contradiction, and so consider the sense thereof, in different respects,
as applicable to them both; in some scriptures, God is said to repent;
in others, it is said that he cannot repent. That these may not appear
inconsistent with one another, nor either of them infer any imperfection
in God, let it be considered, that God is sometimes represented, in
scripture, in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as though he
had human passions, as in others, he is described, as though he had a
body, or bodily parts: But such expressions are always to be taken in a
metaphorical sense, without the least supposition, that he is subject to
any such imperfections; and particularly we must not conclude, that
repentance is ever ascribed to God in the same sense as it is to men,
_viz._ as implying a change in his purpose, occasioned by an unforeseen
occurrence, which is the sense contained in the objection. Such a
repentance, as this, is a passion peculiarly belonging to the creature,
and therefore in this sense we must understand those words; _God is not
a man, that he should lye, nor the son of man, that he should repent_;
accordingly, he is said to repent, not by changing his purpose, but by
changing his work. Thus when it is said, that _he repented that he had
made man_, nothing is meant by it, but that he determined to destroy
him, as he did afterwards by the flood. And this was no new
determination arising from any thing in the creature, which God did not
foresee; he knew before-hand that all flesh would corrupt their way, and
therefore his determination to punish them for it, was not a new resolve
of the divine will, after the sin was committed; but God determined
things in their respective order, first to permit sin, and then knowing
what would be the consequence thereof, namely, that they would rebel
against him, he determined to punish it, or to destroy the old world,
which is, in effect, the same, as though he had repented that he made
it. He cannot be said to repent as we do, by wishing that he had not
done that which he is said to repent of, but by denying us the
advantage, which we might have otherwise expected from it. In this sense
we are to understand all those scriptures that speak of God, as
repenting of the good that he had bestowed on man.
And, on the other hand, when he is said to repent of the evil which he
threatened to bring on men, as in the case of Nineveh, this does not
argue any change in his purpose; for he determined that Nineveh should
be destroyed, provided they did not repent, and it was not uncertain to
him whether they would repent or no; for, at the same time, he
determined to give them repentance, as appears by the event, and so not
to inflict the judgment threatened; and therefore when Jonah was sent to
make a public proclamation to the people, that in forty days they should
be destroyed, it is plain that they understood the threatening in this
sense, that they had no ground to expect any thing else, except they
repented, which accordingly they did, and so were spared, without having
any reason to conclude that God changed his purpose relating thereunto.
If it be objected hereunto, that this is nothing less than to establish
a conditional purpose in God, and so overthrows the argument that we are
maintaining; the reply that may be made to it, is, that we distinguish
between a conditional purpose, in God’s secret will, and a conditional
proposition, which was to be the subject of the prophet’s ministry: The
prophet, it is plain, was not told, when he received his commission to
go to Nineveh, that God would give them repentance, but only, that,
without repentance, they should be destroyed; whereas God, as the event
makes it appear, determined that they should repent, and therefore that
they should not be destroyed; and, consequently, we must not suppose,
that, when God sent him, he was undetermined, in his own purpose,
whether to destroy them or not, or that there was any thing conditional
in the divine mind, that rendered the event uncertain to God, though
there was a condition contained in the subject-matter of the prophet’s
message, which the Ninevites very well understood, namely, that they had
no ground to expect deliverance without repentance, and therefore they
repented, in hope of obtaining mercy, which they supposed would be
connected with their repentance; and it is evident, that Jonah himself
suspected that this might be the event, though God had not told him that
it would be so, and therefore says, in chap. iv. 2. _For I knew that
thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great
kindness, and repentest thee of the evil._
6. The purpose of God, in choosing men to eternal life, renders their
salvation necessary; so that nothing shall defeat, or disannul it. What
God says concerning Israel’s deliverance from the Babylonish captivity,
may be applied to all his other determinations, and particularly to what
relates to the eternal salvation of his people; _My counsel shall stand,
and I will do all my pleasure; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring
it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it_, Isa. xlvi. 10, 11.
