Absolute Election of Persons Not Upon Foreseen Conditions, Title page – To the reader
ABSOLUTE Election of Perſons. Not upon foreſeen Conditions, STATED and MAINTAINED; In ſome Sermons preach'd at Hartford.
With ſome ANIMADVERSIONS on ſome Pelagian Paſſages in a Book, entituled, Vulgar Erros in Divinity removed, written by Mr. Ralph Battell, preſent Miniſter at St. Alhallows in Hartford.
By WILL. HAWORTH, Servant of Jeſus Chriſt in the Miniſtry of his Goſpel.
Rom. 11.6.
If it be of Works, it is no more of Grace; if Grace, no more Works, &c.
LONDON; Printed for the Author, and are to be ſold at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1694.
THE PREFACE TO THE READER.
THE Lord, who hath determined the Bounds of our Habitation, Acts 17.26. having caſt my Lot at Hartford, where I have continued in the Miniſtry of the Goſpel above twenty Years, yet not without Interruption; and having, from the time of my Converſion, received in the Doctrine of Election much ſweet and pleaſant Comfort to my Soul, (as the Church of England's Phraſe is, ſpeaking of it in the 17th Article) I have been a conſtant Preacher of it, and not without various Effects to ſeveral Hearers; it hath been (as the Apoſtles ſpeak of their Doctrine) 2 Cor. 2.16. A Savour of Life unto Life, to others a Savour of Death unto Death. Some that at firſt through Novelty ſtumbled at it, now rejoice to hear it preached: Others have ſo ſtumbled at it through Ignorance, Conceitedneſs and Prejudice, that to this day they have not recovered themſelves. Some forſook our Meetings and turned Quakers upon hearing of this Doctrine, the now George Keith (a chief Preacher among them) owns the Doctrine of Election of a definite Number of Perſons that ſhall infallibly be ſaved. The Church-of-England-Profeſſors in Hartford are (as far as I can learn) moſt-what prejudiced againſt it, tho it is owned ſo plainly in their Articles of Religion; and no wonder when one of their Teachers is ſuch an Enemy to it, witneſs his ſlender Book, entituled, Vulgar Errors in Divinity removed, printed 1683. wherein he doth with Bullets of Glaſs batter the Brazen Mountains of the abſolute Decrees of the Supreme Soveraign, Zech. 6.1. Who giveth not an account of any of his matters; Job 33.13. but this Man impudently diſputes with God, contrary to that in Rom. 9.20. and arraigns his Creator, ſaying, Why haſt thou made me thus? and yet P. 8. confeſſeth God might have made him, as to his Temporal Being, a Dog, a Hog, or poiſonous Serpent; and bethinks himſelf, and modeſtly in his Preface faith, If his Superiours think he is in an Error, he will diſown it. I am confident the late Reverend Biſhop Barlow of Lincoln would have branded the Book (had the read it) as fulſome Pelagianiſm. In the fifth Page he writes; And what he ſaith to Moſes is moſt equal, I will have Mercy on whom I will have Mercy: Thanks be to the Gentleman for that ingenous Judgment upon Jehovah's Dealings. But now hear his own Comment; (that is) It belongs to me to appoint upon what Terms I will ſhew Mercy, and juſtify Men, whether by the Law of Faith, or by Works. For as he that builds an Hoſpital, hath an equitable Right to appoint the Qualifications of the Perſons that ſhall partake in this Gift, whether poor Children, or Widows, aged Perſons, or the like: ſo it belongs to God to appoint upon what Terms he will juſtify me, (it ſhould be Elect, for of that he is treating) whether by the Law of Works, or Faith. It is evident by this, that the Author is for Election upon Conditional Terms and Qualifications; and that it is a vulgar Error, viz. Free Election of Perſons unto Qualifications. The Phraſe [ſhewing Mercy] in this Paragraph can be no otherwiſe interpreted but of Election, tho he adds the word [juſtify] to it. Foreſeen Faith, according to this Author, is the Cauſe of God's Election; and that Faith muſt ſurely be accompanied all a Man's days with good Works, elſe it is not true Faith: ſo that Election is upon Works as much as Faith; and there is no Election but at the utmoſt Period of a Man's Life. Againſt this Arminian vulgar Error do I militate in the following Sheers, wherein the Reader will, I queſtion not, find ſufficient Armoury againſt it. As for abſolute Reprobation, no wonder the Author is againſt that, whenas he is againſt abſolute Election: But that God of his own Will and Pleaſure, and for no other Cauſe, ſhould decree to damn any, (which this Author upbraids us withal) was never aſſerted by any Divines that ever I read; but they conſtan…y, uno Ore, affirm, That God hath from Eternity determined to condemn Man of Sin, perſiſting therein to the end of his days in Unbelief. 