they cannot be praised or blamed for actions which in either case they could not avoid.

(2.) It annihilates exertion. If it be denied that we have a power to govern our own thoughts and actions, and that all improvement must arise from an influence over us which we cannot resist, then they ask, what is the use of all our endeavours, of all the advantages of education, and all the pains we may exert on ourselves or others?

(3.) It contradicts experience. Every man feels that he is a free agent; he is conscious that he balances different questions in his thoughts, and deliberates about preferring one side to another. It is true, he finds on some occasions that he is hurried on so impetuously, that he seems to have then lost his freedom; still he feels, that he might have restrained that violence at its first risings, and diverted his thoughts to some other subject. Hence they infer, that men cannot be concluded under any irresistible motions either to good or evil.

(4.) It frustrates all exhortations. In Scripture we frequently find persuasions and reproofs, encouragements and terrors, addressed to men. If, then, we are under an impotence till the irresistible grace comes, and if, when it comes, nothing can withstand it, what occasion, they ask, is there for those solemn discourses, if they can have no effect on us. It is said they are meant

to render those inexcusable who reject them. But they reply, that no man can be rendered inexcusable for rejecting that, which it never was intended he should accept.

ture.

(5.) It is opposed to the declarations of ScripThus, we are commanded "not to grieve the Holy Spirit." (Eph. iv. 30.) It is said of the Jews, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." (Acts, vii. 51.) Our Saviour exclaims, when beholding Jerusalem, "How often would I have

gathered thy children together, even as a hen "gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye "would not!" (Mat. xxiii. 37.) God himself asks, "What more could I have done in my vineyard, that has not been done in it?" (Is. v. 4.) These seem to be plain intimations of a power, by which we not only can, but often do resist the motions of grace.

With respect to the arguments of their adversaries, they allege, that

(1.) The allusion to St. Paul's declaration is unfounded. When St. Paul asks, "Who made thee to differ?" They say he intended to speak of those miraculous gifts, which were conferred on the first Christians. In these, men were merely passive, and discriminated from each other by the freedom of those gifts, without any previous disposition to them.

(2.) Our prayers do not imply the irresistibility of grace. For though every man has, as they hold, a sufficient degree of grace, yet there are

besides this, innumerable favours, like largesses of God's grace and goodness, which he gives freely as he pleases. For these our prayers may be directed.

(3.) The Scriptures do not ascribe the act solely to God. Thus God is said " to work in us both to will and to do;" yet in the passage immediately preceding this declaration, we are required to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil. ii. 13.) This, they say, infers a co-operation of the agent with God in the work of conversion.

66

4. They assert, that Christ died for all men. This they prove by the following arguments:

(1.) From the declarations of Scripture. Thus, 1 Jo. ii. 2, "Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." "The wicked are said to deny the Lord that bought them." (2 Pet. ii. 1.) From this text they conclude that Christ died even for those who reap no advantage from his death. Again, in Rom. v. 18, "As "by the offence of one, judgment came upon all "men to condemnation, so by the righteousness 66 of one, the free gift came upon all men to "justification of life." Here, the extent of Christ's death is set in opposition to the extent of Adam's sin. Since then, the latter affects all men without exception, the former they conclude, must equally concern the whole human

race.

(2.) From the obligation of all men to believe

in the death of Christ. There is no individual in the world, who is not bound to believe that Christ died for him. But no man can be obliged to believe a lie. Therefore, they conclude, that there is no individual for whom Christ did not die.

5. They deny that the elect must necessarily persevere to the end.

For, it is contradicted by the tenor of Scripture. Thus frequent encouragements are given to those that "overcome and continue steadfast and faithful to the death." (Rev. ii. 10, 26.) In Heb. vi. 4, 6, it is declared, that it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance." "The just shall live by faith; but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” (Heb. x. 38.) "When the righteous turneth "away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, all his righteousness that he hath done "shall not be mentioned; in his sin that he "sinned he shall die." (Ez. xviii. 24.) These and similar declarations, seem to imply that a good man may fall from a state of grace.

away

4thly. We shall consider the opinion of the Socinians.

The arguments of this sect are taken from both the preceding. They agree with the Remonstrants in denying the existence of absolute decrees, and use the same proofs in refutation of

them. On the other hand, they agree with the Calvinists in denying the possibility of a certain prescience of future contingents, and urge the same objections against it. It will not be necessary, therefore, to consider the doctrine at length, as such a consideration would only lead to a repetition of what has been already advanced.

Having thus stated the arguments by which each opinion is supported, before we conclude, we shall make some general observations on the subject.

1. It may be observed, that there are very weighty reasons to induce each side to form a charitable judgment of the other. It is evident, that both sides are anxious to assert the honour of God, and agree in concluding, that any opinion calculated to derogate from it, should be rejected without hesitation. Their only difference consists in the way in which this is to be effected. Calvinists think we must begin with the idea of infinite perfection, and absolute sovereignty; and if in the sequel, difficulties occur which cannot easily be cleared, we should still not depart from our original position. Remonstrants, on the other hand, conceive that we cannot form as clear ideas of God's independence and sovereignty, as of his holiness, mercy, and justice, and that since these attributes are brought before us in Scripture with peculiar force, we are