are only necessary to be confidered in this difpute; and these are, 1 Peter i. 2. Eph. i. 3, 4. Rom. viii. 29. If the man is really ignorant, as I am inclined to think he is, and does not know what parts of facred writ the Supralapfarians have produced to support their doctrine, he has acted a weak part in meddling with the controverfy; if he does know, he has acted a worfe in concealing of them. He promifes to mention and comment on thofe fcriptures which be judges are only neceffary to be confidered in this dispute; but he ought to have mentioned the scriptures, which the men he oppofes judge neceffary to be confidered in this difpute; and to have fhewn the mifapplication of them, and that they are not pertinent to their purpofe: is this impartially to try and examine, by the word of God, the Supralapfarian fcheme, as his title promises? every one knows, that knows any thing of this controversy, that the fcriptural part of it is about the fenfe of the ninth chapter of the epiftle to the Romans; and the queftion is, whether the Sublapfarian, or the Supralapfarian scheme, concerning the objects of election and reprobation, is molt agreeable to the sense of the apoftle in that chapter; particularly, whether the Supralapfarian scheme, of God's chufing fome, and leaving others, confidered as unfallen, as having done neither good nor evil, does not beft agree with the account the apoftle gives in ver. 11-13. of the election of Jacob, and rejection of Efau; and more especially whether it does not beft agree with the fame apoftle's account, in ver. 21. of the potter's making of the fame lump one veffel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? This author fhould have mentioned thefe fcriptures, and commented upon them, and answered the arguments of the Supralapfarians from them; in particular, thofe of that eminent Supralapfarian, Theodore Beza, in his notes upon the last of these texts, which I fhall tranfcribe for this man's fake; and he may try whether he is capable of anfwering of them. "Thofe who, by the mafs, "or lump, fays this great man, understand mankind corrupted, do not fatisfy "me in the explanation of this place for firft, it seems to me, that the phrase "of informed matter, neither fufficiently agrees with mankind, either made "or corrupted. Moreover, if the apoftle had confidered mankind as corrupted, "he would not have faid, that fome veffels were made to honour, and fome to "dishonour; but rather, that feeing all the veffels would be fit for dishonour, "fome were left in that dishonour, and others tranflated from that dishonour to "honour. Laftly, if Paul had not rofe to the highest degree, he had not fatisfied "the question objected; for it would always have been queried, whether that "corruption came by chance, or whether indeed, according to the purpose of "God, and therefore the fame difficulty would recur. I fay, therefore, Paul "ufing this most elegant fimile, alludes to the creation of Adam, and rifes up "to the eternal purpofe of God, who, before he created mankind, decreed of «his own mere will and pleafure, to manifeft his glory, both in faving of fome "whom he knew, in a way of mercy, and in deftroying others, whom he also "knew, in righteous judgment. And verily, unlefs we judge this to be the "cafe, God will be greatly injured; because he will not be fufficiently wife, "who first creates men, and looks upon them corrupt, and then appoints to "what purpofe he has created them: nor fufficiently powerful, if, when he "has taken up a purpose concerning them, he is hindered by another, fo that "he obtains not what he willed; nor fufficiently constant, if, willingly and freely he takes up a new purpose, aft-is workmanship is corrupted." As for the fcriptures mentioned by our author, as oppofing the Supralapfarian scheme, I fhall not trouble the reader, by obferving the mangled work he makes with them, and the low and mean comments he makes upon them; I fhall only fay, that it will be readily owned, that fanctification, obedience, and conformity to the image of God and Chrift, are things included in the decree. of election but do thefe things neceffarily fuppofe, that the perfons whom they concern, were, in that decree, confidered as impure, unholy, disobedient, and in a want of conformity to the image of God and Chrift? were not the elect angels chofen to fanctification, obedience, and conformity to the image of God? will any one fay, that these things fuppofed them to be, or that in the decree of election, they were confidered as impure, unholy, difobedient, and in a want of conformity to the image of God? But, admitting that these things, with respect to men, suppose them in fuch a cafe; it should be observed, that they belong to the decree of the means, and therefore fall fhort of proving that God, in the decree of the end, or in decreeing men to eternal life and happiness, for the glorifying of himself, confidered them in fuch a ftate; fince the decree of the end, in order of nature, is