Esau that hee should serve Jacob before hee had done good or evill The Hebrew and Greek word signifie neither to create nor bring into the world but to preserve or to cause to stand to stirre up or to advance which presupposeth Pharaoh already born yea and of such a Spirit that if God preserve him and stirre him up hee was become a fit subject upon whom God might shew his power in his hardning and overthrow Otherwise God might as well bee said to condemn Pharaoh out of his absolute will without all respect to sin as to shew his power in hardning of him without all respect to sin Hardning when it falls upon the creature is both the height of his sin and depth of his misery and therefore is it as prejudiciall to Gods justice to inflict it without respect of sin going before and to the creature as dangerous to undergoe it as condemnation to hell it self Hell hath no greater torment then an heart desperately hardned under the wrath curse and judgement of God which was Pharaohs case But consider Pharaoh not in the estate of Esau as having done neither good nor evill but in the state wherein he stood when God gave out his Oracle concerning him that for this cause hee stirred him up to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow and then may I easily grant more then is required viz. When God purposed to passe by him not only in communicating grace and glory unto him but also to fall upon him in his utmost wrath as well in outward strange calamity as especially in spirituall judgements hardnesse of heart and blindnesse of minde to his utter perdition In the former part you declined a direct answer to the question proposed for whereas the question proposed was touching the communicating of grace and glory you not adventuring to maintaine a purpose of God to communicate grace and glory to them whom you call the world of mankinde onely maintain a purpose in God at least you seem so to doe of communicating life and glory some other way then out of grace But with what advantage to your cause that hath been carryed I have already considered Now you seem to answer the question looking it directly in the face For though you acknowledge such a purpose in God concerning Pharaoh to wit of passing him by in communicating grace and glory yet the cause you say is not alike of Esau when Gods Oracle was given out concerning him hee being not then born as of Pharaoh when the Oracle here spoken of was given out concerning him hee being then a fit subject upon whom God might shew his power in his hardning and overthrow Yet here againe you decline the question For the question was not whether Pharaoh at that time when God said For this cause I have raised thee up c. were a fitter subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow then Esau was while yet hee was in his mothers wombe But whether God had not a purpose to passe by Esau as touching the communicating of grace and glory even before hee was born which hee had concerning Pharaoh at that time before spoken of which that hee had I prove thus It was said of Esau before hee was born that God hated him What more could bee said of Pharaoh to expresse his alienation from him Secondly look how you qualifie the hatred of God to Esau in the same manner may it bee qualifyed towards Pharaoh even at this time you speak of For Gods hatred towards Esau you qualifie thus God had a purpose to deale with him according to his works But say I even then when God professed of Pharaoh saying For this cause have I raised thee up c. God had a purpose to deale with him according to his works Thirdly if therefore God had no such purpose towards Esau namely to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow because Esau was not yet born then belike God had no such purpose towards Pharaoh himself while Pharaoh was not yet born But this is utterly untrue for as much as Gods purposes are eternall and not temporall And in like manner it may bee proved that if ever God had the like purpose towards Esau to wit after his preferring a messe of pottage before his birthright or at any other time it followeth that God had the same purpose towards Esau even before hee was born for Gods purposes are not temporall but eternall Lastly as for the difference you put between them besides the question one being a more fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow then the other I grant it to bee true in part as touching the hardning of them For obduration presupposeth a man of such ripenesse of years as to have the use of reason But this hinders not but that God might at the same time have a purpose to harden him in his time as Pharaoh in his time And yet why I pray was not Pharaoh as fit a subject for God to shew his power in changing his heart as well as Saul was in the middest of his bloody persecutions of the Church of God And what naturall man such as I presume are all those whom you call the world of mankinde is not a fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow though hee bee never so morall yea as morall as Trajan who raised one persecution or Marcus Antoninus Philosophus who raised another or as Aurelianus who raised a third It is true if God will move any man unto