men should be eventually saved, or come to the knowledge of the truth,
so that none of them should perish, is evident, from many other
scriptures, that speak of the destruction of ungodly men, which,
doubtless, will be allowed by all; therefore it follows, that the
meaning of these two scriptures, is not that God purposed, or
determined, what shall never come to pass, which is inconsistent with
the glory of his wisdom and sovereignty, as has been before observed;
but they are to be understood with those limitations, which the word
_all_, which refers to the persons mentioned, as designed to be saved,
is subject to in other scriptures; as will be more particularly
considered, when we treat of universal and particular redemption, under
a following answer[220]. And therefore, at present, we need only
observe, that these scriptures may be set in a true light, that the word
_all_ is oftentimes taken for all sorts of men, or things; as when it is
said, that _of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in
two and two unto Noah into the ark_, Gen. vii. 8, 9. that is all the
_species_ of living creatures, not every individual; so, Acts x. 12. in
the vision that Peter saw of the sheet let down from heaven, in which
_there were all manner of four-footed beasts_[221], &c. and it is said
concerning our Saviour, that he _went about, healing all manner of
sickness, and all manner of diseases among the people_[222]; and
elsewhere God promises, that _he will pour out his Spirit on all flesh_,
Acts ii. 17. that is, persons of all ages and conditions, young and old.
There are many instances of the like nature in scripture, which justify
this sense of the word _all_; and it seems plain, from the context, that
it is to be so taken in the former of the scriptures, but now referred
to, when it is said, _God will have all men to be saved_; for he
exhorts, in ver. 1. that _prayer and supplication should be made for all
men_, that is, for men of all characters and conditions in the world,
and, in particular, for _kings, and all that are in authority_, and
thereby he takes occasion to resolve a matter in dispute among them,
whether those kings that were tyrants and oppressors, ought to be prayed
for, when he tells them, that all sorts of men are to be prayed for; and
the reason of this is assigned, namely, _because God will have all men_,
that is, all sorts of men, _to be saved_.
Moreover, they whom God will save, are said to be such as _shall come_,
that is, as he will bring _to the knowledge of the truth_. Now it is
certain, that God never designed to bring every individual to the
knowledge of the truth; for, if he did, his purpose is not fulfilled, or
his providence runs counter to it, for every individual of mankind have
not the gospel; therefore it follows, that since God did not purpose
that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth, the foregoing
words, _Who will have all men to be saved_, are not to be understood in
any other sense, but as signifying _all sorts of men_. Neither can it
well be proved, whatever may be attempted in order thereto, that the
following words, which speak of Christ’s being _a Mediator between God
and men_, intend, that he performs this office for every individual man,
even for those that shall not be saved; for then it would be executed in
vain for a great part of them, as will be farther considered in its
proper place; therefore we must conclude, that, in the former of these
scriptures, nothing else is intended, but that God determined to give
saving grace to all sorts of men.
And as for the latter, in which the apostle Peter says, that _God is not
willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance_;
there the word _all_ is expressly limited, in the context, as referring
only to those who are elect and faithful; and therefore he says,
including himself among them, that _the Lord is long-suffering to
us-ward_. Now if we observe the character which he gives of the church,
to which he writes, in the beginning of both his epistles, (which, as he
says, in ver. 1. of this chapter, were directed to the same persons) it
is as great as is given of any in scripture; and they are distinguished
from those profane _scoffers, who walked after their own lusts_, and
other ungodly men, whose perdition he speaks of, as what would befal
them in the dissolution of the world, by fire, in the day of Judgment;
and they are described not only as _elect unto obedience_, and as having
_obtained like precious faith_ with the apostles, but they were such as
God would _keep, through faith, unto salvation_; therefore the apostle
might well say, concerning them, that God determined that none of them
should perish, without advancing any thing that militates against the
doctrine we are maintaining.
