THE DOCTRINE OF
PREDESTINATION
STATED, AND SET IN THE
SCRIPTURE LIGHT;
In Opposition to Mr. Wesley’s
Predestination calmly Considered, with a Reply to the
Exceptions of the said Writer to The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the
Saints.
By John Gill
Mr. Wesley having declared himself
the author of the Serious Thoughts upon the Perseverance of the Saints, to
which I lately returned an answer; has been pleased to shift the controversy
from perseverance to predestination: contenting himself with some low, mean and
impertinent exceptions to a part of what I have written on the subject of
perseverance; not attempting to answer any one argument advanced by me in
vindication of it; and yet he has the assurance in the public papers, to call
this miserable piece of his, chiefly written on another subject, A full answer
to Dr. Gill’s pamphlet on perseverance; any other man but Mr. Wesley would,
upon reflection, be covered with shame and confusion; though to give him his
due, in his great modesty, he has left out the word full in some after-papers;
as being conscious to himself, or it may be, some of his friends pointed it to
him, that it was an imposition on the public, and tended greatly to expose
himself and his cause since he has left me in tile full possession of all my
arguments; which I will not say are unanswerable, though I think they are; and
it looks as if Mr. Wesley thought so too, seeing he has not attempted to answer
one of them; yet this I may say, that as yet they are not answered at all, and
much less is a full answer given unto them.
And now, though I might be very well
excused following him in this wild pursuit on the subject of predestination;
since he has not meddled with my argument from it for the saints perseverance;
since he has not pursued that subject, as his title promises; and since
throughout the whole he does not argue, only harangue upon it; and that only a
part of it, reprobation, which he thought would best serve his purpose; yet for
the sake of weak and honest minds, lest through his subtlety, they should be
corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ; I shall endeavour to state the
doctrine of predestination, and set it in a true light according to the
Scriptures, with the proofs of it from thence; and take notice of the principal
objections raised by Mr. Wesley in his harangue on that part of it which
respects reprobation; and then close this treatise with a reply to his trifling
exceptions to what I have written on the subject of the saints perseverance.
As to the doctrine of predestination,
it may be considered either,
I. In general as respecting all
things that have been, are, or shall be, or done in the world; every thing
comes under the determination and appointment of God "he did, as the
assembly of divines say in their confession, from all eternity, unchangeably
ordain whatsoever comes to pass;" or, as they express it in their
catechism, "God’s decrees are the wise, free and holy acts of the counsel
of his will whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably
fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass in time:" and this predestination
and fore-appointment of all things, may be concluded from the fore-knowledge of
God; known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,
,
from eternity (Acts 15:18); they were known by him as future, as what would be,
which became so by his determination of them; for, the reason why he knew they
would be, is, because he determined they should be: also from the providence of
God, and his government of the world, which is all according to the counsel of
his own will (Eph. 1:11): for he does every thing according to that, or as he
has determined in his own mind. Eternal predestination in this sense, is no other than eternal providence, of which actual
providence in time is the execution. To deny this, is to deny the providence of
God, and, his government of the world, which none but Deists and Atheists will
do; at least it is to think and speak unworthy of God, as not being the
all-knowing and all-wise and sovereign ruler of the world, he is once more the
very wonderful thing, prophecy, or foretelling things to come, could not be
without a predestination of them; of which there are so many instances in
Scripture such as the stay of the Israelites in Egypt, and their departure from
thence; the seventy years captivity of the Jews in Babylon, and their return at
the end of that time; the exact coming of the Messiah at such a certain time;
with many others, and some seemingly the most casual and contingent; as the birth
of persons by name a hundred or hundreds of years before they were born, as
Josiah and Cyrus; and a man’s carrying a pitcher of water, at such a time, to
such a place (1 Kings 13:2; Isa. 44:28; 45:1; Luke 22:10, 13): how could these
things be foretold with certainty, unless it was determined and appointed they
should be? There is nothing comes by chance to God, nothing done without his
knowledge, nor without his will or permission, and nothing without his
determination; every thing, even the most minute thing, respecting his
creatures, and what is done in this world in all periods and ages of time, is
by his appointment; for the proof of which see the following passages.
• Ecclesiastes
3:1, 2-To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the
heaven; a time to be born and a time to die, &c. a time fixed by the
purpose of God for each of these.
• Job
14:5-Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months
are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.
Chapter 23:14, He performeth the thing that is appointed for me, and many such
things are with him.
• Daniel
• Ephesians
1:11-Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things
after the counsel of his own will.
• Acts
• Matthew
10:29, 30-Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and
one of them shall not fail to the ground without your Father; but the very
hairs of your head are all numbered.
II. Predestination may be considered
as special, and as relating to particular persons, and to things spiritual and
eternal; whereas predestination in general respects all creatures and things,
even things temporal and civil.
First, Christ himself is the object
of predestination; he was fore-ordained to be the mediator between God and man;
to be the propitiation for sin; to he the redeemer and saviour of his people;
to be the head of the church; king of saints, and judge of the world: hence he
is called, God’s elect, and his chosen one; and whatsoever befell him, or was
done unto him, was by the determinate council and fore-knowledge of God; even
all things relating to his sufferings and death in proof of which read the
following Scriptures.
Romans 3:5-Whom God hath set forth,
fore-ordained to be a propitiation.
