lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."-vi. 39. They consider the Apostle's argument, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? it is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died," (Rom. viii. 33, 34,) as proving that Christ's death was the ransom paid for the elect, through which they are delivered from condemnation. They argue again, that our Saviour's death and intercession are of the same extent; that as our Saviour expressly says, "I pray not for the world," (John, xvii. 9,) the necessary consequence is, that he did not die for it. There are many more arguments employed by some Calvinists, to prove the doctrine of particular redemption. He who wishes to see a full state of the arguments for particular redemption, will find them stated at large in four sermons, in the first volume of the Lime-street Lectures.-The Arminians contend for general, or universal redemption. This doctrine they think sufficiently proved by such texts as the following:-" God will have all men to be saved; and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” -1 Tim. ii. 4, 5, 6. "That he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man."-Heb. ii. 9. "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.”—-1 Tim. i. 15. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."-John, iii. 16. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through him, might be saved."-17. “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."-1 John, ii. 2.

There are several other texts, besides these, which they produce as proofs of the same doctrine. He who wishes to see the arguments on this side of the question, will find a full statement of them in Dr. Whitby on the Five Points. But the controversy on this subject is not merely between the Calvinists and Arminians, but also between the Calvinists themselves. There always have been many Calvinists, who, on this question, have been of the same sentiments with the Arminians. Such are almost all the Calvinists, who are members of the Church of England, and many more besides them. Bishop Burnet, on the seventeenth article, observes, that "In England, the first reformers were generally in the Sublapsa. rian hypothesis; but Perkins and others asserted the Supralapsarian way." It is indisputable, however, that universal redemption forms one of the doctrines of the Church of England. In her communion service, the prayer of consecration, uses this language,-Christ, "by his own oblation of himself, once offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world." In the answer given to the question, What dost thou chiefly learn in these articles of thy belief? the same doctrine is taught. Answer. "First, I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me, and all the world. Secondly, in God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind. Thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God."

Mr. Scott, in a sermon, in which he states and defends the doctrines of election, and final perseverance, defends also the doctrine of general redemption. He observes in a note that "Peter scruples not to speak of those who deny the Lord that bought them, and bring upon them

selves swift destruction; and Paul of destroying those for whom Christ died.' It might be expected that systematical expositors would find out other interpretations of all these testimonies, but the question is, Whether their interpretations are natural and obvious, and such as they would deem admissible in different circumstances?

.

"The idea of Christ paying exactly so much for one,. and so much for another, and so much for each; and then adding the sums together, and forming a large limited sum, just sufficient to ransom the elect, appears unscriptural, and gives a degrading view of the glori ous subject. An all-sufficient atonement was made at once, and an immeasurable fulness of mercy and grace is treasured up in Christ to be communicated, according to the eternal purpose and counsel of God. Every believer receives from this fulness: others remain under condemnation, not through defect of merit in Christ, but through their own impenitency and unbelief.”

It is possible and even highly probable, that the sentiments of the seemingly opposite advocates for particular and for universal redemption, appear to be more discordant than they really are. The infinite, intrinsic merit, and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for all men is not denied by those who contend for particular, and those who argue for universal redemption confess, that it will be effectual for the salvation only of those who believe and repent. Calvin himself, on Matthew xxvi. 28, observes, that the word many is put for all mankind. The same observation he makes on Heb. ix. 28. On Rom, v. 15, he observes, "It is certain that all do not derive advantage from the death of Christ, but the reason of this is their own unbelief." Again, on 1 John, ii. 2, "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world; but

efficaciously only for the elect."

Sentiments of the same kind might be quoted from the works of President Edwards, who has been called the king of the Calvinists.

The third article is, that mankind are totally depraved in consequence of the fall; and by virtue of Adam's being their public head, the guilt of his sin was imputed, and a corrupt nature conveyed to all his posterity, from which proceed all actual transgressions; and that by sin we are made subject to death, and to all miseries, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. On this head there is no controversy between Calvin and Arminius, as we shall afterwards see; but many who have sheltered their opinions, under the name of Arminius have taught, "That mankind are not totally depraved, and that depravity does not come upon them by virtue of Adam's being their public head; but that mortality and natural evil only are the direct consequences of his sin to posterity."— "Those in the Low Countries, who at that time" (he is speaking of Grotius and his party) "went by the name of Remonstrants and Arminians, were indeed a great deal more." This is the only way by which we can account for this article having become a ground of dispute in the Synod of Dort.

The fourth article relates to irresistible grace; a term which we think scarcely any Calvinist now applies to the Divine influences of the holy Spirit. Nor does any Calvinist, so far as we know, ever suppose that God forces, though they all contend that he inclines the wills of men, by that grace which they term efficacious.

The fifth article is the doctrine of final perseverance.

Dr. South's Sermon on Isaiah, LI, 8. Note.

UM

On this head Calvinists observe, that even upon the principles of the Arminians, there must be allowed to be, in some stage of the Christian's progress, confirming and establishing grace. Man, though created pure, fell

in paradise; and, of the angels, some fell even in heaven. Without confirming and establishing grace, the state of saints in heaven must be exposed to continual hazard. In what state soever this blessing is communicated, it must be by Divine influence, as well as by Divine appointment. It is to these co-operating causes, they ascribe that perseverance which they believe the Scripture to represent, as following a regenerating faith in the Son of God. "In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possessions, unto the praise of his glory."— Eph. i. 13, 14.

The doctrine of the final perseverance of the Saints, the necessary consequence of absolute election, may be extremely hurtful to piety, if imperfectly stated; and therefore care ought to have been taken by those who hold the doctrine to guard it against abuse. Were a minister of the Gospel to teach, that the Perseverance of the Saints means only that those who had once been in a state of favour with God, shall always continue in that state, it is obvious that his representation of the doctrine is so defective, that to a wicked man; who had taken up an enthusiastic conceit that he had once been in a state of reconciliation with God, it might prove the occasion of the most mischievous delusion. Mr. Hume, in his History of England, has preserved a story of this kind of Oliver Cromwell, who, on his death bed, deceived himself; and if the anecdote be correct, was deceived in