_Object._ The apostle, in this verse, speaks of God, as willing that
_all should come to repentance_; therefore they are distinguished from
that part of the church, who had obtained like precious faith, and were
included in the character that he gives of some of them, in both his
epistles, which infers their being then in a state of salvation;
therefore the word, _all_, in this text, is not subject to the
limitation before mentioned, but must be applied to _all the world_, and
consequently the meaning is, that God is not willing that any of mankind
should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
_Answ._ The apostle, in this text, speaks of God’s deferring the day of
judgment, and perdition of ungodly men, and so exercising his
long-suffering towards the world in general; not that he designed to
bring them all to repentance hereby, for that would be to intend a thing
which he knew should never come to pass: But the end of his patience, to
the world in general, is, that all whom he designed to bring to
repentance, or who were chosen to it, as well as to obedience, and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, should be brought to it.
There are other arguments, which they bring in defence of their sense of
the doctrine of election, as supposing that it is not peremptory,
determinate, or unchangeable, and such as infers the salvation of those
who are the objects thereof, taken from those scriptures, which, as they
apprehend, ascribe a kind of disappointment to God; as when he says, in
Isa. v. 4. concerning his vineyard, to wit, the church of the Jews,
_Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it
forth wild grapes?_ and our Saviour’s words, in Luke xiii. 6. that _he
sought fruit on the fig-tree_, meaning the church of the Jews in his
day, _but found none_; and, speaking concerning Jerusalem, he says, in
Matth. xxiii. 37, 38. _How often would I have gathered thy children
together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye
would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate_; therefore they
conclude, that God’s purpose, or design of grace, may be defeated; so
that these, and many other scriptures, not unlike to them, are
inconsistent with the doctrine of election, as ascertaining the event,
to wit, the salvation of those who are chosen to eternal life; which
leads us, particularly to consider the sense thereof.
As to the first of them, in which God says, by the prophet, _What could
have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?
Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it
forth wild grapes?_ He condescends therein to speak of himself after the
manner of men, as he often does in scripture, and is said to look for
what might reasonably have been expected, as the consequence of all the
means of grace, which he had vouchsafed to them; the reasonableness of
the thing is called his looking for it, as though he should say, it
might have been expected, from the nature of the thing, that they, who
had been laid under such obligations, should express some gratitude for
them, and so have brought forth some fruit, to the glory of God. And
those words, which seem to attribute disappointment to him, when it is
said, _I looked_, &c. signifying nothing else but the ingratitude of the
people, that they did not walk agreeably to the obligations they were
under; not that God was really disappointed, for that would militate
against his omniscience. He knew, before he laid these obligations on
them, what their behaviour would be; therefore, had he eyes of flesh, or
seen as man seeth, their behaviour would have tended to disappoint him;
but there is no disappointment in the divine mind, though the sin
reproved in the people be the same as though it had had a tendency to
defeat the divine purpose, or disappoint his expectation.
As for that other scripture, in which it is said, that _he sought fruit
on the fig-tree, but found none_, that is to be explained in the same
way, _he sought fruit_, that is, it might reasonably have been expected,
but _he found none_, that is, they did not act agreeably to the means of
grace which they enjoyed. Therefore neither this, nor the other
scripture, does in the least argue, that the purpose of God was not
concerned about the event, or that he did not know what it would be;
for, as his providential dispensation gives us ground to conclude, that
he determined to leave them to themselves, so he knew beforehand that
this, through the corruption of their nature, would issue in their
unfruitfulness, otherwise he is not omniscient. Therefore it follows,
that neither of these scriptures have the least tendency to overthrow
the doctrine of the certainty and peremptoriness of the divine purpose.