courses contrary to his corrupt inclination and not give him grace to master that corrupt inclination that man whatsoever hee bee shall bee a fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning yea and overthrow also if it please him But if God move any man never so contrariously to his corrupt inclination and withall give him grace to master that corrupt inclination of his hee shall bee a fit subject for God to shew the power of his grace in his conversion and salvation You speak much of hardning even according unto pleasure without giving your Reader any explication of the words whereby hee might understand your meaning wherein obduration consists Surely obduration is either the denyall of grace or whatsoever it bee it is alwaies joyned with the denyall of grace as I take it But in very different manner I confesse which you distinguish not As for the deniall of grace that was found to have course in the first sin that was committed both in Angels and men For I am of Austins minde concerning the Angels that stood that they were Amplius adjuti then the other that fell De Civit. Dei lib. 12. cap. 9. As also concerning Adams fall that in that case Though God gave him posse si voluit yet hee gave him not velle quod potuit and these hee makes severall adjutoria The like may bee said of every
the younger to the participation of his free love and to soveraignty over his Brother and depressed the elder to the condition of a servant and as a servant reserved for him just dealing but not fatherly love might not this seeme an unequall partiality with God to deale so unequally with persons equall To resolve this doubt the Apostle could not have cleered God from unrighteousnesse by pleading the sin of Esau which deserved that hee should bee so dealt withall for neither did Jacobs sin deserve better and besides the Apostle had said before God gave out these Oracles which pronounced his different respect of them without all consideration of good or evill in either of them viz. before they had done either good or evill Therefore to satisfie the objection and cleare Gods righteousnesse the Apostle wisely alledgeth testimonie of Scripture to prove Gods absolute power and ability to shew mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will to harden When you say this hardning of Pharaoh though an effect of Gods hatred of Pharaoh yet was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh your meaning seems to bee this that it is not at all an effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill yet it is no lesse then the not writing of his name in the book of life as touching the communicating of saving grace and glory neither do wee acknowledge it to bee any more like as Aquinas doth not now the consequent of this kinde or measure of hatred in holy Scripture is no lesse then the worshipping of the beast Rev. 13. 8. nothing lesse then the obduration of Pharaoh The obduration of the children of Israel was no greater then such as was consequent unto this that God did not give them an heart to perceive and eies to see and ears to heare Deut. 29. 4. And this of not giving hearts to perceive c. undoubtedly is a consequent even to that hatred which you are content to attribute unto God concerning Esau But you helpe your self with a complicate proposition and flie to an immediate effect which alone you deny in this case for as much as the hardning of Pharaoh as you say presupposed sin committed by him but very improvidently For if it bee not an immediate effect of the like hatred that God bare unto Esau then in accurate consideration it is to bee acknowledged an effect thereof Only there is some effect thereof more immediate then this and what I pray was that was it Pharaohs sin for of no other doe you make the least intimation the more improvident is your expression intimating thereby that Pharaohs sin was a more immediate effect in Pharaoh of the like hatred God bare to Esau then this obduration But how doe you prove that Pharaohs hardening was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which God bare to Esau to wit because it presupposed sin But I deny this Argument neither doe you discoursing at large give your selfe to the proving of it but onely suppose it By the same reason you might say that salvation is not the immediate effect of election unto salvation because salvation in men of ripe years presupposeth faith repentance and good workes Nay you may as well say that Gods giving of grace is not an immediate effect of Gods love to any man because in most men of ripe years it presupposeth many good works In Saul it presupposed his zeale and his righteousnesse according to the Law which was unblameable If you say that Sauls righteousnesse whatsoever it was before his calling was no fruit of his love I may with more probability affirme that Pharaohs sin which preceded his obduration was no effect of Gods hatred If you say that though such righteousnesse in Saul was no moving cause to God to give him saving grace In like manner I say that no sin in Pharaoh was a moving cause in God to deny him saving grace For if it were then either by necessity of nature or by the constitution of God Not by necessity of