecessarily made a concession,,
very unfavourable to his whole theory.

For that this is to be affirmed of it, rests on the utter
improbability — -and what, indeed, from our knowledge
of causes and their effects, may be called a moral im-
possibility, that, after the revelation made to the world
by Jesus Christ and his apostles, the very spirit of the
system — the very doctrines which manifested it to be
of grace — should, for die first three hundred years, dis-
continue to make a part of the faith of Christians, and
to influence their practice. And then, that such a de-
fection should be an indelible stain on the ages, which,
according to the estimation of all Christendom, the
most abounded with shining examples of every Chris-
tian grace, and in which the church was the most plen-
tifully watered with the blood of martyrdom, seems one
of the last positions, which the known principles of hu-
man nature should permit us to believe. The senti-
ment has been sufficiently unfolded in the body of the
work, and is now introduced, only for the assemblage
in which it is to be exhibited.

The second particular 10 be named, is the opposition
in which the theory of St. Austin stands, to sentiments
of eminent doctors of the church, in the ages before
him; who had been ali along held in admiration and in
honour; and who did not cease to be so, under the in-
creasing popularity of his principles. There have been
quoted in this work, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Na-
zianzen,and many others, who affirmed a predestina' ion
founded on prescience. It is presumed, that instruc-
tions to this eilect would never have been born with by

An Argument against Calvinism. 509

anv church, in which the current doctrine was a salvation
founded on the sovereignty of God, operating in the elec-
tion of some and the utter reprobation of others, with-
out regard to faith and works foreseen of them respec-
tivel}'. . Or, if the former doctrine had crept into any
particular church and prevailed there for a time; it may
be presumed, that the errour, when detected, would
have destroyed all credit to the men, by whom it had
been either introduced or patronized. But, neither of
these was the effect in the present instance. Is it not
evident, that when the new theory showed her face,
with a diffidence and a toleration so ill suited to her sub-
jects, it must have been from a consciousness of her
novelty?

Sdly; it has been shown, that St. Austin himself
agreed in principle with the fathers who had gone be-
fore him, until he changed his mind during the progress
of the Pelagian controversy. Were such a change to be
affirmed, concerning any distinguished character of a
Calvinistick church at the present day; diere is perhaps
no hearer who would not presume, that an acknowledg-
ment of having been heretofore under dangerous and
essential errour, had preceded present influence and
estimation. Is any thing to the amount of this to be
found in Austin? Far from it. For although in his book
of Retractations, he very honourably revokes certain past
mistakes; yet he is far from humbling himself under the
errour in question — fertile as it is supposed to be of
spiritual pride; and striking directly, as it is also affirm-
ed to do, at the sovereignty of God.

This lather, before the appearance of Palagius, had
written three books on freewill, as unreservedly as had

510 Appendix,

been done by any of the fathers, who have been quoted
in this work. Being accused of this by the Pelagians,
he made, answer in his retractations, that the books had
been written against the Manichees, who affirmed the
origin of evil to be in God. It was in contrariety to
these, Austin says, that he had affirmed evil to be from
the human will, without taking into view the question
of the grace of God, which was now the matter at issue,
but had not entered into the former controversy, This
seems a sufficient answer, so far as the Pelagians were
concerned. But in the controversy between the Calvin-
ists and the Arminians; the latter, who are as far as the
other from denying the grace of God, may remark, that
in doing this, he has adopted the very language which
they use in contradiction to their opponents; and that
it must be true in regard to them, if it be truly held up
against the others. There seems less weight in another
ground of defence, which Austin has taken in his retrac-
tations. The plea now alluded to is, that the liberty which
he defended was predicated of man in his first estate, and
not in his fall. This is contradicted by the whole thread
of the argument, in the three books on freewill. The ar-
gument is carried on in the form of a dialogue, which
connects the question with the practical subject of
human conduct, in the present life. The matters here
affirmed will appear in extracts from these books, intend-
ed to be subjoined.

4thly; Another circumstance marking the novelty of
St. Austin's doctrine, is the surprise which it occasion-
ed, and the opposition which it met with from persons
of high respectability in the church, who, how-
ever, did not fall under the charge of heresy, or under any
judicial censure on that account.