• 1
Peter
• Luke
22:29-And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me.
• Acts
• Isaiah
43:1-Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth.
See Matthew 12:18.
• Luke
• Acts
Secondly, Angels also are the
objects of predestination, good and bad; the blessed angels are chosen unto
life, and to continue in their happy state to all eternity: and their
perseverance therein, and eternal felicity, are owing to the eternal choice of
them in Christ their head; I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the elect angels, that thou observe these things (1 Tim. 5:21). The evil
angels are rejected of God, and left in that miserable estate their apostasy
brought them into, without any provision of grace and mercy for them: they are
delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved to the judgment of the great
day; and everlasting fire is prepared for them, according to the determinate
counsel and will of God, (2 Pet. 2:4; Matthew 25:41).
Thirdly, Predestination which the
Scriptures chiefly treat of, is what respects men, and consists of two parts,
election and reprobation; the one is a predestination
unto life, the other unto death.
I. Election, which is a
predestination unto life, is an act of the free grace of God, of his sovereign
and immutable will, by which from all eternity he has chosen in Christ, out of
the common mass of mankind, some men, or a certain number of them, to partake
of spiritual blessings here, and happiness hereafter, for the glory of his
grace.
1. The objects of election are some
men, not all, which a choice supposes; to take all would be no choice; called
therefore, a remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:3). These are
a certain number, which though unknown to us, how many, and who they are, are
known to God; the Lord knows them that are his (2 Tim.
2. This act of election, is an act
of God’s free grace, to which he is not moved by any motive or condition in the
object chosen: wherefore it is called the election grace; concerning which the
Apostle’s reasoning is strong and invincible; and if by grace, then it is no
more of works, other wise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then
is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work (Rom. 11:5, 6), it is
according to the sovereign and unchangeable will of God, and not according to
the will or works of men; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph.
1:5), and again, verse 11, being predestinated according to the purpose of him
who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; hence it stands
immutably firm and sure, even the purpose of God according to election, not of
works but of him that calleth (Rom. 9:11).
3. This act of election is
irrespective of faith, holiness, and good works, as causes or conditions of it;
faith flows from it; is a fruit and effect of it, is secured by it, and is had
in consequence of it: as many as were ordained unto eternal life, believed
(Acts 13:48), hence it is called the faith of God’s elect (Titus 1:1), and
though holiness is a means provided in the act of election, it is not the cause
of it; men are chosen, not because they are, but that they should he holy (Eph.
1:4), good works do not go before, but follow after election; it is denied to
be of them, as before observed, and it passed before any were done (Rom. 9:11;
11:5, 6), they are the effects of God’s decree, and not the cause of it; God
hath fore-ordained them that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10),
4. The act of election was made in
Christ, as the head, in whom all the elect were chosen, and into whose hands,
by this act of grace, were put their persons, grace, and glory; and this is an
eternal act of God in him; according as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and so the apostle tells the Thessalonians
(2 Thess. 2:13), God hath from the beginning chosen you unto salvation; not
from the first preaching of the gospel to them, or from the time of their
conversion by it, but from the beginning of time, even from all eternity, as
the phrase is used in Proverbs 7:23, hence nothing done in time could be the
cause or condition of it.
5. What men are chosen unto by this
act are, grace here, and glory hereafter; all spiritual blessings, adoption,
justification, sanctification, belief of the truth, and salvation by Jesus
Christ. Salvation is the end proposed with respect to men; sanctification of
the Spirit and belief of the truth are the means appointed and prepared for
that end. Ephesians 1:4, 5, Hath chosen us in him,—that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of
children, &c. 2 Thessalonians 2:13, We are bound to give thanks to God
alway for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord; because God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and
belief of the truth. 1 Peter 1:2, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God
the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:9, For God hath not appointed
us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.
6. Both means and end are sure to
the chosen ones, since this is an act of God’s immutable will; these are
redeemed by the blood of Christ: he died for their sins, and made satisfaction
for them; they are justified by his righteousness and no charge can be laid
against them; they are effectually called by the grace of God; they are
sanctified by his Spirit; they persevere to the end, and cannot totally and
finally be deceived and fall away, but shall be everlastingly glorified: Romans
8:33, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? it
is God that justifieth: Who is he that condemneth! That is, the elect. It is
Christ that died, that died for them. Romans 8:30, Whom he did predestinate,
them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he
justified, them he also glorified. Matthew 24:24, For
there shall arise false Christs, and false Prophets, and shall shew great signs
and wonders, insomuch that if it were possible they shall deceive the very
elect; but that is not possible.
7. The ultimate end of all this,
with respect to God, is his own glory; the glory of all his divine perfections;
the glory of his wisdom in forming such a scheme, in fixing on such an end, and
preparing means suitable unto it; the glory of his justice and holiness, in the
redemption and salvation of these chosen ones, through the blood,
righteousness, and sacrifice of his Son; and the glory of his rich grace and
mercy exhibited in his kindness to them through him; and the whole of it is, To
the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the
beloved (Eph. 1:6).
