22.03.2013 Views

Mozley: A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of

Mozley: A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of

Mozley: A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

354<br />

Note VIII.<br />

and wrath, before ei<strong>the</strong>r side had d<strong>on</strong>e any actual good or<br />

evil, The children being not yet born, nei<strong>the</strong>r having<br />

d<strong>on</strong>e any good or evil, it is written, Jacob have I loved,<br />

but Esau have I hated. And were a predestinati<strong>on</strong> to<br />

privileges all that was meant by <strong>the</strong> passage that some<br />

are born to wealth or rank, o<strong>the</strong>rs to poverty or obscurity,<br />

some in a hea<strong>the</strong>n and o<strong>the</strong>rs in a Christian country, what<br />

ground would <strong>the</strong>re be for raising <strong>the</strong> objecti<strong>on</strong> ? Thou<br />

wilt say <strong>the</strong>n unto me, Why doth He yet find fault, for<br />

who hath resisted His will ? It is evident that this is a<br />

complaint against <strong>the</strong> Divine justice, or an objecti<strong>on</strong> to<br />

<strong>the</strong> Apostle s doctrine just before laid down, <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> ground<br />

that it c<strong>on</strong>tradicts that Divine attribute. But how could<br />

a mere inequality in <strong>the</strong> dispensing <strong>of</strong> religious privileges<br />

provoke such a charge, except from a positive infidel?<br />

Inequality is a plain feet <strong>of</strong> God s visible providence, and<br />

could never support a charge <strong>of</strong> injustice, except <strong>the</strong><br />

objector were willing to go <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r step <strong>of</strong> denying a<br />

Divine creati<strong>on</strong> and providence altoge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>on</strong> account <strong>of</strong><br />

this fact. The objector here plainly means to say this :<br />

How can it be just that a man should be <strong>the</strong> object <strong>of</strong><br />

Divine wrath before he has d<strong>on</strong>e anything to deserve it ?<br />

That he should be incapacitated for obtaining <strong>the</strong> qualifi<br />

cati<strong>on</strong>s necessary for eternal life, and <strong>the</strong>n blamed because<br />

he has not got <strong>the</strong>m ? Why doth he find fault, for who<br />

hath resisted His will ? Why does God c<strong>on</strong>demn <strong>the</strong><br />

sinner, when His own arbitrary will has incapacitated him<br />

for being anything else but a sinner ?<br />

At <strong>the</strong> same time I am ready to admit, that <strong>the</strong>re is<br />

ground for saying that a milder sense <strong>of</strong> reprobati<strong>on</strong> does<br />

come in, in this passage, al<strong>on</strong>g with <strong>the</strong> str<strong>on</strong>ger <strong>on</strong>e ; and<br />

that language is used expressive ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> modified<br />

than <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> extreme doctrine <strong>of</strong> predestinati<strong>on</strong>. It<br />

is at any rate doubtful whe<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>on</strong>our and dish<strong>on</strong>our<br />

do not mean higher and inferior good ra<strong>the</strong>r than positive<br />

good and evil. The use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> words in 2 Tim. ii. 20.<br />

In a great house <strong>the</strong>re are not <strong>on</strong>ly vessels <strong>of</strong> gold and<br />

silver, but also <strong>of</strong> wood and earth, and some to h<strong>on</strong>our<br />

and some to dish<strong>on</strong>our would seem to attach <strong>the</strong> former

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!