The purposes of God, indeed, are distinguished from his bringing them to
pass; it is one thing to design to bring his people to glory, and
another thing to bring them to it. It is not to be supposed that the
decree of God has, in itself, a proper efficiency to produce the thing
decreed:[208] for then there would be no difference between an eternal
decree, and an eternal production of things; whereas the apostle plainly
distinguishes between man’s being predestinated to glory, and brought to
it, when he says, _Those whom he predestinated, them he glorified_, Rom.
viii. 30.
The purpose of God, is, indeed, the internal moving cause, or the first
ground and reason of the salvation of those who are elected to it; but
his power is the more immediate cause of it, so that his purpose is the
reason of his exerting this power, and both concurring to the salvation
of men, render it certain and necessary. Therefore some distinguish, for
the explaining of this, between the determining and powerful will of
God; the latter of which, is sometimes called the word of his power, and
renders the former effectual; this it must certainly do, otherwise God
would be said to will the existence of things, that shall never have a
being. In this respect, the purpose of God renders things necessary,
which are in themselves contingent, or arbitrary, and would otherwise
never come to pass.[209]
This is a great encouragement to those who are enabled to make their
calling and election sure; for their perseverance in grace,
notwithstanding all the opposition that they meet with, is the necessary
consequence of their election to eternal life. Thus, as we before
distinguished predestination into election and reprobation, we have
considered the former of these, and we proceed,
_Secondly_, To speak concerning the doctrine of reprobation;[210] which
is become obnoxious to those on the other side of the question, almost
to a proverb; so that if any doctrine is considered as shocking, and to
be answered no otherwise than by testifying their abhorrence of it, it
is compared to this of reprobation; and, indeed, if it were not a
consequence from the doctrine of election to eternal life, that doctrine
would not be so much opposed by them. How far some unguarded
expressions, or exceptionable methods of explication, may have given
occasion for this prejudice, it is not to our present purpose to
enquire; but we shall take occasion, from thence, to explain it in such
a way, as that a fair and unprejudiced disputant will not see just
reason to except against it, at least to reproach it, as though it were
a doctrine subversive of the divine glory, and to be defended by none
but those who seem to have a design to raise prejudices, in the minds of
men, against religion in general.
And here we shall take occasion to consider the meaning of the word, as
it is contained in, or deduced from scripture, where the same word that
is used to signify the execution of this decree, may be applied to
express the decree itself. Thus we read of God’s rejecting, or
disregarding men, as a punishment of their rebellion against him: and
these are compared by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. vi. 30. _To reprobate
silver, because the Lord hath rejected them_; or, as it is in the
margin, _The refuse of silver_; and, in the New Testament, the same
word[212] is sometimes translated reprobates; at other times,
disapproved or rejected, 1 Cor. iv. 27. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. Heb. vi. 8. and
when this disapprobation, or rejection, respects not only their actions,
as contrary to the holy nature of God, but their persons, as punished
for their iniquities; and when this punishment is considered as what
respects their eternal state, as the objects of vindictive justice, the
purpose of God, relating hereunto, is what we call reprobation.
But, that we may more particularly consider the sense of the word, it
seems, in scripture, to contain in it two ideas.
1. God’s determining to leave a part of the world in that state of sin
and misery, which he from all eternity, fore-knew that they would bring
themselves into, or his decreeing not to save them; and, since all will
allow that a part of mankind shall not be saved, it cannot reasonably be
denied that this was determined by him before-hand; and this is what
divines generally call preterition.
2. There is another idea in the word _reprobation_, which is also
contained in scripture, or deducible from it, and that respects the
purpose of God to punish those for their iniquities, whom he will not
save. Not to be saved, is the same as to be _punished with everlasting
destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power_.