nature for undoubtedly God could have pardoned this sin of his and changed his heart as well as he pardoned the sins of Manasses the sins of the Jews in crucifying the son of God Act. 2. the sins of Saul in persecuting Gods Saints and changed all their hearts Nor by any constitution of God for shew mee if you can any such constitution of God And if you would but explicate wherein the hardening of Pharaoh did consist I presume it would clearely appeare that the meere pleasure of Gods will is the cause of it like as it is the meere pleasure of God that he doth not harden others in like manner But when we carry our selves in the clouds of generallties we are very apt to deceive not others onely if they will be deceived but our selves also Againe you seem to speake of Pharaohs hardening mentioned Exod. 9. 16. And indeed for this cause have I appointed thee to shew my power in thee c. Whereas from the first time that Moses was sent unto him hee was hardened and that by God according as God had told Moses before-hand that hee would harden him As for his sin before ever Moses was sent unto him you doe not take any speciall notice thereof at all but whatsoever it were as suppose the cruell edict of his in commanding the male children of the Hebrews to be cast into the River like as God answered him most congruously in his works first causing the waters of Aegypt to bee turned into blood and in the last place making the waters of the red Sea the grave of Pharaoh and of his Host was this horrible sin any lesse then a consequent to more then ordinary obdurationâ— for even heathen men are seldom exposed to such unnatural courses So that if this obduration were an effect of Gods hatred but not immediate supposing sin according to the manner of your Discourse then you must be put to devise some other sin as precedent to this obduration And whereas that sin also cannot be denyed to be a consequent to Gods denyall of effectuall grace to abstaine from sin we shall never come to an end till the cause of all these obdurations be at length resolved into originall sin And what share I pray you hath the world of mankind therein which Gods elect have not When you tel us the hardening is a punishment of sin it were very fit you should deal plainly tel us in what operation of God this work of hardening doth consist which I make no doubt would cleare all All confesse that God is not the cause of hardnesse of heart in any man but man being borne in hardnesse of heart Ezek. 36. 3. 1. God is said to harden not infundendo malitiam sed non infundendo gratiam By leaving him thereunto whereby it comes
many brethren why may we not then in like sort render it here that he might have the preheminence among all the children of God So Luke 1. 28. Blessed art thou among women So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inter omnes So Piscator Ex cujus sententiae collatione patescit illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recte hic redditum esse inter omnes Phrasis graeca est ne quis putet vertendum esse in omnibus scilicet rebus and Beza Miminerimus de Christi in ecclesia regno coepisse ab hoc versiculo disserere quod nemo negabit qui verba ipsa vel levissimè considerarit ac proinde vniversali particula non aliud comprehendi quam omnes omnium temporum fideles And so Anselme also Christus primus est resurgentium ut in omnibus sanctis tam prioribus quam sequentibus teneat primatum dignitatis potentiae sanctitatis And Lyra ut sic in omnibus primatum tenens non solum respectu hominum sed etiam omnium Angelorum 4. But let it run in the neuter gender of all things as Beza confesseth it may be so taken potest quidem hoc accipi neutro genere quum in proximo versiculo scribat yet what meaning doth he make of it but this vera est saith he haec universalis sententia Christum inter omnia sine ulla exceptione eminere making it signifie still preheminence above or amongst all things but not in all things 5. Taking it as in all things Ambrose interprets it thus ut semper in omni vita sit primus Princeps in gratia gloria saith Aquinas In genesi resurrectione saith Cajetan Tam in visibilibus quam in invisibilibus creaturis saith Hierome Some practicall Divines extend it farre interpreting it according to our English translation as first in time first in order first in the dignitie of the person first in degree first in government first in acceptation with God first effectively as the cause of all the respect order and excellency in others none extending it to predestination 6. Nay consider whether the text it selfe be not against it He is the head of the body of the Church the beginning the first begotten of the dead that in all things he might have the preheminence Now consider was Christ made the head of the body of the Church was he the first begotten of the dead to this end that he might have the preheminence in predestination When it is said that the other creatures were for him that so he might be the first borne among many brethren I find want of convenient proportion for what did the being of other creatures for him further his primacie or eldership amongst many brethren It is true all things were for him but take the rest along with this all things are created by him and for him which clearly hath reference to his Godhead one with the Father and holy Ghost as Rom. 11. From him and by him and for him are all things and Heb. 2. 