As to what our Saviour says, relating to his willingness, to _have
gathered Jerusalem, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but
they would not_, it may be taken, without the least absurdity attending
the sense thereof, as referring to the end and design of his ministry
among them; and it is as though he should say, your nation shall be
broken, and you scattered, as a punishment inflicted on you for your
iniquities, and this destruction would have been prevented, had you
believed in me; so that all that can be inferred from hence, is, that
Christ’s ministry and doctrine were attended with that convincing
evidence, being confirmed by so many undoubted miracles, that their
unbelief was not only charged on them as a crime, but was the occasion
of their ruin; or (as it is said in the following words) of their
_houses being left unto them desolate_. And this might have been
prevented, by their making a right improvement of that common grace,
which they had; for though it be not in man’s power,[223] without the
special influence of divine grace, to believe to the saving of the soul;
yet I know no one who denies that it is in his power to do more good,
and avoid more evil, than he does, or so far to attend to the preaching
of the gospel, as not to oppose it with that malice and envy as the Jews
did; and, had they paid such a deference to Christ’s ministry, as this
amounted to, they would not have been exposed to those judgments which
afterwards befel them; for it is one thing to say, that men, by
improving common grace, can attain salvation, and another thing to
conclude, that they might have escaped temporal judgments thereby.
Therefore, if it be enquired, what was God’s intention in giving them
the gospel? the answer is very plain: It was not that hereby he might
bring them all into a state of salvation, for then it would have taken
effect; but it was, as appears by the event, to bring those, that should
be saved among them, to that salvation, and to let others know, whether
they would hear, or whether they would forbear, that God had a right to
their obedience, and therefore that the message which the Redeemer
brought to them, ought to have met with better entertainment from them,
than it did. And if it be farther enquired, whether, provided they had
believed, their ruin would have been prevented? This is an undoubted
consequence, from our Saviour’s words; but yet it does not follow, from
hence, that it was a matter of uncertainty with God, whether they should
believe or no; for it is one thing to say, that he would not have
punished them, unless they rejected our Saviour; and another thing to
suppose that he could not well determine whether they would reject him
or no. So that the purpose of God must be considered, as agreeing with
the event of things, and the design of Christ’s ministry, as being what
it really was; yet he might, notwithstanding, take occasion to charge
the Jews’ destruction upon their own obstinacy.
There are many other scriptures, which they bring to the like purpose,
which I pass over, because the sense they give of them differs not much
from that, in which they understand the scriptures before-mentioned, and
their reasoning from them, in opposition to this doctrine is the same,
and the same answer may be given to it.
However, I cannot but observe, that as, from some scriptures, they
attribute disappointment to God, they represent him, from others, as
wishing, but in vain, that it had happened otherwise, and as being
grieved at the disappointment; so they understand those words, in Psal.
lxxxi. 13, 14. _Oh! that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had
walked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned
my hand against their adversaries_; and that, in Luke xix. 42. _If_, or,
_Oh! that thou hadst known, even thou at least, in this thy day, the
things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine
eyes_.
As for the sense of these, and such-like scriptures, it is no more than
this, that the thing which they refused to perform, was, in itself, most
desirable, or a matter to be wished for, and not that God can be said to
wish for a thing that cannot be attained. And when our Saviour laments
over Jerusalem, as apprehending their destruction near at hand, whether
the words are to be considered in the form of a wish, that it had been
otherwise, or an intimation, that if they had known the things of their
peace, their destruction would not have ensued, it is only to be
understood as a representation of the deplorableness of their condition,
which, with a tenderness of human compassion, he could not speak of,
without tears: Yet we are not to suppose that this mode of expression is
applicable to the divine will; so that, when the misery of that people
is hereby set forth, we are not to strain the sense of words, taken from
human modes of speaking, so far, as to suppose that the judicial acts of
God, in punishing a sinful people, are not the execution of his purpose
relating thereunto.
Again, when the Spirit is said to be _grieved_, Eph. iv. 30. or
_resisted_, Acts vii. 15. nothing else is intended hereby, but that men
act in such a way, as that, had the Spirit of God been subject to human
passions, it would have been matter of grief to him. But far be it from
us to suppose that the divine nature is liable hereunto, or that any
disappointment can attend his purposes, which has a tendency to excite
this passion in men. And when he is said to be resisted, it is not meant
as though his will, or design, could be rendered ineffectual, but it
only implies, that men oppose what the Spirit communicated by the
prophets, or in his word. This a person may do, and yet it may be truly
said, that _the counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations_, Psal. xxxiii. 11.