And God’s purpose, relating hereunto, is expressed in scripture by his
_appointing them to wrath_, 1 Thess. v. 9. for those sins which he
fore-saw they would commit. This is what some call _pre-damnation_, as
taken from that expression of the apostle, Jude, ver. 4, 13. concerning
some who had _crept into the church unawares_, whom he describes as
_ungodly men_, that is, notoriously so, _who turned the grace of God
into lasciviousness_, for whom _is reserved the blackness of darkness
forever_; of these he says, that they were _before of old, ordained to
this condemnation_, where God is represented as punishing sinners, in
proportion to their crimes; and this is considered as the result of that
eternal purpose, which was founded on his fore-sight of their
contracting that guilt whereby they would render themselves liable to
it.
If this doctrine be thus explained, it will appear agreeable, not only
to scripture, but to the divine perfections, and therefore too great a
truth to be treated with that abhorrence, with which it generally is,
without explaining, distinguishing or fairly entering into the merits of
the cause. It is a very easy matter to render any doctrine odious, by
misrepresentation, as they on the other side of the question, have done
this of reprobation, which we shall briefly consider, and therein take
leave to explain it in a different manner, whereby it will appear not
only worthy to be defended, as redounding to the glory of God, but a
plain and evident truth, founded on scripture.
If this doctrine were to be considered no otherwise, than as it is often
represented by them, we should dislike it, as much as they do; for when
they pretend that we herein suppose God to be severe and cruel to his
creatures, delighting himself in, and triumphing over them, in their
misery: and that he decreed, from all eternity, to damn the greatest
part of mankind, without any consideration of their sin, as the result
of his arbitrary will, or dominion, as he has a right to dispose of his
creatures, according to his pleasure, and that as a means to attain this
end, as though it were in itself desirable, he leaves them to
themselves, blinds their minds, and hardens their hearts, and offers
these occasions of, and inducements to sin, which are as
stumbling-blocks in their way, and that he determined that his
providence should be so conversant about the will of man, as that it
should be under a natural necessity, or kind of compulsion, to what is
evil, without considering the corruption and depravity of nature, as a
vicious habit, which they had contracted; and that all this is done in
pursuance of this decree of reprobation.
It is very probable that many who give this account of this doctrine,
have no other foundation for it, but the popular outcry of those who are
not apprised of the methods that are generally taken to explain and
defend it; or else they suppose that it cannot be defended, without
being exposed to those exceptions which are contained in the account
they give of it. But we shall take no farther notice of this, but
proceed to explain and defend it another way. And,
1. As to the former branch thereof, namely, preterition, or God’s
passing by, or rejecting those whom he hath not chosen to salvation, let
it be premised; that God, in his eternal purpose, considered all mankind
as fallen, which must be supposed to have been foreknown by him,
otherwise he would not be said to be omniscient, and the result of his
fore-knowledge is his determining to leave a part of them in their
fallen state, in which he might have left the whole world to perish
without being liable to the least charge of injustice. This is what we
call his rejecting them, and accordingly it is opposed to his having
chosen the rest to eternal life. These terms of opposition are plainly
contained in scripture: thus it is said, _The election hath obtained it,
and the rest were blinded_, Rom. xi. 7. not by God’s leading them into
mistakes, or giving them false ideas of things, but they were left to
the blindness of their minds, which was the result of their apostasy
from God; and elsewhere our Saviour says, _Thou hast hid these things
from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes_, Matt. xi.