This now is the Scripture doctrine
of predestination, or that part of it which is called election; from whence it
appears to be absolute and unconditional, irrespective of any thing in man as
the cause and condition of it. Mr. Wesley believes, that, "election is a
divine appointment of some men to eternal happiness;" so that he owns a
particular and personal election, and calls it an eternal decree; but believes
that it is conditional: but if it is conditional, the condition is to be named;
let him name the condition of it: let: him point it out to us, and in what
passage of Scripture it is; this lies upon him to do, and I insist upon it, or
else he ought to give up his unscriptural notion of conditional election. Mark
Predestination to life is the
everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were
laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from
curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to
bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.
Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called
according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through
grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by
adoption: they be made like the image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ:
they walk religiously in good works, and at length by God’s mercy, they attain
to everlasting felicity.
This is an article agreeable to the
Scripture; an article of his own church; an article which he as a true son of
the church, has treacherously departed from; an article which Mr. Wesley must
have subscribed and sworn to; an article which will stare him in the face as
long as subscriptions and oaths stand for any thing with him.
The doctrine of election, as above
stated, standing in so glaring a light in the sacred Scriptures, and appearing
with such evidence, as is impossible for all the art and sophistry of men to set
aside; the other branch of predestination necessarily follows, which we deny
not, but maintain. Mr. Wesley would have an election found out which does not
imply reprobation; but what election that can be, the wit of man cannot devise;
for if some are chosen, others must be rejected; and Mr. Wesley’s notion of
election itself implies it; for if, as he says, "election means a divine
appointment of some men to eternal happiness;" then others must be left
out of that choice, and rejected. I proceed therefore,
II. To the other branch of
predestination commonly called Reprobation; which is an immutable decree of
God, according to his sovereign will, by which he has determined to leave some
men in the common mass of mankind, out of which he has chosen others, and to
punish them for sin with everlasting destruction, for the glory of his power
and justice. This decree consists of two parts, a negative and a positive; the
former is by some called preterition, or passing by, a leaving some when others
are chosen; which is no other than non-election; the latter is called
pre-damnation, being God’s decree to condemn or damn men for sin.
First, Preterition is God’s act of
passing by, or leaving some men when he chose others, according to his
sovereign will and pleasure; of which act of God there is clear evidence in the
sacred Scripture; as well as it is necessarily implied in God’s act of election
which has such clear and uncontestable proof. These are ,
the rest, those that remain unelected whilst others are chosen; the election
hath obtained it; or elect persons obtain righteousness, life and salvation, in
consequence of their being chosen; and the rest are blinded (Rom. 9:7), being
left, they remain in their native darkness and ignorance, and for their sins
are given up to judicial blindness and hardness of heart. These are they that
are left out of the book of life, whilst others have their names written in it;
of whom it is said, whose names are not written in the book of life (of the
Lamb) from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; 17:8).
Secondly, Pre-damnation, is God’s
decree to condemn men for sin, or to punish them with everlasting damnation for
it: And this is the sense of the Scriptures; and this is the view which they
give us of this doctrine (Prov. 16:4), The Lord hath made all things for
himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Not that God made man to
damn him; the Scripture says no such thing, nor do we;
nor is it the sense of the doctrine we plead for; nor is it to be inferred from
it. God made man neither to damn him, nor save him, but for his own glory, that
is his ultimate end in making him, which is answered whether he is saved or
lost: but the meaning is, that God has appointed all things for his glory, and
particularly he has appointed the wicked man to the day of ruin and destruction
for his wickedness. Jude verse 4, For there are
certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this
condemnation: But who are they? They are after described ungodly men, turning
the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our
Lord Jesus Christ. Hence the objects of this decree are called vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction, that is, by sin (Rom.
Thirdly, This decree, we say, is
according to the sovereign will of God, for nothing can be the cause of his
decree but his own will let the object of that part of the decree, which is
called Preterition, be considered either in the corrupt or pure mass of
mankind, as fallen or unfallen creatures, they are to be considered in the same
view, and as on an equal foot and level with those that are chosen and
therefore no other reason can he given, but the will of God, that he should
take one, and leave another. And though in that branch of it, which is an
appointment of men to condemnation, sin is the cause of the thing decreed,
damnation; yet; it is the will of God that is the cause of the decree itself,
for this invincible reason; or otherwise he must have appointed all men to
damnation, since all are sinners: let any other reason be assigned if it can
be, why he has appointed to condemn some men for their sin, and not others.