10. It is I confesse Maister Baynes his conceit that it is as unmeete and preposterous for the members of Christ to be first thought upon in the wombe of Gods counsell in predestination as it is accompted monstrous and unnaturall for the feete to be conceived in the wombe before the head And is it not as unnaturall to have the feete brought forth before the head Yet we know many thousands of Christs members were brought forth both into the world of nature and into the world of grace before the man Christ Yet am not I of their mindes that thinke that any was elect before the predestination of Christ I say with Aquinas si consideretur praedestinatio Christi nostra quantum ad actum praedestinantis sic una non est causa alterius quia idem non est causa sui ipsius sed eodem actu divino praedestinatus est Christus nos ergo praedestinatio Christi non est causa nostrae praedestinationis Si verò consideretur quoad effectum terminum cum effectus nostrae praedestinationis sit gratia gloria adoptio siliorum sic dicendum quod utraque praedestinatio Christi causa est praedestinationis nostrae efficiens exemplaris And I hope 't is nothing unmeet that God should at once thinke of Christ and his elect as at once he thought of Angels wormes especially considering that Christ and his elect are correlatives as he the head and they his mysticall body Nay at once God did from everlasting both know himselfe and know all things in himselfe Yet I am perswaded the chiefest motive to devise a prioritie of Christs predestination before others was only this conceite that if it be not prior it must needs be posterior But I have endeavoured in briefe to shew here as elsewhere more at large that the predestination of Christ is neither prior nor posterior to the predestination of the elect And indeed most are so pusled about devising a right place for the predestination of Christ amongst the decrees of God that usually that is left quite out because they know not where to finde a fit place for it and all because they presume he must be predestinate either before the decree of creation and premission of sinne or after neither of which can hold water but they are both equally removed from the truth Where we are said to be created for Christ it is joyntly said we were created by Christ which undoubtedly proceeds of Christ as God And if Adam had not fallen but the world of mankind stood in integrity what glory had redounded to the man Christ more by our creation then by the creation of Angels Though God had decreed the advancement of the man Christ upon presupposall of Adams fall which yet I hold to be impossible yet this had not hinderd but we had been created for Christ and that divers wayes 1. To reape benefit by him after our fall 2. To be of the number of those over whom the man Christ should one day rule if not in grace for thousands were out of that state before Christ man had any being yet in glory 3. As also to glorifie him both in this world though this is verified of those only who were brought forth after his incarnation for Christ man had no being before and consequently could not be glorified before and in the world to come Yet it cannot be denyed but that Christ also was both incarnate and lived and died for us and for our salvation though that of the Apostle which you mention is nothing to this purpose as spoken of Christ God and not of Christ man Undoubtedly Christ came into the world upon the occasion of mans fall for he came into the world as a Physitian and to call sinners unto repentance which had beene meerely in vaine had not sinne entred into the world by Adam It doth not follow that if we were not created for Christ but Christ
by the eares not considering the dangerous consequence here-hence utterly overthrowing the Orthodox doctrine of our Churches in the very point of Election and bringing in Arminianisme entire and whole not in Reprobation only as Master Moulin doth and you seeme to doe but in Election it selfe unavoidably though hitherto I confesse the Arminians have not been so happy as to discerne it I doubt not but your meaning is in that Proposition That sinne is not only the cause of damnation but of Gods decree also of ordaining thereunto But to affirme this seemed so foule to Aquinas namely that there should be conceived a cause of Gods will or Gods decree that hee professeth never any man was so madde as to affirme it But because the saying of Aquinas moves you little why should it seeing it little hindered not onely Valentianus the Jesuite from saying as you doe but Alvarez also the Thomist and a great Thomist therefore I will proceed further What should move you to affirme That to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative justice Condemnation I grant is an act of vindicative justice like as remuneration is an act of justice remunerative but will it follow here-hence that to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative justice I will not presse you with the authority of Master Baynes