II. To the doctrine of election and reprobation
II. To the doctrine of election and reprobation
The sum of the charge against this doctrine in the first part, is, that it is unmerciful, unjust, insincere, and uncomfortable; and this is the amount of the whole harangue upon it in this part. What I shall attend unto, will be the exceptions to what has been advanced, in order to clear it from this charge. And,
1. Whereas it is charged with cruelty and unmercifulness; it has been observed [5532] that it carries no marks of cruelty and unmercifulness in it to the elect, who are vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory; which mercy this writer calls [5533] “unwise and partial mercy, such as we are sure, says he, God can never be guilty of.” But pray, does not God say, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy? Upon which the apostle observes, So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy—Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. (Romans 9:15, 16, 18) And will this man call this mercy, shown only to some, as influenced not by their will and works, but as arising from the sovereign will and pleasure of God, unwise and partial mercy? This man himself owns, that God’s decreeing help for a few, is not an objection to the mercifulness of God; but the question is, he says, [5534] “where is the pity of God, his grace, the sounding of his bowels over them, for whom he decreed no help?” I answer, there is pity, mercy and goodness shown to these, in a general way of providence; and though none in a special way of grace, yet no cruelty, since God is not obliged to help them; and it is no cruelty in him to punish for sin. It has been further observed, [5535] in order to remove this charge, that if it was not acting the cruel and unmerciful part not to ordain help for any of the fallen angels, it would not have been acting such a part, had God resolved not to help any of the fallen race of Adam, much less to ordain help for some, when he could in justice have condemned all. This representation of the case is said [5536] to be unfair in itself, inconsistent with our principles, and the illustration of it evasive; and it is asked, “amongst the fallen angels did God shew mercy to some, everlasting mercy, while he decreed others to hell, who were no more guilty than the rest?” I answer, no; he showed mercy to none of them, but consigned them all over to ruin and destruction; and yet he is not chargeable with cruelty. But supposing he had shown mercy to some, and not to others, as in the case of man; would he have appeared less merciful, by showing of mercy to some, than by showing none to any? And as for all the other questions put, whether God sent a proclamation of pardon to them that were fore-ordained to misery, or offered one on conditions not to be complied with, or exhorted to accept a salvation never purchased for them, or condemned to a heavier damnation for not believing a falsehood, or for not doing an impossibility; there are all impertinent, and are no more applicable to men, upon our principles, than to angels. The fallen angels are, indeed, as is observed, personal, voluntary sinners, and are, and will be treated according to their own share of guilt; and so are all the adult posterity of Adam, who are and will be so treated either in themselves or surety; and, as many of them as will be condemned, will be condemned, not merely for the sin of Adam, and for their share of guilt therein, but for their own actual, personal, voluntary sins and transgressions; and as for the infant posterity of Adam, their case is a secret to us, and therefore, we choose to be silent about it.
Once more, it has been observed, [5537] that “the doctrine of election is more merciful than the contrary scheme, since it infallibly secures the salvation of some; whereas, the other does not ascertain the salvation of any single person, but leaves it uncertain, to the precarious and fickle will of man.” The reply to this is by asking, [5538] which is more honorable to God, and more for the comfort of men? whereas the question is, which shows most mercy? Though one should think, that doctrine which ensures the salvation of some, should be more honorable to God, and more comfortable to man, than that which does not ascertain the salvation of any single man. This author does not attempt to disprove the doctrine of election infallibly securing the salvation of some; and, in a very feeble manner does he argue, for the ascertaining of salvation to man in the contrary doctrine; he asks, “is not the salvation of man sufficiently ascertained by the gospel’s setting life and death before men, and offering them all needful assistance in the way of life?” he would have said, surely, by the law’s setting life and death, since that is the proper business of the law, and not the gospel; can that be good news which sets death before men? But to leave this, Is moral suasion sufficient to ascertain man’s salvation? Is the bare ministration even of the gospel itself, enough for this purpose? Is this the way God foresaw salvation would be ascertained to men, and the only one in which Christ and men could desire it should be ensured to them? when, where it is used in its utmost strength, it fails in innumerable instances, and was never sufficient, of itself, in one; and besides, is at most made use of but with a few, who are so in comparison of the far greater part of the world, who know nothing of the gospel, and the ministration of it: how then is salvation ascertained to them this way?