Fourthly, God’s end in all this is
the glorifying of himself, his power and his justice; all his appointments are
for himself, for his own glory, and this among the rest; What if God willing,
to shew his wrath, his vindictive justice, and to make his power known, in the
punishment of sinners for their sin, endured with much longsuffering the
vessels of wrath fitted to destruction! (Rom
The doctrine of reprobation,
considered in this light, has nothing in it contrary to the nature and
perfections of God. Harsh expressions, and unguarded phrases, which some may
have used in speaking or writing about this doctrine, I will not take upon me
to defend: but as it is thus stated, I think it is a defensible one, equally as
the doctrine of election, and is demonstrable by it. The Scriptures are indeed
more sparing of the one than of the other, and have left us to conclude the one
from the other, in a great measure, though not without giving us clear and full
evidence; for though reprobation is not so plentifully spoken of, yet it is
clearly spoken of in the sacred writings; wherefore, upon this consideration we
judge it most proper and prudent, not so much to insist on this subject in our
discourses and writing; not from any consciousness of want of evidence, but
because of the awfulness of the subject. This our opponents are aware of; and
therefore press us upon this head, in order to bring the doctrine of election into
contempt with weak or carnal men; and make their first attacks upon this branch
of predestination, which is beginning wrong since reprobation is no other than
non-election, or what is opposed to election; let the doctrine of election be
demolished, and the other will fall of course; but that will cost too much
pains; and they find a better account with weak minds in taking the other
method; a method which the Remonstrants formerly were desirous of, at the synod
of Dort, could it have been allowed, a method which Dr. Whitby has taken in his
discourse of the five points; and this is the method which Mr. Wesley has
thought fit to take, and indeed he confines himself wholly to this subject: for
though he calls his pamphlet, Predestination Calmly Considered; yet it only
considers one part of it, reprobation, and that not in a way of argument, but
harangue; not taking notice of our arguments from Scripture or reason, only
making some caviling exceptions to it; such as have the face of an objection,
shall gather up, as well as I can, from this wild and unmethodical performance,
and make answer to. And,
1st, He desires it may be
impartially considered, how it is possible to reconcile reprobation with the
following Scriptures: Genesis 3:17 and 4:7; Deuteronomy 7:9, 12;
2dly, He proposes the following
Scriptures which declare God’s willingness that all should be saved, to be
reconciled to the doctrine of reprobation, Matthew 21:9; Mark 16:15; John 5:34;
Acts 17:24; Romans 5:18 and 10:12; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4; James 1:5; 2 Peter 3:9; 1
John 4:14 (Predestination Calmly Considered, pp. 16, 17). Some of which do not
respect eternal salvation at all, but the temporal salvation of the Jews; and
others have nothing to do with salvation in either sense; some speak only of
God’s will to save his elect, to whom he is long-suffering; and others of his
will, that Gentiles as well as Jews, should be saved; and that it is his
pleasure that some of all sorts should he saved by Christ; neither of which
militate against the doctrine of reprobation.
3dly, He thinks this doctrine is
irreconcilable with the following Scriptures, which declare that Christ came to
save all men; that he died for all; that he atoned for all, even for those that
finally perish; Matthew 17:11; John 1:29; 3:17 and 7:14; Romans 14:15; 1
Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1
and 1 John 2:1, 2 (Predestination Calmly Considered, pp. 16, 17). But these
Scriptures say not that Christ came to save all that are lost; or that be came
to save all men, or died for all men, for all the individuals of human nature;
there is not one text of Scripture in the whole Bible that says this: that
which seems most like it is Hebrews 2:9, That he might taste death for every
man; but the word man is not in the original text; it is only ,
for every one; for every one of the sons of God, of the children, of the
brethren of Christ, and seed of Abraham a spiritual sense, as the context
determines it. As for the above-cited passages, they regard either the world of
God’s elect; or the Gentiles, as distinguished from the Jews; or all sorts of
men; but not all the individuals of mankind: and those who are represented as
such that should perish, or in danger of it, are either such who only professed
to be bought by Christ or real Christians whose peace and comfort were in
danger of being destroyed, but not their persons; and none of the passages
militate against the doctrine under consideration.
4thly, This
doctrine is represented as contrary to, and irreconcilable with the justice of God,
and with those Scriptures that declare it, particularly Ezekiel 18
(Predestination Calmly Considered, p. 19). To which may be replied, that, that
chapter in Ezekiel concerns the people of the Jews only, and not all mankind;
and regards only the providential dealings of God with them, with respect to
civil and temporal things, and a vindication of them from inequality and
injustice; and not spiritual and eternal things: or the salvation and damnation
of men; and therefore is impertinently produced. And if any one does but
seriously and impartially consider the doctrine as above stated, they will see
no reason to charge God with injustice, or find any difficulty in reconciling
it to his justice. In the first branch of this decree, called Preterition, let the
objects be creatures fallen or unfallen, it puts nothing into them; it leaves
them as it finds them; and therefore does them no injustice: in the other
branch of it, appointment to condemnation, this is only but for sin; is there
unrighteousness with God on that account? No surely; if it is not injustice in
him to condemn men for sin, it can be no injustice in him to decree to condemn
them for sin: and if it would have been no unrighteousness in him to have
condemned all men for sin, and to have determined to have done it, as he
doubtless might; it can be no ways contrary to his justice to condemn some men
for sin, and to determine so to do; wherefore all that is said under this head
is all harangue, mere noise and stands for nothing. Let the above argument be
disproved if it can.