who denyes Reprobation to be an act of justice but thus I dispute If Gods purpose to condemne to death be an act of justice vindicative then also Gods purpose to remunerate with eternall life is an act of justice remunerative And if Gods purpose of condemnation presuppose sinne it followes that Gods purpose of remunerating with eternall life must also presuppose obedience even obedience of faith repentance and good works for all these God doth remunerate with eternall life Here appeareth the foule tayle of Arminianisme in the doctrine of Election which this plausible doctrine of yours and of Master Moulins in the point of Reprobation drawes after it The consequence is manifest though few or none consider it even of them that are both Orthodox in Election and most versed in the examining and discerning of just consequences Now because this consequence I presume is unexpected I imagine men may bee moved to cast about and consider how they may wind themselves out of this dangerous inconvenience And perhaps it may come to their mindes to affirme that they doe not conceive Election under this forme namely to bee the decree of God to remunerate with everlasting life And I verily believe they doe not for if they did it were not possible they should continue Orthodox in the point of Election but miserably betray their cause by giving way to a doctrine plainly contradictory in the point of Reprobation But why then doe they not consider Election as they ought Is it not generally confessed that Election and Reprobation are contrary why then should they not be shapen under contrarient formes and what act I pray you is contrary to the act of justice vindicative but the act of justice remunerative But perhaps you may say Though this bee true yet there is no place for such an opposition here for as much as though a man may merit damnation by sinne yet hee cannot merit salvation by obedience I answer therefore that this onely shewes there can be no opposition between them in a speciall kind of retribution to wit in the way of retribution according to desert on both sides yet this hinders not but that there may be and indeed is an opposition in the generall of retribution For it is well knowne that God will reward every one according to his works and that he means to bestow salvation upon every one of ripe yeares by way of reward and tanquam coronam justitiae as the Arminians urge and justly though with no just advantage to their cause but according to their shallow and unlearned conceits as if therefore God should first fore-see their obedience before hee should ordaine them to a reward which yet will follow if on the other side wee grant them that God first fore-seeth mans finall impenitency and thereupon ordaines them to condemnation Perhaps you may say Is not the contrariety between Election and Reprobation sufficiently maintained by saying the one is Gods purpose ordaining to salvation the other Gods purpose ordaining to condemnation I confesse it seemes so and is generally reputed to be so and this I take to bee the principall cause of this error one confusion drawing on more and more after it But I say there is no congruous opposition between salvation and damnation for to damne is either finally to punish or to adjudge to punishment Now as the Negative opposition hereunto is onely not to punish or to adjudge to punishment so the contrary opposition hereunto is to reward or to adjudge to a reward So that Election as it is Gods purpose ordaining to salvation by way of reward is onely opposite contrarily to Reprobation as it signifies Gods purpose ordaining to condemnation More fairly and voyd of all equivocation thus Like as Reprobation is Gods purpose to punish with everlasting death so Election is Gods purpose to remunerate with everlasting life And thus the contrariety of these acts being rightly stated it followes as evidently that Election must presuppose not obedience but the fore-sight of obedience as Reprobation presupposeth not sinne but the fore-sight of sin And thus are wee tumbled into the very gulfe of Arminianisme over head and eares before wee are aware But it may bee this discourse of mine may raise such a Spirit as will not easily bee laid and hereupon some may the more profusely bee carryed to embrace Arminianisme in the very point of Election also because as Reprobation seemes to bee an act of justice vindicative so Election also as here it is stated seemes to bee an act of justice remunerative And I willingly confesse I never found any Arminian that discernes the advantage which our Divines doe afford them by shaping the doctrine of Reprobation as they doe Therefore I will endeavour to quiet this Spirit that I have raised first by discovering the Sophistry that bleares our eyes in this and secondly by cleare demonstration I will prove that no fore-sight of sinne and obedience can precede the purpose of God ordaining to salvation and damnation As for the discovering of the Sophistry which hath place herein consider first It is agreed between Vasquez and Suarez though otherwise much at odds about the nature of justice in God that there is no justice in God towards his creature but upon the presupposition of his will whence it followeth manifestly that the purposes of God being the very acts of his will are no acts of justice but onely the executions of these purposes may bee acts of justice to wit upon the presupposition of some act or purpose of his will And the reason hereof not to insist wholly upon any humane authority is manifest for as much as in remunerating
