AS SONS OF GOD BY ADOPTION, THEY BE MADE THE GODLY CONSIDERATION OF PREDESTI- BEFORE THEIR EYES THE SENTENCE OF GOD'S PREDESTINATION, IS A MOST DANGEROUS DOWNFALL, WHEREBY THE DEVIL DOTH THRUST THEM EITHER INTO DESPERATION, OR INTO WRETCHLESSNESS OF MOST UNCLEAN LIVING, NO LESS PERILOUS THAN DESPERATION. FURTHERMORE, WE MUST RECEIVE GOD'S PROMISES IN SUCH WISE AS THEY BE GENRALLY FORTH TO US IN HOLY SCRIPTURE, AND IN OUR DOINGS, THAT THE WILL OF GOD IS TO BE FOLLOWED, WHICH WE HAVE EXPRESSLY DECLARED UNTO US IN THE WORD OF GOD. SET As this Article involves the subject of many others, it will be necessary to consider it more minutely. For this purpose we shall observe the following method: I. We shall state the question and the principal opinions which have been held upon it. II. We shall give an historical sketch of the rise and progress of this controversy. III. We shall deliver the arguments by which those opinions are supported, and IV. We shall consider how far the members of the Church of England are left at liberty as to the doctrines they must hold in subscribing this Article. I. We shall state the question and the principal opinions which have been held upon it. It is evident, that the whole question resolves itself into this: upon what views did God form his decrees concerning mankind? Whether his only design was the advancement of his own glory, and the manifestation of his attributes, in order to effect which, he arranged the vast scheme of creation and providence? Or whether he took into consideration all the free acts of those rational agents he intended to create, and according to the choice he foresaw they would make, under the various circumstances in which they should be placed, formed his decrees? There are also other questions subordinate to this, and whose decisions is involved in the de termination of it. First, whether it was the intention of God, that Christ should die, only for that particular number whom God decreed to save? Or whether the benefits of his death were to extend to all mankind, so that none were excluded from them by an antecedent decree, but only by their own voluntary rejection of them. Secondly, whether the assistances given by God to men to enable them to obey his law, are of their own nature so efficacious and irresistible, that they never fail of producing the effect for which they were intended? Or whether they are only sufficient to produce that effect; so that their efficacy is derived from the free action of the will, which may either co-operate with, or resist them, as it pleases. Thirdly, whether all persons to whom that grace has been given, must certainly persevere ? Or whether they may not fall away finally from that state? These questions, together with some lesser ones, concerning the true notion of liberty and the degree of our natural corruption, originate in that first stated. And according to the decision which has been made, there are four opinions: (1.) The opinion of the Supralapsarians. They conceive that God in all his acts regards only his own glory, and that he determined on creating an occasion for the manifestation of it. For this purpose he decreed to make the world, to people it with a race of men, and to place them under Adam as their head and representative. In pursuance of the same design, he decreed to permit Adam's sin and the consequent fall of his posterity, that he might exhibit his mercy in the salvation of some of them, and his justice in the condemnation of the rest. Accordingly, he decreed to send Christ as the Saviour of the former, and to give them such efficacious assistances as should infallibly lead them to faith and subsequent salvation; while to the latter he only gave such means as should render them inexcusable. This is the order of God's decrees, by which he first determined on the manifestation of his own glory, and afterwards arranged those means which he knew to be best calculated to effect it. (2.) The opinion of the Sublapsarians. They hold that God constituted Adam the representative of mankind, that he, having sinned freely, and his sin being imputed to all his posterity, God regarded the human race 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 die 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 end. With respect to the rest, L he framed no positive decree, but merely left them in their lapsed state, without intending that they should derive any advantage from Christ's death, or affording them any efficacious assistances. (3.) The opinion of the Remonstrants.a They 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, thereupon decreed 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 all men, but that they may choose whether they will use and persevere in them, or not. (4.) The opinion of the Socinians. They deny that God could certainly foreknow future contingencies, and therefore, think that all his decrees were general; that such as believe and obey the Gospel shall be saved, and such as live in sin shall be damned; that no decrees are made with respect to particular persons, and that no assisting grace is necessary, as a The followers of Arminius were called Remonstrants, from a petition or remonstrance presented by them to the States of Holland in the year 1610, against their adversaries, who, from presenting another petition in opposition to this, were called Contra-Remonstrants. See Mosheim's Hist. cent. 17. sect. 2. p. 2. c. 3. |