2. They are all in one Mind, That no Man, whoever, but ſins freely when he ſins, notwithſtanding the Decree to permit Sin. Now it is no Injuſtice in God to condemn Man for final ſinning and Impenitency therein, nor to decree ſo to do from Eternity; tho withal we ſay, the deſert of Sin is not the Cauſe of the Purpoſe and Decree it ſelf. And let them quarrel with us for that, Thomas Aquinas (a great School-man) ſhall anſwer for us; long ſince he writ, viz. He is mad that ſaith, there can be any Cauſe of the Divine Will; that which is in Time, cannot be the Cauſe of that which is eternal; the Cauſe muſt exiſt before the Effect. The foreſight of the future Sin of Man in time, before it hath Exiſtence, cannot have a cauſal Influence upon the eternal Will of God: Neither can God fore-ſee any thing future, before he had will'd it to be. There could have been no Evil in the World if he had not decreed to permit it. That the Decree of Damnation ſhould precede the Decree of permitting Sin, our Divines do not ſay; but one of them ſaith, This is the Order which God takes in his Decrees: (Dr. Twiſs in his Anſwer to Hoard, Book 2. p. 30.) God at once decrees both to create Men, and ſuffer them to fall in Adam, and to bring them forth in their ſeveral Generations into the World, and to beſtow the Grace of Faith and Repentance upon one ſort, and ſo to ſave them, and to deny the ſame Grace unto others, permitting them to go on finally in their ſinful Courſes, and ſo to condemn them for Sin; and all to manifeſt the Glory of Mercy in one, and the Glory of Juſtice on the other, yea, and his Soveraignty too: But wherein? not in rewarding the one with Salvation, and inflicting Damnation on the other, but only in giving Grace to the one, and not to the other. What fault can be found in this Order of God's Decrees? Why ſhould this Author exclaim and ſay, that we make God to ruine the Innocent, and make him like the Devil, Pag. 8. to be a Murderer from the beginning. Theſe are but old cankered Pelagian Cavils againſt the Cauſe of God, that will have Mercy on whom he will have Mercy, and whom he will he hardens, and yet is righteous. How do we make God to ruin the Innocent, whenas we heartily declare, that God never determined to ruin any but for Sin, and never did execute his Will and Determination, and ſo actually ruin any but for Sin contumaciouſly continued in to the end? And is this to ruin the Innocent? When the Decree was made, Man was neither nocent nor innocent; for the Creature had no Exiſtence before the Creation, nothing had a Being but the Decree; and ſo that of Reprobation had a Being before the World was. The Nature of God he ſaith cannot come ſo nigh the Nature of the Devil, as to be a Murderer from the beginning; intimating that by our Doctrine we make God to be like Satan, a Murderer from the beginning. But I doubt not but this Author will by this Crimination make himſelf like Satan, a Liar, and falſe Accuſer of the Brethren; Ad triarios ventum eſt, Cannot we defend our ſelves? Satan was the moral Cauſe of Eve's ſinning, and ſo of Deſtruction. Did we ever ſay that God was the moral Cauſe of Eve's ſinning? I trow not: And then how can he be ſaid to be the Murderer? He that is not Cauſa Cauſae, how can he be ſaid to be Cauſa cauſati? Is the Judg that paſſes Sentence upon a Criminal, a Murderer; or the Sheriff that executes the Sentence? We profeſs conſtantly, ſteadily, that God never did ſentence any to Death, but for final Sin; (we are ſpeaking of the Adult) neither did he decree any to Hell, but for final Impenitency in Sin; much leſs doth he execute any, inflict Death eternal upon them, but for perſevering obſtinately in Sin to the end of their days without Repentance. And to ſay that the Judg of the Earth in executing Judgment upon Sinners, is to make him like the Devil, is Monſtrum horrendum! &c. This is all that can be laid to our Charge, that God denies Faith and Repentance to ſome, which he gives to others, and hath decreed ſo of his meer Will and Pleaſure, according to that in the 9th of the Romans, He will have Mercy on whom he will have Mercy, and whom he will he hardens; not by infuſing any Hardneſs into any, but by not infuſing Grace. Is this to make God like Satan, a Murderer? Is Satan Sovereign Lord? Hath he Power over the Creature, as the Potter over the Clay? But this Man doth apprehend God to be like Satan, a Murderer, becauſe he wills to puniſh ſome for their Sin perſiſted in, and becauſe he will not give Faith and Repentance to all: Who can think but he is for univerſal Salvation? The Adverſaries do much inſiſt upon this Theam, crying out, that we render God cruel in this Point of abſolute Reprobation: One of them hath this ſtrain, 'Tis contrary to ſound Reaſon, which cannot but argue ſuch a Decree of extreme Cruelty, &c. But doth not ſound Reaſon alſo argue the Preſcience of God of as extreme Cruelty as this Doctrine of Reprobation? and they cannot, without offering Violence to the Light of Nature, deny the Fore-knowledg of God: and whatever Abſurdity they would faſten upon us from our Tenet of abſolute Reprobation, ſhall neceſſarily divolve upon themſelves in every reſpect, if they preſerve but the undeniable Doctrine of God's Preſcience.
