Both fides have their peculiar temptations as well as their advantages: the Calvinift is tempted to a falfe fecurity, and floth: and the Arminian may be tempted to trust too much to himself, and too little to God: fo equally may a man of a calm temper, and of moderate thoughts, balance this matter between both the fides, and fo unreafonable it is to give way to a pofitive and dictating temper in this point. If the Arminian is zealous to affert liberty, it is because he cannot fee 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 deftroys it. If on the other hand a Calvinift seems to break in upon liberty, it is because he cannot reconcile it with the fovereignty 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 fave the other. The common fault of both fides is, to charge one another with the confequences of their opinions, as if they were truly their tenets. Whereas they are apprehenfive enough of thefe confequences, they have no mind to them, and they fancy that by a few diftinctions they can avoid them. But each fide thinks the confequences of the other are both worfe, and more certainly fastened to that doctrine, than the confequences that are urged against himself are. And fo they think they must choose that opinion that is the leaft perplexed and difficult: not but that ingenuous and learned men of all fides confess, that they feel themfelves very often pinched in these matters. Another very indecent way of managing these points is, that both fides do too often speak very boldly of God. Some petulant wits, in order to the reprefenting the contrary opinion as abfurd and ridiculous, have brought in God, reprefenting him, with indecent expreffions, as acting or decreeing, according to their hypothefis, in a manner that is not only unbecoming, but that borders upon blafphemy. From which, though they think to escape by saying, that they are only fhewing what must follow if the other opinion were believed; yet there is a folemnity and gravity of ftyle, that ought to be most religioufly obferved, when we poor mortals take upon us to fpeak 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 fign of a very daring prefumption, to pretend to affign the order of all the acts of God, the ends propofed in them, and the methods by which they are executed. We, who do not know how our thoughts ART. XVII. carry XVII. ART. carry our bodies to obey and fecond our minds, fhould not imagine that we can conceive how God may move or bend our wills. The hard thing to digeft in this whole matter, is reprobation: they who think it neceffary to affert the freedom of election, would fain avoid it: they feek foft words for it, fuch as the paffing by or leaving men to perish they ftudy to put that on Adam's fin, and they take all the methods they can to foften an opinion that feems harsh, and that founds ill. But howsoever they will bear all the confequences of it, rather than let the point of abfolute election go. On the other fide, thofe who do once perfuade themfelves that the doctrine of reprobation is falfe, do not fee how they can deny it, and yet afcribe a free election to God. They are once perfuaded that there can be no reprobation but what is conditionate, and founded on what is forefeen concerning men's fins and from this they are forced to fay the fame thing of election. And both fides ftudy to begin the controverfy with that which they think they can the most eafily prove; the one at the establishing of election, and the other at the overthrowing of reprobation. Some have ftudied to feek out middle ways: for they obferving that the Scriptures are writ in a great diverfity of ftyle, in treating of the good or evil that happens to us, afcribing the one to God, and imputing the other to ourfelves, teaching us to afcribe the honour of all that is good to God, and to caft the blame of all that is evil upon ourfelves, have from thence concluded, that God muft have a different influence and caufality 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 choose to bear thefe rather than to involve themfelves in thofe equally great, if not greater difficulties, that are in either of the other opinions. They wrap up all in two general affertions, that are great practical truths, Let us arrogate no good to ourselves, and impute no evil to God, and fo let the whole matter reft. This may be thought by fome the lazier, as well as the fafer way: which avoids difficulties, rather than answers them; whereas they fay of both the contending fides, that they are better at the ftarting of difficulties than at the refolving of them. Thus far I have gone upon the general, in making fuch reflections as will appear but too well grounded to thofe who have with any attention read the chief difputants of both fides. In these great points all agree: that mercy is freely freely offered to the world in Chrift Jefus: that God did ART. freely offer his Son to be our propitiation, and has freely XVII. accepted the facrifice of his death in our ftead, whereas he might have condemned every man to have perifhed for his own fins: that God does, in the difpenfation of his Gospel, and the promulgation of it to the feveral nations, act according to the freedom of his grace, upon reafons that are to us myfterious and paft finding out: that every man is inexcufable in the fight of God: that all men are fo far free as to be praife-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 earneftly upon God for his protection and affiftance: that no man in practice ought to think that there is a fate or decree hanging over him, and fo become flothful in his duty, but that every man ought to do the beft he can, as if there were no fuch decree, fince, whether there is or is not, it is not poffible for him to know what it is that every man ought to be deeply humbled for his fins in the fight of God, without excufing himself by pretending a decree was upon him, or a want of power in him : that all men are bound to obey the rules fet them in the Gofpel, and are to expect neither mercy nor favour from God, but as they fet themselves diligently about that: and finally, that at the laft day all men fhall be judged, not according to fecret decrees, but according to their own works. In thefe great truths, of which the greater part are practical, all men agree. If they would agree as honeftly in the practice of them, as they do in confeffing them to be true, they would do that which is much more important and neceffary, than to fpeculate and difpute about niceties; by which the world would quickly put on a new face, and then thofe few, that might delight in curious fearches and arguments, would manage them with more modefty and lefs heat, and be both lefs pofitive and lefs fupercilious. I have hitherto infifted on fuch general reflections as feemed proper to thefe queftions. 