I. ACTS, ii. 47. AND THE LORD ADDED TO THE CHURCH DAILY SUCH AS SHOULD BE SAVED. TH HIS text is often brought as a proof of predestination. But if the context be examined, it will appear, that fuch as fhould be faved, were not to be faved by the abfolute decree of God, but by continuing ftedfaft in the apostle's doctrine. The doctrines of predeftination-election-and reprobation, which are all nearly connected, receive their chief force from the fuppofition, that the fore-knowledge of God cannot be reconciled with the freedom of man's will. That this is an awful, deep, and to us an incomprehenfible fubject, may well be allowed. But are we not told, in various parts of Scripture, of the deep things of God? Are we not told, that things which are impoffible with men, are poffible with God? Are we not forbidden to be wife above what is written? The predeftinarian, in fupport of his opinion, quotes a number of texts, which feem to ferve his purpose. All of them, however, either by the context, or fome other mode of interpretation, admit of eafy anfwers. One of the strongest is the apostle's celebrated allufion to the potter and his clay*. This paffage is taken from the eighteenth chapter of Jeremiah. By the prophetic fign of the potter and his clay, (according to the common. mode of eastern instruction) the prophet instructs the Jews, that God exercifed the fame power in receiving one nation, and rejecting another, as the potter does over his clay. And it is very remarkable, that the tranflators of our Bible, who were not thought to be very averse to these doctrines, tell us in the contents of this chapter, that under the type of a potter is fhewn God's abfolute power in difpofing of nations. Now, it is evident, that the apoftle makes exactly this ufe of the allufion. He has not the leaft reference to individuals, nor to a future ftate: but merely threatens the Jews with the completion of those prophecies which hung # Rom. ix. 21. over over them-the rejection of their nation, and the acceptance of the Gentiles. But the strongest appeal against this doctrine, is to the nature of the Gospel, and to the whole tenor of Scripture. What can be more abfurd, than to fuppofe God offers falvation to man in the Gospel, which can be of no fervice to him? What can be more abfurd than for the Scripture to exhort-to threaten to encourage-and to promise-unless thefe modes of application mean to treat men like creatures, who have it in their power either to obey or tranfgrefs? Even on a fuppofition, that certain paffages on this fubject are not easily explained, whether is it more natural to conclude, that the whole Scripture is founded on abfurdity, or that a few texts are not clearly understood? 3 |