dence of God, nor do I deny to Him universal liberty in His own action. I acknowledge that the providence of God is absolutely free. In the creation of man, He acted freely; in bestowing free will on man, He acted freely. But, if one action of the Deity, through the providence of God itself, be supposed, the necessity of another act of the divine providence can be deduced from it, which necessity is dependent on the free dispensation of the antecedent act of providence. I will present another example, by which the same may be demonstrated. God has created angels with this condition, that they, who should not continue in their original innocence, should be punished forever without pardon. Some sinned. God, in the act of his governing providence, inflicted punishment on them by an act determined by previous creation, so that, if He did not wish to change that which was established in creation, He could not remit their punishment. This was my meaning in what I presented in answer to the third argument, which you do not refute, even though it be conceded that permission pertains to governing or ordaining providence, which I freely concede to you in the sense in which I have explained it. It should have been proved that the permission, by which man was left to his own control, pertains to reprobation or preterition, or that the permission, by which he was permitted to fail of the highest good, has place in reference to man, not a sinner, or considered as a sinner. Hence, also, those words of Thomas Aquinas (prima sum, quaes. 23, art. 3, in respons. generali), "For as predestination includes the purpose to bestow grace and glory, so reprobation includes the purpose to permit some to fall into transgression, and to inflict the punishment of damnation for that transgression," if diligently examined, are not accurately true. For the purpose to permit some to fall into transgression, does not belong to reprobation, since God permitted all men to fall into transgression.

This is also susceptible of proof from the acts which he attributes to predestination. The purpose of bestowing grace and glory is attributed to predestination. What grace? That by which some are not permitted to fall into transgression,

but are preserved in their original state of integrity? By no means; but that grace by which some are delivered from that sin into which all were permitted to fall. The act of reprobation, then, should have been directly opposed to that act of predestination. But that is a permission to remain in sin, or an abandonment in sin, which is a negative act, and a purpose to inflict punishment for the sin, which is an affirmative act. The former is the opposite of grace, the latter, of glory. But it is not strange that a man who has written so many most erudite volumes, should not have been able to examine accurately each and every subject.

TWENTY-FIRST PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS.

In a comparison of these two theories, the latter seems not more probable than the former, since it involves the same absurd consequence. This I will briefly prove. In the former theory, the following order may be observed. God decreed to illustrate His own glory by mercy and punitive justice. He could not effect this without the introduction of sin. Hence, sin must, of necessity, and with certainty, have been committed. It could only be committed by him who, being accountable to the law, was able to fulfill its requirements, but it could not be committed, of necessity and with certainty, by a free and contingent cause, (which could commit sin or refrain from it,) if it was not circumscribed and determined by a more powerful agent, surely and with certainty moving or impelling the cause, in its own nature, free and contingent, to the act of sin, or else withholding or withdrawing that which was necessary to the avoidance of sin, on which conditions the necessity and certain existence of sin, committed by the crea ture, depend. The chief advocates of the first theory disapprove of the former mode of action in the more powerful agent (that which moves and impels), and incline to the latter mode (that which withholds or withdraws). This mode is also stated in the second theory. For the creature, left to his own

nature, necessarily sins, if a law is imposed upon him, which can not be observed by the natural powers alone. God determined to leave the creature in his natural state.

He, therefore, determined also that the creature should sin, since that was the necessary sequence. But the reason of that determination can not be given, if it is not that which is proposed in the former theory. Indeed the former theory seems even more probable than the latter.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST PROPOSITION.

We have previously shown that those, which are called two theories, are not, in fact or substance, two, but differ only in their relations [secundum quid] and mode of explanations; that there is, therefore, one, I say not probable, but true theory, founded on the truth of God, and the authority of the Scriptures. We have, also, in the appropriate place, shown that the charge of absurdity which is made against this theory is futile. Since, however, this objection is repeated, we may also briefly repeat in what respects and on what grounds we demur to it. The first position-"God decreed to illustrate His own glory by mercy and punitive justice,” we have, in answer to the third proposition, shown to be expressed in too narrow terms.

