❝ratify his election by his own voice." The affertion runs counter to the whole tenor of the Bible; annulling its commands and exhortations; its promifes and threats; all its commendations of the good, and all its judg-. ments on the wicked. Why when God, by the mouth of Mofes, fet before the Ifraelites life and death, blefling and curfing, did he command and invite and encourage them to "choose life," if the choice was not in their power? This is this inference of Justin Martyr. When by the mouth of Ifaiah he promises rewards to his faithful fervants, and denounces punishment on the finner," If ye be willing " and obedient, ye fhall eat the good of the "land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be "devoured with the fword, for the mouth of "the Lord hath spoken it:" what was the Duo autem errores hic cavendi funt: quia nonnulli cooperarium Deo faciunt hominem, ut fuffragio fuo ratam electionem faciat : ita fecundum eos voluntas hominis fuperior eft Dei confilio. Calv. Inft. lib. iii. cap. xxiv. fect. 3. Deut. xxx. 19. • Ου γαρ ώσπερ τα αλλα, οἷον δενδρα και τετραποδα, μηδέν δυνάμενα προαιρεσει πράττειν, εποίησεν ὁ Θεος τον ανθρωπον· ουδε γαρ ην άξιος αμοιβης η επαίνου, ουκ αφ' ἑαυτου ἑλομενος το αγαθόν, αλλα τετο γενομένος· εδ' ει κακος ὑπηρχε, δικαιος κολασεως ετυγχανεν, ουκ αφ' ἑαυτου τοιουτος ων, αλλ' ουδεν δυναμενος ειναι ἕτερον παρ' ὁ εγεγόνει. Εδίδαξε δε ήμας ταυτα το άγιον προφητικών πνευμα δια Μωσέως, κ. τ. λ. Και παλιν δια Ησαΐου του ἑτερου wpopNtou, X. T. λ. Juft. Mart. Apol. ii. p. 81. f If. i, 19, 20. T meaning of the declaration, if it was not in their own choice either to obey or to refufe? This is inferred by Juftin again, and Clement of Alexandria, and others of the early Fathers. Why did our Saviour pronounce, that "this "is the condemnation, that light is come into "the world, and men loved darkness rather "than light, becaufe their deeds were evil b;" if they did not exert their wills in refifting a light, which would otherwife have been effectual for their falvation? Why was our Saviour fo tranfported with admiration at the faith of fome, as well as at the unbelief of others, if that faith were wrought fo irrefiftibly, that the believer contributed nothing towards it; and if the unbeliever, fo far from refifting, had not even the means of being converted? When our Saviour tells Martha, "One thing is needful, and Mary hath chofen "that good parti" why does he commend Mary for her difcrimination, and reprove Mar * Πάντων τοινυν ανθρωπων κεκλημένων, οἱ ὑπακεσαι βοληθέντες. κλητοι ωνομάσθησαν. ου γαρ εστιν αδικια παρα τῷ Θεῷ. αντικα ἐξ ἑκατέρου γένος οἱ πιστεύσαντες, οὗτοι λαος περιουσιος, και ταις πράξεσι των Αποστολων εύροις αν καταλέξιν, Οι μεν ουν αποδείξει μενοι τον λόγον αυτου εβαπτίσθησαν, οἱ δε μη θελήσαντες πείθεσθαι, ἑαυτους απέστησαν δηλαδη. Προς τούτους ἡ προφητειαλέγει Καν 2 θέλητε, και εισακούσητε μου, τα αγαθα της γης φάγεσθε εφ' ήμιν κείμενα διελέγχουσα, και την αίρεσιν, και την εκτροπην. Clar. Alex. Strom. lib, i, cap. xviii. tom. i. p. 371. ed. Oxon, Luke x. 42. John iii. 19. tha for her neglect? If the difcrimination of Mary had been exclufively effected by the irresistible operation of divine grace, Martha might have pleaded the want of ability in her excufe; the might have charged the fault of her neglect, in not making the like choice, on his deficiency in a matter fo needful; and have replied, in the language of a modern Calvinift, that " her fifter could not so properly be faid to have chofen, as to have been "chofen by the Lord." Wherefore is it faid with approbation of