Another vulgar Error is concerning Free-will in Mr. Battell's Book: why he ſhould call the Calviniſtical Tenets vulgar Errors is uncouth, whenas the Pelagian Hereſy ſutes the Reaſon and Affections of all natural Men, and is very plauſible to the common People. There is Popery and Pelagianiſm in every ones Belly by Nature; whole Towns and Countries eſpouſe this Harlot, and wonder after her: but ſtrait is the Gate, and narrow is the Way of Truth, and few find it. I have read over the Treatiſe of Free-will, and find nothing but what is in Cardinal Bellarmine the Jeſuit. The Author deſcribes Free-will in the ſame Terms with the Jeſuit; but how well does he agree with his Mother, the Church of England? hath he not undoubtedly ſpit in her Face, while he contentedly ſits in her Lap, and ſucks her Breaſts? Did he ever ſubſcribe or ſwear to the tenth Article of Free-will; is it not diametrically oppoſite to his Book? Let the Reader judg. The Condition of Man after the Fall is ſuch, that he cannot turn and prepare himſelf (mark that) by his own natural Strength and good Works to Faith and calling upon God; wherefore we have no Power to do good Works pleaſant and acceptable to God, without the Grace of God by Chriſt [preventing us] (Mark that!) that we may have a good Will. But the Import of all this Treatiſe is, viz. That there is a Free-will-in-fallen Man to ſpiritual and ſupernatural Acts, tho indeed he calls it a remote Free-will to ſupernatural Acts; that this Will of Man is not ſubject to the ſpecial Motion of God in the Act of Converſion, ſo that the Grace of God is irreſiſtably powerful, P. 73. This, as the Opinion of our Divines, he diſputes againſt; that this Will is ready, tho with ſome Remoteneſs, to act with God's Grace, and is as bent to chuſe Good as to refuſe and chuſe Evil, is not dead, but ſick and lame; and this Power waits for God's Power, that they may act evenly and jointly in the working out of Salvation, pag. 81. And that Man's Will together with the Grace of God, caſts the Scale in Converſion; not to wrong him, he ſaith, Grace hath the chiefeſt Stroke in it, pag. 91. But which of them moveth firſt, he ſaith not, and ſurely the firſt Mover hath the greateſt Stroke. Now Bradwerdine aſſerts God to be the firſt Mover in all Actions, and it's moſt conſonant to right Reaſon; and if in all, then ſurely in good Actions. He hath, it's true, mentioned preventing Grace: In pag. 77. he is there ſetting forth the difference betwixt one dead naturally, and one ſpiritually dead; and the firſt difference is this, viz. The one is capable of preventing Grace, and the other is not: but is not he that is naturally dead as capable of the miraculous preventing Power of God, in raiſing him up from that kind of Death to Life, as he that is ſpiritually dead is capable of Grace preventing to convert him? And muſt not this Grace as really go before Converſion, in Order of Nature at leaſt, as the other miraculous Power precedes the Reſurrection, or quickening of him that is naturally dead: He ſaith one may be raiſed by Means, the other only by Miracles; we query what thoſe Means are? External only, or Internal? (i. e.) infuſing of ſpiritual Life as a Principle, and is not this a Miracle? Job. 5.25. compared with 28. there you plainly perceive, there is as much Power exerted in raiſing the ſpiritually as the naturally dead; but the Author ſuppoſeth external Means only, according to that he writes, p. 79. Efficacious Grace is nothing but Perſwaſion, which doth not determine the Will: This is noiſom Pelagianiſm.
