individual person that whether he repents and believes, or no, he shall
be saved; or, to direct his discourse to him, as one that is chosen
thereunto, much less to give the impenitent sinner occasion to conclude,
that, though he obstinately, and finally, remain in a state of rebellion
against God, notwithstanding he may hope to be saved, because there is a
number of mankind chosen to salvation; for this is not to declare God’s
revealed will, but that which is directly contrary to it, and therefore
not to preach the gospel. Therefore,
3. All, who sit under the sound of the gospel, ought to look upon it as
a declaration of God’s design to save a part of mankind, under the
preaching thereof, and among them the chief of sinners, which they have
a sufficient ground to conclude themselves to be; but yet a door of hope
is so far opened hereby, that they have no reason to conclude that they
are rejected, any more than that they are elected; and, while they wait
on God’s instituted means of grace, they have, at least, this
encouragement, that, peradventure, they may be of the number of God’s
elect; and, when they find in themselves that faith, which is the
evidence thereof, then they may determine their interest in, and lay
claim to this privilege, when they are enabled to make their calling,
and thereby their election sure.
And as for the promises and threatnings, these are to be considered by
unregenerate persons, without determining their right to the one, or
falling under the other, as elected or rejected; for that is still
supposed to be a secret; therefore they are to regard the promise, as a
declaration of God’s purpose, relating to the connexion that there is
between faith and salvation, as an inducement to perform the one, in
expectation of the other. And as for the threatnings, though they
determine the present state of impenitent sinners to be such, in which
they are undone and miserable, yet they are not to be extended to those
events, which are hid in the purpose of God, so as to give any one
ground to conclude that he is thereby finally excluded from salvation,
since such an exclusion as this is inseparably connected with final
impenitency and unbelief.
_Object._ 5. It is farther objected, that this doctrine is, in many
instances subversive of practical religion. And,
1. That it is inconsistent with the duty of prayer; for if God has
determined to save a person, what need has he to ask a blessing, which
is already granted? and, if he has determined to reject him, his prayer
will be in vain.
2. It is farther supposed, that it leads to presumption, on the one
hand, or despair, on the other; election, to presumption; reprobation,
to despair. And,
3. They add, that it leads to licentiousness, as it is inconsistent with
our using endeavours that we may be saved: for to what purpose is it for
persons to strive to enter in at the strait gate, when all their
endeavours will be ineffectual, if they are not elected? or to what
purpose is it for persons to use any endeavours to escape the wrath of
God, due to sin, if they are appointed to wrath, and so must necessarily
perish?
_Answ._ This objection is, beyond measure, shocking; and it is no
wonder, that a doctrine, that is supposed to have such consequences
attending it, is treated with the utmost degree of detestation: but as
the greatest part of the objections against it, are no other than
misrepresentations thereof, so it is no difficult matter to reply to
them, to the conviction of those who are disposed to judge impartially
of the matter in controversy between us. We shall therefore proceed to
reply to the several branches of this objection. And,
1. As to what concerns the duty of prayer; when we are engaged in it, we
are not to suppose that we are to deal with God, in such a way, as when
we have to do with men, whom we suppose to be undetermined, and that
they are to be moved, by intreaties, to alter their present resolutions,
and to give us what we ask for; for that is to conceive of him as
altogether such an one as ourselves; accordingly, we are not to
conclude, that he has not determined to grant the thing that we are to
pray to him for; for that would be presumptuously to enter into his
secret purpose, since he has no where told us we shall be denied the
blessings we want; but rather that there is forgiveness with him, and
mercy for the chief of sinners, as an encouragement to this duty; and,
besides this, has given us farther ground to hope for a gracious answer
of prayer, where he gives a heart to seek him. Therefore we are to
behave ourselves, in this duty, as those who pretend not to know God’s
secret purpose, but rather desire to wait for some gracious intimation
or token for good, that he will hear and answer our prayer; therefore
his secret purpose is no more inconsistent with this duty, than if, with
those that deny the doctrine we are maintaining, we should conclude that
this matter is not determined by him.
2. As to this doctrine’s leading to presumption, or despair, there is no
ground to conclude that it has a tendency to either of them. It cannot
lead to presumption, inasmuch as election is not discovered to any one
till he believes; therefore an unconverted person has no ground to
presume and conclude, that all is well with him, because he is elected;
for that is boldly to determine a thing that he knows nothing of; the
objection therefore, with respect to such, supposes that to be known,
which remains a secret. And, on the other hand, they have no ground to
despair, on a supposition that they are finally rejected; for it is one
thing to be the object of the decree of reprobation, which no one can,
or ought to determine, concerning himself, so long as he is in this
world, much more if we consider him as enjoying the means of grace, and
a door of hope is open to him therein; and God has pleased to declare,
in the gospel, that he will receive sinners that repent and believe in
him, how unworthy soever they are; therefore such are not to conclude
that their state is desperate, though it be exceeding dangerous, but to
wait for the efficacy of the means of grace, and those blessings that
accompany salvation.
