ous defenders of Evangelical doctrines; who believe man to be wholly corrupted by the fall; who believe in the doctrine of justification by faith in the blood of Christ, and in sanctification by his Spirit; and, as these carefully distinguish their tenets from the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian heresies, those who have confounded them with such heretics, have been'very defective either in attention or in candour. In extenuation of this error it may be justly pleaded, that some of those who have pretended to give an impartial statement of Arminianism, have given one utterly false and unjust. We must then have recourse to the writings of Arminius himself, and learn his creed from his own works. It would be of no general use to give his sentiments in a language, known only to the learned; and as we wish that nothing in a case so important should rest upon our judgment, we shall quote from a periodical publication of high respectability, the Editors of which take no part in the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, what is sufficient for our purpose. Let us first attend to his sentiments with respect to Original Sin, the source of that corruption which has universally spread itself over our diseased nature.

"The immediate and proper effect of Adam's sin was the displeasure of God. For since sin is the transgression of the law, it first and immediately offends the Legislator, who conceives just wrath, which is the second effect of sin. From wrath follows the infliction of punishment, which is here twofold,-First, the guilt of death, bodily and spiritual. Second, the privation of holiness and original righteousness, which being the effect of the Holy Ghost dwelling in man, ought not to remain in him who had fallen from the favour of God, and incur

red his wrath; for that Spirit is the sign of the favour and good will of God.

"But this sin is not peculiar to the first of mankind, but common to the whole race, and to all their descendants, who at that time when they sinned were in their loins, and afterwards by the natural mode of propagation, descended from them, according to the primeval blessing. For all sinned in Adam. Whatsoever punishment therefore is brought upon the first parents, pervades and presses the whole posterity, so that all by nature are sons of wrath, guilty of condemnation and of death, both temporal and eternal, finally destitute of the original righteousness and holiness, with which evils they will continue oppressed to eternity, unless they are delivered from them by Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever."-Arminius's Public Disputations. Thesis vii.

"As to the grace of God," observes this divine, "I believe that it is-First, The gratuitous affection by which God is well disposed towards the miserable sinner: according to which, he gives in the first place the Son, that whosoever believeth in him may have eternal life. Then, in and for Jesus Christ, justifies him and admits him into the right of a son for salvation. Secondly, that it (grace) is an infusion of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, both in the understanding, and in the will and affections which belong to his regeneration and renovation, such as faith, hope, charity, and that without these gifts man is not fit to think, will, or do any good thing. Thirdly, That it (grace) is the continual assistance of the Holy Ghost, by which the Holy Spirit urges and excites to good, the man after he is born again, by pouring into him wholesome thoughts, and inspiring good desires, that so he may actually will that which is good by which moreover

He may from that time, will and operate together with man, so that man may accomplish that which God wills. And this mode I ascribe to grace the beginning, continuance, and completion of all good, insomuch that after a man is regenerated, without this preventing, co-operating, and exciting grace, he can neither think, will, nor do any thing that is good, nor resist any temptation to evil.

"Hence, it appears that I do no injury to grace, and am not, as I am reported, one who attributed too much to the free-will of man, for the whole controversy turns upon this, whether the grace of God is an irresistible force. That is, the controversy is not about the actions, or operations, which may be ascribed to grace, of which I confess and inculcate as many as any other person, but concerning the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible. For as to this, I believe according to the Scriptures, that many resist the Holy Spirit, and repel offered grace.

66

Again, a question is moved concerning the words, faith is imputed for righteousness, (Rom. iv.) whether they are to be understood properly, as if faith itself, as an act performed according to the command of the Gospel, be imputed before God, to or for righteousness, and that of grace, since it is not the very righteousness of the law; or whether they should be so understood, that the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, is imputed to us for righteousness, figuratively and improperly; or whether that the righteousness, to or for which faith is imputed, be the instrumental work of faith, as some assert. I have followed the first opinion, in the thesis disputed under me, concerning Justification. For this cause I am said to teach wrong concerning man's justification before

At

God. This may be cleared up at a proper season. present 1 briefly say, that I believe that sinners are made righteous through the sole obedience of Jesus Christ, and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause, for which God forgives sin to believers, and counts them for righteous, no otherwise than if they had perfectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none but believers, in this sense I affirm it to be well and properly said, that faith is imputed to the believer for righteousness through grace: since God hath offered his Son Jesus Christ to be the tribunal of grace, or the propitiation through faith in his blood. But, however, my opinion is the same as that of Calvin, to whose third book of the Institutes, on this subject, I am ready to subscribe."-Declaration of Arminius.*

Now, when we have heard Arminius state his own belief, let us hear how it is stated for him, by Mr. Evans, in his Sketch. Having observed that the tenets of Arminius include five propositions, he gives this as the third, “That mankind are not totally depraved, and that depravity does not come upon them by virtue of Adam's being their public head; but that mortality and natural evil only are the direct consequences of his sin to posterity." Several Calvinists have given representations of Arminius's doctrine on this head, equally false and distorted. Had Mr. Evans acted with the fairness and impartiality that Mr. Adams has displayed,† by giving the article as maintained by this divine, and then adding that which has been substituted in its place, by Dr. Gregory, and others, who take the name of Arminians, it must have been apparent to all how

• Christian Observer for March, 1807.

VOL. II.

Vol, u, p. 252.

F

+ Religious World Displayed, Note.

far the disciples have departed from the sentiments of their pretended master. The consequences of these misrepresentations are, that the disputants on both sides are often led into Quixotical adventures, and, when they cannot find a giant, they engage with a windmill.

It is evident from the review of the creed of Arminius, that he believed man to be so corrupted by the fall, that without the Holy Spirit of God preventing him, co-operating with him, and inclining him, he is not fit to think, to will, or to do any good thing. Who, after such a declaration, can affirm that Arminius denied either the doctrine of original sin, or that of regeneration by the Holy Spirit of God; or, lastly, that of justification through grace, by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ? With respect to the dispute about the freedom of the will, there is reason to suppose that it arises principally from the ambiguity of language, and is continued because the disputants misunderstand one another. Arminians are often by Calvinists (we mean the more illiberal part of them,) called Free-willers, and this name is not given them out of respect. But do not Calvinists maintain the freedom of the will, and the free agency of man as absolutely necessary to his being the subject of moral government? Calvinists sometimes assert that man, as a sinner, has no freedom of will to do good. Arminians affirm that man has freedom of will to good, and then, like men in the dark, they fall to blows, and after many are given and received on both sides, if they come to mutual explanations, they find the dispute to be, as Horace says, De laná caprina about words, and that both their affirmations are equally just, though in different respects. To the Calvinist's affirmation, that man as a sinner has no freedom of will to good, the Arminian supposing him to mean