degree. And from hence, they derive another argument in favour of their doctrine, for if Christ literally suffered for the benefit of all, then it is irreconcileable with the justice of God, that it should not be offered to all for their acceptance. Since it is not thus offered, it would follow that such was not God's intention.

(3.) Supralapsarians maintaim the final perseverance of the elect, by the following argu

ments:

It necessarily follows from the immutability of God, taken in connexion with their other doctrines. For since they conceive grace is of its own nature efficacious, so that all depends on God, "who begat the elect of his own will," (Jas. i. 18.) and since" with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning," and he has promised" he will never leave nor forsake those to whom he becomes a God," (Heb. xiii. 5.) then it follows, that they cannot fall away, while they are thus supported. It is true, they may fall into temporary sins, still, they say, they will be raised up again, and finally preserved.

4. Supralapsarians assert, that God's decrees

a The phrase by which this is expressed, is, that the benefits of Christ's death extends ad singulos generum, non ad genera singulorum.

b The reader who is anxious to judge of the answer made to this objection, will find it in Limborch, Theol. Chris. 1. 4. c. 4. sec. 9-13.

and irresistible grace are not inconsistent with the free will of the agent.

They say when a man is convinced by indubitable reasons of the superiority of any moral good, his will must follow such a determination of his judgment, at the same time that it is perfectly free. And thus they conceive God's grace affects the heart by supplying to it motives of action, but not forcing the consent. In fact, it makes the individual willing to embrace religion, and therefore, they say, cannot be inconsistent with his freedom, for this would be a contradiction.

2dly. We shall consider the opinion of the Sublapsarians.

The only point of difference between these and the Supralapsarians, is with respect to the fall of Adam, and the reprobation of a part of his posterity, the latter they conceive to consist merely in the act of præterition, or passing them by without any positive decree. With respect to the former, it is not easy to explain their opinions. For as God's decree of election was made from all eternity, he must have foreknown Adam's sin. If he foreknew it without having

* Sublapsarian writers divide the decree of reprobation into two parts, consisting of a negative and a positive act. The negative act is leaving men in sin, and the positive act is punishing them for that

decreed it, they contradict themselves, for they deny a prescience antecedent to his decrees. If he decreed it then, their doctrine coincides with that of the Supralapsarians. For it comes to the same thing to say, that God decreed Adam's fall, and then elected some and reprobated others out of his posterity, which is their assertion and to say that God, in order to the manifestation of his glory, in saving some, and damning others, arranged the fall of Adam and human nature in him. Sublapsarians are aware of this difficulty, and only answer it by professing their ignorance on the subject, and pleading the silence of revelation.a As to their other doctrines, they are precisely the same as those held by the Supralapsarians, and are supported by the same arguments.

3dly. We shall consider the arguments adduced by the Remonstrants.b

They deny the existence of absolute decrees, because they contradict the attributes of God. God is declared to be holy, just, and merciful; any doctrine, therefore, that contradicts these attributes cannot be true. Further, we find in Scripture, that frequent appeals are made to the

a See Turretin's Ins. Theol. L. 9. Q. 7.

These arguments may be found particularly in Limborch Ins. Theol. 1. 4. Curcellæi Rel. Chris. Ins. 1. 6. and Episcopii. Apol. pro Conf. Remons. c. 6. et seq.

notions we form of them, and that we are desired to imitate God in the practice of them. Hence, they say, it follows that those attributes must exist in God according to the ideas we have of them, since otherwise we could not judge of the propriety of God's actions, nor imitate his example. They, therefore, reject the doctrine of absolute reprobation, because it appears to them contradictory to the clearest ideas we can conceive of justice, holiness, truth, and sincerity.

(1.) It contradicts the justice of God. It cannot be reconciled with our notions of justice, that God should condemn us for an act which we never committed: that he should first determine on our reprobation, and then make us live in sin, to justify that determination; and still more, that he should punish us for doing that which he himself had appointed to be done, by an antecedent and irreversible decree.

(2.) It contradicts God's holiness. God is represented to us, as "of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.”—(Heb. i. 13.) How then, they ask, could such a being decree our commission of sins, which it is not possible for us to avoid.

(3.) It contradicts God's truth. God declares himself to be "gracious and merciful, "long suffering, and abundant in goodness and "truth."-(Ex. xxxiv. 6.) It is said, that he "is not willing that any should perish, but

"that all should come to repentance."-(2 Pet. iii. 9.) Nay, he enforces this declaration with an oath, " as I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Now if all things arise from the decree of God as their first cause, then it is manifest that he must take pleasure in his own decrees and the execution of them. Consequently he must take pleasure in the death of sinners, in opposition to his own express and solemn asseveration.

(4.) It contradicts God's sincerity. We find in Scripture, universal offers of grace and mercy, accompanied by encouragements to accept them, and denunciations against those who reject them. Such offers, they conceive, must be devoid of sincerity, if God has previously decreed that they shall be ineffectual. And as to the method in which these offers are explained by their adversaries, that they are intended merely to point out what is man's duty, they think that such an explanation does not lessen the difficulty. For it contradicts all their notions of God's sincerity, that he should have two wills, the one commanding us our duty, and encouraging us to the performance of it by promises and threats; and the other, putting a certain bar in our way, by decreeing that we shall do the contrary.

(5.) It makes God to be the author of sin. We have seen that to avoid this result, a distinction was made between the positive act, and its want

།

ม

』