And as for those that are in a converted state, this doctrine is far
from having a tendency, either to lead them to presumption, or despair;
but, on the other hand, to thankfulness to God, for his discriminating
grace, which, when persons experience, they are not only encouraged to
hope for farther blessings, but to perform those duties whereby they may
express their gratitude to him. As for presumption, which is the only
thing that election is pretended to lead them to, that cannot be the
natural consequence or tendency thereof; for if they presume that they
shall be saved, this is not to be reckoned a crime in them; for that
presumption which is supposed to be so in the objection consists in a
person’s expecting a blessing without reason; but this is contrary to
the supposition that he is a believer; and it would be a strange method
of reasoning to infer, that he, who has ground to conclude that he has a
right to eternal life, from those marks and evidences of grace, which he
finds in himself, is guilty of a sinful presumption, when he is induced
hereby to lay claim to it; and therefore the sense of the objection,
must be this, that a believer having been once enabled to conclude
himself elected, may, from hence, take occasion, supposing that his work
is done, and his end answered, to return to his former wicked life, and
yet still presume that he shall be saved; whereas that would be a
certain indication that he had no ground to conclude this, but was
mistaken, when he thought that he had; so that this doctrine cannot lead
a believer, as such, to presumption, and consequently the objection, in
which it is supposed that it does, is founded on one of these two
mistakes, _viz._ that every one, who is elected to salvation, knows his
interest in this privilege, as though it were immediately revealed to
him, without inferring it from any marks and evidences of grace that he
finds in himself; or else, that it is impossible for any one, who thinks
that he believes, and, from thence, concludes that he is elected, to
appear afterwards to have been mistaken in the judgment, which he then
passed upon himself; but either of these contain a misrepresentation of
the consequences of the doctrine of election; neither is there any
regard had to that necessary distinction that there is, between a
person’s being chosen to eternal life, and his being able to determine
himself to be interested in this privilege; and it is contrary to what
we have before considered, that whenever God chooses to the end, he
chooses to the means, which are inseparably connected with it, which is
the only rule whereby we are warranted, when applying it to ourselves,
to conclude that we shall be saved.
3. It cannot, in the least, be proved that this doctrine has any
tendency to lead persons to licentiousness; nor is it inconsistent with
our using the utmost endeavours to attain salvation. If it be said, that
many vile persons take occasion, from hence, to give the reins to their
corruption; that is not the natural, or necessary consequence thereof;
since there is no truth but what may be abused. The apostle Paul did not
think the doctrine of the grace of God, which he so strenuously
maintained, was less true, Or glorious, because some drew this vile
consequence from it, _Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound_,
Rom. vi. 1.
And as for those means, which God has ordained to bring about the
salvation of his people, we are obliged to attend upon them, though we
know not, before-hand, what will certainly be the event thereof; and if
through the blessing of God accompanying them, we are effectually called
and sanctified, and thereby enabled to know our election, this will
(agreeably to the experience of all true believers,) have a tendency to
promote holiness.
_Object._ 6. It is farther objected, that more especially against the
doctrine of reprobation, that it argues God to be the author of sin; and
particularly in such instances as these, _viz._ with respect to the
first entrance of sin into the world, and in God’s imputing the sin of
our first parents to all their posterity, and afterwards suffering it to
make such a progress as it has done ever since; and, most of all, when
it is supposed that this is not only the result of the divine purpose,
but that it also respects the blinding men’s minds, and hardening their
hearts, and so rendering their final impenitency and perdition
unavoidable.
_Answ._ To this it may be answered,
1. As to what concerns the first entrance of sin into the world, it
cannot reasonably be denied, that the purpose of God was concerned about
it, before it was committed, in the same sense as his actual providence
was afterwards, namely, in permitting, though not effecting it;
notwithstanding this was not the cause of the committing it, since a
bare permission has no positive efficiency in order thereunto; the not
hindering, or restraining a wicked action, does not render him the
author of it. It is true, God knew how man would behave, and
particularly, that he would mis-improve and forfeit that original
righteousness, in which he was created, and that, by this means, he
would contract that guilt, which was the consequence thereof, and
thereby render himself liable to his just displeasure; to deny this,
would be to deny that he foreknew that, from eternity, which he knew in
time. And, so far as the actual providence of God was conversant about
what was natural therein, so far his purpose determined that it should
be; but neither does this argue him to be the author of sin. But this
will be farther considered, when we speak concerning the actual
providence of God under a following answer.[235]
2. As to that part of the objection, which respects the imputing the sin
of our first parents to all their posterity, that is more frequently
brought against this doctrine than any other; and it is generally
represented in the most indefensible terms, without making any
abatements as to the degree of punishment that was due to it; and,
accordingly, they think that we can hardly have the front to affirm,
that our arguments, in defence hereof, are agreeable to the divine
perfections, as we pretend those others are, which have been brought in
defence of this doctrine. But, I hope, we shall be able to maintain the
doctrine of _original sin_, in consistency with the divine perfections,
as well as scripture, in its proper place, to which we shall refer
it.[236] Therefore all that I shall add, at present, is, that if the
doctrine of original sin be so explained, as that it does not render God
the author of sin, his purpose relating thereunto, which must be
supposed, in all respects, to correspond with it, does not argue him to
be the author of it.