5thly, This doctrine is represented
as contrary to the general judgment; and that upon this scheme there can be no
judgment to come, nor any future state of reward and punishment (Predestination
Calmly Considered, pp. 26, 30): but why so? How does this appear? Why,
according to our scheme, "God of old ordained them to this
condemnation:" but then it was for sin; and if for sin, how does this
preclude a future judgment? It rather makes one necessary; and certain it is, that a future judgment is agreeable to it, and quite
inevitable by it; God decrees to condemn men for sin; men sin, and are brought
to the judgment-seat of God, and are justly condemned for it. The judgment of
God takes place, and the just reward of punishment pursuant to the righteous
purpose of God, and according to the rules of justice. But this writer has the
assurance to affirm, that we say, that "God sold men to work wickedness,
even from their mother’s womb; and gave them up to a reprobate mind, or ever they
hung upon their mother’s breasts." This is entirely false; we say no such
thing; we, say, with the Scripture, that men sell themselves to work wickedness
as they grow up; and that God gives men up to a reprobate mind after a long
train and course of sinning; and it must be a righteous thing with God to bring
such persons to judgment, and condemn them for their wickedness. But then it is
said they are condemned "for not having that grace which God hath decreed
they never should have." This is false again; we say no such thing; nor
does the doctrine we hold oblige us to it; we say, indeed, that the grace of
God is his own; and whether it is the sense of the text in Matthew or no, it
matters not, it is a certain truth he may do what he will with his own grace: we
own that he has determined to give it to some and not to others, as we find in
fact he does: but then we say, he will condemn no man for want of this grace he
does not think fit to give them; nor for their not believing that Christ died
for them; but for their sins and transgressions of his righteous law. And is
not here enough to open the righteous judgment and proceed upon? Besides the
sovereign decrees of God respecting the final state of men, are so far from
rendering the future judgment unnecessary, that will proceed according to them,
along with other things: for with other books that will be opened then, the
book of life will be one, in which some men’s names are written, and others
not; and the dead will be judged out of those things which are written in the
books, according to their works.—And whosoever is not found written in the book
of life, shall be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:12, 15); I never knew
you, depart from me (Matt. 7:23).
6thly, This
doctrine is said to agree very ill with the truth and sincerity of God, in a
thousand declarations, such as these, Ezekiel 18:23, 32:32; Deuteronomy 5:29;
Psalm 81:12; Acts 17:30; Mark
7thly, It is said that the doctrines
of election and reprobation least of all agree with the scriptural account of
the love and goodness of God (Predestination Calmly Considered, p. 135). The
doctrine of election surely can never disagree with the love and goodness of
God; since his choosing men to salvation is the fruit and effect of his
everlasting love and free grace; the reason why any are chosen is, because they
are beloved of God; election presupposes love: this the apostle points out
clearly to us, when he says, we are bound to give thanks always to God, for you
brethren, beloved of the Lord; because God hath from the beginning chosen you
to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). And the goodness of God greatly appears in
consequence of this decree in the redemption of the chosen ones by Christ, in
the regeneration and sanctification of them by the Spirit, and in bringing them
at last to eternal glory and happiness according to his original design. But it
may be, it is the doctrine of reprobation only, though both are put together by
our author, that so ill agrees with the love and
goodness of God. It is not inconsistent with his providential goodness; in
which sense the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his
works; and notwithstanding this decree, all men have a large share of this
goodness of God; and though they may abuse this goodness, which will be an
aggravation of their condemnation; this is their own sin and fault, and not to
be charged on the decree of God, as this writer falsely does; who says, that
God, according to us, gives men this world’s goods on purpose to enhance their
damnation; and every one of their comforts is, by an eternal decree of God, to
cost them a thousand pangs in hell; whereas the abuse of mercies given, which
will enhance their damnation, flows not from the decree, but from their own
wickedness. The special mercy and goodness of God is denied to such indeed,
which is at his sovereign will to give to whom he pleases; who will have mercy
on whom he will have mercy: the act of election is an act of God’s love, and
flows from it; reprobation indeed flows from his hatred, which is an
appointment to wrath; but then it is from his hatred of sin, which is no ways
contrary to his being a God of love and goodness: besides there is a much
greater display of the love, grace, mercy, and goodness of God in choosing some
men to salvation and infallibly securing it unto them, and bringing them safely
to the enjoyment of it, than in the contrary scheme: according to which not one
man is absolutely chosen to salvation; salvation is not insured to any one
single person; it is left to the precarious and fickle will of man: and it is
possible, according to that scheme, that not one man may be saved; nay, it is
impossible that any one man should be saved by the power of his own free-will.
Let it be judged then, which scheme is most merciful and kind to men, and most
worthy of the God of love and goodness. Upon the whole, the doctrine of
reprobation, though set in so ill a light, and represented in such an odious
manner, is a defensible doctrine when stated and cleared; nor are we afraid to
own and maintain it.
This cloven foot does not affright
us; so Mr. Wesley calls (Predestination Calmly Considered, p. 11), as he
thinks, beautifully, but most blasphemously, an act of the divine will; nor is
this a millstone that hangs about the neck of our hypothesis, as he no doubt
very elegantly expresses it (Predestination Calmly Considered, p. 77); but let
me tell him, it will be his distinguishing mercy, if it is not a millstone
about his own neck. From hence he wanders to free-will and irresistible grace:
sometimes he is for free-will, sometimes for free-grace; sometimes for
resistible, and sometimes for irresistible grace. When he can agree with
himself, he will appear in a better light, and may be more worthy of notice.
What he says of free-will on the one side and reprobation on the other, as
agreeing or disagreeing with the perfections of God, may be reduced to one or
other of the above objections, where they have had their answer.
It is scarcely worth my while to observe
what be says of the covenant of grace (Predestination Calmly Considered, p.
52); which he owns he has no understanding of; and I believe him, as that
"God the Father made a covenant with his Son before the world began,
wherein the Son agreed to suffer such and such things and the Father to give
him such and such souls for a recompense, in consequence of which these must be
saved." And then he asks where it is written? And in what part of
Scripture this covenant is to be found? Now not to inform or instruct Mr.