25. Thou hast hid, that is, not revealed them; and that either
objectively, as respecting those who are destitute of the light of the
gospel; or subjectively, as he did not effectually, or savingly
enlighten them with the light of life, by _revealing Christ in them_, as
the apostle calls it, Gal. i. 16. and therefore it is as though he had
said, thou hast determined not to give to some the means of grace, nor
to others the saving efficacy thereof, such as they are partakers of,
who are chosen to salvation. Accordingly, he is said _to have suffered
all nations to walk in their own ways_, Acts xiv. 16. that is, not to
restrain or prevent the breaking forth of corruption, as he might have
done; and elsewhere, to have _winked at_, chap. xvii. 30. that is, as it
may be rendered, _over-looked_ the greatest part of the world, which is
no other than his rejecting or passing them by; and in this sense we are
to understand that difficult mode of speaking used by the apostle, _Whom
he will he hardeneth_, Rom. ix. 18. by which nothing else is intended
but his purposing to leave many to the hardness of their own hearts. God
forbid that any one should think that there is a positive act contained
in those words, as though God infused hardness into the hearts of any;
for the meaning is only this, that he determined to deny heart-softening
grace to that part of mankind, whom he had not fore-ordained to eternal
life. That there was such a purpose relating hereunto, is evident,
because whatever God does in the methods of his providence, is the
result of an eternal purpose. This no one, who observes the
dispensations of God’s providence, and allows as every one must do, that
all that he does was pre-concerted by him, can justly deny.
But that which must be farther enquired into, as to this matter, is,
whether God’s determining to pass by a part of mankind, be an act of
sovereignty or of justice. And this may also be judged of, by the
external dispensation of his providence; so far as there is sovereignty,
or justice, visible in them, we are to conclude that this purpose,
relating thereunto, was the result of one or other of these perfections.
In some respects it is an act of sovereignty: As, for instance, that God
should give one nation the gospel, or the means of grace, and deny it to
another; it is not because he sees any thing in one part of the world,
that obliges him thereunto, more than in the other; but the reason is,
as was observed in the scripture but now mentioned, _because it seemed
good in his sight_, Matt. xi. 26. Moreover, his giving special grace,
whereby some are effectually called and sanctified; and denying it to
others, is an act of sovereign pleasure.
But on the other hand, God is said sometimes, in the external
dispensations of his providence, to leave men to themselves, to give
them up to their own hearts lust, in a judicial way, which supposes not
only the commission of sin, but persons being obstinate and resolutely
determined to continue in it. Thus God saith concerning his people;
_Israel would none of me; so I gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts,
and they walked in their own counsels_, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. and the
Psalmist says elsewhere, _Add iniquity to their iniquity_, Psal. lxix.
27. which words I would rather consider as a prediction than a prayer,
or as an expression of the church’s acquiescence in God’s righteous
judgments, which they had ground to conclude, that he would inflict on
an impenitent, incorrigible people; these are expressed, by _adding
iniquity to iniquity_, not as though he designed to infuse any habit of
sin into them, for that is inconsistent with the holiness of his nature;
but that he would reject, and leave them to themselves, in a judicial
way, as a punishment inflicted on them for their iniquities, the
consequence whereof would be their own adding iniquity to iniquity.
Thus, in different respects, the purpose of God, in passing by a part of
mankind, may be considered, either as the result of his sovereign
pleasure, or as an act of justice.
2. We shall now proceed to consider the other branch of reprobation,
which some call _pre-damnation_, or (to use the scripture-expression
before referred to) God’s fore-ordaining those who shall not be saved,
to that condemnation, which they shall fall under, as exposing
themselves to it by their own wickedness; which is nothing else but his
determining, from all eternity, to punish those, as a judge, who should,
by their own crimes, deserve it, and thereby to vindicate the holiness
of his nature and law. Here let it be observed, that when this doctrine
is reproached or misrepresented, it is described as an act of divine
sovereignty, but that we are as ready to deny and oppose as they are,
since, according to the description we have given of it, it can be no
other than an act of justice; for, if to condemn, or punish, be an act
of justice, then the decree, relating hereunto, must be equally so, for
one is to be judged of by the other. If God cannot punish creatures as
such, but as criminals and rebels, then he must be supposed to have
considered them as such, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined to
punish them. No man can style this an act of cruelty, or severity in
God, but those who reckon the punishing of sin to be so, and are
disposed to charge the Judge of all with not doing right, or offering an
injury to his creatures, when he pours forth the vials of his wrath on
them, who, by their bold and wilful crimes, render themselves obnoxious
thereunto.
