XVII.

was a ftumbling-block to the Jews, and it was the chief fub- ART. ject of controverfy betwixt them and the Apostles at the time when the Epifties were writ: fo it was neceflary for them to clear this very fully, and to come often over it. But there was no need of amufing people in the beginnings of Chriflianity, and in that firft infancy of it, with high and unfearchable fpeculations concerning the decrees of God: therefore they obferve, that the Apoftles fhew how that Abraham at first, Ifaac and Jacob afterwards, were chofen by a diferiminating favour, that they and their pofterity should be in covenant with God; and upon that occafion the Apostle goes on to fhew, that God had always defigned to call in the Gentiles, though that was not executed but by their miniftry.

Exod vii.

15, 19, 32.

With this key one will find a plain coherent fense in all St. Paul's difcourfes on this fubject, without afferting antecedent and special decrees as to particular perfons. Things that happen under a permiffive and directing Providence, may be alfo in a largeness of expreflion afcribed to the will and counfel of God; for a permiffive and directing will is really a will, though it be not antecedent nor caufal. The hardening Exod. vii. Pharaoh's heart, may be afcribed to God, though it is faid 22. that his heart hardened itself; because he took occafion from the ftops God put in thofe plagues that he fent upon him and his people, to encourage himfelf, when he faw there was a new refpite granted him: and he who was a cruel and bloody prince, deeply engaged in idolatry and magic, had deferved fuch judgments for his other fins, fo that he may be well confidered as actually under his final condemnation, only under a reprieve, not fwallowed up in the first plagues, but preferved in them, and raised up out of them, to be a lafting monument of the juftice of God against fuch hardened impenitency. Whom Rom.ix. 18. he will, he hardeneth, must be still restrained to fuch perfons as that tyrant was.

It is endless to enter into the difcuffion of all the paffages cited from the Scripture to this purpofe; this key ferving, as they think it does, to open most of them. It is plain thefe words of our Saviour concerning those whom the Father had John xviii. given him, are only to be meant of a difpenfation of Provi- 12. dence, and not of a decree; fince he adds, And I have loft none of them, except the fon of perdition: for it cannot be faid, that he was in the decree, and yet was loft. And in the fame period in which God is faid to work in us both to will Phil. ii. 12. and to do, we are required to work out our own falvation with fear and trembling. The word rendered, ordained to eternal Acts xiii. life, does alfo fignify, fitted or predisposed to eternal life. That 48. queftion, Who made thee differ? feems to refer to thofe gifts, Cor. iv.7. which in different degrees and measures were poured out on the

P3

firft

XVII.

ART. first Chriftians; in which men were only paffive, and difcriminated from one another by the freedom of thofe gifts, without any thing previous in them to difpofe them to them.

1 John. ii.2.

Chrift is faid to be the propitiation for the fins of the whole 2 Pet. ii. 1. world; and the wicked are faid to deny the Lord that bought them; and his death, as to its extent to all men, is fet in oppoRom. v. 18. fition to the fin of Adam; fo that as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, fo by the righteoufnefs of one, the free gift came upon all men to juftification of life. The all of the one fide must be of the fame extent with the all of the other: fo fince all are concerned in Adam's fin, all must be likewife concerned in the death of Chrift. This they urge farther, with this argument, that all men are obliged to believe in the death of Chrift, but no man can be obliged to believe a lye; therefore it follows that he muft have died for all. Nor can it be thought that grace is fo efficacious of itself, as to determine us; otherwise why are Afsvii. 51. we required not to grieve Gods Spirit? Why is it faid, re do Match.xxiii. always refift the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, fo do ye. How often would I have gathered you under my wings, but ye would not? What more could I have done in my vineyard, that has not been done in it? These seem to be plain intimations of a power in us, by which we not only can, but often do resist the motions of grace.

37.