2. Another charge against this doctrine, is injustice, and that it represents God as an unrighteous Being: to which has been answered, [5539] that “the decree of election does no injustice either to the elect or non-elect; not to the former, since it secures to them both grace and glory; nor to the latter, since as God condemns no man but for sin, so he has decreed to condemn no man but for sin; and if it would have been no injustice in him, to have decreed to condemn all men for sin, it can be none to him, to decree to condemn some for sin.” The reply to which is, [5540] that this answer is evasive and ambiguous, in regard it does not tell us, whether God condemns and decrees to condemn men for their own sin, or for the sin of Adam. But where is the evasion or shift in the answer? If it is for sin, and for sin only, with which men are chargeable, that God condemns, and has decreed to condemn, let it be what sin it will, the observation is full to the purpose, and sufficiently clears God from the charge of unrighteousness; nor is it ambiguous, since in a following paragraph it is plainly intimated and fully proved, that God condemns both for the sin of Adam, and for man’s own personal iniquities; as the latter will not be denied, the former stands supported by those words of the apostle, By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; (Romans 5:18) which this writer takes no notice of, and makes no return unto; and yet the cry of unrighteousness entirely proceeds upon this point; though we do not say that any of the sons of Adam who live to adult age, are condemned only for the sin of Adam, but for their many actual sins and transgressions; and as for infants dying in infancy, it has been observed, their case is a secret to us; yet inasmuch as they come into the world children of wrath, should they go out as such, would there be any unrighteousness in God? All which, this author has passed over in silence: perhaps we may hear more of it under the article of Original Sin. This man has been told, [5541] that as God will not condemn the heathen for nor believing in Christ, of whom they never heard, so neither will he condemn such who have heard of him, for not believing spiritually and savingly in him, or that he died for them, or for not being converted: and yet he says, [5542] not a word is produced to vindicate God from the charge our scheme fixes upon him, of damning men for not believing falsehoods, and for not doing impossibilities. Men who have had the advantage of a divine revelation, may be condemned, not for not believing that Christ died for them, but for disbelieving that Jesus is the Messiah, and other things, which in the revelation are said of him; they may be condemned for their disobedience to the gospel, not for their being not converted by it, but for their contempt and rejection of it, as an imposture and a false report; and consequently, not for not believing falsehoods, and for not doing impossibilities.
3. This doctrine is farther charged with insincerity, or as representing God as an insincere and deceitful Being; since he offers to sinners a salvation never purchased for them, and on conditions not to be complied with. The answer to this is, [5543] that salvation is not offered at all by God, upon any condition whatsoever, to any of the sons of men, elect or non-elect; and therefore God, according to this doctrine, is not chargeable with insincerity and deceit. This occasions a terrible outcry [5544] of mystery of iniquity, an abominable tenet, horrid scheme, which has the image of the devil and the mark of the beast upon it, and other such like language, which breathe out the spirit, the very life and soul of modern charity, and is a true picture of it. This author owns, that hereby we are consistent, in preaching and writing, with ourselves and scheme, and so not chargeable with self-contradiction; and since it is of a piece with the rest of our tenets, and is likely to share the same fate with them, we need not be in much pain about the consequences of it. But this tenet, that there is no offer of salvation to men in the ministry of the gospel, is said to be inconsistent with all the dictates of reason, our ideas of God, and the whole system of the gospel: not surely with all the dictates of reason; for how irrational is it, for minister to stand offering Christ, and salvation by him to man, when, on the one hand, they have neither power nor right to give; and, on the other hand, the persons they offer to, have neither power nor will to receive? What this author’s ideas of God are, I know not, but this I say, it is not consistent with our ideas of God, that he should send ministers to offer salvation to man, to whom he himself never intended to give it, which the ministers have not power to bestow, nor the men to receive: but, it seems, denying offers of salvation, is inconsistent with the whole system of the gospel; the Bible is hereby knocked down at once, and made to be the most delusive, and cheating book in the world; when the whole Bible is one standing offer of mercy to a guilty world. What! the whole Bible? the Bible maybe distinguished into these two parts, historical and doctrinal; the historical part of the Bible is surely no offer of mercy to a guilty world; the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the first verse of it, can hardly be thought to be so. The doctrinal part of it may be distinguished into law and gospel; the law, which is the killing letter, and the ministration of condemnation and death to a guilty world, can be no standing offer of mercy to it: if any part of the Bible is so, it must be the gospel; but the gospel is a declaration of salvation already wrought out by Christ, and not an offer of it on conditions to be performed by man. The ministers of the gospel are sent to preach the gospel to every creature; (Mark 16:15) that is, not to offer, but to preach Christ, and salvation by him; to publish peace, and pardon as things already obtained by him. The ministers are κηρυκας, criers or heralds; their business is κηρυσσειν, to proclaim aloud, to publish facts, to declare things that are done, and not to offer them to be done on conditions; as when a peace is concluded and finished, the herald’s business, and in which he is employed, is to proclaim the peace, and not to offer it; of this nature is the gospel, and the whole system of it; which preaches, not offers peace by Christ, who is Lord of all. As for the texts of scripture produced by this writer, several have nothing in them respecting pardon, life and salvation, and much less contain an offer of either; as I have shown at large in my first part of The Cause of God and Truth; whither I refer the reader; such as Genesis 4:7, Deuteronomy 5:29, Proverbs 1:23, Ezekiel 33:18, Acts 3:19, others are gracious invitations to the means of grace, and promises of pardon and grace to poor sensible sinners; as Isaiah 55:1, 7, Revelation 22:17, Acts 2:38, others, exhortations to duty with encouragements to it; as Psalm 50:23, Malachi 3:7, Matthew 6:5, 6, 15, 7:21, 1 Timothy 4:8, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Revelation 22:14.