Wesley, but for the sake of such who are willing to be informed and instructed,
read Psalm 40:6-8; Isaiah 49:1-6 and 53:10-12; Psalm 89:3, 4, 28-
But I proceed now to vindicate what
I have written on the subject of the saints Final Perseverance, from the
exceptions made unto it. Mr. Wesley says (Predestination Calmly Considered, p.
57), "this is so pleasing an opinion, so agreeable to flesh and blood, so
suitable to whatever of nature remains in those who have tasted the grace of
God, that I see nothing but the mighty power of God, which can restrain any who
hear it from closing with it." Strange! that the doctrine of perseverance
in grace and holiness, for no other perseverance do we plead for, should be so
pleasing and agreeable to corrupt nature, besides much who have tasted the
grace of God, as they have a principle of grace in them, cannot easily give
into a doctrine which manifestly gratifies corrupt nature, but would oppose and
reject it; surely it must come with very great evidence, that nothing but the
power of God can restrain from closing with it; and which they close with, not
to indulge their corruptions, but to encourage their faith and hope, and to
promote holiness of heart and life; to which they are induced both by
arguments, from experience, and from Scripture; the former it seems, weigh but
little with those who believe the possibility of falling; and the latter are
not plain and cogent. There are some Scriptures, it is said, against
perseverance, and determine the other way; the
arguments from them have been considered in a former treatise; to which Mr.
Wesley has made some exceptions, and to which I shall now make a reply.
The first text produced against the
perseverance of the. saints, is Ezekiel 18:24. When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, &c.
This passage, and the whole context, I have observed wholly and solely regard
the house of
The second text of Scripture brought
in favor of the said, doctrine, is 1 Timothy 1:19, holding faith and a good
conscience, which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck:
in which I have observed, that it does not appear, that these men referred to,
whose names are mentioned in the next verse, ever had their hearts purified by
faith; but were ungodly men, and so no instances of the apostasy of true
believers. To this no reply is made. I further observe, that putting away a
good conscience, does not necessarily suppose they had it, but rather that they
had it not; which I support; by the use of the same word in Acts 13:46, where
the Jews are said to put the word of God from them. This instance Mr. Wesley
says makes full against me, it being undeniable they had the word of God till
they put it away. But this I must deny; they never had it; they never received
it, never gave their assent to it, or embraced it, but contradicted and
blasphemed it; and so is an instance of the use of the word to my purpose. It
is owned by him that men may have a good conscience in some sense, without true
faith; but such is not that the apostle speaks of, because he exhorts Timothy
to hold it. Be it so; yet it does not appear that these men had such a
conscience that arises from a heart purified by faith; putting it away, we see,
does not prove it; and, besides, it deserves consideration, that it is not said
they made shipwreck of a good conscience, which it does not appear they even
had, but of faith which they once professed, even the doctrine of faith: but
that faith means only the doctrine of faith, wants better proof, he says. What
proof would he have? I have shewn that the phrase is never used but of the
doctrine of faith, and have pointed to the places where it is so used; nay have
pointed out the particular doctrine of faith they made shipwreck of. It lies
upon him to disprove this. From the whole it appears,
that this also is an insufficient proof of the apostasy of real saints.
The third text of Scripture insisted
on as a proof of the doctrine, is Romans 11:17-24, concerning the breaking off
of the branches, and cutting off those that are grafted into the olive-tree;
which olive-tree I understand not of the invisible church, but of the outward
gospel-church-state, or the visible gospel-church. This Mr. Wesley says, I
affirm, and he proves the contrary. But though I affirm, yet not without a reason
for it; a reason which he takes no notice of, nor makes any reply to: and how
does he prove the contrary, that it is the invisible church? Why, because it
consists of holy believers which none but the invisible church does. But does
not the visible church consist of such? Are there no holy believers in it? Read
over the epistles to the visible churches, and you will find the members of
them are called holy and believer’s, saints and
faithful in Christ Jesus. I observe that those signified by the broken branches,
were never the believers in Christ, and so no instances of the apostasy of
such. To this he replies, That he was not speaking of
the Jews. Very well, but I was; but of the Gentiles, exhorted to continue in
his goodness, and so true believers; and yet liable to be cut off. So they
might be, though it does not necessarily follow from the apostle’s exhortation;
which is to be understood not of the goodness of love, and favor of God; but of
the goodness of a gospel-church state, the ordinances of it, and an abiding in
them, and walking worthy of them; or otherwise they were liable to be cut off
from the church-state in which they were. This is said to be a forced and
unnatural construction, and requires some argument to support it. But what else
could they be cut off from? If the olive-tree in which
they are said to be engrafted, is not the invisible, but the visible church, as
is proved by an argument not answered; then the cutting off from the
olive-tree, must be a cutting off from that. And whereas there is a strong
intimation that the Jews, the broken branches, may be grafted in again; why may
not those be grafted in again which are cut off, when
restored by repentance, which is often the case. It remains then, that this
passage of Scripture does not in the least militate against the final
perseverance of the saints.
The fourth text of Scripture quoted
as against the doctrine of perseverance, is John 15:1-5, concerning the
branches in Christ the vine, which abide not, are taken away, are cast forth
and withered, and are cast into the fire and burned. I observe that there are
two sorts of branches in Christ, the one fruitful, the other unfruitful; the
one in him by regenerating grace, the other only by
profession; of the latter are all the above things said, not of the former.
