1

determining power, under whatever terms that principle may be couched, it is by no means hazardous to predict that he never can explain 'or discover in what manner or in what pro* portion God and man co-operate." Let the incrustation formed by this false principle-an assumption no less degrading to the human mind that adopts it, than affronting to the spirit of truth and grace-let this covering be removed (and may it be removed from every mind,) and the glorious truth will shew itself. God is the source of all active power; from him every good gift, and every perfect gift" proceedeth: he is the author of every good prin

46

ciple in the moral as well as in the natural world. But the will of man, as well as every other will, is determined by some principle; and when to an act morally good, by a good principle. Consequently, God, according to his purpose and grace, is the sole and exclusive cause of every motive that actually determines a free agent to choose and act virtuously. Of every thought, desire, effort, exertion, and operation, that is truly good, God is the true parent,

46

according to the counsel of his own will.". If our work be good, it is because God worketh in us; for except his operation in us were good, our works would be certainly evil. But as no evil principle of action can possibly proceed from him; the evil of our work is exclusively our own.

§ 31. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary, the Bishop draws this general inference respecting the 17th Article: It appears, then, that the Calvinistic doctrines of Election and Reprobation are not only not 'maintained in this Article, but that they are 'disclaimed and condemned in the strongest terms.' To some parts of this remarkable

*

sentence, in a divided sense, I do not object. For instance, it does not appear that the doctrine of reprobation, as taught by CALVIN, and some others distinguished by his name, is maintained in this Article. But to say that the Calvinistic doctrine of election is not maintained in this Article,' is to overstep the bounds of polemical candour, and offend against the ingenuity that is solicited to make the assertion plausible. But through what medium did the Bishop view the Article when he concluded in his mind, and communicated by his pen, that in it Election is disclaimed and condemned,' in the strongest terms? Where is even Reprobation condemned,' much less in the strongest ' terms?' If we deal in assertions without proofs, we may boldly affirm that red is blue, or that white is black.

§ 52. In what manner, however, does his

* Refut. p. 269.

Lordship attempt to prove that the Predestination of the 17th Article is not Calvinistic? I hesitate, and enquire, Is it possible for a learned prelate to choose for his middle term, his own assumed sense of the Article? The sentence of Predestination he has been considering, it seems, is that by which God purposed and decreed 'to save all who shall believe and obey the 'gospel,' a 'merciful and consolatory doctrine!' But the Calvinistic Predestination is attended with much mischief and danger:' Therefore, the Calvinistic doctrine of Election is not intended in the Article. This is, truly, not a common mode of arguing with convincing reasoners, and indeed is much about as admissible as the following: The Calvinistic doctrine that secures the happiness of some, "is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons:" But the Tomlinistic Predestination which consists in making known the gospel of Christ,' and in making a conditional offer of salvation ' to men,' without any purposed certainty of salvation to any individuals, must be most gloomy and dreadful; because on this plan it is possible, if not probable, or even certain, that no human being will ever be saved: Therefore, the 17th Article which administers comfort, is for the Calvinists and against his Lordship!

33. There are two points totally overlooked,

which yet ought to be ascertained in order to an accurate view of the Article. First, whether the compilers had in view two kinds of predestination, one full of comfort, and the other tending to desperation: next, whether the very same kind of Predestination may not be to the godly pleasant and comfortable, but to the "carnal and curious," the reverse. I see no reason to infer, that the compilers referred to any other doctrine than that which they thought to be necessarily included in "Predestination to life." Yet I think it highly probable, that they were not free from the prevailing, though unfounded, sentiment, that predestination to life implied a predestination to death, although they very prudently did not express it. Whatever were their views of reprobation, however, they say nothing about it. The Article expressly treats of Predestination to life, which clearly must be the same as Election. Now if they had respect to two kinds of Predestination, one to life and the other to death, and if they thought these inseparable,'---one is expressed and the other implied. Godly persons dread neither part, and "curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ," can find no comfort in either. Those "who love God, and are the called according to his purpose," know that "all things work together for their good:" but the ungodly, whe neither love God nor have the Spirit of Christ,

are disposed to quarrel with the conduct of Providence, with the divine purposes, and indeed with the divine Perfections, and if so, it is no wonder if they quarrel with themselves, and rush either into desperation, and suicide, "or into wretchedness of most unclean living." It must be remembered, however, that a far greater proportion of those who run into such wickedness and folly, are the opposers of Calvinism. And it further deserves to be recollected, that no one is supposed by the Article to abuse the doctrine, but "curious and carnal persons;' who also abuse the bounties of Providence, only by slower steps, to their everlasting ruin.

§34. I will now add, that the "Predestination to life" maintained in this volume, is precisely the same as what is expressed in the 17th Article. But if the framers of it believed, as the Bishop of Lincoln professes to do, that a decree of Election is 'inseparable' from a decree of Non-Election, I differ from them as well as his Lordship, for reasons before adduced. If there be any thing terrific in the sound of Predestination, it must be from false associations; whereby persons darkly ascribe to God's purpose the evil no less than the good. Let this mist of error roll away, and the doctrine appears as cheering as the sun, from which proceed neither cold nor darkness, but light, and warmth, and