But lest I should really be an Occasion of Injury to some Persons, I would here give Notice, that tho' I generally speak of that Doctrine, concerning Free-will and moral Agency, which I oppose, as an Arminian Doctrine; yet I would not be understood, that every Divine or Author whom I have Occasion to mention as maintaining that Doctrine, was properly an Arminian, or one of that Sort which is commonly called by that Name. Some of them went far beyond the Arminians: And I would by no Means charge Arminians in general with all the corrupt Doctrine, which these maintained. Thus for Instance, it would be very injurious, if I should rank Arminian ⟨p. v⟩Divines in general, with such Authors as Mr. Chubb. I doubt not, many of them have some of his Doctrines in Abhorrence; tho' he agrees, for the most Part, with Arminians, in his Notion of the Freedom of the Will. And on the other Hand, tho' I suppose this Notion to be a leading Article in the Arminian Scheme, that which, if pursued in it's Consequences, will truly infer, or naturally lead to all the rest; yet I don't charge all that have held this Doctrine, with being Arminians. For whatever may be the Consequences of the Doctrine really, yet some that hold this Doctrine, may not own nor see these Consequences; and it would be unjust, in many Instances, to charge every Author with believing and maintaining all the real Consequences of his avowed Doctrines. And I desire it may be particularly noted, that tho' I have Occasion in the following Discourse, often to mention the Author of the Book entitled, An Essay on the Freedom of the Will, in God & the Creature, as holding that Notion of Freedom of Will, which I oppose; yet I don't mean to call him an Arminian: however in that Doctrine he agrees with Arminians, and departs from the current and general Opinion of Calvinists. If the Author of that Essay be the same as it is commonly ascribed to, he doubtless was not one that ought to bear that Name. But however good a Divine he was in many Respects, yet that particular Arminian Doctrine which he maintained, is never the better for being held by such an One: nor is there less Need of opposing it on that Account; but rather is there the more Need of it; as it will be likely to have the more pernicious Influence, for being taught by a Divine of his Name and Character;
But lest I should really be an Occasion of Injury to some Persons, I would here give Notice, that tho' I gerally speak of that Doctrine, concerning Free-will and moral Agency, which I oppose, as an Arminian Doctrine; yet I would not be understood, that every Divine or Author whom I have Occasion to mention as maintaining that Doctrine, was properly an Arminian, or one of that Sort which is commonly called by that Name. Some of them went far beyond the Arminians: And I would by no Means charge Arminians in general with all the corrupt Doctrine, which these maintain'd. Thus for Instance, it would be very injurious, if I should rank Arminian ⟨p. v⟩Divines in general, with such Authors as Mr. Chubb. I doubt not, many of them have some of his Doctrines in Abhorrence; tho' he agrees, for the most Part, with Arminians, in his Notion of the Freedom of the Will. And on the other Hand, tho' I suppose this Notion to be a leading Article in the Arminian Scheme, that which, if pursued in it's Consequences, will truly infer, or naturally lead to all the rest; yet I don't charge all that have held this Doctrine, with being Arminians. For whatever may be the Consequences of the Doctrine really, yet some that hold this Doctrine, may not own nor see these Consequences; and it would be unjust, in many Instances, to charge every Author with believing and maintaining all the real Consequences of his avowed Doctrines. And I desire it may be particularly noted, that tho' I have Occasion in the following Discourse, often to mention the Author of the Book entitled, An Essay on the Freedom of the Will, in God & the Creature, as holding that Notion of Freedom of Will, which I oppose; yet I don't mean to call him an Arminian: however in that Doctrine he agrees with Arminians, and departs from the current and general Opinion of Calvinists. If the Author of that Essay be the same as it is commonly ascribed to, he doubtless was not one that ought to bear that Name. But however good a Divine he was in many Respects, yet that particular Arminian Doctrine which he maintain'd, is never the better for being held by such an One: nor is there less Need of opposing it on that Account; but rather is there the more Need of it; as it will be likely to have the more pernicious Influence, for being taught by a Divine of his Name and Character;
