always unfelt: and, after a fruitless attempt at reconciliation had been made, a final abandonment of first principles at length produced the Theory which is now called Arminianism.

Accordingly, a conscious feeling of this very inconsistency began, as an evident attempt to reconcile irreconcileable incongruities, with calling forth a still further innovation upon the primeval System of doctrine: an innovation, which now respected the point of IDEALITY.

This further innovation was propounded by the writer under the name of Ambrose: who, as we have seen, maintained the CAUSE of Election to be God's prevision of man's future merit or fitness.

Now, that the Pseudo-Ambrose perceived and felt the inconsistency before us, we may gather not obscurely from his attempt to evade or to parry it.

The attempt consisted, in an arbitrary modification of the ancient IDEALITY of the term Elect, and thence in an arbitrary division of the Elect themselves into two classes.

Though, following Clement, he distinctly states; that God elected those, who he foreknew would be devoted to him, or who he foreknew would possess a fitness for their Election: yet he tells us, that God has elected some individuals into the Church permanently, BECAUSE he foresaw that they would persevere in holiness and would thus attain eternal life; while other individuals he has elected indeed into the Church but not permanently,

BECAUSE he foresaw that through inaptitude they would not persevere in holiness and would thus fail of attaining eternal life *.

Such a gloss, incongruous as it is with the very principle upon which it proceeds, would never have been devised, had not the utter inconsistency of primitive IDEALITY and more modern CAUSATION, forcibly united together by Clement in a single sentence, been felt and perceived t.

In truth, the Scheme of CAUSATION, struck out

* Hi autem secundum propositum vocantur, quos credentes præscivit Deus futuros sibi idoneos; ut, antequam crederent, scirentur. Nam, quos præscivit, et prædestinavit. Istos, quos præscivit futuros sibi devotos, ipsos elegit ad promissa præmia capessenda: ut hi, qui credere videntur et non permanent in fide coepta, a Deo electi negentur: quia, quos Deus elegit, apud se permanent. Est enim, qui ad tempus eligitur, sicut Saul et Judas, non de præscientia, sed de præsenti justitia. Quos autem prædestinavit, illos et vocavit :—et, quos vocavit, ipsos et justificavit: quos autem justificavit, hos et magnificavit. Hoc dicit quod supra, quia, quos præscivit Deus aptos sibi, hi credentes permanent, quia aliter fieri non potest: nisi, quos præscivit Deus, ipsos et justificavit; ac, per hoc, et magnificavit illos, ut similes fiant Filio Dei. De cæteris, quos non præscivit Deus (scil. futuros sibi aptos), non est illi cura in hanc gratiam, quia non (scil. ita) præsciit. Ac si credant aut eligantur ad tempus quia videntur boni, ne justitia contempta videatur, non permanent ut magnificentur, sicut et Judas Scarioth, aut illi septuaginta duo, qui electi, post scandalum passi, recesserunt a Salvatore. Comment. in Rom. viii. in Oper. Ambros. p. 1846, 1847.

See the passage above, book ii. chap. 3. § 11. 2.

by Clement of Alexandria, can never be coherently adopted, unless the whole Scheme of primeval IDEALITY be relinquished. This was, at length, effected, by the introduction of the System which usually bears the name of Arminianism. Here, the Scheme of CAUSATION, first invented by Clement of Alexandria, was unreservedly taken up. But then the primeval Scheme of IDEALITY was entirely discarded for, instead of Election being deemed, as of old, An Election of certain individuals into the pale of the visible Church; it was now deemed An Election of certain individuals immediately and directly to eternal life.

By such a plan, incongruity was, no doubt, avoided for a System was contrived, in which the new clementine Scheme of CAUSATION might be adopted without the ignominy of self-contradiction. But, to effect this purpose, the whole original System of Doctrine, both in point of IDEALITY and in point of CAUSATION, was altogether abandoned : and a System, in every respect completely novel, was in its place substituted *.

* Arminianism has rejected both the IDEALITY and the CAUSATION of Election, as that doctrine was understood in the strictly Primitive Church: Calvinism has retained the CAUSATION, but has rejected the IDEALITY: Nationalism, as propounded by Locke, has distorted the IDEALITY, but has retained the Thus, of the three Systems, Arminianism has the most widely departed from aboriginal Christian Antiquity: for, in truth, it has altogether forsaken it.

CAUSATION.

III. The sum of the inquiry, with the necessary conclusion from it, is this.

1. In the apostolically directed judgment of the Church of the two first centuries, God's decree of Election ought, as its moving CAUSE, to be referred solely to The good Pleasure of God's merciful though absolute Sovereignty.

2. But, from a vain though well meant wish to vindicate God's Justice which apparently was thought to be impeached by the earliest view of the question, Clement of Alexandria, toward the end of the second century, first started the very plausible solution : that God's Prescience of men's future righteousness is the impelling CAUSE of his decree of Election.

3. Hence, from the very necessity of chronology, the solution of Clement, however widely it might afterward be adopted, is a mere unauthorised private novelty and hence, agreeably to the wise canon of Tertullian, it must be rejected; while the ancient Scheme, which held forth God's Sovereign Pleasure as the moving CAUSE of Election and which exhibited the IDEALITY of Election as An Election of certain individuals into the pale of the visible Church, must, unless indeed it shall be found hopelessly irreconcileable with Scripture, be retained.

IV. Having now evidentially ascertained the System of Doctrine inculcated by the earliest Church, I may proceed to inquire, how far, both in point of IDEALITY and in point of CAUSATION, it will

agree with the System of Doctrine taught in the inspired Scriptures whether of the Old Testament or of the New Testament.

Should it, by the too plain construction of language, hopelessly disagree: we must then admit the canon of Tertullian to be nullified.

But, should it, in both points, be found remarkably to agree: we shall then perceive the admirable soundness of a canon, which, in the knotty question of Election, has happily brought us to a moral certainty of having developed the truth.