Our Opinion is plainly this, and we have Boldneſs in the Truth, viz. In our Converſion Free-will is neither a total or partial Cauſe, pre-operant co-operant, but the paſſive Subject, recipient of that Vim Gratiae verticordiam (as Auſtin called it) the changing Power of Grace. The Will in Converſion is neither a free Agent, nor natural Agent, but an obedient Subject of the efficacious Grace of God: This we are ready to maintain. All the Author's Arguments are in Bellarmine, Pelagius, Arminius, and fully anſwered by Bradwerdine, Twiſs, Ames, and Davenant, a Biſhop of the Church of England. Is't not pity that this Diſh of twice ſodden Coleworts ſhould be made ready and ſet on the Table for the poiſoning of ſo many Souls, making them lazy, proud and hypocritical? Without an Anſwer foreign, to lay open the Fallacies and Abſurdities of this vulgar Error, it may be done in ſeaſon. In the Interim I offer a few things to manifeſt the Abſurdities of this Tenet, viz. The Power of Free-will co-operating with the Grace of God, being a Partner with God in Converſion. Firſt, See what Bellarmine ſaith of this matter. The Concourſe of God doth not impreſs or work any thing upon our Wills, but immediately flows upon the Effects; it is like to that of two carrying a great Stone, which one of them ſingly cannot do; the Will and God work together in one and the ſame moment of time, (but now mark, the Author will not ſpeak out ſo plainly, but I ſuppoſe will not oppoſe the Cardinal) yet God works becauſe the Will works; not on the contrary, i. e. the Will works becauſe God works, becauſe he did as it were oblige himſelf freely of his own accord when he created Free-will. Now this is ingenuouſly ſpoken. Againſt this we offer:
1. This takes off from the Dominion of Providence, and the efficacious Government of all the Operations of Human Will.
2. This takes away the Subordination of Second Cauſes to the Firſt in their Operations.
3. This makes Man not God's Subject, but Companion; not ſubordinate, but equal to God.
4. It makes the Gubernation and Directions of Human Actions, and of whatſoever follows thereupon, firſt and chiefly to depend upon Man's Free-will.
5. It paints out God depending upon the nod and beck of Man in things of the higheſt Concernment.
6. This Opinion inverts and ſubverts that Piety which God hath taught us in the Scripture, James. 4.15. which we ſhould uſe our ſelves to in our Beſolves, viz. If the Lord will, we will do this or that; if Man will, to do this or that.
7. It is againſt not only Ariſtotle, Auguſtine, Aquinas, and the Thomiſts and Janſeniſts but the very Trent-Roman-Catechiſm, Art. 8. Symb. n. 22. Deus Providentiâ ſuâ quae moventur & agunt aliquid, intimâ virtute ad Motum at que Actionem impellit.
God by his Providence doth impel with moſt intimate Power to Motion and Action all things that are moved, and act any thing. I cannot forbear adding as to the Deſcription of Grace, p. 72. It is Strength and Aſſiſtance from God to do ſomething above Nature; theſe Men think it enough when they ſpeak or write of God's Actings of us, to grant that he aids, ſtrengthens, aſſiſts, helps us. Bellarmine argues thus, The Scripture teacheth that we are helped of God in our Actions, but he that doth nothing cannot properly be ſaid to be holpen, but he who labours in acting: yet I remember that Chriſt healing the poſſeſſed, caſting out the Devils, in which Men were meerly paſſive, is called helping, Mat. 15.25. Mark 9.22. Have Compaſſion and help us. Lactantius long ſince did very well anſwer this of Bellarmine. The Propriety of this word [juvare] help, doth not hold forth to us Divine, but only Human Help: For Cicero interprets Jove and Juno to be called ſo from the word juvando, to help; and Jupiter is called ſo, Juvans Pater, the helping Father, which Name doth not in the leaſt ſute God; becauſe to help belongs to Man, beſtowing ſomething upon one that hath but little: none doth ſo pray to God that he ſhould help them, but ſave them; that he would beſtow Life and Salvation upon them, which is much more than to help. And becauſe we ſpeak of a Father, no Father is ſaid to help his Sons when he begets them, and brings them up; this word is too light, than that the Greatneſs of a Father's Bounty ſhould be expreſſed by it: How much more is it inconvenient and unbecoming God, who is moſt truly our Father, by whom we are, whoſe we wholly are, by whom we were made, quickened, inlightened? &c. He doth not underſtand the Divine Benefits, that thinks himſelf only to be helped of God. Therefore he is not only ignorant, but wicked, that by the word Jove, doth impare, diminiſh, or leſſen the Power of the Higheſt.