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 fhe hath reftrained her fons, and how far fhe hath left them at liberty. For thofe different opinions being fo intricate in themfelves, and fo apt to raife hot difputes, and to kindle lafting quarrels, it will not be fuitable to that moderation which our Church hath obferved in all other things, to ftretch her words on these heads beyond their ftrict fenfe. The natural equity or reafon of things ought rather to carry ART. XVII. carry us, on the other hand, to as great a comprehenfivenefs of all fides, as may well confift with the words in which our Church hath expreffed herself on thofe heads. : It is not to be denied, but that the Article feems to be framed according to St. Auftin's doctrine: it fuppofes men to be under a curfe and damnation, antecedently to predeflination, from which they are delivered by it; fo it is directly against the Supralapfarian doctrine: nor does the Article make any mention of reprobation, no, not in a hint; no definition is made concerning it. The Article does alfo feem to affert the efficacy of grace: that in which the knot of the whole difficulty lies, is not defined; that is, whether God's eternal purpose or decree was made according to what he forefaw his creatures would do, or purely upon an abfolute will, in order to his own glory. It is very probable, that thofe who penned it meant that the decree was abfolute; but yet fince they have not faid it, thofe who fubfcribe the Articles do not feem to be bound to any thing that is not expreffed in them and therefore fince the Remonftrants do not deny but that God having foreseen what all mankind would, according to all the different circumftances in which they fhould be put, do or not do, he upon that did by a firm and eternal decree lay that whole defign in all its branches, which he executes in time; they may fubfcribe this Article without renouncing their opinion as to this matter. On the other hand, the Calvinists have lefs occafion for fcruple; fince the Article does feem more plainly to favour them. The three cautions, that are added to it, do likewife intimate that St. Auftin's doctrine was defigned to be fettled by the Article: for the danger of men's having the fentence of God's predeftination always before their eyes, which may occafion either defperation on the one hand, or the wretchlefness of most unclean living on the other, belongs only to that fide; fince thefe mifchiefs do not arife out of the other hypothefis. The other two, of taking the promises of God in the fenfe in subich they are fet forth to us in boly Scriptures, and of following that will of God that is expressly declared to us in the word of God, relate very vifibly to the fame opinion: though others do infer from thefe cautions, that the doctrine laid down in the Article must be fo understood as to agree with these cautions; and therefore they argue, that fince abfolute predeftination cannot confift with them, that therefore the Article is to be otherwife explained. They fay the natural confequence of an abfolute decree is either prefumption or defpair: fince a man upon that bot tom tom reckons, that which way foever the decree is made, ART. it must certainly be accomplished. They alfo argue, that XVII. because we must receive the promifes of God as conditional, we must also believe the decree to be conditional; for abfolute decrees exclude conditional promises. An offer cannot be fuppofed 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 muft only follow the revealed will of God, we ought not to suppose that there is an antecedent and pofitive will of God, that has decreed our doing the contrary to what he has commanded. Thus the one fide argues, that the Article as it lies, in the plain meaning of thofe who conceived it, does very exprefsly establish their doctrine: and the other argues, from thofe cautions that are added to it, that it ought to be understood fo as that it may agree with thefe cautions: and both fides find in the Article itself fuch grounds, that they reckon they do not renounce their opinions by fubfcribing it. The Remonftrant fide have this farther to add, that the universal extent of the death of Chrift seems to be very plainly affirmed in the most folemu part of all the offices of the Church: for in the office of Cominunion, and in the Prayer of Confecration, we own, that Chrift, by the one oblation of himself once offered, made there a full, perfect, and fufficient facrifice, oblation, and fatisfaction for the fins of the whole world. Though the others fay, that by full, perfect, and fufficient, is not to be underftood that Chrift's death was intended to be a complete facrifice and fatisfaction for the whole world, but that in its own value it was capable of being fuch. This is thought too great a ftretch put upon the words. And there are yet more exprefs words in our Church-Catechifm to this purpofe; which is to be confidered as the most folemn declaration of the fenfe of the Church, fince that is the doctrine in which the inftructs all her children : and in that part of it which feems to be most important, as being the fhort fummary of the Apoftles' Creed, it is faid, God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind: where all muft ftand in the fame extent of univerfality, as in the precedent and in the following words; The Father who made me and all the world; the Holy Ghost who fanctifieth me and all the elect people of God; which being to be understood feverely, and without exception, this must also be taken in the fame ftrictness. There is another argument brought from the office of Baptism, to prove that men may fall from a ftate of grace and regeneration; for in the whole office, more particularly in the Thankf |