Jía. v. 4.

if the determining efficacy of grace is not acknowledged, it will be yet much harder to believe that we are efficaciously determined to fin. This feems to be not only contrary to the purity and holiness of God, but is fo manifeftly contrary to the whole ftrain of the Scriptures, that charges fin upon men, that Hof. xiii. 9. in fo copious a fubject it is not neceflary to bring proofs. O Ifrael, thou haft destroyed thyself, but in me is thy help: and, Tch. v. 40. ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life: why will you Ezck.xx.die, O boufe of Ifrael? And as for that nicety of faying, that

11.

the evil of fin confifts in a negation, which is not a pofitive being, fo that though God fhould determine men to the action that is finful, yet he is not concerned in the fin of it: they think it is too metaphyfical, to put the honour of God and his attributes upon fuch a fubtilty: for in fins against moral laws, there seems to be an antecedent immorality in the action itself, which is infeparable from it. But fuppofe that fin confifted in a negative, yet that privation does immediately and neceflarily refult out of the action, without any other thing whatsoever intervening so that if God does infallibly determine a finner to commit the action to which that guilt belongs, though that fhould be a fin only by reafon of a privation that is dependent upon it, then it does not appear but that he is really the author of fin; fince if he is the author of the finful action, on

which the fin depends as a fhadow upon its fubftance, he must A R T. be esteemed, fay they, the author of fin.

And though it may be faid, that fin being a violation of God's law, he himfelt, who is not bound by his law, cannot be guilty of fin; yet an action that is immoral, is fo effentially oppofite to infinite perfection, that God cannot be capable of it, as being a contradiction to his own nature. Nor is it to be supposed that he can damn men for that, which is the neceflary refult of an action to which he himself determined them.

XVII.

iii.

As for perfeverance, the many promifes made in the Scriptures to them that overcome, that continue fedfaft and faithful Rev. ii. and to the death, feem to infinuate, that a man may fall from at good state. Thofe famous words in the fixth of the Hebrews do plainly intimate, that fuch men may fo fall away, Heb. vi. that it may be impoffible to renew them again by repentance. And in that Epistle where it is faid, The juft fhall live by faith; Heb. x. it is adced, but if he draw back (any man is not in the original, my Soul fhall have no pleasure in him. And it is pofitively faid by the Prophet, When the righteous turneth away from Ezek. xviii. bis righteoufnefs, and committeth iniquity, all his righteoufness 24. that he hath done fhall not be mentioned; in his fin that he hath finned fhall be die. Thefe fuppofitions, with a great many more of the fame strain that may be brought out of other places, do give us all poffible reafon to believe that a good man may fall from a good ftate, as well as that a wicked man may turn from a bad one. In conclufion, the end of all things, the final Judgment at the last day, which fhall be pronounced according to what men have done, whether good or evil, and their being to be rewarded and punished according to it, seems so effectually to affert a freedom in our wills, that they think this alone might serve to prove the whole cause.

So far I have fet forth the force of the argument on the fide of the Remonftrants. As for the Socinians, they make their plea out of what is faid by the one and by the other fide. They agree with the Remonftrants in all that they say against abfolute decrees, and in urging all thofe confequences that do arife out of them: and they do alfo agree with the Calvinifts in all that they urge against the poffibility of a certain prescience of future contingents: fo that it will not be neceflary to fet forth their plea more specially, nor needs more be faid in oppofition to it, than what was already faid as part of the Remonftrants plea. Therefore, without dwelling any longer on that, I come now to make fome reflections upon the whole

matter.

It is at first view apparent, that there is a great deal of weight in what has been faid of both fides: fo much, that

XVII.

AR T. it is no wonder if education, the conftant attending more to the difficulties of the one fide than of the other, and a temper fome way proportioned to it, does fix men very fteadily to either the one or the other perfuafion. Both fides have their difficulties, fo it will be natural to choose that fide where the difficulties are leaft felt: but it is plain there is no reason for either of them to defpife the other, fince the arguments of both are far from being contemptible.

