2. Finding his exposition of this parable liable and obnoxious to an exception, in that it renders God changeable in his dealings vnih men, and a knot to be cast on his doctrine which he is not able to untie, he ventures boldly to cut it in pieces, by affirming '•' that indeed God loves no man at all with any love but the approbation of the qualifications that are in him, and that he cannot be said to change in reference to that which is not in him at all." This he sets out and illustrates variously with the dealings of men, and the laws that are made amongst them, rewarding what is good and
632 DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP.
punishing what is evil, etc., — words fully fitted, in his apprehension, to the clearing of God from any shadow of alteration in that course of proceeding which to him he ascribes, — and tells you, " The root of the mistake concerning the love of God" towards any man's person lies in that " capital error of personal election," or a purpose of God to give grace and glory to any one in Christ. KaxoC xopaxog -/.axlov uov. That Mr Goodwin doth at all understand the love of God, if his ap- prehension of it be uniform to what he expresseth here in disputa- tion, I must question. An eternal, unchangeable love of God to some in Christ is not now my task to demonstrate; it may, through the patience and goodness of God, find a place in my weak endea- vours for the Lord ere long, when it will be a matter of delight to consider the scriptures and testimonies of antiquity that Mr Good- win will produce for the eversion of such a personal election. For the present, T shall only take notice of the force of his judgment in the thing which, sect. 13, he here delivers: "All the love which God bears to men, or to any person of man, is either in respect of their nature and as they are men, in respect of which he bears a general or common love to them ; or in respect of their qualifications as they are good men in one degree or other, in respect whereof he bears a more special love to them." What that " common love" is in Mr Goodwin's doctrine which God bears to " all men, as men," we know full well ; he also himself is not unacquainted how often it hath been demonstrated to be a vain and foolish figment (in the sense by him and his associates obtruded on us), derogatory to all the glorious properties of the nature of God, and inconsistent with any thing that of himself he hath revealed ; the demonstration and farther eviction whereof waits its season, which I hope draweth on. The " special love" which he bears persons " in respect of their qualifications" is only his approbation of those qualifications, wherever they are, and in whomsoever. That these qualifications are, faith, love, repent- ance, gospel obedience, etc., is not called into question. I would fain know of Mr Goodwin on what account and consideration some men, and not all, are translated from the condition of being objects of God's common love to become objects of his peculiar love, or from whence spring those qualifications which are the procui'ement of it, — whether they are from any love of God to them in whom they are. If not, on what account do men come to have faith, love, obedience, etc.? If they are from any love of God, whether it be from the com- mon love of God to man, as men? and if so, why are not all men endowed with these qualifications? If from his peculiar love, how come they to be the effects and causes of the same thing? Or whe- ther, indeed, this assertion be not destructive to the whole covenant of grace, and the effectual dispensations of it in the blood of Christ? And to his second testimony I shall add no more.
XVII.] CERTAIN PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE CONSIDERED. 633
The third place insisted on is that of the apostle, 1 Cor. ix. 27. Hence he thus argueth : —
" If Paul, after his conversion unto Christ, was in a possibility of being or becoming a 'reprobate' or 'castaway,' then may true believers fall away both totally and jSnally (for finally ever includes totally) ; but the antecedent is true, — Paul after his conversion was in the possibility mentioned: ergo. The major proposition, I presume, will pass without control."
Ans. That Mr Goodwin is not able to make good either of the propositions in this syllogism will evidently appear in the conclusion of our examination of what he draws forth, new and old, to that pur- pose. Of the major he gives you only this account, " It will pass, I presume, without control." But by his favour, unless cleared from ambiguity of expressions and fallacj^, it is not like to obtain so fair a passage as is presumed and fancied.
Though the term of " possibility" in the supposition, and " may" in the inference, seem to be equipollent, yet to render them of the same significancy as to the argument in hand, they must both be used in the same respect. But if a possibility of being a reprobate (that is, one rejected of God, by a metonymy of the effect) be ascribed to Paul in respect of himself and the infirmity of his own will as to abiding with God (in which case alone there is any appearance of truth in the assumption of this supposition), and the term of "may," in respect of believers falling totally and finally away, respects the event and purpose, decrees or promise of God concerning it (in which sense alone it is any step to the purpose in hand), I deny the inference, and thereby at the very entrance give check and control to Mr Goodwin's procedure. That which is possible to come to pass, that term " possible " affecting the end or coming to pass, must be every way and in all respects possible ; this is the intendment of the inference. That which is possible in respect of some certain causes or principles (the terms of "possibility" affecting the thing itself whereof it is spoken in its next causes) may be impossible on another ac- count; and in this sense only is there any colour of truth contained in the supposition. So that the major proposition of this syllogism is laid up and secured from doing any farther service in this case.