Here let it be considered, that God, in his actual providence, is not
the author of sin, though he suffer it to be committed in the world.
And, since his permitting, or not hindering it, cannot be said to be the
cause of its being committed, there being no cause thereof, but the will
of man; it follows, from hence, that God’s punishing sin, is not to be
resolved into his permission of it, as the cause thereof, but into the
rebellion of man’s will, as refusing to be subject to the divine law;
and thus God considered men, when, in his eternal purpose, he determined
to condemn those, whose desert of this punishment was foreseen, by him,
from all eternity. And is this a doctrine to be so much decried?
I cannot but wonder the learned author, whom I have before referred to,
as opposing this doctrine,[213] should so far give into the common and
popular way of misrepresenting it, unless he designed, by this way of
opposing it to render it detested; when he speaks concerning them,
mentioned in Jude, ver. 4. _who were before, of old, ordained to this
condemnation_, he says, “This cannot be meant of any divine ordination,
or appointment of them, to eternal condemnation, because it cannot be
thought, without horror, that God doth thus ordain men to perdition,
before they had a being.” If he had expressed his horror and resentment
against God’s ordaining men to perdition, as creatures, it had been
just; but to express this detestation against God’s ordaining men to
perdition, who are described as these are, is to expose this doctrine
without reason; and it is still more strange that he should cast this
censure upon it, when he owns in his farther explication of this text,
“That God ordaineth none to punishment but sinners, and ungodly men, as
these persons here are styled, and that these were men of whom it was
before written, or prophesied, that they should be condemned for their
wickedness;” since there is not much difference in the method of
reasoning, between saying that the condemnation of sinners, for their
wickedness, was before written, or prophesied, and saying, that God
fore-ordained them to eternal punishment.
I am sensible that many are led into this mistake, by supposing that we
give a very injurious and perverse sense of that text, in which the
doctrine of reprobation is contained, which, it may be, has occasioned
this reproach to be cast upon it. For when the apostle says, in Rom. ix.
22. _What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction_, some suppose that we understand this text, as though these
vessels of wrath were, from all eternity, prepared for destruction by
God, and that his eternal purpose, is his fitting them for it, as
intending to bring about that end, _viz._ his destroying them. But if
any have expressed themselves in such a way, as is equivalent thereunto,
let them be accountable for their own sense of the text; though this I
may say, that some, even of them, who give into the Supralapsarian way
of explaining the doctrine of predestination, have not understood it in
this sense;[214] and the sense which I would give of it is this, that
those, whom the apostle speaks of as vessels of wrath, are persons whom
God had rejected, and from the foresight of the sins which they would
commit, he had _appointed them to wrath_, which is an expression the
apostle uses elsewhere, 1 Thess. v. 9. but they were appointed to wrath,
not as creatures, but as sinners; they are described as fitted to
destruction, not by God’s act, but their own, and that is the reason of
their being fore-ordained to it.[215]
There is another scripture, which is generally cited by those who treat
on this subject, that we are to use the utmost caution in explaining,
lest we give just occasion, to those who oppose it, to express their
abhorrence of it, as inconsistent with the divine perfections, namely,
what the apostle says concerning those that were not elected, whom he
calls _the rest_ of the Jewish nation, in Rom. xi. 7-10. that _they were
blinded_, and that _God had given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that
they should not see, and ears that they should not hear_; and he speaks
of _their table being made a snare, and a trap and a stumbling-block,
and a recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not
see, and bow down their back always_. The sense which they, who
misrepresent this doctrine, suppose that we put upon this scripture, is,
that they, who are reprobated, have, as a consequence thereof, occasions
of sin laid in their way, some things designed to blind their minds,
cast a mist before their eyes, and so lead them out of the way, and
other things, that prove a snare to them, a trap, and occasion of sin,
and all this with a design to bring about that damnation which God had
ordained for them, in this decree of reprobation; which sense of this
scripture never was, nor could be given, by any one, who has a due
regard to the divine perfections.