before the decree of the means; unless we can fuppofe the all-wife being to act in fuch a manner as no wife man would, namely, first fix upon the means, and then appoint the end. Now if God first decreed to create man, permit his fall, and then fanctify and conform him to the image of his Son, before he decreed to glorify himself in his falvation, the confequence will be, that God is firft glorified in the falvation of man; and after that, man is created, fuffered to fall, is fanctified, and conformed to the image of Chrift; because, what is first in intention, is laft in execution. There is one thing more I would obferve, and that is, that this author delivers it as the settled opinion of the Supralapfarians, "that we were not elected as holy and obe"dient beings, but to the end we might be fuch :" And I am much mistaken, if this is not the fettled opinion of all Sublapfarians, except fuch as are in the Arminian scheme. But what is this mentioned for? why, to fhew that the Supralapfarians Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 5. pralapfarians are inconfiftent with themselves, and guilty of fo flagrant a contradiction, as is not to be reconciled by any. But where does it lie? "why, where as they affirm, that we were not the almighty's choice, because we were holy; "but that he did chufe us to be made holy, and yet, in that choice, beheld us "free from all defilements and deformity." But this author must be told, if he does not know it, that the Supralapfarians, in confidering men not yet created, and fo not fallen, as the objects of election, fuppofe them neither good nor bad, righteous or wicked, holy or unholy, but in the pure, that is, in the mere mafs of creatureship, not yet de, much lefs corrupted, and as having done neither good nor evil; now is this fuch a flagrant contradiction, never to be reconciled, that men confidered neither as holy or unholy, as obedient or difobedient, fhould be chofen to holinefs and obedience? 2. This author proceeds to fhew, that "the doctrine of the Supralapfarians is "repugnant to their own opinion of God's eternal foreknowledge, according to "which he was pleafed to make his choice." To which I reply; that the Supralapfarians will readily own, that the omniscient Jehovah did, at one view, see, and perfectly behold, whatfoever would come to pafs, throughout all ages of time; and that he has an univerfal prefcience of all creatures and things, in their different states and circumftances; but then they will deny that election proceeds upon, or that God has been pleafed to make his choice according to this his general and eternal prefcience. It is true, that thofe who are elected, are elected according to the foreknowledge of God the Father; and whom he did foreknow, be alfo did predeftinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. But these paffages are not to be understood of the univerfal prefcience and foreknowledge of God; for then all men would be elected and predeftinated, for whom he did foreknow, he also did predeftinate; but all men are neither conformed to the image of Chrift, nor predeftinated to be fo: it remains, that the foreknowledge, according to which election and predeftination proceed, is God's fpecial foreknowledge of his own people, and which is no other than his everlasting love to them, which is the fource and spring of his choice of them; and the meaning is, that whom he foreknew, that is, in his eternal mind knew, owned, approved of, loved with an everlasting love; he chofe them to falvation, and predeftinated them to be conformed to the image of his Son. 3. This writer goes on to obferve, that "this doctrine of God's choosing his people without confidering them as fallen creatures, tends to leffen the infinite grace and mercy of God in their election." I reply; that though it has been a matter of controverfy between the Supralapfarians, and others, whe ther Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 7. i 1 Pet. i. 2. Rom. viii. 29. ther election is an act of mercy, yet not whether it is an act of grace; they, with the fcriptures', affirm, that election is of grace, fprings from the fovereign, grace and good pleasure of God, and is not influenced by, or to be afcribed to the works of men; but then they cannot obferve, that it is ever said to be of mercy. Regeneration is afcribed to the mercy of God, 1 Pet. i. 3. fo is forgivenefs of fins, Luke i. 77. yea, our whole falvation, Titus iii. 5. but never election; not that, but falvation is faid to be of God, that sheweth mercy, Rom. ix. 15. Their reasons, among many others ", too many to mention, why it cannot be an act of mercy, are, because the angels are elected, but not of mercy; the human nature of Christ is elected, but not of mercy. They argue, that supposing it. fhould be admitted, that election is an act of mercy, it muft either be actus eli-citus, an actual will of being merciful, or actus imperatus, the act of shewing mercy itself: not the latter, because that fuppofes perfons