An Argument against Calvinism. 511

Considering the popularity attaching to the writings
of the ablest defender of the faith against the Pelagians;
and further, the great authority of the Roman see,
which was put out in its full vigour in favour of the new
theory; it may easily be conceived, that there may have
been multitudes of dissentients every where, without
their complaints having been transmitted to these times.
And it is only in consequence of existing documents of
correspondence between St. Austin and his friend, St.
Prosper, and between the former and Hilary, afterwards
bishop of Aries, that we have information of the ex-
treme dissatisfaction, occasioned by some positions m
Austin's work, to the clergy and the monks in and near
Marseilles. From the correspondence it appears, that
these persons considered the doctrine as unheard of in
the church, till then. In regard to the quality of the
complainants, Prosper calls them u very famous men;
and excellent in a studious attention to all virtues."
And he further writes of them as follows — " To the
authority of those who think thus, we are not equal,
because they both much excel us in a good life,
and some of them are above us in the lately obtained!
honour of the priesthood." Hilary, in like manner,
writes — "There are such persons on that side, that it is
necessary for the laity to entertain towards them the
utmost reverence, according to the custom of the
church;" and — " It is worthy of your prudence to dis-
cern what is to be done, that the intention of such arid
so great men may be overcome or tempered." In this
correspondence, care is taken 10 distinguish between
those who assailed St. Austin on Pelagian principles,
and the persons described; who are represented as

512 Appendix.

holding anti-pelagian sentiments, in regard to the neces-
sity of divine grace. Now, although it is true, that the
bishop of Rome, much the friend of St. Austin, dis-
countenanced the objecting clergy and monks in the
south of France; yet, it was far from being in such a
manner, as implied the charge of heresy, and as prevails
in every communion, in which the theory opposed is
the known and established doctrine. The union of the
authority of Celestine and that of Austin, shall not be
here ascribed to the motive attributed to them by the
infidel Voltaire; who, in his Treatise on Toleration,
after describing the former as a merciless tyrant, says —
" He" (Austin) "truckled to the bishop of Rome, only
for the sake of playing the tyrant in Africa." Of these
two men it is here conceived, that, instead of being part-
ners in iniquity, they were very pious and virtuous
persons, who were sincere in maintaining what they con-
ceived to be the truth; but whose zeal in the propaga-
tion of it was considerably damped, by the opposition
in which it stood to the hitherto prevailing doctrines of
the church. A similar application might be made of an
event which took place in the monastery of Adrume-
tum; occasioning a correspondence of their abbot with
St. Austin.

There is a remarkable fact, relative to one of the
French clergy, to whom the opposition in Marseilles
is ascribed. The person meant is Cassian, who was in
the highest reputation, both as a writer, and as a man of
a very holy life and conversation. He was a cotempo-
rary of Au-tin. The works of Cassian are said to have
been full of good sense and piety. Although they
^re known to have contained many things in opposition

An Argument against Calvinism. 513

to the sentiments of St. Austin, on the subjects of pre-
destination and Freewill; yet, in defiance of the popularity
of the latter, awd the countenance afforded to them by
the papacy, the other work continued to be admired
and much read, in monasteries and elsewhere," having
something " so powerful and divine" — thus Du Pin
quotes from Photius — " that the monasteries which ob-
served that rule made themselves eminent for their sin-
gular virtues;" "and besides" — continues Photius —
u there are none, in my judgment, that are more useful,
spiritual, and tend more to piety and true devotion."
Certain it is, that the dominant authority of the times
was obliged to yield to diversity of opinion in this in-
stance, on subjects concerning which it had positively
decided. It was not congenial with the temper of the
papacy at the time — it has not been congenial with the
views of any Calvinistick church in any time — to bear
with such deviations, from what is conceived of as the
very essence of divine truth. Consciousness of novelty
is the only principle, which can account for its being
born with at the time referred to.

Perhaps it may be objected, that there was born with,
the errour of Cassian and others of Marseilles, consist-
ing in what took the name of semi-pelagianism. This,
although it acknowledged the necessity of the grace of
God to perfect good in man, denied the necessity of the
same grace, to the beginning of it. There is no ground
for such a distinction in the scriptures; which speak on
the subject so generally, as to comprehend what, in the
succeeding times, took the name of preventing grace.
And indeed, much of scripture to the point is brought
into view, by that argument of St. Austin, against the

vol. i u 3

514 Appendix.

Pelagians — applying equally against the semi pelagians
— in which he remarks the absurdity of praying for the
salvation of sinners, on any other supposition than that
of a grace preventing or going beiore any salutary mo-
tions of their wills. The only way of accounting for the
opposite errour in such persons, is the lit'le discussion
which the subject had undergone, until brought under
minute examination by the controversy excited by
Ptlagius. Si. Austin himself stands in need of this apo-
logy; since he acknowledges, that before the said period,
he had not admitted what he at last perceived to be the
full import of the declaration of the anostle, that faith
itself is the gift of God. These circumstances may ac-
count for the tolerating of semi pelagianism, until about
a century after the time in question, when it was for-
mally condemned. Be these things as they may, it is
evident— and this is the only use for which these facts
are introduced — that in some districts of the church,
and pr .bably in many more than those noticed, there
was felt a shock from the novelty accompanying the
opinions of St. Austin.