3. As to the progress of sin in the world, and the proneness of all
mankind to rebel against God; this, as before was observed, concerning
sin in general, is the object of his permissive, but not his effective
will; though there is this difference between God’s suffering sin to
enter into the world at first, and his suffering the continuance, or
increase of it therein, that, at first, he dealt with man as an innocent
creature, and only left him to the mutability of his own will, having
before given him a power to retain his integrity. But the fallen
creature is become weak, and unable to do any thing that is good in all
its circumstances, and afterwards is more and more inclined to sin, by
contracting vicious habits, and persisting therein. Now, though God’s
leaving man to himself at first, when there was no forfeiture made of
his preventing grace, must be reckoned an act of mere sovereignty, his
leaving sinners to themselves may be reckoned an act of justice, as a
punishment of sin before committed, and neither of these argue him to be
the author of it; neither does the purpose of God, relating thereunto,
give the least occasion for such an inference.
Again, we must distinguish between the occasion and the cause of sin.
God’s providential dispensations, though unexceptionably holy and
righteous, are often-times the occasion thereof: thus his afflictive
hand sometimes occasions the corruptions of men to break forth, in
repining at, and quarrelling with his providence; and his giving outward
blessings to one, which he withholds from another, gives occasion, to
some, to complain of the injustice of his dealings with them; and the
strictness, and holiness of his law, and gives occasion, to corrupt
nature to discover itself in the blackest colours; the apostle plainly
evinces this truth, when he says, _Sin taking occasion by the
commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence_, Rom. vii. 8.
and, indeed, there is nothing in the whole compass of providence, or in
the methods of the divine government therein, but what may be, and often
is, an occasion of sin, in wicked men. But certainly it is not the cause
of it; even as the clemency of a prince may occasion a rebellion among
his subjects; but it is the vile ingratitude, and wickedness of their
nature, that is the spring and cause thereof; so the providence, and
consequently the purpose of God, which is executed thereby, may be the
occasion of sin, and yet the charge brought in this objection, as though
God hereby was argued to be the author of sin, is altogether groundless.
4. As to what is farther objected, relating to the purpose of God, to
blind the minds, and harden the hearts of men, and that final
impenitency, which is the consequence thereof, God forbid that we should
assert that this is a positive act in him; and, so far as it contains
nothing else but his determining to deny that grace, which would have
had the contrary effect, or his providence relating thereunto, this does
not give any countenance to the objection, or weaken the force of the
arguments that we have before laid down, which is very consistent
therewith.
_Object._ 7. There is another objection, which is generally laid down in
so moving a way, that, whether the argument be just or no, the style is
adapted to affect the minds of men with prejudice against this doctrine,
and that is taken from the inconsistency thereof with God’s judicial
proceedings against the wicked in the day of judgment, and that it will
afford the sinner a plea, in which he may say to this effect: Lord, I
sinned by a fatal necessity; it was impossible for me to avoid that
which thou art now offended with me for; it was what thou didst decree
should come to pass. I have been told, that thy decrees are unalterable,
and that it is as impossible to change the course of nature, or to
remove the mountains, which thou hast fixed with thy hand, as to alter
thy purpose; wilt thou then condemn one, who sinned and fell pursuant to
thy will? Dost thou will that men should sin and perish, and then lay
the blame at their door, as though they were culpable for doing what
thou hast determined should be done?
_Answ._ This objection supposes that the decree of God lays a necessary
constraint on, and enforces the will of man to sin; which, if they could
make it appear that it does, no reply could be made to it. But this is
to represent the argument we are maintaining in such a way, in which no
one, who has just ideas of this doctrine, would ever understand it, and
it is directly contrary to the foregoing method of explaining it. We
have already proved, in our answer to the third objection, that sin is
not necessary in that sense, in which they suppose it to be, or that,
though the decree of God renders events necessary, yet it does not take
away the efficiency of second causes, and therefore the purpose of God,
relating thereunto, is not to be pleaded, as an excuse for it, or as a
ground of exemption from punishment. We read of the Jews, that, _with
wicked hands, they crucified_ our Saviour; the crime was their own; but
this is expressly said to have been done by, or, in pursuance of, _the
determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God_, Acts ii. 23. He
fore-knew what they would do, and purposed not to prevent it; but yet he
did not force their will to commit it. And elsewhere God says,
concerning Israel, _Thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; from that
time thine ear was not opened_; and then he adds, _I knew that thou
wouldest deal very treacherously_, Isa. xlviii. 8. Israel might as well
have pleaded, that God knew, before-hand, how they would behave
themselves, and so have thrown the blame on him, for not preventing this
foreseen event, but suffering them to go on in this destructive way,
with as much reason, as the sinner is supposed, in the objection, to
have, when taking occasion so to plead, as he is represented, as having
ground to do, in the day of judgment, as a consequence from the doctrine
we are maintaining.