The second, "He could not effect this without the introduction of sin," we thus proved to be an erroneous statement; for if the creature had remained righteous, there would have been an opportunity for mercy and justice, though the latter would not have been punitive in its character. Punitive justice, even, might have been displayed in respect to those things, which were unsuitable, on account, not of guilt, but of imprudence, for any just person is liable to this without sin or guilt.

In the third place, we deny that "sin must of necessity have been committed," as dependent on the energy of a cause, universally or in some measure, efficient. That it must certainly have been committed, we acknowledge, since it existed

certainly in the knowledge of God, as knowledge, not as a cause of sin. If, then, the word certainly is explanatory of the word necessarily, and the latter word means no more than the former, we assent to its use; but if otherwise, we deny the latter (necessity), and assent to the former (certainty). The first man was not under the necessity of committing sin, either from an internal, or an external cause. He did it of his own free-will, not of any necessity. Again, this conclusion is not valid, since it is deduced from incomplete and erroneous antecedents, as we have just shown. Therefore, it is true, that sin could have been committed with certainty, by a free and contingent cause, which sinned (as was the case in the will of devils and of men), and could have been avoided with certainty by a free and contingent cause, which did not sin, (as in the case of the good and elect angels), and, on the contrary, it is false, that it could have been committed of necessity, if you refer to the necessity of any sufficient cause, that is, an external and internal cause, for the will was the cause or rather the principle—the attribute of which is freedom-at that time free from all necessity, now bound by its own necessity, but nevertheless free, and thus producing contingent, not absolutely necessary effects, as is the case in nature.

When it is said that it could have been committed necessarily, there is an opposition in terms. For the word "could" [posse], which in this sentence is used in its legal sense, supposes contingency, to which the adverb necessarily is directly opposed.

In the fourth place, two conditions, are presented for the existence of sin, neither of which is probable. The former is that "sin could not be committed by a contingent cause, if it was not circumscribed and determined by a more powerful agent, surely and with certainty, moving or impelling the cause, in its own nature, free and contingent to the act of sin." This condition is denied; for, in the first place, it is contrary to nature, which per se can do or not do; otherwise it indeed has no power. Reference may, perhaps, be made to partial power. This, certainly, is inapplicable

to the human will, for it is a principle of action, and no wise man would ever place principles of action among partial powers. Again, if it is limited and determined by a more powerful agent, that agent must hold the relation of principle or cause. If the latter, the will must cease to be a principle, for principle pertains to the cause, it does not originate in the cause, of which it is the principle; the same thing can not at the same time, be the cause and the effect of itself. If the former is true, and the will is determined by a superior principle, there is this difficulty, that no superior principle so acts on an inferior one as to take away its peculiar mode of action, as we have before quoted from Augustine. But freedom is the peculiar mode of the will, and its appropriate adjunct is contingency, since it is freely per se inclinable in this or that direction. Besides, if it is "circumscribed and determined by a more powerful agent," that agent, either acts efficiently in each particular case, or ordains generally according to an established order in the universe. We have before, in answer to the sixth proposition, admitted that such an ordination occurred. You say that it is affirmed that the will is determined by an agent, absolutely efficient in particular cases. I deny that this can, with propriety, be attributed to our writers, whom it is unjust to charge so abruptly with that sentiment, if some of their expressions seem to savor of this, since it is contrary to their view, as they explain themselves in other passages. I will not argue this point further, but repeat the simple denial that it can be absolutely effected by a more powerful agent, operating efficiently, that a principle and contingent cause should sin. Here, my brother, you present two modes, one efficient, the other deficient, yet each, in its own way, effi. cient. For that which acts efficiently, is present with the work, and effects it; that, which is deficient, abstains from the work, and in itself effects that abstinence. You refer to the former mode in these words, "by a more powerful agert, surely and with certainty moving or impelling the cause in its own nature, free and contingent, to the act of sin." This we deny, and you, indeed, acknowledge that it is denied by our writers.