Now hear a few Queries that ſhould be reſolved by theſe Levellers, Co-operators, Coadjutors.
1. Whether the Grace of Calling, or the whole Work of God which he exerts to the converting of a Man, be only moral, only in perſwading, propoſing, inviting, exhorting, &c. or alſo real and of proper Efficacy?
2. Whether there be no Action of the Spirit acting immediately upon the Mind and Will, which cauſeth us to believe; but the propoſing only of the things to be believed, doth ſuffice to the begetting and bringing forth of Faith?
3. Whether there be not the ſame manner of working as to the Efficacy of Grace in the quickening of the Intellect, Affections and Will; the Intellect and Affections being quickened in an irreſiſtable, but the Will in a reſiſtable manner?
4. Whether any other Powers are given to the Will to its Converſion, beſides the inlightening the Mind, and the exciting the Affections?
5. Whether beſides the inlightening the Mind, and the exciting the Affections, Grace works any thing by way of Principle, or antecedently unto Converſion; but only accompanieth the Will already conſenting?
6. Whether there being all the Workings and Operations which God uſeth in the effecting Converſion in Men, whether Converſion doth not always follow?
7. When Converſion follows, whether doth it follow and is effected by any Neceſſity of the Cauſe, or Infallibility of the Event from the Intention and Action of God, or only contingently and uncertainly, as it pleaſed the indifferent Will of Man to incline it ſelf? Let theſe Queries be plainly anſwered.
A third vulgar Error is, viz. That Chriſt died for the Elect only, he is for univerſal Redemption: Now this vulgar Error the Church of England is for with us, for they are for the Election of Perſons, witneſs their 17th Article; and it's evident that theſe two Opinions are inconſiſtent, viz. Election and univerſal Redemption. As for thoſe univerſal Terms he ſaith, p. 101. the Church teacheth the Children in their Catechiſms to anſwer, viz. I believe in God the Son, who redeemed us and [all Mankind]: And that in her Collect for Good-friday, ſhe prays for the Converſion of Jews, Turks and Infidels. Indeed according to this Author's Opinion, there needs no Prayer be made for them that have Power already in their own Hands. God works in Converſion, becauſe the Will works, ſaith Bellarmine; but we anſwer, by querying, Whether we ſhould judg of the Church's Doctrine by her Collect, and Catechiſm, or by her Articles of Religion? ſurely by the latter. Again, Are we to pray for Turks, Jews and Infidels Converſion, without this addition (if it be the Will of God to convert them)? I think not. This Term [all Mankind] ſo general, no more is ſignified thereby, than Chriſt died for Mankind, in Oppoſition to Angels kind, and we ſay the ſame. The ground for praying for Turks, Jews and Infidels, ariſeth from the Scripture propheſying of the Jews Converſion, and bringing in of the Fulneſs of the Gentiles; which is plainly notified in the 11th of the Romans. But that Chriſt died for all and every one, with his own and Father's Intent to ſave them, we deny; and offer thoſe Arguments drawn up lately by that Learned and Reverend Brother, Mr. Iſaac Chauncey, in his late Book, entituled, The Doctrine which is according to Godlineſs, there cannot be better Arguments produced. The Preface ſwells, elſe I would have tranſcribed them all; take but one ſutable to the following Subject, and I will bid the Reader farewel.
It is not fit Chriſt ſhould die for all, ſeeing his Father elected not all, and gave not all to him; For Chriſt to redeem more, were to diſobey his Father's Will, and not to do it. If any ſay God elected all, it is moſt abſurd to talk of chuſing ſome from among many others: when a Man takes the whole Number, this is no Election. Or if any ſay Election is conditional provided if a Man will, this alſo is no Election; for if Election be upon the Condition of Man's Free-will, neither one nor another is choſen, but all have equal pervious Deſignation to the end, and ſo there is no Election at all.
Farewel,