This Mr. Wesley says is begging the question, and taking for granted the point
to he proved: far from it, I answer to the instance alleged, by distinguishing
the different branches in the vine; I prove the distinction from the text and
context; as well as illustrate it by time instances of the churches in Judea
and Thessalonica, being said to be in Christ; all the members of which cannot
be thought to be really in him, but by profession. There are some that never
bore fruit, and so never gave any evidence of their being true believers, and
consequently can be no instances of the apostasy of such. There are others that
bring forth fruit and are purged, that they may bring forth more fruit, and
whose fruit remain, and are instances of perseverance. Let it be proved, if it
can, that any of those who never brought forth any fruit, that we read of, were
true believers in Christ; or ever received true grace or life from him, that
are said to be cast out and burnt; and that any of those who brought forth
fruit and were purged and pruned by the Father of Christ, that they might bring
forth more fruit, ever withered away and were lost. Till this is done, this
passage will be of no service for the apostasy, or against the perseverance of
the saints.
The fifth text of Scripture pressed
into this argument is, 2 Peter 2:20, 21, concerning those that have escaped the
pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ, being entangled
therein and overcome. Of whom I observe, that it does not appear that those
persons had an inward experimental knowledge of Christ; which is what ought to
be proved, or else it furnishes out no argument against the perseverance of
real saints. Had it been such, I add, they could not have lost it. This Mr.
Wesley calls begging the question. It might seem so, if my argument had rested
here; but I gave reasons why such a knowledge cannot be lost: which he conceals
and takes no notice of; as the promise of God, that such shall follow on to
know him, and the declaration of Christ, that eternal life is inseparably
connected with such knowledge (Hosea 6:3; John 15:3). Escaping the pollutions
of the world does not prove the persons to have such knowledge, or to be real
saints, since it signifies no more, I say, that an outward reformation. Here,
he says, I aim at no proof at all. Let him make more of it, if he can. He owns
that these persons might he called dogs and swine before their profession of
religion, and after their departure from it, but not whilst under it: but unless
it can he proved that they passed under a real change, and were truly
converted, which their having knowledge and escaping the pollutions of the
world are no proofs of; they might as well deserve the appellation during the
time of their profession, as before and after. If any thing is done to any
profession from this instance, it should be proved that these men had an inward
spiritual and experimental knowledge; that from dogs and swine they became the
sheep of Christ, and had the nature of such, and from the sheep of Christ
became dogs and swine again; or it can never be thought to be any proof of the
final and total falling away of true believers.
The Sixth text produced in favor of
the saint’s apostasy, is Hebrews 6:4-6, which speaks of enlightened persons,
and such that have tasted the heavenly gift, &c. falling away. Upon which I
observe, that the words contain only a supposition, if they fall away. Mr.
Wesley says, there is no if in the original. I reply,
though it is not expressed, it is implied, and the sense is the same, as if it
was; and that the words in the original lie literally thus; It is impossible
that those who were once enlightened—,
and they falling away, to renew them again to repentance; that is, should they
fall away, or if they fall away. Here Mr. Wesley rises up in great wrath, and
asks, "Shall a man lie for God? Either you or I do;" and avers, that
the words do not literally lie thus; and that they are translated by him, and
have fallen away, as literally as the English tongue will bear; and calls upon
all that understand Greek to judge between us. I am well content, and extremely
desirous they should, and even willing to be determined by them, which is the
most literal version, mine, which renders it as a participle as it is; or his,
which renders it as a verb, which it is not. I am supported in mine by the
authority of the great and learned Dr. Owen (On Perseverance, c. 17), whose
knowledge of the Greek tongue no one will scruple, that is acquainted with his
writings: he says, that verbum de verbo, or literally the words lie in the
text, and they falling away, just as I have rendered them. Take some instances
of the participle of the same tense, both in the simple theme of the word, and
in other compounds, as so rendered by our translators; 1
Cor. 14:25), falling down on his face;
(Luke
8:47), falling down before him; (Acts
27:41), falling into a place where two seas met. Did these learned men lie for
God? Mr. Wesley’s quibble is, because the participle is not of the present but
of the aorist: the instances now given are of the same tense. Every one that
has learned his Greek Grammar knows that the aorist or indefinite, as he names
it, is so called, because it is undetermined as to time, being used both of time
present, and of time past (Of which see instances in Dugard’s Greek Grammar, p.
126); and when of the latter, it is left undetermined, whether just now past,
or sometime ago, is meant, but as the circumstances of the place shew: but let
it be rendered either way, either in the present or past, the sense is the
same, and the condition is implied; be it and they falling away, or and they
having fallen away; for one or other it must be to render it literally; that
is, should they fall away, or should they have fallen away; or, in other words,
if they should. And now why all this wrath, rudeness, and indecency? Is this
the calm Considerer, as the title of his book promises? The man is pinched and
rages. This puts me in mind of a story of a country fellow listening with great
attention to a Latin disputation; which a gentleman observing, stepped to him,
and said, Friend you had better go about your business, than stand here idling
away your time to hear what you do not understand. To which he replied, I am
not so great a fool neither, but I know who is angry; suggesting by the temper
of the disputants, one of them being very angry, he knew who had the better,
and who the worst of the argument. And since Mr. Wesley has brought it to this
dilemma, that either he or I must lie for God; I am very unwilling to take it
to myself, seeing no reason for it: and therefore without a compliment, must
leave it to him to get out, and off, of it as he can. But to return to the
argument; let it be a supposition or a fact contained in the words; the
question is, who these persons supposed, or said to fall away are, and from
what they fell? There is nothing in the characters of them, as has been
observed, which shew them to be regenerated persons, real saints, and true
believers in Christ. This ought to be proved, ere they can be allowed to be
instances of the apostasy of such; whereas they are distinguished from them,
and are opposed to them, verses 7-9. There is nothing in the account of them,
but what may be said of a Balaam, who had his eyes open and saw the vision of
the Almighty, and of such who are only doctrinally enlightened; or of a Herod
that heard John gladly, and of the stony-ground hearers, who received the word
with joy; or of a Judas who had no doubt both the ordinary and extraordinary
gifts of the Spirit, and a power of performing miraculous works, called the
powers of the world to come, or the gospel dispensation. So
that from hence nothing can be concluded against the perseverance of the
saints.