It is farther to be obferved, that both fides feem to be chiefly concerned to affert the honour of God, and of his attributes. Both agree in this, that whatever is fixed as the primary idea of God, all other things must be explained fo as to be confiftent with that. Contradictions are never to be admitted; but things may be justly believed, against which objections may be formed that cannot be eafily answered.

The one fide think, that we must begin with the idea of infinite perfection, of independency and abfolute fovereignty: and if in the fequel difficulties occur which cannot be cleared, that ought not to fhake us from this primary idea of God.

Others think, that we cannot frame fuch clear notions of independency, fovereignty, and infinite perfection, as we can do of juftice, truth, holinefs, goodnefs, and mercy: and fince the Scripture proposes God to us moft frequently under those ideas, they think that we ought to fix on these as the primary ideas of God, and then reduce all other things to them.

Thus both fides feem zealous for God and his glory; both lay down general maxims that can hardly be difputed; and both argue juftly from their first principles. These are great grounds for mutual charity and forbearance in these mat

ters.

It is certain, that one who has long interwoven his thoughts of infinite perfection, with the notions of abfolute and unchangeable decrees, of carrying on every thing by a positive will, of doing every thing for his own glory, cannot apprehend decrees depending on a forefeen free-will, a grace fubject to it, a merit of Chrift's death that is loft, and a man's being at one time loved, and yet finally hated of God, without horror. These things feem to carry in them an appearance of feebleness, of dependence, and of changeableness.

On the other hand; a man that has accustomed himself to think often on the infinite goodness and mercy, the longfuffering, patience, and flowness to anger that appears in God; he cannot let the thought of abfolute reprobation, or of determining men to fin, or of not giving them the grace neceflary to keep them from fin and damnation, enter into

his mind, without the fame horror that another feels in the ART. reverse of all this.

So that the fource of both opinions being the different ideas that they have of God, and both thefe ideas being true; men only mistaking in the extent of them, and in the confequences drawn from them; here are the clearest grounds imaginable for a mutual forbearance, for not judging men imperioufly, nor cenfuring them feverely upon either fide. And those who have at different times of their lives been of both opinions, and who upon the evidence of reafon, as it has appeared to them, have changed their perfuafions, can speak more affirmatively here; for they know, that in great fincerity of heart they have thought both ways.

Each opinion has fome practical advantages of its fide. A Calvinist is taught, by his opinions, to think meanly of himfelf, and to afcribe the honour of all to God; which lays in him a deep foundation for humility: he is alfo much inclined to fecret prayer, and to a fixed dependence on God; which naturally both brings his mind to a good ftate, and fixes it in it; and fo though perhaps he cannot give a coherent account of the grounds of his watchfulness and care of himself; yet that temper arifes out of his humility, and his earnestnefs in prayer. A Remonftrant, on the other hand, is engaged to awaken and improve his faculties, to fill his mind with good notions, to raife them in himself by frequent reflection, and by a conftant attention to his own actions: he fees cause to reproach himself for his fins, and to fet about his duty to purpofe being affured that it is through his own fault if he mifcarries he has no dreadful terrors upon his mind; nor is he tempted to an undue fecurity, or to fwell up in (perhaps) an imaginary conceit of his being unalterably in the favour of God.

Both fides have their peculiar temptations as well as their advantages: the Calvinift is tempted to a falie fecurity, and floth and the Arminian may be tempted to trust too much to himself, and too little to God: fo equally may a man of a calm temper, and of moderate thoughts, balance this matter between both the fides, and fo unreasonable it is to give way to a pofitive and dictating temper in this point. If the Arminian is zealous to affert liberty, it is because he cannot fee, how there can be good or evil in the world without it: he thinks it is the work of God, that he has made for great ends; and therefore he can allow of nothing that he thinks deftroys it. If on the other hand a Calvinift feems to break in upon liberty, it is because he cannot reconcile it with the fovereignty

XVII.