5thly. There is no small evidence of the new invention
of the theory in the beginning of the fifth century, in
its then appearing in such a misshapen form, as required
to be better modelled by Calvin and those who followed
him. What is here especially alluded to, is there being
suffered to prevail the hitherto received opinion, that
there may be a final tall from grace. " The perseverance
of the hints'' was a doctrine not conceived of in the
days of Austin; of which, evidence has been already
given, it equally escaped him, to devise the expedient
•f a covenant of works, and the imputation of the sin

An Argu m en t aga inst Calvin ism . 515

of Adam, in order to account, as they are supposed
to do, for the justice of the divine procedure. Con-
spicuous as is the figure which original sin, makes
in the theoiy of the father, it is inherent: the stain
being thought sufficient to justify the damnation of
all unbaptized infants; but done away in baptism,
although the propensity may remain. Without their
being contemplated in the person of their progenitor,
and their being affected by the act of him as their repre-
sentative; their inheriting of his depraved nature, seemed
sufficient far the purpose, in the age referred to. But
there was afterwards thought an advantage gained, from
the circumstance of the representative's offending against
a known law. How far the constituting of such a repre-
sentation is a credible hypothesis, is another question.
It is satisfactory to those by whom it is affirmed; but
Austin seems to have been a stranger to it.

The imperfection of the system of Calvinism, as lefc
by St. Austin, may especially appear from the following
concession in the late work of Mr. Milner — " From the
review of the Pelagian controversy, the attentive reader
will see, that the article of justification must be involved
in Augustine's divinity, and doubtless it savingly flour-
ished in his heart, and in the hearts of many of his fol-
lowers; yet the precise and accurate nature of the doc-
trine itself seems not to have been understood by this
holy man. He perpetually understands St. Paul's term,
to justify, of inherent righteousness, as if it meant, sanc-
tification. Still, he knew what faith in the Redeemer
meant, and those parts of scripture, which 'speak of
forgiveness of sins, he understands, he feels, he loves:
but St. Paul's writings concerning justification he

516 Appendix*

understands not sufficiently, because the precise idea of
that doctrine entered not formally into hi.-, divinity."*
Mr. Milner professes to have taken the above, from
" The Theological Miscellany for September, 1785.'*
another Calvinistick work of celebrity.

The writer of this proposed, in the beginning, to
"exhibit to the eye some instances of the contrariety in
the sentiments of St. Austin himself, before and after he
became engaged in his conflict with the Pelagians. But
it will be proper to note the points, to which the quota-
tions will apply. With the fifth point of the controver-
sy— perseverance — there will be no need to meddle; be-
cause the ancient faith, as to that particular, continued
to be maintained. They who impugned his doctrine
perceived and maintained, as an objection to the new
theory, that the ancient was contradicted by it. Doubt-
less, this was a consequence fairly drawn. The present
writer entertains the opinion, that Austin perceived the
tendency of his theory to be hostile to the doctrine of
universal redemption, descended to him along the stream
of antiquity; and to bring the subject into the shape in
which it now appears, in the standards of churches con-
fessedly Calvinistick. Certain it is, that in his contro-
versial writings, he hesitated to pursue his principles
into their consequences: so that they who affirm him
to be a maintainer of universality, are obliged to call on
the testimony of his friend St. Prosper; who, on slen-
der grounds, vouches to that effect. The reserve of
the father on the subject made it more easy, some cen-
turies afterwards, to persecute Godeschalc; who did
but say, in plain terms, what had been indirectly said by
one whose orthodoxy had never been impeached, and

* Vol. 2. page 441.

An Argument against Calvinism. 517

whose authority continued to be triumphant. For the
reasons given, the prominent points will be — predesti-
nation, freewill, and grace. The passages will be trans-
lated from Vossius.