not merely foreknown. as miferable, but in actual being, and in real mifery, and is a tranfient act upon them; whereas election puts nothing in the perfons chofen: if it is an act of mercy, it must be the former, God's actual will of being merciful; but this does not neceffarily prefuppofe mifery, or miferable objects, it being internal, and immanent in God, and the fame with his mercy itself; and would have been the fame, nor would God have been the lefs merciful, if the world had not. been, and there had never been a miferable object on whom to display it. The act of election does not prefuppofe men finners and miferable, nor indeed can it; for fhould it prefuppofe fin, it would prefuppofe the decree of the permiffion of fin; and the permiffion of fin would be firft in God's intention, than man's falvation of God's mercy, and confequently would be laft in execution; than which, nothing can be thought of more abfurd. Befides, though election is not an act of mercy, yet it is far from having any tendency to leffen the mercy of God, and does, even according to the Supralapfarian fcheme, abundantly provide for the glorifying of it; fince, according to that, the decree of the end. is, the glorifying of the grace and mercy of God, tempered with juftice: The decree of the means provides for the bringing about of this end, which includes creation, the permison of fin, the mission of Christ, fanctification, and compleat falvation; fo that the elect of God may well be called veffels of mercy; fince through fuch means, they are brought to eternal life and glory; though, in the decree of the end, they are confidered as not yet created and fallen, than which, nothing can more tend to advance the free grace and mercy of God. 4. This author urges, that "this way of ftating election strikes feverely against the justice of God, in pafling by the rest of mankind, not included n in 1 Rom. xi. 5, 6. m Vid. Twifs. Vindicia, 1. 1. p. 1. D'gr. iv. c. 1 & Digr. ix, c. 1-4Supralapfarian Schem, P. 9. in this decree; for hereby they are rejected as creatures only, and not as fin"ful creatures." It is very strange, that election should severely strike against the justice of God, when, according to this way of ftating it, it is a choice of perfons to eternal life and happiness for the glorifying of the grace and mercy of God, mixed with his juftice; and fo as much provides in end and means, for the honour of divine juftice, as for the glory of grace and mercy and it is ftranger ftill, that election should be a paffing by the rest of mankind, not included in this decree: I fuppofe he means reprobation; for he has an extraordinary hand at putting one thing for another. Now let it be observed, that though the Supralapfarians do not confider reprobation as an act of juftice, but of fovereignty, yet not of injuftice; nor does their way of ftating it at all strike at the juftice of God. They fuppofe, that God, in the act of preterition, confidered the objects of it, as not yet created and fallen; and determined, when created, to leave them to their own will, and deny them that grace which he is not obliged to give and where is the injuftice of all this? But then, though they do not premife fin to the confideration of the act of preterition, yet they always premife it to the decree of damnation; which this author, as is generally done, confounds together. They fay, that as God damns no man, but for fin, fo he decreed to damn no man, but for fin: and furely this cannot be thought to strike feverely against the justice of God. It is true, they do not look upon fin to be the caufe of the decree of reprobation, quoad a&tum volentis, which can only be the will of God; but quoad res volitas, the cause of the thing willed, damnation. Befides, this way of ftating the decrees of election and reprobation, respecting men, can no more strike at the juftice of God, than the way of ftating these decrees, refpecting angels, does; which cannot be done in another way for the elect angels could never be confidered as fallen; and therefore the other angels, who were paffed by, and rejected at the fame time, must be rejected as creatures only, and not as finful creatures; unlefs it can be thought that the angels were not chofen and paffed by at the fame time, nor then confidered in a Jike ftate; and that God chofe fome of them upon their forefeen holiness and obedience, and rejected the rest upon their forefeen rebellion and difobedience; and if fo, why may not the election and rejection of men, be thought to proceed upon the fame foot? which none, that I know of, will come into, but fuch that are in the Arminian fcheme. This theme, our author fays, he has been always cautious of meddling with, left he fhould darken counsel for want of knowledge; and it is pity he meddled with it now, fince he difcovers fo much ignorance of it: who can forbear thinking of the common proverb? Thus having confidered what he calls the foundation doctrine of the Supralapfarians, he proceeds, |