VIII. We shall proceed to consider several objections that are made
against the doctrine we have endeavoured to maintain, and what reply may
be given to them. Some have been occasionally mentioned under several
foregoing heads, and there are others which require a distinct reply.
_Object._ 1. That the doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation was
altogether unknown by the Fathers in the three first centuries, and that
it was first brought into the Christian world by Augustin; before whose
time, the only account we have of it, is, that God foreknowing who would
live piously, or believe and persevere to the end, accordingly
predestinated them to eternal life, or determined to pass them by, and
so is said to have rejected them.[224]
_Answ._ This objection, were it literally true, cannot have any tendency
to overthrow this doctrine, in the opinion of those, who depend not on
the credit of Augustin, as defending it, on the one hand, nor are
staggered by the opposition made to it by some of the Fathers, who lived
before his time, on the other; and therefore we might have passed it by,
without making any reply to it. However, since it contains a kind of
insult, or boast, which will have its weight with some, it may be
expected that a few things should be said, in answer to it.
We will not deny but that the Fathers, before the Pelagian heresy was
broached in the world; expressed themselves, in many parts of their
writings, in so lax and unguarded a manner concerning the doctrines of
predestination, free-will, and grace, that, had they lived after those
doctrines began to be publickly contested, one would have thought that
they had verged too much towards Pelagius’s side; but, since they were
not the subject-matter of controversy in those ages, it is no wonder to
find them less cautious in their modes of expressing themselves, than
they might otherwise have been; and therefore it is a just observation,
which one[225] makes of this matter, that they had to do with the
Manichees, and some of the heathen, who supposed that men sinned by a
fatal necessity of nature, as though there were no wicked action
committed in the world, but some would be ready to excuse it, from the
impotency or propensity of human nature to sin, which rendered it, as
they supposed, unavoidable; and others took occasion, from hence, to
charge God with being the author of sin. It is very probable the
Fathers, in those ages, were afraid of giving countenance to this vile
opinion, and therefore they were less on their guard, in some respects,
than they would have been, had they been to encounter with Pelagius, or
his followers.
And indeed, Augustin himself, before he took occasion to enquire more
diligently into the state of this controversy, gave into the same way of
expressing his sentiments about the power of nature, or the grace of
God, as some others of the Fathers had done, and concluded that faith
was in our power, as well a duty incumbent on us, but afterwards
retracted such modes of speaking as the result of more mature
deliberation.[226] But notwithstanding though he expressed himself in a
different way from them, yet he often takes occasion, from some passages
which he purposely refers to in their writings, to vindicate them as
holding the same faith, though not always using the same phrases. And,
after he had thus defended Cyprian and Ambrose, in that respect, he puts
a very charitable construction on their unguarded way of expressing
themselves, and says, that this arose from their not having any occasion
to engage in that controversy, which was on foot in his day.[227] The
same might be said to Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, and several
others, whom some modern writers defend from the charge of favouring the
Pelagian scheme, by referring to some places in their writings, in which
they acknowledge, that the salvation of men is owing to the grace of
God, whereby all occasions of glorying are taken away from the
creature,[228] or expressions used by them to the like purpose. And the
learned Vossius, though he acknowledges, that the Fathers, before
Augustin, expressed themselves in such a way, as is represented in the
objection, yet he vindicates them from the charge of verging towards the
Pelagian, or Semi-Pelagian heresy; inasmuch as he concludes, that when
they speak of God’s predestinating men to eternal life, on the foresight
of good works, they only intend those good works, which God would enable
them to perform; and this will clear many of those expressions which
they use, from this imputation.[229] But if all these endeavours to
establish our claim to those Fathers, who lived before Augustin, as not
being opposers of this doctrine, appear to be to no purpose, yet this
will not weaken the truth thereof; for we suppose it to be founded on
scripture, and several consequences plainly deduced from it, and
therefore it doth not want the suffrage of human testimony to support
it.