4. This doctrine is represented as a very uncomfortable one; since it makes it a hundred to one to a man that he is not elected, but must be forever damned. To which answer has been made, [5545] it is not such a chance matter, or uncertain thing to a man, as a hundred to one, whether he is elected or no; to whom the gospel is come, not in word only, but also in power and in the holy Ghost; who from hence may truly know, and be comfortably assured of his election of God. This man has now lowered his number, and made it ten to one, whether a man is elected or no, to whom the gospel is preached; but it is no odds at all to a man whether he is elected or no, to whom the gospel is preached; and to whom that is made the power of God unto salvation, or who is converted by it, which is the instance given. To which this writer replies, [5546] “then the gospel is glad tidings to no sinner in the world, unless he is actually converted.” Why, truly, it is not glad tidings to such persons, nor is it judged so by them. It is so far from being good news to unconverted sinners, that it is disputed, despised, hated and abhorred by them; just as it is by this Dialogue-writer. There is no doctrine of the gospel that is really comfortable and truly delightful to a man in a state of nature: the doctrine of regeneration, delivered by Christ in these words, (John 3:3) except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, can never be comfortable to an unregenerate man; nor can even any doctrine in which such as call themselves christians, are agreed; as for instance, the doctrine of an universal judgment, when all men must appear before God, and be accountable to him for the actions of their lives: this is a doctrine, to use this author’s words, that all the world have reason to be affrighted at, and which no soul can possibly take any comfort from, till he does actually love God; and is irresistibly drawn to him; but it is not a whit the less true because it is uncomfortable to such persons, any more than the doctrine of election, which, however frightful it be to unconverted sinners, yields true peace and comfort to those who are born again, and have the faith of God’s elect; though they take no pleasure in the rejection of others, but wisely leave it to the sovereignty of that God, who does whatsoever he pleases. Nor can the universal scheme afford such comfort to a converted man, as that of special grace does; since, according to the former, he may be lost and perish, when the latter secures certain salvation to him.
To close this head; it seems, according to this writer, [5547] that as the nation of the Jews are called God’s elec t, in like manner, the kingdom of Christ, converted ones, have the same title applied to them, not in their personal, but social capacity, as christian churches: so the whole church at Thessalonica are called God’s elect, not with respect to single persons, but on the account of their being called by the gospel. But, surely, the calling of the Thessalonians by the gospel, must be personal, and not social, or as a Christian church; and therefore their election must be personal too, of which their calling was an effect, fruit and evidence. And though the nation of the Jews are called God’s elect, or chosen, as such, and were distinguished by many favors, as a nation, from the rest of the world; yet there was a special, personal and particular election among them, a remnant, according to the election of grace: (Romans 9:6, 7, 8, 27, 29, 11:5, 7) nor are all that bare that name under the gospel, or in the kingdom of the Messiah, churches, but particular persons: the few, Christ said, were chosen, when many were externally called by the gospel, were persons, and not nations or churches; these are the elect, for whose sake the days of tribulation will be shortened, whom false prophets cannot deceive, and whom the angels will gather from the four winds: not churches, nor all the members of churches, are the poor of this world, whom God has chosen, and made rich in faith, and heirs of a kingdom: the elect Lady, and her sister, and Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and the elect strangers, were persons chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ, to be holy and happy. (Matthew 20:16 and 24:22, 24, 31; James 2:5; 2 John 1:13; Romans 16:13; 1 Peter 1:1, 2; Ephesians 1:4) I go on to consider,