position to the peculiar tenets of Calvin. The Article proceeds to say, that " man of his own nature inclineth to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh... is not subject to the law of God:" the Article does not pronounce with the Calvinists, that man of his own nature can perform nothing but evil, but that he "inclineth to evil;" a doctrine fundamentally different, since an inclination, though strong, may be conquered. The continuance of "this infection of nature," even in those who are baptized, and the constant lusting of the flesh. against the Spirit, are here asserted, generally and indiscriminately, without any declaration that either the Spirit or the flesh invariably and necessarily prevails in any particular description of persons. It cannot therefore be pretended that this Article gives any countenance to the Calvinistic notions of sinless obedience and unspotted purity in the elect, and of incorrigible pollution and inevitable wickedness in the reprobate.

Before we dismiss this Article, it may be proper to observe, that the Schoolmen (1) considered

(1) Scholastici disputant quod justitia originalis non fuerit connaturalis, sed, ceu ornatus quidam additus homini tanquam donum.-Luth. Op. v. 6. p. 38,

dered "original righteousness" not as a part of the primitive nature of man, but as an adventitious ornament or additional gift from God to Adam: and that the Fall consisted in God's withdrawing this ornament or gift, and in leaving him to his own real unassisted nature. This idea has been adopted by very few of our English divines, by far the greater number maintaining, that the Fall produced a positive depravation of the moral and intellectual powers of man. And indeed the words of the Article seem scarcely reconcileable with the scholastic notion; " Original Sin is the corruption of the nature of every man;" if human nature was corrupted, it must have been altered, depraved a change for the worse must have been made in the nature of man, and not merely a superinduced quality removed. If original righteousness, in the opinion of our Reformers, had consisted in supernatural assistance, and the Fall in the removal of that assistance, they would have said, "whereby man has lost original righteousness," and not," whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness:" still less would they have said, that, in consequence of the Fall," man is of his own nature inclined to evil," because, according to the doctrine of the Schoolmen, man at his original formation inclined to evil, and was only restrained by extraneous influence.

influence. "This infection of nature, continues the Article, doth remain:" there was, then, according to the Church of England, an infection of nature at the Fall, that is, the original nature of nian became then actually depraved. There is not a single passage in the Old or New Testament, which, in its plain and obvious sense, favours the idea of a superinduced quality or adventitious aid conferred on Adam prior to the Fall, over and above what really belonged to his nature; and as this opinion seems to militate against the words of the Article, I do not think it necessary to discuss the texts which by a forced construction have been made to apply to it (m).

"The

In the Article upon Free-will, it is said, condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God;" that is, A man cannot, by his own natural faculties and unassisted exertions, so counteract and correct the imperfection

and

(m) Whoever wishes to see the arguments urged in favour of this opinion, may read Archbishop King's Ser mon on the Fall of Man, and Bishop Bull's Discourse concerning the First Covenant and the State of Man be. fore the Fall. These two are, I believe, the only authors of distinction, who have supported this opinion. The subject is also treated very fully by Gerhardus de Pec, Or. cap. 5, and the opposite opinion clearly established.

It

and corruption derived from the fall of Adam, as to be able of himself to acquire that true and lively faith which would secure his salvation, or to call upon God with that sincerity, fervour, and devotion, which can alone give efficacy to our prayers. The human mind is so weakened and vitiated by the sin of our first parents, that we cannot by our own natural strength prepare it, or put it into a proper state, for the reception of a saving faith, or for the performance of the spiritual worship required in the Gospel: this mental purification cannot be effected without divine assistance. The faith here spoken of, is not a bare belief in the divine mission of Christ; nor is it an instantaneous communication, a sudden acquisition. Deliberation and reflection are necessary, but not sufficient, to obtain it. It is the

joint

It ought however to be mentioned, that although Bishop Bull maintained" that our First Parents, besides the seeds of natural Virtue and Religion sown in their minds in their very creation, and besides the natural innocence and rectitude wherein also they were created, were endowed with certain Gifts and Powers supernatural,' of which they were deprived in consequence of their eating the forbidden fruit, yet he admitted that the natural Powers of man were vitiated by the Fall: defectus illi omnes atque infirmitates, quæ prorsus necessario profluunt a vitioso humani corporis temperamento pri mum peccatum consecuto. App. ad Exam. Animad. 17. Sect. 13.

joint result of human exertion and divine grace. It is indeed the Gift of God, for, without God's assistance, no man can possess it; but it is a gift not bestowed arbitrarily, capriciously, or irrespectively. This is the true sense of the words of the Article; and we can by no means allow the inferences attempted to be drawn from them by modern Calvinistic writers, namely, that" of our own nature we are without any spark of goodness in us," and that man has no " ability or disposition whatever with respect either to faith or good works." Our Reformers were convinced that the Papists exalted the powers of the human mind too high; but, in framing this Article against that error, they were cautious not to fall into the opposite extreme, by denying to man all exercise of Free-will in the formation of religious principle, or in the discharge of religious duty (n), They were too well acquainted with Scripture, and entertained too just notions of the character of moral responsible beings, to intend any such degradation of human nature. We have seen, that in the days of the Apostles men were required, when opportunity was offered them, to perform

(n) "Neither so preaching the Grace of God, that we take away thereby Free-will; nor on the other side, so extolling Free-will, that injury be done to the Grace of God." Necessary Erudition.