The seventh passage of Scripture
brought into this controversy, is Hebrews 10:38. The just shall live by faith,
but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him: But very
impertinently; since he that is said to live by faith, and he that is supposed
to draw back, is not one and the same person. Mr. Wesley asks, "Who is it
then? Can any one draw back from faith, who never came
to it?" To which I answer, though he cannot draw back from faith he never
had, yet he may draw back from a profession of faith he has made. In order to
make it appear, that one and the same person is meant, Mr. Wesley, finding
fault with our translation, renders the words thus: If the just man that lives
by faith draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. This translation I
call inaccurate. He desires to know wherein; I will tell him.
, if, is by force removed from its proper place, even
from one sentence back to another; inserting the word that before live is doing
violence to the text; rendering ,
that lives, as if it was of the present tense, when it is future, and should be
shall live. Leaving out , and or but, which
distinguishes two propositions; so confounding them and making them one. And
after all, were one and the same person meant, it is only a supposition, which,
I say again, proves no matter of fact; let Mr. Wesley shew that it does if he
can: it is a clear case, that the just man in the text, and he that draws back,
are two sorts of persons; it is most manifest, and beyond all contradiction,
that in the original text in Habakkuk 2;4 the man whose soul is lifted up with
pride and conceit of himself, and is not upright in him, has not the truth of
grace in him, is the person who both according to the Apostle and the Seventy
is supposed to draw back; from whom the just man that lives by faith is
distinguished, and to whom he is opposed: and by the Apostle two sorts of
persons are all along spoken of in the context, both before and after; besides,
that these two must be different and not the same, is evident, since it is most
surely promised the just man, that he shall live; which would not be true of
him, if he drew hack to perdition. So that this also is an insufficient
testimony against the perseverance of the saints.
The eight text of Scripture made use
of to prove the Apostasy of true believers, is Hebrews 10:29, Of how much sorer
punishment shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of
God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,
an unholy thing. The stress of this proof lies upon the person being sanctified
with the blood of the covenant, who is supposed to be the same that trod under
foot the Son of God. But I have observed that the antecedent to the relative he
is the Son of God, and so consequently he, and not the apostate, is said to be
sanctified with the blood of the covenant; wherefore the words are no proof of
the apostasy of truly sanctified persons. Mr. Wesley says I forgot to look at
the original, or my memory fails. Neither, is the case. However, I have looked
again to refresh my memory, had it failed; and find indeed other words going
before, but no other substantive but ,
the Son of God, to whom the relative he can refer; and that this does refer to
the Son of God in the clause immediately preceding, is not a singular opinion
of mine that learned Dutchman Gomarus (Comment in Heb. 10:29), and our very
learned countrymen Dr. Lightfoot (Harmony, &c. p. 341), and Dr. Owen (On
Perseverance, p. 432), of the last age, and Dr. Ridgley (Body of Divinity, Vol.
II, p. 125), of the present, are of the same sentiment. But admitting that it
refers to the apostate, since this may be understood of his being sanctified or
separated from others by a profession of religion, by church-membership and
partaking of the Lord’s Supper, in which the blood of the covenant is
represented; and of his being sanctified by it in his own esteem and in the
esteem of others, when he was not inwardly sanctified by the Spirit; this can
be no proof of the apostasy of a real saint. It should be proved, that this
sanctification is to be understood of inward sanctification, or else it proves
not the point in debate. Mr. Wesley thinks it may be so understood, and that
for this reason; because the words immediately following are, and hath done
despite unto the Spirit of grace. Surprising; that a man’s having done despite
to the Spirit of grace, should be a proof of his having been inwardly
sanctified by him; which might more reasonably be thought to be a proof of the
very reverse. So then it remains, that this passage also does not militate
against the doctrine of the saints final perseverance.
Mr. Wesley has thought fit to add
several other texts, which he proposes to consideration, as proving that a true
believer may finally fall; but as he has not advanced any argument upon them, I
shall not enter into any examination of them, and of the weight they bear in this
controversy; and besides, they being such as either do not respect true
believers, about whom the question is, or only them falling from some degree of
grace and steadfastness of it, and do not design a total and final falling
away; or else they only intend persons receiving the doctrine of grace and a
falling from that, and so are nothing to the purpose. And unless something more
to the purpose is offered, than yet has been, I shall not think myself under
any obligation to attend unto it.