"it cannot be our duty, either to will or run;" so Origen, Chrysostom, Ecumenius, and Theophylact. See this and their answer to the objection of St. Austin against this exposition, in the note upon that verse.

Fifthly. On these words, verse 18th, "He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth," Origen descants thus," that which he says is this,-that we are good, or evil, depends upon our will; but what stripes the wicked man shall suffer, and what glory the good man is designed for, depends upon the will of God; τὸν ἄξιον ἐλεεῖσθαι ἐλεεῖ, “he hath mercy on him who is fit for mercy, τὸν δὲ ἀπειθῆ σκληρόν εἶναι συγχωρεί, 'but he permits the disobedient to be hardened'." Moreover they all note, that the apostle here speaks of Pharaoh; and that him God hardened, not by laying on him any necessity so to be, but only by his patience and lenity, in withdrawing his plagues which should have led him to repentance; as a kind master makes his servant worse by his lenity. And it is observed by Vossius, that before St. Austin wrote against Pelagius, he agreed with them in most of these expositions. (Vide Histor. Pelag. 1. 5. Thes. 8. p.545.)

Sixthly. On verse 21, Hath not the potter power over the clay, &c. Theophylact notes, that "as it is not the mass itself that makes one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour, but the use ofit, εχ ἡ φύσις τες μεν ποιεῖ κολάσεως αξίες, τὰς δὲ ςεφάνων, ἀλλ' ἡ προαίρεσις, 'so is it not the nature, but the choice of men that makes some worthy of punishment, and others of reward'." "God makes some vessels of honour, others of dishonour," saith Chrysostom, because he knows, τὶς μεν ἄξιος, τὶς δὲ μὴ τοιοῦτος, who is worthy so to be, and who is not'." "He justly punisheth sinners," saith Theodoret, "ws yvwμy Toûтo пolełν toλμāvтas, ‘as daring wittingly to do thus;' and his philanthropy confers mercy, receiving ρóaσn wag' uav, an occasion from us to do so'." πρόφασιν Lastly. I have shewed, that in their notes on verses 22, 23, they say, that "man is made a vessel of wrath or mercy, from his own choice."

6

III. Vossius declares, that "all the Fathers before St. Austin's time, think that God predestinated men to life from a prescience that they would live piously, or would believe and persevere to the end;"" and this, from what hath been discoursed, appeareth

a Hist. L. 5. Th. 8.

с

to have been the doctrine of all the commentators upon the eighth and ninth chapters to the Romans, till St. Austin's time, and of the Greek commentators after his time; to whom you may add from him the testimony of Irenæus, that "some coming to the light, and others refusing so to do, Deus omnia præsciens utrisque aptas præparavit habitationes," God who foreseeth all things, prepared fit habitations for them both"." Of Chrysostom introducing Christ saying, "Inherit the kingdom prepared for you before you were born, ἐπειδὴ ἔδειν τοιέτες ὑμᾶς ἐσομένως, because I knew you would be such':" Of Hilary saying, many are called but few are chosen, quia in invitatis de judicii merito probitatis electio est, because among those that are called, God of his just judgment chuseth those that are honest':"d Of St. Ambrose, saying, “God who is no respecter of persous, gives not to our petitions but our merits, according to that of the apostle, Whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate, non enim ante prædestinaret quam præsciret, sed quorum merita præscivit eorum præmia prædestinavit, for God did not predestinate first, and then foreknow, but predestinated them to rewards whom he foreknew to be worthy of them':" Of St. Jerom, saying, "non gentes eliguntur, sed hominum voluntates, men are not chosen for their nations, but for their wills,' he purposing to save by faith alone, quos præscivit credituros,those whom he foreknew would believe':" And lastly of Theophylact, saying, "many are called, but few are saved, because few are ἄξιοι τῇ ἐκλογῆναι, ' worthy to be chosen by God; ἔτι μέν θεῖ τὸ καλεῖν, τὸ δὲ ἐκλεκτοὺς γίνεσθαι ἤ μn nμÉTEρÓν Est, for it is of God that we are called, but of ourselves that we are chosen, or not'." " And

IV. Prosper confesses, that even they who condemned Pelagius, rejected St. Austin's doctrine of an absolute decree of salvation, as a mere novelty; "for," saith he, "many of the servants of Christ in the city of Marseilles,* contrarium putant patrum opinioni, et ecclesiastico sensui quicquid de vocatione electorum secundum propositum disputasti, judge that which you dispute of the calling of the elect according to purpose, to be contrary to the opinion of the fathers, and the sense of the church.' They defend

b L. 4. C. 76.

.

f In Hedib.

• Hom. 80. in Matt. To.. 2.

g ln Rom. viii. 28.

d In Matt. xxii.

h In Matt.

e L. 5. De Fide. C, 2, i Ep. ad August. p. 879.