I rom works before the Pelagian controversy. " No
one is chosen; unless already differing, in character,
from him who is rejected. Wherefore, I do not see
why it is said — because God has chosen us before the
foundation of the world; unless by foreknowledge: to
wit, of deservings; that is of faith and piety."*

Again he says, speaking of Jacob — " He was not
elected that he might become good; but being good,
he might be elected." And explaining certain words
of our Saviour in St. Matthew — " But God chose them,
as says the apostle, according to his grace, and accord-
ing to their righteousness. "f

In commenting on John. 8. 47. — " Ye, therefore,
hear them not, because ye are not of God," he remarks
— " It is said to those who were not only depraved by
sin (for this is an evil common to all) but foreknown as
not believing with that faith, by which alone they
could be freed from the bond of their sins. Where-
fore, he foreknew, that they to whom he said such
things would remain in it, because they were of the
devil, that is, to die in their sins and impiety, in which
they were like him; and would not come to the regene-
ration in which they would be the sons of God; that is,
born of God, by whom they were created men. The
Lord spoke according to this predestination; not that he
found any man, who, according to the regeneration,
could be already of God; or, according to nature, might
not already be of God. "J

* Vossius, page 557. t Idem, ibid. % Idem, page 569.

518 Appendix,

In reference to Matthew xxv. 34, he writes thus —
"It is not unworthy of God to say — Go into everlasting
fire, to those who, through freewill, reject his mercy; and
to say — Come ye blessed of my Father, receive the king-
xlom — to those who through freewill receive his faith,
confess their sins, perform repentance, are displeased
with what they are, and are pleased with what they have
become through him."*

It will hardly be denied, that 'the above extracts are
exactly agreeable to the creed, long since called Armi-
nian. There shall now be given extracts, which apply
as strictly to the Calvinisiick creed.

" The effect of divine pity cannot be in the power of
man, so that he shall have mercv on him in vain, if man
is unwilling; because, if it were his will to have mercy on
him, he might so call, as were requisite for them, that
they should be moved, and understand and follow:,,—
and soon after — "God will not have mercy in vain; but
whom he will pity, him he also calls, in a manner which
he knows to suit the case, so that he may not reject
him who calls." And after some other things— "When
one is moved to the faith thus, and another thus, and the
same thing said in one way sometimes moves and some-
times does not move; and moves one and not another;
who may dare to say, that there was wanting to God a
manner of calling, by which Esau also might have given
his mind and united his will to that faith, whereby Jacob
was justified?" And afterwards — "It may be most tena-
ciously and firmlv believed, that God will have mercy
on whom he will, and harden whom he wiil.f

In another work — "No will of man resists him"

* Vossius page 569. f Ititm page 572.

An Argument against Calvinism. 519

(God) "willing to save him:" and afterwards — "It is
not to be doubled of, that human wills cannot resist the
divine will, so as to hinder him from making of
them ,what he will."* In another — "This grace
which is secretly given to human hearts, by the di-
vine bounty, is by no hard heart rejected. "f In
another — "Of two infants alike bound by original
sin, why one is taken and the other left; and of two
adults, why this is so called that he obeys the calling, and
the ether is not called, or is not so called that he obeys
the culling, are the inscrutable judgments of God. "J
And in another — "If any force us to search into this
depth, why one is so addressed, that he is persuaded,
but another is not so; two things only occur, which I,
choose to answer — O, the depth of the riches! and — Is
there iniquity with God? — Let him who is dissatisfied
with this answer, seek such as are more satisfactory.
But let him be aware, that he find not such as are more
presumptuous. "§

When St. Austin had changed his mind on the sub-
jects of predestination and grace, he does not appear to
have revoked his preceding errours in any such man-
ner, as is expressive of his apprehending of them to be
fundamental. Many a follower of his doctrine, and
admirer of his character, would conceive of any minister
of the Gospel, in whom such a change should take place
at the present day, as bound to think himself then, and
not before, taken hold on by the resistless grace of God.
St. Austin had especially an opportunity for this, when
he wrote his book of Retractations of former Errours.

* Vossius page 573. t Mem Ibid. 574. \ Idem 574.

§ Idem. Ibid.

520 Appendix.

But whoever reads that b >ok will perceive, that
there is no such humiliation, exacted by the impor-
tance of the occasion, as it is estimated by modern
theory.