Again, whatever has been said concerning the immutability of the divine
purpose, yet this does not give the least countenance to any one’s
charging his sin on God; as we have, in answer to the last objection,
proved that it does not render him the author of sin; and therefore
man’s destruction must lie at his own door. It is one thing to say, that
it is in the sinner’s power to save himself, and another thing to say,
that the sin he commits is not wilful, and therefore that guilt is not
contracted thereby; and, if so, then this affords no matter of excuse to
the sinner, according to the import of the objection.
IX. We are now to consider some things that may be inferred from the
doctrine we have been insisting on, and how it is to be practically
improved by us, to the glory of God, and our spiritual advantage. And,
1. From the methods taken to oppose and decry it, by misrepresentations,
which contain little less than blasphemy, we infer, that however unjust
consequences deduced from a doctrine may be an hindrance to its
obtaining in the world; yet this method of opposition will not render it
less true, or defensible; nor ought it to prejudice the minds of men
against the sacred writings, or religion in general. We cannot but
observe, that while several scriptures are produced in defence of this
doctrine and others in opposition to it, and the utmost cautions have
not been used to reconcile the sense given thereof with the natural
ideas which we have of the divine perfections; and many, in defending
one side of the question have made use of unguarded expressions, or
called that a scripture-doctrine which is remote from it; and others, in
opposition hereunto, have, with too much assurance, charged the
defenders thereof with those consequences, which are neither avowed by
them, nor justly deduced from their method of reasoning; the unthinking
and irreligious part of mankind have taken occasion, from hence, with
the Deists, to set themselves against revealed religion, or to give way
to scepticism, as though there were nothing certain, or defensible, in
religion; and take occasion to make it the subject of satire and
ridicule. But, passing this by, though it is a matter very much to be
lamented we will consider this doctrine as rendered less exceptionable,
or more justly represented; and, accordingly,
2. We may infer from it, that as it is agreeable to the divine
perfections, so it has the greatest tendency to promote practical
godliness. For,
(1.) Since God has fore-ordained whatever comes to pass; this should
lead us to an humble submission to his will, in all the dispensations of
his providence. When we consider that nothing, in this respect comes by
chance; this should have a tendency to quiet our minds, and silence all
our murmuring and uneasy thoughts, whatever afflictions we are exposed
to. We are too apt to complain sometimes of second causes, as though all
our miseries took their rise from thence; and, at other times, to
afflict ourselves beyond measure, as apprehending that those proper
means have not been used, which might have prevented them; as Martha
tells our Saviour, _If thou hadst been here, my brother had not died_,
John xi. 21. whereas we ought rather to consider, that all this befalls
us in pursuance of God’s purpose: had he designed to have prevented the
affliction, he would have directed to other means conducive to that end,
or would have attended those that have been used, with their desired
success. We use the means as not knowing what are the secret purposes of
God, with respect to the event of things; but, when this is made known
to us, it should teach us to acquiesce in, and be entirely resigned to
the divine will.
(2.) When we cannot see the reason, or understand the meaning of the
dispensations of divine providence, and are not able to pass a judgment
concerning future events, whether relating unto ourselves, or others;
and, when all things look with a very dismal aspect, as to what concerns
the interest and church of God in the world, we must be content to wait
till he is pleased to discover them to us; what he oftentimes does, _we
know not now, but shall know hereafter_, as our Saviour said to one of
his disciples, John xiii. 7. It is no wonder that we are at a loss, as
to God’s purposes, since secret things belong to him; and therefore all
that we are to do, in such a case, is, to rest satisfied, that all these
things shall, in the end, appear to have a tendency to advance his own
perfections, and bring about the salvation of his people.
(3.) Since the purpose of God respects the means, as well as the end,
this should put us upon the use of those proper means, in which we may
hope to obtain grace and glory; and therefore this doctrine does not
lead us to sloth, and indifference in religion; for that is to suppose,
that the ends and means are separated in God’s purpose: and when,
through his blessing attending them, the ordinances, or means of grace,
are made effectual for the working of faith, and all other graces, these
being connected, in God’s purpose, with glory, it ought to encourage our
hope relating to the end of faith, even the salvation of our souls.