But if it be said, that this is a very desirable thing as doubtless it
is, we might consider this doctrine, as obtaining very much in, and
after Augustin’s time, being examined and defended by very considerable
numbers of men, who have transmitted it down to posterity, throughout
the various ages of the church. Notwithstanding, by whomsoever it is
defended, or opposed, we lay no great stress on human authority, as a
judicious divine well observes[230]. We shall therefore proceed to
consider some other objections, which it will be more necessary for us
to give a particular answer to.
_Object._ 2. To the doctrine of God’s purpose’s ascertaining all events,
it is objected that he has not determined the bounds of the life of man,
but that it may be lengthened, or shortened, by the intervention of
second causes. This is nothing else but the applying one branch of this
controversy, relating to the decrees of God, to a particular instance.
And it was very warmly debated in the Netherlands, towards the beginning
of the last century.[231] This objection is managed in a popular way,
and is principally adapted to give prejudice to those who are disposed
to pass over, or set aside, these necessary distinctions, which, if duly
considered, would not only shorten the debate, but set the matter in a
clearer light, which we shall endeavour to do; but shall first consider
their method of reasoning on this subject, and the sense they give of
some scriptures, which as they suppose, give countenance to this
objection.
They therefore thus argue, that if the term of life be immoveably fixed
by God, then it is a vain thing for any one to use those means that are
necessary to preserve it, and the skill of the physician, as well as the
virtue of medicine, is altogether needless; and the good advice which is
often given to persons, to take heed that they do not shorten their
lives by intemperance, will be to no purpose; for they have a reply
ready at hand, namely, that they shall live their appointed time, do
what they will. And that, which is still more absurd, is, that if a
person attempts to lay violent hands upon himself, it will be to no
purpose, if God has determined that he shall live longer; or if he has
determined that he shall die, then he is guilty of no crime, for he only
fulfils the divine purpose.
They add, moreover, that this not only renders all our supplications to
God to preserve our lives, or to restore us from sickness, when we are
in danger of death, needless; but our conduct herein is a practical
denial of the argument we maintain; for what is this, but to suppose
that the bounds of life are unalterably fixed.
As to what concerns the countenance, which they suppose, scripture gives
to this objection, they refer us to those places in which the life of
man is said to be lengthened or shortened; accordingly, there are
promises of _long life given to the righteous who love God, and keep his
commandments_, Exod. xx. 12. Deut. iv. 40. 1 Kings iii. 14. and Solomon
says expressly, _The fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the years of
the wicked shall be shortened_, Prov. x. 27. and elsewhere he speaks of
the _wicked’s dying before their time_, Eccl. vii. 17. and the Psalmist
says, that _bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their
days_, Psal. lv. 23.
They also refer to that scripture in which Martha tells our Saviour,
that _if he had been with her brother Lazarus_, before his death, _he
had not died_, John xi. 21. which either contradicts the argument we are
maintaining, or else Martha was mistaken; which, had she been, our
Saviour would have reproved her, for asserting that which was false.
Moreover, they add, that when the old world was destroyed in the deluge,
and so died before their time, they might have prolonged their lives,
had they repented in that space of time, wherein _Noah as a preacher of
righteousness_, gave them warning of this desolating judgment, and
Christ, _by his Spirit_, in him, _preached to them_, as the apostle
says, 1 Pet. iii. 20. which, doubtless, was with a design to bring them
to repentance, and save them from this destruction.
And when Abraham pleaded with God in the behalf of Sodom, God tells him,
that _if he found but ten righteous persons in the city, he would spare
it for their sake_, Gen. xviii. 32. which is inconsistent with his
determination, that they should all die by an untimely death, if the
bounds of their lives had been fixed.
And lastly, they refer to that scripture, in which God first told
Hezekiah, that _he should die, and not live_, and afterwards, that he
would _add to his days fifteen years_, Isa. xxxviii. 1. compared with 5.