K

their obstinacy," saith he, “vetustate, 'by antiquity;' affirming, that the things you gather from St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, a nullo unquam ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta,' were never so understood by any of the ecclesiastical men'." And he prays him to instruct him, how he may answer this objection. He adds, that, retractatis priorum de hac opinionibus, pene omnium, par invenitur et una sententia, quæ propositum et prædestinationem Dei secundum præscientiam receperunt, ut ob hoc Deus alios vasa honoris, alios contumelia fecerit, quia finem uniuscujusque præviderit having revised the opinions of those that writ before of this matter, he found almost all of them to be of one and the same judgment; that the purpose and predestination of God was according to his prescience, and that he therefore made some vessels of honour, others of dishonour, because he foresaw the end of every one, and what would be their will and actions under the divine assistance'." So truly did Melancthon say, "Scriptores veteres omnes, præter unum Augustinum, ponunt aliquam causam electionis în nobis esse,” ‹ all the ancients, except St. Austin, asserted, that there was some cause of our election in ourselves'."

6

TO state this matter aright, I shall endeavour to shew, First. What limitations or restrictions of our Lord's general redemption I cannot admit of..

› Secondly. In what sense they who maintain that doctrine do assert it. And, :

First. I reject that distinction as absurd, which saith "Christ died SUFFICIENTLY for all, but INTENTIONALLY only for the elect;" this being to delude men with vain words, and in effect ❝he died no more for those who are not the elect, that is,

to say

who will not actually be saved by him, than for the very devils," seeing he died for them sufficiently, that is, his death, had it been designed for that end, would have been of sufficient virtue to procure the pardon of their sins. (2.) It leaves all men, the elect only excepted, under an impossibility of pardon and salvation; that pardon and salvation being to be obtained only by them to whom the benefit of Christ's death belongs. It therefore leaves all other men under an impossibility of believing, repenting, and obeying the gospel; for these being the conditions of the new covenant, established in his blood, they who are in a capacity of performing these conditions, must be in a capacity of enjoying the benefits of that covenant, and so of having an interest in his death; and therefore they who can have no interest in his death, can be in no capacity of performing the conditions of that covenant. (3) It follows hence that it cannot be the duty of any, besides the elect, to believe in Christ, or in his blood shed for the remission of sins, or to bless God for sending his Son into the world; for this no man can reasonably.do, because Christ's blood was sufficient to procure his pardon, had it been intended for that end; but because it actually was designed for that end. Remove this supposition, and to say "Christ's death was sufficient for their pardon and salvation," is only to say "Christ could have procured their salvation if he would; but he would not, or God was not willing that he should:" And who can bless him upon that account? (4.) Hence it is evident that all who are not elected cannot believe in a Saviour that died for them, but only in one whose death would have been sufficient to procure their pardon, had it been intended for that end, as it was not: And what comfort can this administer to any? Surely no more comfort than it would yield to a condemned malefactor to know his prince could have pardoned him, but he would not. Nor,

1

"

Secondly. Can I approve of their doctrine who say, "Christ

died so far for all as to procure for them pardon and salvation if they will believe and repent; but that he died moreover to procure for the elect faith and repentance." For (1.) there is no ground at all in scripture for this distinction; for that saith often that Christ died for the world; for all; for every man;' but never saith" he died for one part of mankind more than for an

other." (2.) They who make this distinction positively assert, "that none can repent and believe for whom Christ died not to procure faith and repentance." Seeing then the effect of our Lord's salutary passion is already past, and what he died not to procure for any, can never be obtained; if Christ died only to procure faith and repentance for the elect, the rest can never have them; and so this is as much as to say "Christ never died for them at all." Wherefore to force these men to come over to us, or to lay aside these vain pretences, and mere disguises of their real sentiments, I demand, (S.) When they say "Christ died for all, so far as to procure pardon and salvation for them if they will believe and repent," whether he died to procure pardon and salvation on a condition, which it was possible, upon that assistance which he would vouchsafe them, to perform; or only upon a condition which to them was impossible, for want of grace sufficient for them, to perform. If the latter only, it is certain that he died not at all for them; for what is only done on an impossible supposition, is not done at all. It being the same thing not to die at all for their benefit, as to do it only on a condition they cannot possibly perform. If he died to procure pardon and salvation for them on a condition which, by that grace which he was ready to vouchsafe to them as well as to the elect, they might be able to perform, he died intentionally, and, on his part, effectually, to procure pardon and salvation to them as well as to the elect, and so all mankind may be saved; and then Christ must have died for the salvation of them all. These are the limitations and restrictions of the extent of our Lord's death, which I reject. I add positively,

First. When I say "Christ died for all," I mean that he died equally for all. This will be evident if we consider, (i.) that he offered the same sacrifice; suffered one and the same death; shed the same blood for all for whom he died. This sacrifice must therefore be offered equally for all, if indeed it were offered for all; because it is the same oblation, the same body crucified, and the same blood shed for all. And hence that scripture, which saith expressly, that Christ died for all,' affords not the least intimation that he suffered more or shed more of his blood for one than for another. Moreover, (in.) it is certain that the sufferings of Christ and his blood shed, cannot be distributed into parts, so that one