fome, that they "re"ceived the word gladly," and "with readi"hefs of mind';" unless that gladnefs and readiness were, in fome fort, the refult of their own freedom of will, which conftituted them moral and accountable agents? And wherefore are others condemned, for that they "would not come unto Chrift, that they might "have life and might be faved"," (ΟΥ ΘΕΛΕΤΕ ελθειν προς με, ye are not willing to come to me; that "they were willingly ignorant," as St. Peter fays, "that by the word of God "the heavens were of old";"-that "they re"ceived not the love of the truth;" as St. Paul speaks, "but had pleasure in unrighteousnefs;". * Whitefield's Works, vol. i. p. 125. Acts ii. 41. xvii. 11. 2 Pet. iii. 5. in John v. 40, 34. • 2 Theff. u. 10, 12. -unless they had the liberty of being different from what they actually were? For there appears nothing inconfiftent either with reafon, or revelation, in the opinions of the early writers of the Church; that "man would not "be a fit object of praife, or recompence, did "he not choose good of himself, nor worthy "of punishment for doing evil, if he did not "this of himfelf";"-that "neither praises "nor reprehenfions, rewards nor punishments "are juft, if the foul hath not the power of choofing or abftaining, but evil is involuntary ;" and that even as to Judas himself, as Origen affirms, "blame would not have "attached to him, had he been a traitor of neceffity, and could not have been like the "reft of the Apostles"." "Take away the grace of God; how does he fave the world? 66 Oude yap nv ažios auons, &c. Vid. Juft. Mart. ut fupra. • Ουτε δε οἱ επαινοι, ετε οἱ ψογοι, επ' αἱ τιμαι, επ' αἱ κολάσεις δικαιαι, μη της ψυχης εχούσης την εξουσιαν της όρμης και αφορμης, aλX' axovolov tns xaxias ovons. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. i. cap. xvii. tom. i. p. 368. 4 Ου γαρ ερούμεν, επει προεγνωσται Ιουδαν προδότην γενεσθαι, ότι πάσα ανάγκη ην Ιουδαν προδότην γενεσθαι. Εν γουν ταις περι του Ιούδα προφητείαις, μεμψεις και κατηγορίαι του Ιουδα άναγε γραμμεναι εισι, παντι τῷ παρίστασαι το ψεκτον αυτου. Ουκ αν δε ψόγος αυτῷ προσήπτετο, ει επαναγκες προδοτης ην, και μη ανε δέχετο (ενεδέχετο) αυτον όμοιον τοις λοιποις αποστολοις γενεσθαι. Origen. ap. Eufeb. Prapar. Evang. lib. vi. cap. xi. p. 288. ed. Paris. 1628. "Take away man's freedom of will; how does ❝he judge the world?" The question is propofed by Auftin: and we leave it to be solved by his difciples. But that the Spirit of God does not act with that irresistible power, which deprives man of his freedom of will, is matter, not only of probable inference, but of certain and unqueftionable fact. Did not the Jews refift him to their deftruction under the old difpenfation; did they not "provoke him to anger continu"ally to his face," when "all day long he ftretched forth his hands unto a difobedient "When he had "and gainfaying people?" "done all that could have been done for his ❝ vineyard, and he looked that it should bring "forth grapes, brought it not forth wild grapes?" "When he purged them, did "they not refuse to be purged "?" "When he "called them," did they not refuse to " an"fwer?" "When he fpake," did they not refufe to hear? and "do evil before his eyes? and choose that in which he delighted not* ?” When he fent to them by his meffengers Si non eft gratia Dei, quomodo falvat mundum? Si non eft liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundun? See Heylyn's Quinq. Hift. part. i. chap. 6. where it is quoted as " that "divine faying of St. Auguftine." If. lxv. 3. Rom. x. 21. t If. v. 4. If. lxv. 12. lxvi. 4. T S |