Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

gift of the donor; that 'the saying of the Apostle may be fulfilled, It is not of him tbat willeth, nor of him that runnets, but of God that Meweth mercy; and yet to will and nill is ours, but that which is ours, is not ours, fine Dei miferatione, without the mercy of God.And elsewhere he observes, that " where there is grace and mercy, free will in part ceases; for it is only by chac that we will; desire, and give an assent to things that are liked ; but it is in the power of the Lord that that which we desire, labour for, and endeavour after, we are able to fulfil, illius ope et auxilio, by his belp and afstance." And in another place he says “, “ If not one, nor few, nor many, but all, are governed by their own will, ubi eric auxilium Dei, where will be the help of God? Then how do you explain Psal. xxxvii. 23. fer. x. 23. Yobn iii. 27. i Cor. iv. 7, &c?" And Again', he asks, “ Where are they that say, thac man may be governed by his own will? That such a power of free will is given, that che mercy and justice of God are taken away ? Let them be ashamed that say so." He allows of, and pleads for such a free will, as is consistent with, and depends upon


grace and power of God;

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

a Adv. Pelag. 1. 3. Tom. 2. p. 101. A.

b Ib. 1. 1. p. 91. B. vid. etiam, Ep. ad Ctefiph. adv. Pelag. p. 84. B.

i Comment. in Hierem. Tom. 5. p. 133. D. E. p. 134. F.

[ocr errors]


not that, says he“, free will is taken away from man by the grace of God, but the liberty it self, Dominum habere debeat adjutorem, ought to have God for its helper." He owns that it is ours to will and to ryn, but chat our will and running may be accomplished, belongs to the mercy of God; and it is so brought about, chat in our willing and running, free will may be preserved, and in the .consummation of our will and race, Dei cuncta potentiae relinquantur, all things may be left to the power of God.Yea, he argues, that the Pelagians, and not such as himself, destroyed free will ; "they boast, says he', up and down, that free will is de stroyed by us; when, on the contrary, they ought to observe, that they destroy che liberty of the will, who abuse it, contrary to the grace of the donor. Who destroys free will? He who always gives thanks to God, and whatsoever flows in his rivulet, he refers to the fountain ? Or, he who says, depart from me, for I am clean, I have no need of thee? Thou hast once given me freedom of will, that I may do what I will, why dost chou chrust in thy self again, that I can do nothing unless thou compleatest thine own gifts in me?” Once more he ob

Comment. in Ezech. Tom. 5. p. 196. K. • Adv. Pelag. 1. 1. 87. K.

Ad Ctefiphont. adv. Pelag. p. 84. M.


serves , « That it is not in this we differ from brute beasts, that we were made with a free will, but in this, that this free will de- . pends upon the help of God, illiusque per fingula ope indiget, and stands in need of bis

every action, which you (Pelagians) don't mean ; but this you mean, that he that once hath free will does not - want God for his helper.” From hence

we may better understand Jerom's meaning, when he is speaking in favour of free will, as he does in many places; though it is easy to observe, that he sometimes considers free will as man was endued with it at his first creation ; at other times he fpeaks i of the power of it, with respect to natural and civil actions, to which also he supposes the power of God was necessary*; and very often of the freedom of it, as opposed to force and violence, which it cannot admit of. He also observes m, that it is not always the same, and is to be regarded according to the mode, cime, and

[ocr errors]

& Ib. p. 85. G. H.

"Ad Damasum, Tom. 3. p. 43. H. Comment. in Zech. Tom. 6. p. 121. E. Comment. in Eccl. Tom. 7. p. 37. E.

i Comment, in Isa. Tom. 5. p. 4. H. Comment. in Ezek. Ib. p. 231. F.

k Ad Ctesiphont. adv. Pelag. p. 85. A.

| Ad Demetriad. Tom. 1. p. 24. B. adv. Jovinian. Tom. 2; 1. 2. p. 25. C. ad Damasum, Tom. 3. p. 41. K. ad Hedibiam, Ib. p. 46. C. 49. H. Comment. in Eccl. Tom. 7. p. 34. D. Comment. in Philemon. Tom. 9. p. 116. B. m Adv. Pelag. 1. 3. p. 101.

condition of man's frailty. Now in one or other of these senses are the passages to be taken which Dr. Whitby has cited from this writer in favour of free will. It muit be owned, that Jerom sometimes drops fome things incautiously, and without guard, which are not easily reconciled to his avowed principles ; but then these passages should not be urged against his declared opinion and sentiments.

+ Discourse, &c. p.384. Postscript, F-562. Ed. 2. 374,539.

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

VR. Whitby affirms, “ That the

Fathers generally teach, that
God doth only persuade, and by

his Spiric aflift, those that are
willing to be good; but leaves them still co

ED neglect and refift his persuasions, not laying them under a necessity to be good; because that would destroy the virtue and reward of

being so.". In proof of which he produces • but two or three testimonies, which will be

hereafter confidered. And in another place
he says P; “ As for the antiquicy of the irre-
fiftibleness of grace, he (Dr. Edwards) hach
only one, St. Austin, to produce, against an
hundred teftimonies of the Fathers cited by
Vosus, to prove, that God laid no necessity
upon man's will to act; as he must do, if
he act irresistibly upon it, that being neces-
sary which cannot be otherwise.” All which
pains might have been spared, for none say, y
that God lays any necessity of co-action or
force upon the wills of men ; but that by

• Discourse, &c. p. 266. Ed. 2. 259, 260,
P Postscript, p. 565. Ed. 2. 542.



« PreviousContinue »