Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Shall be recompenced to him again? Our faviour hath faid eno' to filence this objection, in Mat. 20 15. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good?

2. This truth is further objected against as being inconfiftent with the goodness and mercy of God. They fay, God's tender mercies are over all his works; that he is reprefented in fcripture as a great lover of mankind, and as having no pleasure in the death of a finner, but a defire that he fhou'd live. How then can it be that his faving defign is reftrain'd to any determinate number, while the rest are left to perifh everlaftingly? And fome'are ready to think and say, what is even horrible to repeat, that it taxes a merciful God with the cruelty of making man to damn him.

To this I answer,

However great the goodness and mercy of God are, yet all his creatures in mifery do not equally partake in them. This is plain from the diftinction that is made between the fallen angels and fallen mankind. The fallen angels are wholly pafs'd by, and not one of them faved; and this, to be fure, without any derogation to the mercy of God. Yet there is as much reafon to charge God with want of goodness and

mercy,

mercy, in leaving all the fallen angels to perish, as in paffing by fome of fallen mankind. Or will any prefume to affirm that God is unmerciful, because he chooses the objects of his mercy, or bas mercy on whom he will have mercy? The power of God is limited and determin'd in the exercife of it, by his divine wisdom and sovereign pleasure; and why fhould not his goodness and mercy be fo too?

Nor does this give occafion for that injurious and blafphemous reflection, that God made fome men to DAMN them. For God's purpose to condemn men, does not confider them as creatures, but as finners; as we have had occafion to obferve already. That God did not create man on purpose that he might fin, is evident from man's primitive ftate, that of innocence,in which he might have continued. For tho' his creator made him mutable, he yet made. him upright t, without the leaft tincture of fin in his nature, or any difpofition, or inclination to it; but all the powers and faculties of the foul were difpos'd to anfwer the ends of its creation, and thereby to glorifie God. Now, as God did not

† Eccle. 7. 29.

create

create man that he might fin, he cannot be faid to create him that he might condemn him: "Several other ideas intervene between God's purpose to create "and to condemn.

[ocr errors]

And tho' the merciful God does not take pleasure in the death of a finner, as 'tis the mifery of his creatures, yet he has, and from the perfection of his nature cannot but have, a high fatisfaction in the display of his own juftice towards fome, whofe fin has render'd them the proper objects for that terrible attribute to be glorified upon. Befides, these fame objections taken from the goodnefs and mercy of God, lie as much against God's not eventually faving all, as his determination not to fave all. None fay that all men will be finally faved for the fcripture declares the contrary in many places. Yet 'tis certain, God cou'd fave all men if he so pleased. He cou'd change the heart of every finner in the world, prepare him for falvation, and then bestow it on him. Is it any derogation to his goodnefs and mercy that he don't do thus? Why then do any charge the opinion of God's determining to fave but a part of mankind, with fuch unmercifulness, when the objection lies full as ftrong against their own opinion, that God will actually save but a part of our species? Nor

Nor do we by this opinion make falvation narrower, or more confin'd, than thofe who oppofe it; but, in fact, make it as extenfive in its fubjects as they do. As one has well obferv'd upon this argument, "The difference between them and us, is "not about the number that are fav'd; "we both agree in this, that none fhall be "fav d but fuch as repent and believe, and "obey the gospel, and that all fuch fhall "certainly be faved; but what we differ "about is, the manner of their obtaining "falvation. We fay, they are fav'd by "virtue of the electing love of God; they fay they are fav'd because they rightly

66

[ocr errors]

improve their own free will. We affirm "them to be fav'd in fuch a way as afcribes "all to the glory of God; the way of fal"vation which they hold is fuch, as leaves

.

great room for man to glory. Thus far "then our doctrine appears every whit as "merciful to mankind as theirs, inasmuch "as the difference is not about the num"ber of the fav'd, but the way and man

66

ner of their coming to this falvation. "Nay, our do&rine appears much more "merciful than theirs who oppofe it. For 66 ours makes the falvation of millions of "the fallen children of men abfolutely cer66 tain, while theirs makes the falvation cf any man, but barely poffible And let any "unprejudic'd

[ocr errors]

N

"unprejudic'd perfon judge, whether a "doctrine that fecures the falvation of an "innumerable multitude, is not more "worthy of a compaffionate and merciful "God, than a notion that only puts the "falvation of every one upon a bare pof"fibility, whence it may happen, that even according to their own tenets, no 66 one may be fav'd at laft.

Nay the author we here refer to † carries the matter ftill higher, and with good reafon aflerts," That the doctrine of our

opponents is an unmerciful doctrine, because "it is fo far from afcertaining the falvation of any, that it makes the falvation of "each man a moral impossibility. They

fuppofe the election the fcripture speaks "of to be only a conditional one, i. e. "provided men will repent and believe, and perfevere in holiness; but they will not allow that God has predeftinated any to faith, repentance, and perfeverance to "the end; but that the performance of "thefe conditions depends upon their own ❝ will.

[ocr errors]

"But if this is the cafe, the queftion "which was once put to our Lord, may

+ Sladen.

66

" very

33

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »