Burnet on Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election

THere are many things in several of the other Articles which depend upon this; and therefore I will explain it more fully: For as this has given occasion to one of the longest, the subtilest, and indeed the most intricate of all the Questions in Divinity; so it will be necessary to open and examine it as fully as the Importance and Difficulties of it do require. In treating of it, I shall,

First, State the Question, together with the consequences that arise out of it.

Secondly, Give an account of the differences that have arisen upon it.

Thirdly, I shall set out the strength of the Opinions of the Contending Parties, with all possible Impartiality and Exactness.

Fourthly, I shall see how far they agree, and how far they differ; and shall shew what reason there is for bearing with one another’s Opinions in these matters; and in the

Fifth and last place, I shall consider how far we of this Church are determined by this Article, and how far we are at liberty to follow any of those different Opinions.

The whole Controversy may be reduced to this single Point as its head and source; Upon what Views did God form his Purposes and Decrees concerning Mankind? Whether he did it merely upon a design of advancing his own Glory, and for manifesting his own Attributes, in order to which he setled the great universal Scheme of his whole Creation and Providence; Or whether he considered all the free motions of those rational Agents that he did intend to create, and according to what he foresaw they would chuse and do, in all the various circumstances in which he might put them, formed his Decrees? Here the Controversy begins; and when this is setled, the three main Questions that arise out of it, will be soon determined.

The First is, Whether both God and Christ intended that Christ should only dye for that particular number whom God intended to save? Or whether it was intended that he should dye for all, so that every Man that would, might have the benefit of his Death, and that no Man was excluded from it, but because he willingly rejected it?

The Second is, Whether those Assistances that God gives to Men to enable them to obey him, are of their own nature so efficacious and irresistible, that they never fail of producing the Effect for which they are given, or, Whether they are only sufficient to enable a Man to obey God; so that their Efficacy comes from the freedom of the Will, that either may co-operate with them, or may not, as it pleases?

The Third is, Whether such persons do and must certainly persevere, to whom such Grace is given; or, Whether they may not fall away both entirely and finally from that State?

There are also other Questions concerning the true Notion of Liberty, concerning the Feebleness of our Powers in this lapsed State, with several lesser ones; all which do necessarily take their determination from the decision of the first and main Question: About which there are four Opinions.

The First is, of those commonly called Supralapsarians, who think that God does only consider his own Glory in all that he does: and that whatever is done, arises from its first Cause, from the Decree of God: That in this Decree God considering only the Manifestation of his own Glory, intended to make the World, to put a Race of Men in it, to constitute them under Adam as their Fountain and Head; That he decreed Adam’s Sin, the lapse of his Posterity, and Christ’s Death, together with the Salvation or Damnation of such Men as should be most for his own Glory: That to those who were to be saved, he decreed to give such efficacious Assistances, as should certainly put them in the way of Salvation: And to those whom he rejected, he decreed to give such Assistances and means only as should render them inexcusable: That all Men do continue in a state of Grace, or of Sin, and shall be saved or damned, acc[?]rding to that first Decree: So that God views Himself only, and in that View he designs all things singly for his own Glory, and for the manifesting of his own Attributes.

The Second Opinion is of those called the Sublapsarians; who say, That Adam having sinned freely, and his Sin being imputed to all his Posterity, God did consider Mankind, thus lost, with an Eye of pity: and having designed to rescue a great number out of this lost state, he decreed to send his Son to dye for them, to accept of his Death on their account, and to give them such Assistances as should be effectual both to convert them to him, and to make them persevere to the [?]nd: But for the rest, he framed no positive Act about them, only he left them in that lapsed state, without intending that they should have the benefit of Christ’s Death, or of efficacious and persevering Assistances.

The Third Opinion is of those who are called Remonstrants, Arminians, or Vniversalists, who think that God intended to create all Men free, and to deal with them according to the use that they should make of their liberty: that therefore he foreseeing how every one would use it, did upon that Decree all things that concerned them in this life, together with their Salvation and Damnation in the next: That Christ died for all Men; That sufficient Assistances are given to every Man, but that all Men may chuse whether they will use them, and persevere in them, or not.

The Fourth Opinion is of the Socinians, who deny the certain Prescience of future Contingencies; and therefore they think the Decrees of God from all Eternity were only general; that such as believe and obey the Gospel shall be saved, and that such as live and dye in Sin shall be damned: But that there were no special Decrees made concerning particular persons, these being only made in time, according to the state in which they are: They do also think that Man is by nature so free and so entire, that he needs no inward Grace; so they deny a special Predestination from all Eternity, and do also deny inward Assistances.

This is a Controversy that arises out of Natural Religion: For if it is believed that God governs the World, and that the Wills of Men are free; then it is natural to enquire which of these is subject to the other, or how they can be both maintained: Whether God determines the Will? Or if his Providence follows the motions of the Will? Therefore all those that believed a Providence have been aware of this difficulty. The Stoicks put all things under a Fate; even the God’s themselves: If this Fate was a necessary Series of Things, a Chain of Matter and Motion that was fixed and unalterable, then it was plain and downright Atheism. The Epicureans set all things at liberty, and either thought that there was no God, or at least that there was noProvidence. ThePhilosophers knew not how to avoid this difficuly, by which we see Tully and others were so differently moved, that it is plain they despaired of getting out of it.¹ The Iews had the same Question among them; for they could not believe their Law, without acknowledging a Providence: And yet the Sadducees among them asserted Liberty in so intire a manner, that they set it free from all restraints: On the other hand, the Essens put all things under an absolute Fate: And the Pharisees took a middle way; they asserted the Freedom of the Will, but thought that all things were governed by a Providence. There are also subtle Disputes concerning this matter among the Mahometans, one Sect asserting Liberty, and another Fate, which generally prevails among them.

In the first Ages of Christianity,² the Gnosticks fancied that the Souls of Men were of different Ranks, and that they sprang from different Principles or Gods who made them. Some were Carnal, that were devoted to Perdition; others were Spiritual and were certainly to be saved: Others were Animal, of a middle Order, capable either of Happiness or Misery. It seems that the Marcionites and Manichees thought that some Souls were made by the bad God, as others were made by the good. In opposition to all these, Origen asserted, That all Souls were by Nature equally capable of being either good or bad; and that the difference among Men arose merely from the freedom of the Will, and the various use of that Freedom: That God left Men to this liberty, and rewarded and punished them according to the use of it; yet he asserted a Providence; but as he brought in the Platonical Doctrine of Preexistence into the Government of the World; and as he explained God’s loving Iacob, and his hating of Esau, before they were born, and had done either Good or Evil, by this of a regard to what they had done formerly; so he asserted the Fall of Man in Adam, and his being recoverd by Grace; but he still maintained an unrestrained Liberty in the Will. His Doctrine, though much hated in Egypt, was generally followed over all the East, particularly in Palestine and at Antioch. S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Basil, drew a system of Divinity out of his Works, in which that which relates to the Liberty of the Will is very fully set forth: That Book was much studied in the East. Chrysostom, Isidore of Damiete, and Theodoret, with all their followers, taught it so copiously,³ that it became the received Doctrine of the Eastern Church. Ierome was so much in love with Origen, that he Translated some parts of him, and set Ruffin on Translating the rest. But as he had a sharp quarrel with the Bishops of Palestine, so that perhaps disposed him to change his Thoughts of Origen: For ever after that, he set himself much to disgrace his Doctrine; and he was very severe on Ruffin for Translating him: Though Ruffin confesses, that in Translating his Works he took great Liberties in altering several passages that he disliked. One of Origen’s Disciples was Pelagius, a Scottish Monk, in great esteem at Rome, both for his Learning, and the great strictness of his Life:⁴ He carried these Doctrines further than the Greek Church had done; so that he was reckoned to have fallen into great Errors both by Chrysostom and Isidore, (as it is represented by Iansenius, though that is denied by others, who think they meant another of the same Name.) He denied that we had suffered any harm by the Fall of Adam, or that there was any need of inward Assistances; and he asserted an entire Liberty in the Will. S. Austin, though in his Disputes with the Manichees he had said many things on the side of Liberty, yet he hated Pelagius’s Doctrine, which he thought asserted a Sacrilegious Liberty, and he set himself to beat down his Tenets which had been but feebly attackt by Ierom. Cassian, a Disciple of St. Chrysostom’s, came to Marseilles about this time, having left Constantinople perhaps when his Master was banished out of it. He taught a Middle Doctrine, Asserting an inward Grace, but subject to the freedom of the Will: And that all things were both decreed and done, according to the Prescience of God, in which all future Contingents were foreseen: He also taught, that the first Conversion of the Soul to God, was merely an effect of its free choice; so that all Preventing-grace was denied by him; which came to be the peculiar distinction of those who were afterwards called the Semi-Pelagians. Prosper and Hilary gave an account of this System to S. Austin, upon which he writ against it, and his Opinions were defended by Prosper, Fulgentius, Orosius, and others, as Cassian’s were defended by Faustus, Vincentius, and Gennadius. In conclusion, St. Austin’s Opinions did generally prevail in the West; only Pelagius, it seems, retiring t[?] his own Country, he had many followers among the Britans: But German and Lupus being sent over once and again from France, are said to have conquered them so intirely, that they were all freed from those Errors: Whatever they did by their Arguments, the Writers of their Legends took care to adorn their Mission with many very wonderful Miracles, of which the gathering all the pieces of a Calf, some of which had been drest, and the putting them together in its Skin, and restoring it again to Life, is none of the least. The Ruin of the Roman Empire, and the disorders that the Western Provinces fell under by their new and brabarous Masters, occasioned in those Ages a great decay of Learning: So that few Writers of Fame coming after that time, St. Austin’s great Labours and Piety, and the many vast Volumes that he had left behind him, gave him so great a Name, that few durst contest what had been so zealously and so copiously defended by him: And though it is highly probable, that Celestine was not satisfied with his Doctrine; yet both he and the other Bishops of Rome, together with many Provincial Synods, have so often declared his Doctrine in those Points to be the Doctrine of the Church, that this is very hardly got over by those of that Communion.

The chief, and indeed the only material difference that is between St. Austin’s Doctrine, and that of the Sublapsarians, is, That he, holding that with the Sacrament of Baptism there was joyned an inward Regeneration, made a difference between the Regenerate and the Predestinate, which these do not: He thought Persons thus regenerate, might have all Grace, besides that of Perseverance; but he thought that they not being predestinated, were certainly to fall from that state, and from the Grace of Regeneration. The other differences are but forced Strains, to represent him and the Calvinists as of different Principles: He thought, that overcoming Delectation, in which he put the Efficacy of Grace, was as Irresistible, though he used not so strong a word for it as the Calvinists do: And he thought that the Decree was as Absolute, and made without any regard to what the Free-Will would chuse, as any of these do. So in the main Points, the Absoluteness of the Decree, the Extent of Christ’s Death, the Efficacy of Grace, and the Certainty of Perseverance, their Opinions are the same, though their ways of expressing themselves do often differ. But if St. Austin’s Name, and the Credit of his Books went far, yet no Book was more read in the following Ages, than Cassian’s Collations. There was in them a clear Thread of good Sense, and a very high Strain of Piety that run through them; and they were thought the best Institutions for a Monk to form his Mind, by reading them attentively: So they still carried down among those who read them, deep Impressions of the Doctrine of the Greek Church.

This broke out in the Ninth Century, in which Godescalcus, a Monk, was severely used by Hincmar, and by the Church of Rheims, for asserting some of St. Austin’s Doctrines; against which Scotus Erigena wrote; as Bertram, or Ratramne, wrote for them. Remigius Bishop of Lyons, with his Church, did zealously assert St. Austin’s Doctrine, not without great sharpness against Scotus. After this, the matter slept, till the School-Divinity came to be in great Credit: And Thomas Aquinas being counted the chief Glory of the Dominican Order, he not only asserted all St. Austin’s Doctrine, but added this to it, That whereas formerly it was in general held, That the Providence of God did extend it self to all things whatsoever, he thought this was done by God’s concurring immediately to the Production of every Thought, Action, Motion, or Mode; so that God was the First and Immediate Cause of every thing that was done: And in order to the explaining the joint Production of every thing by God as the First, and by the Creature as the Second Cause, he thought, at least as his Followers have understood him, That by a Physical Influence the Will was predetermined by God to all things, whether good or bad; so that the Will could not be said to be free in that particular Instance in sensu composito, though it was in general still free in all its Actions in sensu diviso: A distinction so sacred, and so much used among them, that I chuse to give it in their on Terms, rather than translate them. To avoid the consequence of making God the Author of Sin, a distinction was made between the Positive Act of Sin, which was said not to be Evil, and the want of its Conformity to the Law of God, which being a Negation, was no positive Being, so that it was not produced. And thus, though the Action was produced jointly by God as the first Cause, and by the Creature as the Second, yet God was not guilty of the Sin, but only the Creature. This Doctrine passed down among the Dominicans, and continues to do so to this day. Scotus, who was a Franciscan, denied this Predetermination, and asserted the Freedom of the Will. Durandus denied this Immediate Concourse; in which he has not had many Followers, except Adola, and some few more.

When Luther began to form his Opinions into a Body, he clearly saw, that nothing did so plainly destroy the Doctrine of Merit and Justification by Works, as St. Austin’s Opinions: He found also in his Works very express Authorities against most of the Corruptions of the Roman Church: And being of an Order that carried his Name, and by consequence was accustomed to read and reverence his Works, it was no wonder if he, without a strict examining of the matter, espoused all his Opinions. Most of those of the Church of Rome who wrote against him, being of the other Persuasions, any one reading the Books of that Age, would have thought that St. Austin’s Doctrine was abandoned by the Church of Rome: So that when Michael Baius, and some others at Louvain, began to revive it, that became a matter of Scandal, and they were condemned at Rome: Yet at the Council of Trent the Dominicans had so much credit, that great care was taken in the penning their Decrees, to avoid all Reflections upon that Doctrine. It was at first received by the whole Iesuit Order, so that Bellarmine formed himself upon it, and still adhered to it: But soon after, that Order changed their Mind, and left their whole Body to a full liberty in those Points, and went all quickly over to the other Hypothesis, that differed from the Semi-pelagians only in this, that they allowed a Preventing-Grace, but such as were subject to the Freedom of the Will.

Molina and Fonseca invented a new way of explaining God’s foreseeing future Contingents, which they called a Middle, or Mean Science: by which they taught, That as God sees all things as possible in his knowledge of simple Apprehension, and all things that are certainly future, as present in his knowledge of Vision; so by this knowledge he also sees the Chain of all Conditionate Futurities, and all the Connexions of them, that is, whatsoever would follow upon such or such conditions. Great Jealousies arising upon the Progress that the Order of the Jesuits was making, these Opinions were laid hold on to mortify them; so they were complained of at Rome for departing from St. Austin’s Doctrine, which in these Points was generally received as the Doctrine of the Latin Church; and many Conferences were held before Pope Clement the Eighth, and the Cardinals; where the Point in debate was chiefly, What was the Doctrine andTradition of theChurch? The Advantages that St. Austin’s Followers had, were such, that before fair Judges they must have triumphed over the other: Pope Clement had so resolved; but he dying, though Pope Paul the Fifth had the same Intentions, yet he happening then to be engaged in a Quarrel with the Venetians about the Ecclesiastical Immunities, and having put that Republick under an Interdict, the Jesuits who were there, chose to be banished, rather than to break the Interdict: And their adhering so firmly to the Papal Authority, when most of the other Orders forsook it, was thought so meritorious at Rome, that it saved them the Censure: So instead of a Decision, all sides were commanded to be silent, and to quarrel no more upon those Heads.

About Forty years after that, Iansenius, a Doctor of Louvain, being a zealous Disciple of S. Austin’s, and seeing the Progress that the contrary Doctrines were making, did with great Industry, and an equal Fidelity publish a Voluminous Syst[?]m of St. Austin’s Doctrine in all the several Branches of the Controversy: And he set forth the Pelagians and the Semipelagians in that Work under very black Characters; and not content with that, he compared the Doctrines of the Modern Innovators with theirs. This Book was received by the whole Party with great Applause, as a Work that had decided the Controversy. But the Author having writ with an extraordinary Force against the French Pretensions on Flanders, which recommended him so much to the Spanish Court, that he was made a Bishop upon it; all those in France who followed St. Austin’s Doctrine, and applauded this Book, were represented by their Enemies as being in the same Interests with him, and by consequence as Enemies to the French Greatness; so that the Court of France prosecuted the whole Party. This Book was at first only prohibited at Rome, as a Violation of that Silence that the Pope had enjoined; afterwards Articles were pickt out of it, and condemned, and all the Clergy of France were required to sign the Condemnation of them. These Articles were certainly in his Book, and were manifest Consequences of St. Austin’s Doctrine, which was chiefly driven at; though it was still declared at Rome, That nothing was intended to be done in prejudice of St. Austin’s Doctrine: Upon this pretence his Party have said, That those Articles being capable of two Senses, the one of which was strained, and was Heretical, the other of which was clear, and according to St. Austin’s Doctrine, it must be presumed it was not in that second, but in the other sense, that they were condemned at Rome; and so they signed the Condemnation of them: But then they said, that they were not in Iansenius’s Book in the sense, in which they condemned them.

Upon that, followed a most extravagant Question, concerning the Pope’s Infallibility in Matters of Fact: It being said on the one side, That the Pope heving condemned them as Iansenius’s Opinions, the belief of his Infallibity obliged them to conclude that they must be in his Book: Whereas the others with great Truth affirmed, That it had never been thought that in Matters of Fact either Popes or Councils were Infallible. At last a new Cessation of Hostilities upon these Points was resolved on; yet the Hatred continues, and the War goes on, though more covertly, and more indirctely than before.

Nor are the Reformed more of a piece than the Church of Rome upon these Points. Luther went on long, as he at first set out, with so little disguise, that whereas all Parties had always pretended that they asserted the Freedom of the Will, he plainly spoke out, and said the Will was not Free, but Enslaved: Yet before he died, he is reported to have changed his Mind; for tho he never owned that, yet Melancthon, who had been of the same Opinion, did freely retract it; for which he was never blamed by Luther. Since that time all the Lutherans have gone into the Semipelagian Opinions so entirely and so eagerly, that they will neither tolerate nor hold Communion with any of the other Persuasion. Calvin not only taught St. Austin’s Doctrine, but seemed to go on to the Supralapsarian way; which was more openly taught by Beza, and was generally followed by the Reformed; only the difference between the Supralapsarians and the Sublapsarians, was never brought to a decision: Divines being in all the Calvinists Churches left to their freedom as to that Point.

In England the first Reformers were generally in the Sublapsarian Hypothesis: But Perkins and others have asserted the Supralapsarian way, Arminius, a Professor in Leyden, writ against him: Upon this Gomarus and he had many disputes; and these Opinions bred a great distraction over all the Vnited Provinces: At the same time another Political matter occasioning a division of Opinion, Whether the War should be carried on with Spain, or if Propositions for a Peace or Truce should be entertained? It happened that Arminius’s followers were all for a Peace, and the others were generally for carrying on theWar; which being promoted by the Prince of Orange, he joyned to them: And the Arminians were represented as Men, whose Opinions and Affections leaned to Popery: So that this, from being a Doctrinal Point, became the distinction of a Party, and by that means the differences were inflamed. A great Synod met at Dort; to which Divines were sent from hence, as well as from other Churches. The Arminian Tenets were condemned; but the difference between the Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians was not medled with. The Divines of this Church, though very moderate in the way of proposing their Opinions, yet upon the main adhered to St. Austin’s Doctrine. So the Breach was formed in Holland: But when the Point of State was no more mixed with it, these Questions were handled with less heat.

Those Disputes quickly cross’d the Seas, and divided us: The Abbots adhered to Austin’s Doctrine; while Bishop Overal, but chiefly Archbishop Laud, espoufed the Arminian Tenets. All Divines were by Proclamation required not to preach upon those Heads: But those that favoured the new Opinions were incouraged, and the others were depressed. And unhappy Disputes falling in at that time concerning the extent of the Royal Prerogative beyond Law, the Arminians having declared themselves highly for that, they were as much favoured at Court, as they were censured in the Parliament: which brought that Doctrine under a very hard Character over all the Nation.

Twisse carried it high to the Supralapsarian Hypothesis, which grew to be generally followed by those of that Side: But that sounded harshly; and Hobb’s grafting afterwards a Fate and Absolute Necessity upon it, the other Opinions were again revived; and no Political Interests falling in with them, as all prejudices against them went off, so they were more calmly debated, and became more generally acceptable than they were before. Men are now left to their liberty in them, and all Anger upon those Heads is now so happily extinguished, that diversity of Opinions about them begets no Alienation nor Animosity.

So far have I prosecuted a short View of the History of this Controversy: I come now to open the chief Grounds of the different Parties: And First for the Supralapsarians.

They lay this down for a Foundation, That God is Essentially Perfect, and Independent in all his Acts: So that he can consider nothing but himself and his own Glory: That therefore he designed every thing in and for himself: That to make him stay his Decrees till he sees what free Creatures will do, is to make him Decree dependently upon them; which seems to fall short of Infinite Perfection: That he himself can be the only End of his Counsels; and that therefore he could only consider the Manifestation of his own Attributes and Perfection: That Infinite Wisdom must begin its designs at that which is to come last in the Execution of them; and since the Conclusion of all things at the Last Day will be the Manifestation of the Wisdom, Goodness, and Justice of God; we ought to suppose, that God in the Order of Things designed that first, though in the Order of Time there is no First nor Second in God, this being supposed to be from all Eternity. After this great Design was laid, all the Means in order to the End were next to be designed. Creatures in the sight of God are as nothing, and by a strong Figure are said to be less than nothing, and Vanity. Now if we in our Designs do not consider Ants or Insects, not to say Straws, or Grains of Sand and Dust, then what lofty Thoughts soever our Pride may suggest to us, we must be confessed to be very poor and inconsiderable Creatures before God; therefore he himself and his own Glory can only be his own End in all that he designs or does.

This is the chief Basis of their Doctrine, and so ought to be well considered. They add to this, That there can be no certain Prescience of future Contingents. They say it involves a contradiction, that things which are not certainly to be, should be certainly foreseen: For if they are certainly foreseen, they must certainly be: So while they are supposed to be contingent, they are yet affirmed to be certain, by saying that they are certainly foreseen. When God decrees that any thing shall be, it has from that a certain futurition, and as such it is certainly foreseen by him: An uncertain foresight is an Act of its nature Imperfect, because it may be a mistake, and so is inconsistent with the Divine Perfection. And it seems to imply a contradiction to say that a thing happens freely, that is, may be, or may not be, and yet that it is certainly forseen by God. God cannot foresee things, but as he decrees them, and so gives them a futurition, and therefore this Prescience Antecedent to his Decree, must be rejected as a thing impossible.

They say further, That Conditionate Decrees are imperfect in their nature, and that they subject the Will and Acts of God to a Creature: That a Conditionate Decree is an Act in suspence, whether it shall be or not; which is inconsistent with Infinite Perfection. A general Will, or rather a willing that all Men should be Saved, but also plain Characters of Imperfection in it: As if God wished somewhat that he could not accomplish, so that his Goodness should seem to be more extended than his Power. Infinite Perfection can wish nothing but what it can execute, and if it is fit to wish it, it is fit also to execute it. Therefore all that Stile that ascribes Passions or Affections to God, must be understood in a Figure; so that when his Providence exerts it self in such Acts as among us Men would be the effects of those Passions, then the Passions themselves are in the Phrase of the Scriptures ascribed to God. They say we ought not to measure the Punishments of Sin by our Notions of Justice: God aff[?]cts many good Men very severely, and for many Years in this Life, and this only for the Manifestation of his own Glory, for making their Faith and Patience to shine; and yet none think that this is unjust. It is a method in which God will be glorified in them: Some Sins are punished with other Sins, and likewise with a course of severe Miseries: If we transfer this from Time to Eternity, the whole will be then more conceivable; for if God may do for a little time that which is inconsistent with our Notions, and with our Rules of Justice, he may do it for a longer duration: Since it is as impossible that he can be unjust for a Day, as for all Eternity.

As God does every thing for himself and his own Glory, so the Scriptures teach us every where to offer up all Praise and Glory to God; to acknowledge that all is of him, and to humble our selves asbeing nothing before him. Now if we were Elected not by a free Act of his, but by what he foresaw that we would be, so that his Grace is not efficacious by its own force, but by the good use that we make of it, then the Glory and Praise of all the good we do, and of God’s purposes to us, were due to our selves: He designs, according to the other Doctrine, equally well to all Men; and all the difference among them will arise neither from God’s Intentions to them, nor from his Assistances, but from the good use that he foresaw they would make of these Favours that he was to give in common to all Mankind: Man should have whereof to glory, and he might say, That he himself made himself to differ from others. The whole strain of the Scriptures in ascribing all good things to God, and in charging us to offer up the Honour of all to him, seems very expresly to favour this Doctrine: Since if all our good is from God, and is particularly owing to his Grace, then Good Men have somewhat from God that Bad Men have not; for which they ought to Praise him. The Stile of all the Prayers that are used or directed to be used in the Scripture, is for a Grace that opens our Eyes, that turns our Hearts, that makes us to go, that leads us not into Temptation, but delivers us from Evil. All these Phrases do plainly Import that we desire more than a Power or Capacity to Act, such as is given to all Men, and such as after we have received it, may be still ineffectual to us. For to pray for such Assistances as are always given to all Men, and are such that the whole good of them shall wholly depend upon our selves, would sound very odly; whereas we pray for somewhat that is special, and that we hope shall be effectual. We do not and cannot pray earnestly for that, which we know all Men as well as we our selves have at all times.

Humility and Earnestness in Prayer seem to be among the chief means of working in us the Image of Christ, and of deriving to us all the Blessings of Heaven. That Doctrine which blasts both, which swells us up with an Opinion that all comes from our selves, and that we receive nothing from God but what is given in common with us to all the World, is certainly contrary both to the Spirit, and to the Design of the Gospel.

To this they addO bservations from Providence. The World was for many Ages delivered up to Idolatry; and since the Christian Religion has appeared, we see vast Tracts of Countries which have continued ever since in Idolatry: Others are fallen under Mahometanism: And the State of Christendom is in the Eastern Parts of it under so much Ignorance, and the greatest Part of the West is under so much Corruption, that we must confess the far greatest part of Mankind has been in […] Ages left destitute of the Means of Grace, so that the Promulgating the Go[?]pel to some Nations, and the denying it to others, must be ascribed to the Unsearchable Ways of God, that are past finding out. If he thus leaves whole Nations in such Darkness and Corruption, and freely chuses others to Communicate the knowledge of himself to them, then we need not wonder if he should hold the same method with Individuals, that he doth with whole Bodies: For the Rejecting of whole Nations by the lump for so many Ages, is much more unaccountable than the Selecting of a few, and the leaving others in that State of Ignorance and Brutality. And whatever may be said of his extending Mercy to some few of those who have made a good use of that dim Light which they had; yet it cannot be denied but their Condition is more deplorable, and the Condition of the others is much more hopeful; so that great Numbers of Men are Born in such Circumstances, that it is morally impossible that they should not perish in them; whereas others are more happily Situated and Enlightned.

This Argument taken from common Observation, becomes much stronger, when we consider what the Apostle says,⁵ particularly in the Epistles to the Romans, and the Ephesians, even according to the Exposition of those of the other side: For if God loved Iacob, so as to chuse his Posterity to be his People, and rejected or hated Esau and his Posterity, and if that was according to the purpose and design of his Election; if by the same purpose the Gentiles were to be grafted upon that Stock, from which the Iews were then to be cut off; and if the Counsel or Purpose of God had appeared in particular to those of Ephesus, though the most corrupted both in Magick, Idolatry and Immorality, of any in the East; then it is plain, that the applying the means of Grace, arises meerly from a great Design that was long hid in God, which did then break out. It is reasonable to believe, That there is a proportion between the Application of the Means, and the Decree it self concerning the End. The one is resolved into the Unsearchable Riches of God’s Grace, and declared to be Free and Absolute. God’s chusing the Nation of the Iews in such a distinction beyond all other Nations, is by Moses and the Prophets frequently said not to be on their account, or on the account of any thing that God saw in them, but meerly from the Goodness of God to them. From all this, it seems, say they, as reasonable to believe that the other is likewise free, according to those words of our Saviour’s, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: The reason of which is given in the following words,⁶ Even so Father, for it seemed good in thy sight. What goes before, of Tyre and Sydon and the Land of Sodom, that would have made a better use of his preaching, than the Towns of Galilee had done, among whom he lived, confirms this, That the means of Grace are not bestowed on those of whom it was foreseen that they would have made a good use of them; or denied to those who as was foreseen, would have made an ill use of them: The contrary of this being plainly asserted in those words of our Saviour’s. It is further observable, That he seems not to be speaking here of different Nations, but of the different sorts of Men of the same Nation: The more Learned of the Iews, the Wise and Prudent, rejected him, while the simpler, but better sort, the babes, received him: So that the difference between Individual Persons seems here to be resolved into the good pleasure of God.

It is further urged, that since those of the other side confess, that God by his Prescience foresaw what Circumstances might be happy, and what Assistances might prove efficacious to Bad Men; then his not putting them in those Circumstances, but giving them such Assistances only, which how effectual soever might be to others, he saw would have no efficacy on them, and his putting them in Circumstances, and giving them Assistances, which he foresaw they would abuse, if it may seem to clear the Justice of God, yet it cannot clear his Infinite Holiness and Goodness; which must ev[?]r carry him according to our Notions of these Perfections, to do all that may be done, and that in the most effectual way, to rescue others from misery, to make them truly good, and to put them in a way be happy. Since therefore this is not always done, according to the other Opinion, it is plain that there is an unsearchable depth in the ways of God which we are not able to fathom. Therefore it must be concluded, That since all are not actually good, and so put in a way to be saved, that God did not intend that it should be so; for who hath resisted his will? The Counsel of the Lord standeth fast, and the Thoughts of his heart to all Generations. It is true,⁷ His Laws are his Will in one respect: He requires all to obey them: He approves them, and he obliges all Men to keep them. All the Expressions of his desires that all Men should b[?] saved, are to be explained of the Will of Revelation, commonly called the Sign of his Will: When it is said, What more could have been done?⁸ that is to be understood of outward Means and Blessings: But still God has a secret Will of his good pleasure, in which he designs all things; and this can neaver be frustrated.

From this they do also conclude, That though Christ’s Death was to be offered to all Christians; yet that Intentionally and Actually he only died for those whom the Father had chosen and given to him to be saved by him. They cannot think that Christ could have died in vain, which St. Paul speaks of as a vast Absurdity. Now since if he had died for all,⁹ he should have died in vain, with relation to the far greater part of Mankind, who are not to be saved by him; they from thence conclude, That all those for whom he died, are certainly saved by him. Perhaps with relation to some subaltern Blessings, which are through him Communicated, if not to all Mankind, yet to all Christians, he may be said to have died for all: But as to Eternal Salvation, they believe his Design went no further than the secret Purpose and Election of God, and this they think is implied in these words,¹⁰ all that are given me of my Father: Thine they were, and thou gavest them me. He also limits his Intercession to those only; I pray not for the world, but for those that thou hast given me; for they are thine, and all thine are mine, and mine are thine. They believe that he also limited to them the extent of his Death, and of that Sacrifice which he offered in it.

It is true, the Christian Religion being to be distinguished from the Iewish in this main Point, that whereas the Iewish was restrained to Abraham’s Posterity, and confined within oneRace and Nation, the Christian was to be preached to every Creature; Universal words are used concerning the Death of Christ: But as the words,¹¹ preaching to every Creature, and to all the World, are not to be understood in the utmost extent, for then they have never been verified; since the Gospel has never yet, for ought that appears to us, been preached to every Nation under Heaven; but are only to be explained generally of a Commission not limited to one or more Nations; none being excluded from it: The Apostles were to execute it in going from City to City, as they should be inwardly moved to it by the Holy Ghost: So they think that those large words that are applied to the Death of Christ, are to be understood in the same qualified manner; that no Nation or sort of Men are excluded from it, and that some of all kinds and sorts shall be saved by him: And this is to be carried no further, without an Imputation on the Justice of God: For if he has received a sufficient Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World, it is not reconcileable to Justice, that all should not be saved by it, or should not at least have the Offer and Promulgation of it made them; that so a trial may be made whether they will accept of it or not.

The Grace of God is set forth in Scripture by such Figures and Expressions as do plainly intimate it[?] efficacy; and that it does not depend upon us to use it,¹² or not to use it at pleasure. It it said to be a Creation, we are created unto good works, and we become new Creatures: It is called a Regeneration, or a New Birth; it is called a Quickning and a Resurrection; as our former state is compared to a feebleness, a blindness, and a death. God is said to work in us both to will and to do: His people shall be willing in the day of his power: He will write his Laws in their hearts, and make them to walk in them. Mankind is compared to a Mass of Clay in the hands of the Potter, who of the same lump makes at his pleasure Vessels of honour or of dishonour. These passages, this last in particular, do insinuate an Absolute and a Conquering power in Grace; and that the love of God constrains us, as S. Paul speaks expresly.

All outward coaction is contrary to the nature of liberty, and all those inward Impressions that drove on the Prophets, so that they had not the free use of their Faculties, but felt themselves carried they knew not how, are inconsistent with it; yet when a Man feels that his Faculties go in their method, and that he assents or chuses from a thread of inward Conviction and Ratiocination; he still acts freely, that is, by an Internal Principle of Reason and Thought. A Man acts as much according to his Faculties, when he assents to a Truth, as when he chuses what he is to do: And if his Mind were so enlightned, that he saw as clearly the good of Moral Things, as he percieves Speculative Truths, so that he felt himself as little able to resist the one as the other; he would be no less a free and a rational Creature, than if he were left to a more unlimited Range: Nay, the more evidently that he saw the true good of things, and the more that he were determined by it, he should then act more suitably to his Faculties, and to the Excellence of his Nature: For though the Saints in Heaven being made perfect in Glory, are no more capable of further Rewards, yet it cannot be denied but they act with a more accomplished Liberty, because they see all things in a true Light, according to that, in thy light we shall see light: ¹³ And therefore they conclude, that such an overcoming degree of Grace, by which a Man is made willing through the Illumination of his Understanding, and not by any blind or violent Impulse, is no way contrary to the true Notion of Liberty.

After all, they think, That if a Debate falls to be between the Sovereignty of God, his Acts and his Purposes, and the freedom of Man’s will, it is modest and decent rather to make the abatement on Man’s part than on God’s; but they think there is no need of this. They infer, That besides the outward Enlightening of a Man by Knowledge, there is an inward Enlightening of the Mind, and a secret forcible conviction stampt on it, otherwise what can be meant by the Prayer of St. Paul for the Ephesians, who had already heard the Gospel preached, and were instructed in it; That the eyes of their understanding being enlightened, they might know what was the hope of his calling, ¹⁴ and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what was the exceeding greatness of his power towards them that believed. This seems to be somewhat that is both Internal and Efficacious. Christ compares the Union and Influence that he communicates to Believers, to that Union of a Head with the Members, and of a Root with the Branches; which imports an Internal, a Vital, and an Efficacious Influence. And though the outward means that are offered, may be, and always are rejected, when not accompanied with his overcoming Grace, yet this never returns empty: These outward means coming from God, the resisting of them is said to be the resisting God, the grieving or quenching his Spirit;¹⁵ and so in that sense we resist the Grace or Favour of God: But we can never withstand him when he intends to overcome us.

As for Perseverance, it is a necessary consequence of Absolute Decrees, and of Efficacious Grace: For since all depends upon God, and that as of his own will he begat us, so with him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning: Whom he loves, he loves to the end; and he has promised, That he will never leave nor forsak[?] those to whom he becomes a God; We must from thence conclude, That the purpose and calling of God is without Repentance: And therefore though good Men may fall into grievous Sins, to keep them from which there are dreadful things said in Scripture, against their falling away, or Apostacy; yet God does so uphold them, that though he suffers them often to feel the weight of their Natures, yet of all that are given by the Father to the Son to be saved by him, none are lost.

Upon the whole Matter, They believe that God did in himself and for his own Glory foreknow such a determinate Number whom he pitched upon, to be the persons in whom he would be both Sanctified and Glorified: That having thus foreknown them, he predestinated them to be holy, conformable to the Image of his Son: That these were to be called, not by a General Calling in the Sense of these words, Many are called, but few are chosen; but to be called according to his purpose: ¹⁶ And those he justified upon their obeying that Calling; and he will in conclusion Glorify them. Nor are these words only to be limited to the Sufferings of good Men, they are to be extended to all the effects of the love of God, according to that which follows, That nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ. The whole Reasoning in the 9th of the Romans, does so plainly resolve all the acts of God’s Mercy and Justice, his hardning as well as his pardoning, into an Absolute Freedom, and an Unsearchable Depth, that more express words to that effect can hardly be imagined.

It is in general said, That the children being yet unborn, neither having done good, or evil; that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of work, but of him that calleth; Iacob was loved and Esau hated: ¹⁷ That God raised up Pharaoh that he might shew his power in him; and when an Objection is suggested against all this, instead of Answering it, it is silenced with this, Who art thou, O Man, that repliest against God? And all is illustrated with the Figure of the Potter; and concluded with this solemn Question, 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? This carries the Reader to consider what is so often repeated in the Book of Exodus, concerning God’s hardning the heart of Pharaoh, ¹⁸ so that he would not let his people go. It is said, That God has made the wicked man for the day of evil; as it is written on the other hand, That as many believed the Gospel, as were appointed to eternal life. Some are said to be written in the book of life, of the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, or according to God’s purpose before the world began. Vngodly Men are said to be of old ordained to condemnation, and to be given up by God unto vile affections, and to be given over by him to a reprobate mind. Therefore they think that Reprobation is an absolute and free act of God, as well as Election, to manifest his Holiness and Justice in them who are under it, as well as his Love and Mercy is manifested in the Elect. Nor can they think with the Sublapsarians That Reprobation is only God’s passing by those whom he does not elect; this is an act unworthy of God, as if he forgot them, which does clearly imply Imperfection. And as for that which is said concerning their being fallen in Adam, they argue, That either Adam’s Sin, and the Connexion of all Mankind to him as their Head and Representative, was absolutely decreed, or it was not: If it was, then all is absolute; Adam’s Sin and the Fall of Mankind were decreed, and by consequence all from the beginning to the end are under a continued Chain of Absolute Decrees; and then the Supralapsarian and the Sublapsarian Hypothesis will be one and the same, only variously expressed. But if Adam’s Sin was only foreseen and permitted, then a conditionate Decree founded upon Prescience is once admitted, so that all that follows turns upon it; and then all the Arguments either against the Perfection of such Acts, or the Certainty of such a Prescience, turn against this; for if they are admitted in any one Instance, then they may be admitted in others as well as in that

The Sublapsarians do always avoid to answer this; and it seems they do rather incline to think that Adam was under an Absolute Decree; and if so, then tho’ their Doctrine may seem to those who do not examin things nicely. to look more plausible; yet really it amounts to the same thing with the other. For it is all one to say, that God decreed that Adam should sin, and that all Mankind should fall in him, and that then God should chuse out of Mankind thus fallen by his Decree, such as he would save, and leave the rest in that lapsed state to perish in it; as it is to say, That God intending to save some, and to damn others, did, in order to the carrying this on in a method of of Justice, decree Adam’s Fall, and the Fall of Mankind in him, in order to the saving of his El[?]ct, and the damning of the rest. All that the Sublapsarians say in this particular for themselves is, That the Scripture has not declared any thing concerning the Fall of Adam, in such formal terms, that they can affirm any thing concerning it. A Liberty of another kind seems to have been then in Man, when he was made after the Image of God, and before he was corrupted by Sin. And therefore though it is not easy to clear all difficulties in so Intricate a matter, yet it seems reasonable to think, that Man in a state of Innocency was a purer and a freer Creature to good, than now he is. But after all, this seems to be only a fleeing from the difficulty, to a less offensive way of talking of it; for if the Prescience of future Contingents cannot be certain, unless they are decreed, then God could not certainly foreknow Adam’s Sin, without he had made an Absolute Decree about it; and that as was just now said, is the same thing with the Supralapsarians Hypothesis; of which shall say no more, having now laid together in a small compass, the full Strength of this Argument. I go next to set out with the same Fidelity and Exactness the Remonstrants Arguments.

They begin with this, That God is Just, Holy, and Merciful: That in speaking of himself in the Scripture with relation to those Attributes, he is pleased to make Appeals to Men, to call them to reason with him: Thus his Prophets did often bespeak the Iewish Nation; the meaning of which is, That God Acts so, that Men according to the Notions that they have of those Attributes, may examine them, and will be forced to justify and approve them. Nay, in these God proposes himself to us, as our Pattern; we ought to imitate him in them, and by consequence we may frame just Notions of them. We are required to be holy and merciful as he is merciful. What then can we think of a Justice that shall condemn us for a Fact that we never committed, and that was done many Years before we were born? As also that designs first of all to be glorified by our being eternally miserable, and that decrees that we shall commit sins, to justify the previous Decree of our Reprobation? If those Decrees are thus originally designed by God, and are certainly effectuated, then it is unconceivable how there should be a Justice in punishing that which God himself appointed by an Antecedent and Irreversible Decree should be done: So this seems to lye hard upon Justice. It is no less hard upon Infinite Holiness, to imagine that a Being of purer eyes than that it can behold iniquity, ¹⁹ should by an Antecedent Decree fix our committing so many Sins, in such a manner that it is not possible for us to avoid them: This is to make us to be born indeed under a Necessity of Sin; and yet this necessity is said to flow from the Act and Decrees of God: God represents himself always […] the Scriptures as gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth. ²⁰ It is often said, That he desires that no man should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. And this is said sometimes with the Solemnity of an Oath, As I live, saith the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of sinners. They ask, What sense can such words bear, if we can believe that God did by an Absolute Decree reprobate so many of them? If all things that happen, do arise out of the Decree of God as its First Cause, then we must believe that God takes pleasure both in his own Decrees, and in the execution of them; and by consequence, that he takes pleasure in the death of sinners, and that in contradiction to the most express and most solemn words of Scripture. Besides, what can we think of the Truth of God, and of the Sincerity of those Offers of Grace and Mercy, with the Obtestations, the Exhortations, and Expostulations upon them, that occur so often in Scripture, if we can think that by Antecedent Acts of God he determined that all these should be ineffectual; so that they are only so many solemn words that do indeed signify nothing, if God intended that all things should fall out as they do, and if they do so fall out only because he intended it? The chief Foundation of this Opinion lies in this Argument as its Basis, That nothing can be believed, that contradicts the Justice, Holiness, the Truth and Purity of God; that these Attributes are in God according to our Notions concerning them, only they are in him infinitely more perfect; since we are required to imitate them. Whereas the Doctrine of Absolute Decrees does manifestly contradict the clearest Ideas that we can form of Justice, Holiness, Truth, and Goodness.

From the Nature of God they go to the Nature of Man; and they think that such an inward Freedom by which a Man is the Master of his own Actions, and can do or not do what he pleases, is so necessary to the Morality of our Actions, that without it our Actions are neither good nor evil, neither capable of Rewards or Punishments. Mad Men, or Men asleep, are not to be charged with the good or evil of what they do; therefore at least some degrees of Liberty must be left with us, otherwise why are we praised or blamed for any thing that we do? If a Man thinks that he is under an Inevitable Decree, as he will have little remorse for all the Evil he does, while he imputes it to that inevitable Force that constrains him, so he will naturally conclude that it is to no purpose for him to struggle with Impossibilities: And Men being inclined both to throw all blame off from themselves, and to indulge themselves in Laziness and Sloth, these Practices are too natural to Mankind to be encouraged by Opinions that favour them. All Virtue and Religion, all Discipline and Industry, must arise from this as their first Principle, That there is a Power in us to govern our own Thoughts and Actions, and to raise and improve our Faculties. If this is denied, all Endeavours, all Education, all pains either on our selves or others, are vain and fruitless things. Nor is it possible to make a Man believe other than this; for he does so plainly perceive that he is a free Agent; he feels himself balance matters in his Thoughts, and deliberate about them so evidently, that he certainly knows he is a free Being.

This is the Image of God that is stampt upon his Nature; and tho’ he feels himself often hurried on so impetuously, that he may seem to have lost his Fre[?]dom in some Turns, and upon some Occasions; yet he feels that he might have restrained that Heat in its first beginning; he feels he can divert his Thoughts, and master himself in most things, when he sets himself to it: He finds that Knowledge and Reflection, that good Company and good Exercises do tame and soften him, and that bad ones makes him wild, loose, and irregular. Fr[?]m all this they conclude, that Man is free, and not under Inevitable Fate, or Irresistable Motions either to good or evil. All this they confirm from the whole Current of the Scripture, that is full of Persuasions, Exhortations, Reproofs, Expostulations, Encouragements, and Terrors; which are all vain and Theatrical things, if there are no free Powers in us to which they are addrest: To what purpose is it to speak to dead Men, to persuade the Blind to see, or the Lame to run? If we are under an impotence till the Irresistable Grace comes, and if when it comes nothing can withstand it, then what occasion is there for all those solemn Discourses, if they can have no effect on us? They cannot render us inexcusable, unless it were in our power to be bettered by them; and to imagine that God gives Light and Blessings to those whom he before intended to Damn, only to make them inexcusable, when they could do them no good, and they will serve only to aggravate their Condemnation, gives so strange an Idea of that Infinite Goodness, that it is not fit to express it by those Terms which do naturally arise upon it.

It is as hard to suppose two contrary Wills in God, the one commanding us our Duty, and requiring us with the most solemn Obtestations to do it, and the other putting a certain Bar in our way, by Decreeing that we shall do the contrary. This makes God look as if he had a Will and a Will; though a Heart and a Heart import no good quality, when applied to Men: The one Will requires us to do our Duty, and the other makes it impossible for us not to sin: The Will for the good is ineffectual, while the Will that makes us sin is infallible. These things seem very hard to be apprehended; and whereas the Root of True Religion is the having right and high Ideas of God and of his Attributes, here such Ideas arise as naturally give us strange Thoughts of God; and if they are received by us as Originals upon which we are to Form our own Natures, such Notions may make us grow to be Spiteful, Imperious, and without Bowels, but do not seem proper to inspire us with Love, Mercy, and Compassion; tho’ God is always proposed to us in that view. All Preaching and Instruction does also suppose this: For to what purpose are Men called upon, taught, and endeavoured to be persuaded, if they are not free Agents, and have not a power over their own Thoughts, and if they are not to be convinced and turned by Reason? The Offers of Peace and Pardon that are made to all Men are, delusory things if they are by an Antecedent Act of God restrained only to a few, and all others are barred from them.

It is further to be considered, say they, That God having made Men free Creatures, his Governing them accordingly, and making his own Administration of the World suitable to it, is no diminution of his own Authority; it is only the carrying on of his own Creation according to the several Natures that he has put in that variety of Beings of which this World is composed, and with which it is diversified: Therefore if some of the Acts of God, with relation to-Man, are not so free as his other Acts are, and as we may suppose necessary to the ultimate Perfection of an Independent Being, This arises not from any defect in the Acts of God, but because the Nature of the Creature that he intended to make free, is inconsistent with such Acts.

The Divine Omnipotence is not lessened, when we observe some of his Works to be more beautiful and useful than others are; and the Irregular Productions of Nature do not derogate from the Order in which all Things appear lovely to the Divine Mind. So if that Liberty with which he intended to endue Thinking Beings, is incompatible with such positive Acts, and so positive a Providence as governs Natural Things and this material World; then this is no way derogatory to the Sovereignty of his Mind. This does also give such an account of the Evil that is in the World, as does no way accuse or lessen the Purity and Holiness of God; since he only suffers his Creatures to go on in the free use of those Powers that he has given them; about which he exercises a special Providence, making some Mens Sins to be the immediate Punishments of their own or of other Mens Sins; and restraining them often in a great deal of that Evil that they do design, and bringing out of it a great deal of Good that they did not design; but all is done in a way suitable to their Natures, without any violence to them.

It is true, it is not easy to shew how those future Contingences which depend upon the free choice of the Will, should be certain and infallible. But we are on other accounts certain that it is so; for we see through the whole Scriptures a Thread of very positive Prophecies, the accomplishment of which depended on the free Will of Man; and these Predictions, as they were made very precisely, so they were no less punctually accomplished. Not to mention any other Prophecies, all those that related to the Death and Sufferings of Christ, were fulfilled by the free Acts of the Priests and People of the Iews: They sinned in doing it, which proves that they acted in it with their Natural Liberty. By these and all the other Prophecies that are in both Testaments, it must be confessed, that these things were certainly foreknown; but where to found that Certainy, cannot be easily resolved: The Infinite Perfection of the Divine Mind ought here to silence all Objections. A clear Idea by which we apprehend a thing to be plainly contrary to the Attributes of God, is indeed a just ground of rejecting it; and therefore they think that they are in the right to deny all such to be in God, as they plainly apprehend to be contrary to Justice, Truth, and Goodness: But if the Objection against any thing supposed to be in God, lies only against the manner and the unconceivableness of it, there the Infinite Perfection of God answers all.

It is further to be considered, That this Prescience does not make the Effects certain, because they are foreseen; but they are foreseen, because that they are to be: So that the Certainty of the Prescience is not antecedent or causal, but subsequent and eventual. Whatsoever happens, was future before it happened; and since it happened, it was certainly future from all Eternity; not by a Certainty of Fate, but by a Certainty that arises out of its being once, from which this Truth, That it was future was eternally certain: Therefore the Divine Prescience being only the knowing all things that were to come; that [?]oes not infer a Necessity or Causality.

The Scripture plai[?]y shews on some occasions a conditionate Prescience; God answered David, That Saul was to come to Keilah, and that the Men of Keilah were to deliver him up;²¹ and yet both the one and the other was upon the condition of his staying there; and he going from thence, neither the one nor the other ever happen’d: Here was a Conditionate Prescience. Such was Christ’s saying, That those of Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah, would have turned to him,²² if they had seen the Miracles that he wrought in some of the Towns of Galilee: Since then thisPrescience may be so certain, that it can never be mistaken, nor misguide theDesigns orProvidence of God; and since by this both the Attributes of God are vindicated, and the due Freedom of the Will of Man is asserted, all difficulties seem to be easily cleared this way.

As for the giving to some Nations and Persons the Means of Salvation, and the denying these to others, the Scriptures do indeed ascribe that wholly to the Riches and Freedom of God’s Grace; but still they think, that he gives to all Men that which is necessary to the state in which they are, to answer the Obligations they are under in it: And that this Light and common Grace is sufficient to carry them so far, that God will either accept of i[?] or give them further degrees of Illumination: From which it must be infer[?]d, That all Men are inexcusable in his sight; and that God is always just and clear when he judges;²³ since every Man had that which was sufficient, if not to save him, yet at least to bring him to a state of Salvation. But besides what is thus simply necessary, and is of it self sufficient, th[?]r[?] [?]re innumerable Favours, like Largesses of God’s Grace and Goodness; these [?]od g[?]ves freely as he pleases.

And thus the great Designs of Providence go on according to the Goodness and Mercy of God. None can complain, tho’ some have more cause […] rejoice and glory in God than others. What happens to Nations in a Body, may also happen to Individuals; some may have higher Privileges, [?]e put in happier Circumstances, and have such Assistances given them as God foresees will become effectual, and not only those which though they be in their nature sufficient, yet in the Event will be ineffectual: Every Man ought to complain of himself for not using that which was sufficient, as he might have done; and all good Men will have matter of rejoycing in God, for giving them what he foresaw would prove effectual. After all, they acknowledge there is a depth in this, of God’s not giving all Nations an equal measure of Light, nor putting all Men into equally happy Circumstances, which they cannot unriddle; but still Justice, Goodness, and Truth are saved; tho’ we may imagine a Goodness that may do to all Men what is absolutely the best for them: And there they confess there is a difficulty, but not equal to those of the other side.

From hence it is that they expound all those Passages in the New Testament, concerning the Purpose, the Election, the Foreknowledge, and the Predestination of God, so often mentioned. All those, they say, relate to God’s design of calling the Gentile World to the knowledge of the Messias: This was k[?]pt secret, tho’ Hints of it are given in several of the Prophets; so it was a Mystery; but it was then revealed, when according to Christ’s Commission to his Apostles, to go and teach all Nations, they went Preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. This was a Stumbling-block to the Iews, and it was the chief Subject of Controversy betwixt them and the Apostles at the time when the Epistles were writ: So it was necessary for them to clear this very fully, and to come often over it. But there was no need of amusing People in the beginnings of Christianity, and in that first infancy of it, with high and unsearchable Speculations concerning the Decrees of God: Therefore they observe, that the Apostles shew how that Abraham at first, Isaac and Iacob afterwards, were chosen by a discriminating Favour, That they and their Posterity should be in Covenant with God: And upon that occasion the Apostle goes on to shew, that God had always designed to call in the Gentiles, though that was not executed but by their Ministry.

With this Key one will find a plain coherent sense in all St. Paul’s Discourses on this Subject, without asserting antecedent and special Decrees as to particular Persons. Things that happen under a permissive and directing Providence, may be also in a largeness of expression ascribed to the Will and Counsel of God; for a permissive and directing Will is really a Will, though it be not antecedent nor causal. The hardning Pharaoh’s heart, may be ascribed to God, though it is said that his heart hardned it self;²⁴ because he took occasion from the stops God put in those Plagues that he sent upon him and his People, to encourage himself, when he saw there was a new Respite granted him: And he who was a cruel and bloody Prince, deeply engaged in Idolatry and Magick, had deserved such Judgments for his other Sins, so that he may be well considered as actually under his final Condemnation, only under a Reprieve, not swallowed up in the first Plagues, but preserved in them, and raised up out of them, to be a lasting Monument of the Justice of God against such hardned Impenitency. Whom he will, he hardneth, ²⁵ must be still restrained to such Persons as that Tyrant was.

It is endless to enter into the discussion of all the Passages cited from the Scripture to this purpose; this Key serving as they think it does, to open most of them. It is plain these Words of our Saviour concerning those whom the Father had given him are only to be meant of a Dispensation of Providence, and and not of a Decree; since he adds, And I have lost none of them, ²⁶ except the son of Perdition: For it cannot be said that he was in the Decree, and yet was lost. And in th[?] same Period in which God is said to work in us both to will and to do, we are required to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The Word rendered, ordained to eternal life, does also signify, fitted or predisposed to Eternal Life. That Question, Who made thee to differ? ²⁷ seems to refer to those Gifts which in different degrees and measures were poured out on the first Christians; in which Men were only passive, and discriminated from one another by the freedom of those Gifts, without any thing previous in them to dispose them to them.

Christ is said to be the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, ²⁸ and the wicked are said to deny the Lord that bought them; and his Death as to its extent to all men, is set in opposition to the Sin of Adam; so that as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one, ²⁹ the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. The all of the one fide must be of the same extent with the all of the other: So since all are concerned in Adam’s Sin, all must be likewise concerned in the Death of Christ. This they urge further, with this Argument, That all Men are obliged to believe in the Death of Christ, but no Man can be obliged to believe a Lye; therefore it follows that he must have died for all. Nor can it be thought that Grace is so efficacious of it self, as to determine us; otherwise why are we required not to grieve God’s Spirit? Why is it said,³⁰ Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye? How often would I have gathered you under my wings, but ye would not? What more could I have done in my vineyard, that has not been done in it? These seem to be plain Intimations of a Power in us,³¹ by which we not only can, but often do resist the Motions of Grace.

If the determining Efficacy of Grace is not acknowledged, it will be yet much harder to believe that we are efficaciously determined to Sin. This seems to be not only contrary to the Purity and Holiness of God, but is so manifestly contrary to the whole Strain of the Scriptures, that charges Sin upon Men, that in so copious a Subject it is not necessary to bring Proofs.³² O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, but in me is thy help: And, ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life: Why will you dye, O house of Israel? And as for that Nicety of saying, That the Evil of Sin consists in a Negation, which is not a positive Being, so that though God should determine Men to the Action that is sinful, yet he is not concerned in the Sin of it: They think it is too Metaphysical, to put the Honour of God and his Attributes upon such a Subtilty: For in Sins against Moral Laws, there seems to be an Antecedent Immorality in the Action it self, which is inseparable from it. But suppose that Sin consisted in a Negative, yet that Privation does immediately and necessarily result out of the Action, without any other thing whatsoever intervening: So that if God does infallibly determine a Sinner to commit the Action to which that Guilt belongs, tho’ that should be a Sin only by reason of a Privation that is dependent upon it, then it does not appear but that he is really the Author of Sin; since if he is the Author of the sinful Action, on which the Sin depends as a Shadow upon its Substance, he must be esteemed, say they, the Author of Sin.

And though it may be said, That Sin being a Violation of God’s Law, he himself, who is not bound by his Law, cannot be guilty of Sin; yet an Action that is Immoral, is so essentially opposite to Infinite Perfection, that God cannot be capable of it, as being a contradiction to his own Nature. Nor is it to be supposed that he can Damn Men for that, which is the necessary result of an Action to which he himself determined them.

As for Perseverance, the many Promises made in the Scriptures to them that overcome, ³³ that continue stedfast and faithful to the death, seem to insinuate, that a Man may fall from a good state. Those famous Words in the Sixth of the Hebrews, ³⁴ do plainly intimate, That such men may so fall away, that it may be impossible to renew them again by repentance. And in that Epistle,³⁵ where it is said, The just shall live by faith; it is added, but if he draw back (any man is not in the Original) my Soul shall have no pleasure in him. And it is positively said by the Prophet,³⁶ When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his sin that he hath sinned shall he dye. These Suppositions, with a great many more of the same strain that may be brought out of other places, do give us all possible reason to believe, that a good Man may fall from a good state, as well as that a wicked Man may turn from a bad one. In conclusion, the End of all things, the Final Judgment at the Last Day, which shall be pronounced according to what Men have done, whether good or evil, and their being to be rewarded and punished according to it, seems so effectually to assert a Freedom in our Wills, that they think this alone might serve to prove the whole Cause.

So far I have set forth the Force of the Argument on the side of the Remonstrants. As for the Socinians, they make their Plea out of what is said by the one and by the other side. They agree with the Remonstrants in all that they say against Absolute Decrees, and in urging all those Consequences that do arise out of them: And they do also agree with the Calvinists in all that they urge against the possibility of a certain Prescience of future Contingents: So that it will not be necessary to set forth their Plea more specially, nor needs more be said in opposition to it, than what was already said as part of the Remonstrants Plea. Therefore without dwelling any longer on that, I come now to make some Reflections upon the whole Matter.

It is at first view apparent, That there is a great deal of weight in what has been said of both Sides: So much, that it is no wonder if Education, the constant attending more to the Difficulties of the one side than of the other, and a Temper some way proportioned to it, does fix Men very steddily to either the one or the other Persuasion. Both Sides have their Difficulties, so it will be natural to chuse that Side where the Difficulties are least felt: But it is plain there is no reason for either of them to despise the other, since the Arguments of both are far from being contemptible.

It is further to be observed, That both Sides seem to be chiefly concerned to assert the Honour of God, and of his Attributes. Both agree in this, That whatever is fixed as the primary Idea of God, all other things must be Explained so as to be consistent with that. Contradictions are never to be admitted; but things may be justly believed, against which Objections may be formed that cannot be easily answered.

The one Side think, That we must begin with the Idea of Infinite Perfection, of Independency and Absolute Soveraignty: And if in the Sequel Difficulties occur which cannot be cleared, that ought not to shake us from this primary Idea of God.

Others think, That we cannot frame such clear Notions of Independency, Soveraignty, and Infinite Perfection, as we can do of Justice, Truth, Holiness, Goodness, and Mercy: And since the Scripture proposes God to us most frequently under those Ideas, they think that we ought to fix on these as the primary Ideas of God, and then reduce all other things to them.

Thus both Sides seem zealous for God and his Glory: Both lay down General Maxims that can hardly be Disputed; and both argue justly from their First Principles. These are great Grounds for mutual Charity and Forbearance in these Matters.

It is certain, That one who has long interwoven his Thoughts of Infinite Perfection, with the Notions of Absolute and Unchangeable Decrees, of carrying on every thing by a positive Will, of doing every thing for his own Glory, cannot apprehend Decrees depending on a foreseen Free-will, a Grace Subject to it, a Merit of Christ’s Death that’s lost, and a Man’s being at one time loved, and yet finally hated of God, without horror. These things seem to carry in them an appearance of feebleness, of dependence, and of changeableness.

On the other hand; a Man that has accustomed himself to think often on the Infinite Goodness and Mercy, the Long-suffering, Patience, and Slowness to Anger that appears in God; he cannot let the Thought of Absolute Reprobation, or of determining Men to Sin, or of not giving them the Grace necessary to keep them from Sin and Damnation, enter into his Mind, without the same horror that another feels in the Reverse of all this.

So that the Source of both Opinions being the different Ideas that they have of God, and both these Ideas being true; Men only mistaking in the Extent of them; and in the Consequences drawn from them; here are the clearest Grounds imaginable for a mutual Forbearance, for not judging Men imperiously, nor censuring them severely upon either Side. And those who have at different Times of their Lives been of both Opinions, and who upon the Evidence of Reason, as it has appeared to them, have changed their Persuasions, can speak more affirmatively here: For they know, that in great sincerity of Heart they have thought both ways.

Each Opinion has some Practical Advantages of its side. A Calvinist is [?]aught by his Opinions, To think meanly of himself, and to ascrib[?] the honour of all to God: Which lays in him a deep foundation for Humility. he is also much inclined to secret Prayer, and to a fixed dependence on God; which naturally both brings his Mind to a good state, and fixes it in it. And so though perhaps he cannot give a coherent account of the Grounds of his Watchfulness and Care of himself; yet that Temper arises out of his Humility, and his Earnestness in Prayer. A Remonstrant, on the other hand, is ingaged to awaken and improve his Faculties, to fill his Mind with good Notions, to raise them in himself by frequent Reflection, and by a constant Attention to his own Actions: He sees caus[?] to reproach himself for his Sins, and to set about his Duty to purpose: Being assured that it is through his own fault if he miscarries: He has no dreadful Terrors upon his Mind; nor is he tempted to an undue Security; or to swell up in (perhaps) an imaginary Conceit of his being unalterably in the Favour of God.

Both Sides have their peculiar Temptati[?]ns as well as their Advantages: The Calvinist is tempted to a false Security, and Sloth: And the Arminian may be tempted to trust too much to himself, and too little to God. So equally may a Man of a calm Temper, and of moderate Thoughts, balance this Matter between both the Sides: And so unreasonable it is to give way to a positive and dictating Temper in this Point. If the Arminian is zealous to assert Liberty it is because he cannot see, how there can be Good or Evil in the World without it: He thinks it is the Work of God, that he has made for great Ends; and therefore he can allow of nothing that he thinks destroys it. If on the oth[?]r hand a Calvinist seems to break in upon Liberty, it is because he cannot reconcile it with the Sovereignty of God, and the Freedom of his Grace: And he grows to think that it is an Act of Devotion to offer up the one to save the other.

The common Fault of both Sides is, To charge one another with the Consequences of their Opinions, as if they were truly their Tenets. Whereas they are apprehensive enough of these Consequences, they have no mind to them, and they fancy that by a few distinctions they can avoid them. But each Side thinks the Consequences of the other are both worse, and more certainly fastned to that Doctrine, than the Consequences that are urged against himself are. And so they think they must chuse that Opinion that is the least perplexed and difficult: Not but that Ingenuous and Learned Men of all Sides confess, that they feel themselves very often pinched in these Matters.

Another very indecent way of managing these Points, is, That both Sides do too often speak very boldly of God. Some petulent Wits in order to the representing the contrary Opinion as Absurd and Ridiculous, have brought in God, representing him with indecent Expressions, as Acting or Decreeing according to their Hypothesis, in a manner that is not only Unbecoming, but that borders upon Blasphemy. From which though they think to escape by saying, That they are only shewing what must follow if the other Opinion were believed; yet there is a Solemnity and Gravity of Stile that ought to be most religiously observed, when we poor Mortals take upon us to speak of the Glory or Attributes, the Decrees or Operations of the Great God of Heaven and Earth: And every thing relating to this, that is put in a burlesque Air, is intolerable. It is a sign of a very daring Presumption to pretend to assign the Order of all the Acts of God, the Ends proposed in them, and the Methods by which they are Executed. We who do not know how our Thoughts carry our Bodies to obey and second our Minds, should not imagine that we can conceive how God may move or bend our Wills. The hard thing to digest in this whole Matter, is Reprobation: They who think it necessary to assert the freedom of Election, would fain avoid it: They seek soft words for it, such as the passing by, or leaving Men to perish: They study to put that on Adam’s Sin, and they take all the methods they can to soften an Opinion that seems harsh, and that sounds ill. But howsoever they will bear all the Consequences of it, rather than let the Point of Absolute Election go.

On the other side, Those who do once persuade themselves that the Doctrine of Reprobation is false, do not see how they can deny it, and yet ascribe a free Election to God. They are once persuaded that there can be no Reprobation but what is conditionate, and founded on what is foreseen concerning Mens Sins: And from this they are forced to say the same thing of Election. And both sides study to begin the Controversy with that which they think they can the most easily prove; the one at the Establishing of Election, and the other at the overthrowing of Reprobation. Some have studied to seek out middle-ways: For they observing that the Scriptures are writ in a great diversity of Stile, in Treating of the Good or Evil that happens to us, ascribing the one to God, and imputing the other to our selves, teaching us to ascribe the honour of all that is Good to God, and to cast the blame of all that is Evil upon our selves, have from thence concluded, That God must have a different Influence and Causality in the one, from what he has in the other: But when they go to make this out, they meet with great Difficulties; yet they chuse to bear these rather than to involve themselves in those equally great, if not greater Difficulties, that are in either of the other Opinions. They wrap up all in Two General Assertions, that are great Practical Truths, Let us Arrogate no good to our selves, and impute no evil to God, and so let the whole matter rest. This may be thought by some the lazier, as well as the safer way; which avoids Difficulties, rather than answers them; whereas they say of both the Contending Sides, That they are better at the starting of Difficulties than at the resolving of them.

Thus far I have gone upon the general, in making such Reflections as will appear but too well grounded to those who have with any Attention read the chief Disputants of both Sides. In these great Points all agree; That Mercy is freely offered to the World in Christ Jesus: That God did freely offer his Son to be our Propitiation, and has freely accepted the Sacrifice of his Death in our stead, whereas he might have Condemned every Man to have perished for his own Sins. That God does in the Dispensation of this Gospel, and the Promulgation of it to the several Nations, act according to the Freedom of his Grace, upon Reasons that are to us mysterious and past finding out: That every Man is inexcusable in the sight of God: That all Men are so far free as to be praise-worthy or blame-worthy for the Good or Evil that they do: That every Man ought to employ his Faculties all he can, and to pray and depend earnestly upon God for his Protection and Assistance: That no Man in Practice ought to think that there is a Fate or Decree hanging over him, and so become slothful in his Duty, but that every Man ought to do the best he can, as if there were no such Decree, since whether there is or is not, it is not possible for him to know what it is: That every Man ought to be deeply humbled for his Sins in the sight of God, without excusing himself by pretending a Decree was upon him, or a want of Power in him: That all Men are bound to obey the Rules set them in the Gospel, and are to expect neither Mercy nor Favour from God, but as they set themselves diligently about that: And finally, That at the Last Day all Men shall be Judged, not according to secret Decrees, but according to their own Works. In these great Truths, of which the greater part are Practical, all Men agree. If they would agree as honestly in the Practice of them, as they do in Confessing them to be true, they would do that which is much more important and necessary, than to speculate and dispute about Niceties; by which the World would quickly put on a new Face, and then those few that might delight in curious Searches and Arguments, would manage them with more Modesty and less Heat, and be both less positive and less supercilious.

I have hitherto insisted on such general Reflections as seemed proper to these Questions. I come now in the last place to examine how far our Church hath determined the Matter, either in this Article or elsewhere: How far she hath restrained her Sons, and how far she hath left them at liberty. For those different Opinions being so intricate in themselves, and so apt [?]o raise hot Disputes, and to kindle lasting Quarrels, it will not be suitable to that Moderation which our Church hath observed in all other things, to s[?]retch her Words on these Heads beyond their strict sense. The natural equity or reason of things ought rather to carry us on the other hand to as great a Comprehensiveness of all sides, as may well consist with the Words in which our Church has expressed herself on those Heads.

It is not to be denied, but that the Article seems to be framed according to St. Austin’s Doctrine: It supposes Men to be under a Curse and Damnation, antecedently to Predestination, from which they are delivered by it, so it is directly against the S[?]pralapsarian Doctrine: Nor does the Article make any mention of Reprobation, no, not in a hint: no Definition is made concerning it. The Article does also seem to assert the Efficacy of Grace: That in which the Knot of the whole Dfficulty lies, is not Defined; that is, Whether God’s Eternal Purpose or Decree was made according to what he foresaw his Creatures would do, or purely upon an Absolute Will, in order to his own Glory. It is very probable, that those who Penned it, meant that the Decree was Absolute; but yet since they have not said it, those who subscribe the Articles do not seem to be bound to any thing that is not expressed in them: And therefore since the Remonstrants do not deny but that God having foreseen what all Mankind would, according to all the different Circumstances in which they should be put, do or not do, he upon that did by a firm and Eternal Decree lay that whole Design in all its Branches, which he Executes in time; they may subscribe this Article without renouncing their Opinion as to this matter. On the other hand, the Calvinists have less occasion for Scruple; since the Article does seem more plainly to favour them. The Three Cautions that are added to it, do likewise intimate, that St. Austin’s Doctrine was designed to be settled by the Article: For the danger of Mens having the sentence of God’s Predestination always before their eyes, which may occasion either desperation on the one hand, or the wretchlesness of most unclean living on the other, belongs only to that side; since these Mischiefs do not arise out of the other Hypothesis. The other Two, of taking the Promises of God in the sense in which they are set forth to us in Holy Scriptures; and of following that Will of God that is expresly declared to us in the Word of God, relate very visibly to the same Opinion: Though others do infer from these Cautions, That the Doctrine laid down in the Article must be so understood as to agree with these Cautions; and therefore they argue, That since Absolute Predestination cannot consist with them, that therefore the Article is to be otherwise explained. They say the natural Consequence of an Absolute Decree, is either Presumption or Despair; since a Man upon that bottom reckons, That which way soever the Decree is made, it must certainly be accomplished. They also argue, That because we must receive the Promises of God as conditional, we must also believe the Decree to be conditional, for Absolute Decrees exclude conditional Promises. An Offer cannot be supposed to be made in earnest, by him that has excluded the greatest number of Men from it by an antecedent Act of his own. And if we must only follow the revealed Will of God, we ought not to suppose that there is an Antecedent and Positive Will of God, that has decreed our doing the contrary to what he has commanded.

Thus the one side argues, That the Article as it lies, in the plain meaning of those who conceived it, does very expresly establish their Doctrine: And the other argues from those Cautions that are added to it, That it ought to be understood so as that it may agree with these Cautions. And both sides find in the Article it self such grounds, that they reckon they do not renounce their Opinions by subscribing it. The Remonstrant side have this further to add, That the Universal Extent of the Death of Christ seems to be very plainly affirmed in the most solemn part of all the Offices of the Church: For in the Office of Communion, and in the Prayer of Consecration, we own, That Christ by the one Oblation of himself once offered, made there a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World. Though the others say, That by full, perfect, and sufficient, is not to be understood that Christ’s Death was intended to be a compleat Sacrifice and Satisfaction for the whole World, but that in its own Value it was capable of being such. This is thought too great a stretch put upon the words. And there are yet more express words in our Church-Catechism to this purpose; which is to be considered as the most solemn Declaration of the sense of the Church, since that is the Doctrine in which she instructs all her Children: And in that part of it which seems to be most important, as being the short Summary of the Apostles Creed, it is said, God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all Mankind: Where all must stand in the same Extent of Universality, as in the precedent and in the following words; The Father who made me and all the World; the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God; which being to be understood severely, and without exception, this must also be taken in the same strictness. There is another Argument brought from the Office of Baptism, to prove that men may fall from a state of Grace and Regeneration: for in the whole Office, more particularly in the Thanksgiving after the Baptism, it is affirmed, That the Person baptized is Regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit, and is received for his own Child by Adoption: Now since it is certain that many who are baptized, fall from that state of Grace, this seems to import, That some of the Regenerate may fall away: Which tho’ it agree well with St. Austin’s Doctrine, yet it does not agree with the Calvinists Opinions.

Thus I have examined this matter in as short a compass as was possible; and yet I do not know that I have forgot any important part of the whole Controversy, though it is large, and has many Branches. I have kept as far as I can perceive, that Indifference which I proposed to my self in the prosecuting of this matter; and have not on this occasion declared my own Opinion, though I have not avoided the doing it upon other occasions. Since the Church has not been peremptory, but that a Latitude has been left to different Opinions, I thought it became me to make this Explanation of the Article such: And therefore I have not endeavoured to possess the Reader with that which is my own sense in this matter, but have laid the Force of the Arguments, as well as the Weight of the Difficulties of both Sides before him, with all the Advantages that I had found in the Books either of the one or of the other Persuasion. And I leave the Choice as free to my Reader, as the Church has done.

Footnotes

1. Joseph. Ant. Jud. lib 18. c. 2. —de Bell. Jud. lib. 2, c. 7. ↩

2. Iren. Adv. Her. lib. 1. c. 1. Epiph. Her. 31. Clem. Alex. Paed. lib. 1. c. 6. Orig. Peri. archon l. 3. Phiolcal. c. 12. Explain. 21. Ep. ad Rom. ↩

3. Orig. Philocan[?]. ↩

4. Ruffin Peror. in Vers. Com. Orig. in Ep. ad. Rom. Chrys. Ep. 4 ad. Olymp. Isid. Pelus. Lib. 1. Ep. 314. ↩

5. Rom. 9 11. ↩

6. Matth. 1. 25.26. Ibid. 21, 22, 22. ↩

7. Rom. 9.10. Ps. 33.12. ↩

8. Isa. 5.4. ↩

9. Gal. 2.21. ↩

10. John 17.9.10. ↩

11. Mark. 16.15. ↩

12. Eph. 2.10. 2 Cor. 5.17. Phil. 2.13. Ps. 110.3. Jerem. 31.33, 34. Ezek. 36.26, 27. Rom. 9.21. ↩

13. Psal. 26.9. ↩

14. Eph. 1.17, 18, 19. ↩

15. Act. 7.51. Eph. 4.30. Jam. 1.17, 18. Joh. 13.1. Heb. 13.5. ↩

16. Matth. 20, 16. Rom. 8.29, 30. Rom. 9.18 ↩

17. ver. 11. ver. 17. ver. 20. ver. 22. ↩

18. Exod. 4.21.10.18.11.10.14.8. Prov. 16.4. Acts 1.48. Rev. 13.8.3.5.20.12.21.27. Rom. 1.26, 28. ↩

19. Heb. 1.13. ↩

20. Exod. 34.6. 2 Pet. 3.9. Ezek. 18.12.33.11. ↩

21. [?] Sam. 23.[?]1, 12. ↩

22. Matth. 11.[?]1, 22. ↩

23. Psal. 51.4. ↩

24. Exod. 7.22. Exod. 8.15, 19, 32. ↩

25. Rom. 9.18. ↩

26. Joh. 17.12. Phil. 2.12. Acts 13.48. ↩

27. 1 Cor. 4.7. ↩

28. 1 Joh. 2.2. 2 Pet. 2.1. ↩

29. Rom. 5.18. ↩

30. Acts 7.51. Matth. 23.37. ↩

31. Isa. 5.4. ↩

32. Hos. 13.9. Joh. 5.40. Ez[?]k. 33.14. ↩

33. Rev. 2 & 3. ↩

34. Heb. 6. ↩

35. Heb. 10. ↩

36. Ezek. 18.24. ↩