2. The case being su}>posed as above, I ask whether the apostle intended a removal of the scruple and answer to the objection, as far, at least, as the one was capable of being removed and the other of being answered? This, I suppose, will not be scrupled or objected against, being indeed fully granted in stating the occasion of the words ; for wo must at least allow the Holy Ghost to speak perti- nently to what he doth propose. Then, —
3. I farther inquire, whether any thing whatever be in the least suited to the removal of the scruple and objection proposed, but only the giving of tlie scruplers and objectors the best assurance that u])on solid grounds and foundations could be given, or they were in
III.] THE IMMUTABILITY OF THE DIVINE PUKPOSES. 185
truth capable of, that what they feared should not come upon them, and that, notwithstanding the deviation of others, themselves should be preserved? And then, —
4. Seeing that the sum of the sense of the words given by Mr Goodwin amounts to these two assertions, — 1. "That the doctrine of the gospel is true and permanent ;" 2. " That God approves for the present all who for the present believe ;" supposing that there is no- thing in the gospel teaching tlie perseverance of the saints, I ask yet whether there be any thing in this answer of the apostle, so in- terpreted, able to give the least satisfaction imaginable to the con- sciences and hearts of men making the objection mentioned? for is it not evident, notwithstanding any thing here expressed, that they and every believer in the world may apostatize and fall away into hell? Say the poor believers, " Such and such fell away from the faith; their eminent usefulness in their profession, beyond perhaps what we are able to demonstrate of ourselves, makes us fear that this abominable defection may go on and swallow us up, and grow upon the church to a farther desolation." The answer is: "However, the gospel is true, and God bears gracious respects to them that cleave to him in love, whilst they do so." "Quasstio est de alliis, responsio de cepis." Methinks the apostle might have put them upon those con- siderations which Mr Goodwin proposes, as of excellent use and pre- valency against falling away, that they put men out of danger of it (chap, ix.), rather than have given them an answer not in the least tending to their satisfaction, nor any way suited to their fears or in- quiries, no, not [even] as backed with that explanation, that " they fall away because they degenerate into loose and sinful courses;" that is, because they fall away. A degeneracy into loose and sinful courses amounts surely to no less.
5. Again, I would know whether this "foundation of God" be an act of his will commanding or purposing, — declarative of our duty or his intention? If the first, then [I would know] what occasion is ad- ministered to make mention of it in this place? — whether it were called in question or no? and whether the assertion of it conduces to the solution of the objection proposed ? Or is it in any parallel tenns expressed in any other place? Besides, seeing this "foundation of God" is in nature antecedent to the "sealing" mentioned, or God's "knowing them that are his," and the object of the act of God's will, be it what it will, being the persons concerning whom that sealing is, [I would know] whether it can be any thing but some distinguishing purpose of God concerning those persons in reference to the things spoken of? Evident, then, it is, from the words themselves, the oc- casion of them, the design and scope of the apostle in the place, that the " foundation of God" here mentioned is his discriminating purpose concerning some men's certain preservation unto salvation;
186 DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTs' PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP,
which is manifestly confirmed by that seal of his, that he "knoweth them'' in a peculiar, distinguishing manner; — a manner of speech and expression suited directly to what the same apostle useth in the same case everywhere, as Rom. viii. 28-30, ix., xL 1, 2; Eph. i. 4-6.
"But," saith Mr Goodwin, " this is no more than what the apostle elsewhere speaks: Rom. iii. 3, 'What if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect?' — that is, 'Shall the unbelief of men be interpreted as any tolerable argument or ground to prove that God is unfaithful, or that he hath no other faith in him than that which sometimes miscarrieth, and produceth not that for which it stands engaged?' implying that such an inter- pretation as this is unreasonable in the highest."
But truly, by the way, if it be so, I know not who in the lowest can quit Mr Goodwin from unreasonableness in the highest; for doth he not contend in this whole discourse, that the faith of God in his promises, for the producing of that for which it stands engaged (as when he saith to believers he will " never leave them nor forsake them"), doth so depend on the faith of men as to the event intended, that it is very frequently by their unbelief rendered of none effect? Is not this the spirit that animates the whole religion of the apostasy of saints? Is not the great contest between us, whether any unbe- lief of men may interpose to render the faith of God of none effect as to the producing of the thing he promiseth? " Tibi, quia intristi, exedendum est."