ruins of their apostacy, and that to accomplish this purpose he resolved to send the Saviour, &c."*

Mr. Evans, in his Sketch, makes the Supralapsarians maintain, “that God had, from all eternity decreed the transgression of Adam, in such a manner, that our first parents could not possibly avoid this fatal event." If these are the words of any Calvinist, it will be impossible to vindicate him from the charge of making God the author of sin; a supposition in itself horrible. The Westminster Confession, by making the fall of man the subject of a decree, seems to fall in with the doctrine of the Supralapsarians, in one point of view; though of such nice distinction, it very properly takes no notice whatsoever. Its language is very different, indeed, from the words we have quoted from Mr. Evans. "God, from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."-3. In the shorter Catechism the answer to the thirteenth question is thus:-" Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God."

Whatever opinion we form of the doctrines of Calvinism, few men who are able impartially to review the conduct of many Calvinists, will deny, that they have been too much addicted to nice and subtle speculations; and of this kind, we fear, the distinction between Supralapsarians,

• Dr. Witherspoon's Lectures on Divinity, Lect. 12.

and Sublapsarians, will be found to be one striking insiance. To those modern Calvinists, who adopt no more of the system of Calvin, than particular election, all such distinctions are utterly unknown. Indeed, these distinctions are now seldom mentioned, even by Calvinists of the highest form. Such speculations seem to be too high for the limited capacities of the human mind. Some Calvinists have speculated upon the decrees of God, till they have brought themselves to deny the propriety of all addresses and exhortations to sinners; though the use of such addresses and exhortations is sanctioned by the universal practice of the Apostles, and first preachers of Christianity.

The texts of Scripture from which the Calvinists conclude that the doctrine of particular election is taught in the word of God, are in general so many, and so well known, that we shall not swell this article with an account of them. They may be found in every controversial performance on that side of the question.

The second subject of dispute between the Calvinists and Arminians was about Redemption. The former contended for particular, and the latter for general or universal Redemption. Many Calvinists have maintained, that the Father's Election and the Son's Redemption are of precisely the same extent, and that Christ paid the price of Redemption by his blood for none but those whom he saves by the efficacious grace of his Holy Spirit. They consider such declarations of our Saviour as follow, decisive upon this subject. "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."-John x. 11. "That he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”—xvii. 2. "This is the Father's will who hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should

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 Sublapsarian 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