In his book "of the Predestination of the Saints,"
referring to his former opinion on the subject, he
ascribes his present better knowledge to a due consi-
deration of the text — " What hast thou, that thou didst
not receive?"* Now, it seems surprising, that so good
a man, and so distinguished a bishop as Austin had be-
come, before the appearance of Peiagius, could ever
have conceived the contrary to what this text affirms,
in any sense in which it can be taken. But the sense in
the place in which it stands, is really no more than
what relates to the possession of such gifts, as ordinarily
create a rivalship. The sentiment is substantially the
same with what the very heathen acknowledged; of
which there is a specimen in Homer, in what Agamem-
non says of Achilles, without any subtile distinctions
concerning divine grace and human liberty — " Know,
that the ever existing gods have made you warlike;"!
involving the acknowledgment, that every gift is from a
higher power: however the proper cultivation of it may
require the putting forth of human energy, which was
equally given from on high.

But, without going further into the sufficiency of
Austin's reasons for his change; the fact is confessed,
that the change was made: a change from a theory of
religion, which is thought to rob God of his sovereignty;
to another, which is thought to ascribe to him ail his
glory. Now, it is contended hen-, that there are no

* 1 . Cor. iv. 7. f EtJe fAtv cci%ftt}T>iv titntt 6toi etut totTtf.

An Argument against Calvinism. 5-21

-evidences in Austin's works, of that penitence and that
sensibility to divine grace, as it respected the being
rescued from errour, which would be thought exacted
at the present day, by a similar illumination of divine
truth.

The writer of this supposes, that it will be not im-
proper, but in agreement with the general design of the
work, to note a circumstance in the character of this
celebrated father, accounting for what are here consider-
ed as his needless speculations in theology. The cir-
cumstance is, the fondness for speculations of that
description, which he seems to have brought with him
from philosophy; as will appear from the passage to be
here translated from the first of his three books on free-
will. The work is in the form of a dialogue: and when
Evodius, who bears the other part in it, had asked con-
cerning the origin of evil, Austin answers — " You pro-
pose the question, which exercised me vehemently
when I was a young man, and drove me among the
hereticks, and cast me down. By which accident, I was
so unhappy, and being oppressed with heaps of vanities,
I so prated, that unless my love of finding out the truth
had obtained for me divine help, it would have been
impossible for me to emerge from thence, and to breathe
again my Very first liberty of seeking the truth."* In
the passage quoted, there appears the naturally specu-
lative bent of the mind of this eminent man. And it may
with truth be added, that a great proportion of his volu-
minous works are a comment on the confession. Do
the scriptures, in any place, impose an obligation on
Christians, to perplex themselves with the inquiry,

* Aug. Opera, vol. 1, page 140, Paris ed. 1571.
VOL. I. x 3

522 Appendix.

which so exceedingly harassed the father in early life?
It will not be pretended that they do. Accordingly^
the next inquiry is — Whether it be not at least probable,
that the refined reasonings, introduced by him, as little
concern the ordinary Christian, as does the constitutional
character which led to them.

The writer of this, having cited the preceding pas.
sage, thinks it may be of use to remark a sentiment in
it, which, although not disowned in the retractations of
the father, is certainly in hostility with his anti-pelagian
armour. It is the connexion recognised between his
original sincerity, and his attaining at last, through divine
aid, to freedom of inquiry. The sentiment is precisely
the same with that of St. Paul — "I obtained mercy, be-
cause I did it ignorantly, in unbelief."* It is far from
being here thought, that any good is accomplished,
without a preceding divine motion. But surely, to jus-
tify either the sentiment of the apostle or that of the fa-
ther, the obeying or the disobeying of the motion cannot
be altogether independent on the agent.

Such is the opposition of opinion, between St. Austin
at one time of his life, and the same father at another; he
having been, at both the periods, a bishop; and enjoy inga
reputation, at least equal to that of any bishop or other
doctor of his day. When so manifest a contrariety is
contemplated; and when it is considered, that the senti-
ments of the later period were rendered popular principal-
ly by his influence; that they are different from the opi-
nions of the Christian writers of the preceding ages;
that there are evidences of sensibility excited by their
novelty, and complaint made of it; that after all, the
newly fabricated system did not innovate sufficiently to

* J.Tim, i. 13.

An Argument against Calvinism* 523

be consistent with itself; and that the influence of it ought
to be the less, because of his not having felt the weight of
his errour, if it were indeed one; the conclusion is, that,
these particulars combine in disproving the theory, and
of course Calvinism; which is confessedly the same in
substance, although renderered more consistent and
complete.

END OF VOLUME I<