then is the meaning of the Lord saying I have smitten your children in vaine they have received no correction I answer we are to conceive Gods corrections to tend to this according to that of Peter knowing that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation or God speakes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of earthly parents seeking their childrens amendment by correction but not obtaining it And this being an end of correction in Gods children in the wicked this end is not obtained And what difference is there between meanes naturall and meanes morall but this meanes naturall have power to effect their ends meanes morall are to admonish morall agents of their duty to doe this or that and so the ends of Gods punishment is that by them wee should learne to amend our lives as is signified in the Collects of our Church In a word naturall means tend to ends that shall be thereupon morall means tend to ends that should be and each are usually said to be in vaine when the end according to each kind is not obtained God sent his Sonne into the world not that hee should condemne the world but that the world should be saved by him Most true for hee sent his Son into the world to dye for the world and to dye for them is to save them and not to condemne them But for whom did hee send his Sonne into the world to dye Surely for the world of Elect even for those whom God the Father had given him Thou hast given him power over all flesh that hee should give eternall life to all them that thou hast given him Joh. 17. 2. And if wee consider the world in distinction from those whom God hath given him hee plainly professeth that as hee did not pray for them Joh. 17. 9. so hee did not sanctifie himselfe for them Verse 19. that is offer himselfe up upon the Crosse as Maldonate acknowledgeth to be the joynt interpretation of all the Fathers whom hee had read And your selfe have but earst confessed that God did not Joh. 3. 17. give the world unto Christ by him of grace to be bought or brought unto salvation Undoubtedly hee sent not Christ into the world at all to procure any mans condemnation neither doth Christ procure any mans condemnation although infidelity and disobedience to the word of Christ procures the condemnation of many And I wonder what moved you so to speake as to imply it was Gods intent though not chiefe intent to send Christ into the world to procure the condemnation of any At length wee are come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the point controverted between us in the words following If they should plead their condemnation to be unjust for unbeleefe because they were not able to beleeve Ver. 18. our Saviour answers by a reasonable prevention ver 19. This is their condemnation viz. the just cause of their condemnation that when light came into the world men loved darknesse rather than light men chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the means of grace which might have brought them on to beleeve in Christ First let us consider the Text it selfe then your interpretation and accommodation thereof Our Saviour doth plainly derive the cause of their unbeleefe or disapprobation of the Gospel signified in these words They loved darknesse rather than light I say the cause of this our Saviour referres to their workes of darknesse expressed in these words Because their deeds were evill The full meaning whereof I take to be this The workes wherein they delight are evill that is workes of darknesse and therefore no marvell if they hate the light and preferre darknesse before it Pulchra Lavernae Da mihi fallere da justum sanctumque videri Noctem peccatis fraudibus objice nubem But give mee leave to make an honest motion As it becomes us to take notice of this cause mentioned here so it becomes us nothing lesse to take notice of other causes mentioned in other places Now another cause of unbeleefe is mentioned Joh. 5. 44. and that of the same generall nature with this but expressed in more speciall manner by our Saviour thus How can yee beleeve which receive honour one of another and seeke not the honour that cometh from God onely Yet this is not all the cause of unbeleefe which the Scripture commends unto us for the Apostle also takes notice of Sathans illusions in this worke of unbeleefe 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. If our Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost Whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded c. And because it is in the power of God to correct this delight wee take in evill workes and to deliver us from the illusions of Sathan if it please him to shew such mercy towards us and when he doth not he is said to harden us The hand of God in this our Saviour takes notice of as the cause of unbeleefe in man Joh. 12. 39 40. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith againe Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and be converted and I should heale them Like as Moses of old told the Jewes saying Deut. 29. 2 3. Yee have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and unto all his servants and unto all his land The great temptations which thine eyes have seen the signes and those great miracles Ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare unto this day And this hee doth even then when his purpose was to reprove them for their naturall incorrigiblenesse for men sinne never the lesse obstinately because God denyes them grace but rather so much the more obstinately because as Austin well saith Libertas sine gratia non est libertas sed contumacia and consequently they are never a whit the lesse faulty though it be not in their power to correct that corruption of their hearts whence this faultinesse proceeds And hereupon the Apostle gives way to the same objection in effect which you propose for having concluded that God hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardeneth hee gives place to such an objection Thou wilt say then Why doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his will and answers it not as our Saviour doth for our Saviour proposed no such objection to be answered as you feigne the Apostle doth plainly and in expresse termes Our Saviour discovers the immediate cause of unbeleefe to wit because their hearts were set on evill as it was sometimes with the Colossians Col. 1. 21. yet because it was not in their power to change their hearts but God alone who will change them through mercy in whom hee will and will not change them in others
this people an heart to feare mee and to keep my commandements alwayes that it may goe well with them and with their children for ever Oh that they were wise that they understood this that they would consider their latter end Oh that my people had hearkened unto mee and that Israel had walked in my wayes I should soon have subdued their enemies and turned my hand against their adversaries Do not all these speeches expresse an earnest and serious affection in God as concerning the conversion and salvation of this people whereof sundry died in their sinnes It is true God might have given them such hearts as to have feared and obeyed him which though hee did not yet his will that they had such hearts was serious still To cleare it by a comparison The father of the family hath both his son and servant dangerously sick of the stone to heale them both the father useth sundry medicines even all that art prescribeth except cutting when hee seeth no other remedy he perswades them both to suffer cutting to save their lives they both refuse it yet his sonne hee taketh and bindeth him hand and foot and causeth him to endure it and so saveth his life His servant also hee urgeth with many vehement inducements to submit himselfe to the same remedy but if a servant obstinately refuse hee will not alwayes strive with him nor enforce him to such breaking and renting of his body But yet did not his Master seriously desire his healing and life though hee did not proceed to the cutting asunder of his flesh which hee saw his servant would not abide to heare of So in this case both the elect and men of this world are dangerously sicke of a stony heart to heale both sorts the Lord useth sundry meanes promises judgements threatnings and mercies when all faile hee perswades them to breake their hearts and the stone thereof with cutting and wounding of their consciences when they refuse hee draweth them both the one with his almighty power the other with the cords of man viz. such as are resistible to this cutting and wounding that their soules might live and the elect are brought to yeeld and the men of this world break all cords asunder and cast away such bonds from them Shall we now say God did not seriously desire the healing of such mens hearts because hee procured not to bind them with strong cords to breake them with such woundings as they will not abide to heare of Thus having laid downe the grounds of my judgement touching the first Point That there is a will and purpose in God for to reward the world as well with life upon condition of obedience as with death upon condition of disobedience I come now to the grounds of the second Point You proceed in clearing a difficulty devised and shaped without all ground as if any sober man would find it strange that a conditionate will of God should not be accomplished as often as the condition failes And to this purpose you make use of the nature of a disjunct axiome All-along I savour others that have grased here yet have not rested themselves contented with this but proceeded further to more erroneous opinions A second objection you propose in the second place the solution whereof you seeme to travell with much more than of the former and yet the objection is altogether as causelesse and without all just ground as the former I have now been something more than ordinarily conversant in these Controversies for the space of seventeen yeares I never yet met with any of our Divines or any other that made any question whether Gods