stantly made it the basis of their arguments, appealing to the general sense of mankind*. The danger of a contrary doctrine ought also to bring its truth under suspicion. It leads to remissness, as if we could do nothing by activity, and were irresponsible; it leads to resting the whole of our obedience in prayer, as if the Spirit of God were solely answerable for all the rest. The wisdom, the justice, the holiness of God, are best glorified by supposing him not to exhort some men in Scripture to impossibilities, and other men to what they cannot avoid; for so he would really do on the hypothesis of the decrees, united to that of irresistible grace. The notion of total depravity, indeed, giving all to spiritual influence, and leaving no co-operation whatever to the human soul, is wholly inconsistent, in the case of all men, with exhortations to duty, and with the sanctions of reward and punishment. Invitations to repent, accompanied with promises and threats-calls to watch and pray, lest we enter into temptationbenefits conferred by God, for the purpose of seeing whether the recipients would walk in his ways or not, imply a state of probation, a decision of the understanding, an option of the will. And since that decision and that option, when exercised in embracing grace, is so far actively good, the Spirit is so far not the entire operator in conversion; and man is, to that extent, not totally de* See Butler's Analogy, p. 81 and 135. praved (Deut. viii. 2 and 16; xiii. 3; Judges, ii. 21; iii. 4; Exod. xvi. 4; Ezek. xviii. 26-28). Add to these remarks, that the doctrine of per. suasion without compulsion, is generally taught by the ancient fathers; by Irenæus, by Justin Martyr, by Cyril of Alexandria; who all disclaim the hypothesis of invincible necessity, as confounding the distinctions of virtue and vice, and destroying the probationary condition of man. These sentiments have gained force with the tide of time, and have been confirmed by the most enlightened commentators in later ages. Even AUGUSTINE says, "If there were not grace, how would the world be saved? if there were not freewill, how would the world be judged *?" Bishop Bull declined determining the exact measure of gratia divina et liberum arbitrium; yet certainly believed the fact of their joint action. And Dr. Doddridge (on John, vi. 44) declares, "That the drawing of God must necessarily suppose divine agency; but does not, therefore, exclude our consent to follow:" while in his comment on Rom. viii. 26, "the Spirit helpeth our infirmities," he states rightly, that συναντιλαμβανεται means the taking up of one end of a burden. It is urged by the advocates for total depravity, and for the SOLE operation of God in the work of conversion, that the comparison of this work to a * Vol. ii. p. 791, Ben. edit. new creation and a new birth (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15; Ephes. ii. 10; Tit. iii. 5), refers to the plastic power of the Creator over matter. But in all arguments drawn from analogy between the physical and moral world, allowance is ever to be made for the agency of reasonable beings. There is a foundation for the metaphor, because the impulse begins with God; and the Scriptures speak of creation as applied to man, in the sense of a change for the better. "Create in me a clean heart, &c." (Psalm li. 10; Isaiah, lxv. 18). When, however, we are exhorted to "put on the new man" (Ephes. iv. 24), and to be renewed in the spirit of our minds (ver. 23), we are plainly directed to a co-operation. Again, in our natural birth, we are passive under the hand of God; our spiritual birth is produced by the moral persuasion of the Divine Word. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. x. 17). Man, therefore, may be spiritually created anew, and born of God, without supposing God to act exclusively of human co-operation *. As to the texts, 1 Cor. ii. 14, "The natural man discerneth not the things, &c." and John, * Bishop Tomline has clearly demonstrated the word “regeneration" to be invariably considered in Scripture, and in our public formularies, as signifying the work of baptism; but it seems to me, that his Lordship might have saved himself that trouble, since, if mental renewal, or conversion, is mentioned in Scripture, it is idle to dispute about a word. vi. 44, "No man can come, except the Father draw him;" Acts, xi. 18, and Ephes. ii. 8, which represent God as giving faith and repentance; Ezek. xi. 19, 20, which states him to be the giver of a new spirit; and Philip. ii. 13, with Heb. xiii. 21, they are all reconcilable with human co-operation, and suppose it. God's first gifts are the understanding and the will; and his latter gifts are not revocations of those excellent ones, but are vouchsafed so as to direct and draw, though not totally to supersede them. We are commanded to believe and to repent (1 John, ii. 23; and Acts, xvii. 13); which commandment is an address to our faculty of optional exertion. God commands his people to MAKE THEMSELVES a new heart (Ezek. xviii. 30, 31; Isaiah, i. 16); and because he worketh in us, we are, therefore, to work out our own salvation (Philip. ii. 12, 13). There may be some few passages which seem, when considered by themselves, to represent God as the sole agent in renewing the heart; but there are others capable of being singled out by the Socinians as attributing the same province exclusively to man. Since Scripture, then, cannot contradict itself, we must infer co-operation on the self-same ground on which we maintain the doctrine of the Trinity. Some texts represent our Lord as God; others as man: he is, therefore, God and man. In both cases the conclusion contended for is the only hypothesis which embraces all the 1 facts*. If it be said, that to assume co-operation introduces boasting before God, in whose sight no flesh should glory (1 Cor. i. 29), nay, boasting conversion to be partly by works, contrary to the affirmation of Scripture (Ephes. ii. 9), I answer, that all glory is attributed to God, as the author and giver of salvation; while we acknowledge also our good works to be actuated by his Spirit, and not to be performed by our own strength. It is also of grace that our imperfect works are accepted. There is a glorying in obedience (1 Cor. ix. 15, 16)5 though not in the merit or sufficiency of works as independent of grace, and as superseding! faith (Rom. iii. 37; iv. 2; and 1 Cor. i. 29, 31). Is 1 The two passages, Ephes. ii. 8, " By grace ye are saved through faith, &c." and Rom. vi. 23, "The gift of God is eternal life;" may be explained by Matt. vii, 14; Heb. x. 20; and Aets, xvi. 17. The former imports, By grace ye have the power of being saved through faith; and the latter, The gift of God is the way of eternal life t. By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, &c." Ka Tero is considered by Mr. Faber as referring not to FAITH, as the gift of God, but to the whole sentence; for, although faith be the gift of God in one sense, as EVERY good and perfect gift is from above, this text does not entirely exclude the power of assent to or dissent from the doctrines proposed to our faith, and of acceptance or rejection of the grace OFFERED . Mr. Faber, by the way, is under stood to be one of those mulattoes, the moderate Calvinists; but if these be indeed his real sentiments, he is not half so good a Calvinist as Mahomet was. |