will being granted to passe on any object were serious yea or no I should thinke there is no intelligent man living that makes any doubt of this but puts it rather out of all question that whatsoever God wills hee wills it seriously I confesse the Arminians doe usually obtrude some such things on our Divines yet not altogether such for they doe not obtrude upon us as if wee said God doth not will seriously that which hee willeth but rather that hee doth not seriously exhort and admonish all those whom hee doth admonish to beleeve and repent as if hee made shew onely of desiring their obedience and salvation when indeed hee doth not Yet you seeme to sweat not a little in debellating this man of straw Upon these termes I might easily dispatch my selfe of all further trouble in examining your elaborate Answer to so causelesse an Objection but I will not for it may be you insperse something by the way of opposition to that which you doe professe which is this That God doth not at all will the obedience and repentance of any but those who are his Elect. And I would not pretermit any evidence you bring to countenance your cause in opposition to our Tenent unanswered That Gods Oath or Covenant or the workes of any Person in the Trinity tends to the end by you mentioned namely to give life to the world is utterly untrue Likewise it is utterly untrue that you have hitherunto proved any such thing For that which you here deliver as Gods end in giving life is proposed simply and absolutely but that which hitherunto you have endeavoured to prove is onely this that Gods will was to give the world life conditionally to wit upon their obedience and repentance and that as in the last place coming to the point you have expressed it in a disjunct axiome thus To give life to the creature upon his obedieace or to inflict death upon his disobedience Now let any sober man judge whether in this case the will of God be more to give life than to inflict death more passing upon the salvation of the creature than upon his eternall condemnation Could you prove that God doth will at all the salvation of any other save his Elect I would forthwith grant hee wills it seriously I should thinke it no lesse than blasphemy to thinke that God doth either will or sweare or covenant or doe that which hee doth not seriously as blasphemy consists in attributing that to God which doth not become him I nothing doubt but that if all and every one should beleeve and repent all and every one should be saved and none other thing hitherto have you so much as adventured to prove in this particular whereupon now we are But then it behoves you to look unto it on the other side how you cleare your selfe from blasphemy in the same kind while you maintain that God doth will the salvation of those which shall never be saved which not in my judgement only but in the judgement of Austin of old doth mainly trench upon Gods omnipotency for if hee would save them but doth not hee is hindered and resisted by somewhat and consequently his will is not omnipotent nor irresistible And more than this here-hence it will follow that either God continues still to will their
conscience to judge not to mention how this Discourse of yours is found to harden many in the way of error and to offend others in the way of truth Indeed there were no cause of any such objection as that Rom. 9. 29. if so bee God hardens no man but for sin and withall it is just with God to harden men in their sine and lesse cause of such an answer Rom. 9. 20 21 22. No man I think makes any doubt but that the objection Why doth hee complain for who hath resisted his will ariseth from the 18 ver where it is said that God as hee hath mercy on whom hee will so hee hardneth whom hee will even as hee hardned Pharaoh but yet you doe not shape the objection right when you shape it thus What fault is there in mee to bee hardned which is in effect as if you would shape it thus Wherein then have I deserved to bee hardned For the negative to this namely that God doth not harden upon desert is that which the Apostle avoucheth Like as neither doth hee shew mercy upon desert But like as upon the meere pleasure of his will hee shews mercy on some So according to the good pleasure of his will hee hardneth others But well might hee say why then doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart and my impenitency or rather the Apostle proposeth it in reference to the fruits of mans hardnesse of heart and impenitency such as God complains of Esa 1. I have nourished and brought up a people and they have rebelled against mee And Esa 56. All the day long have I stretched out mine hands to a rebellious people that walk in a way which is not good even after their own imaginations Or as if Pharaoh hearing of this ministry of Gods providence should say Why doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart in not letting Israel goe when hee hath hardned my bea rt that I should not let Israel goe and who hath resisted his will I have already shewed that this hardning of Pharaoh and so likewise of all reprobates as it consists in denying of saving grace in congruous opposition to Gods mercy proceeds meerely according to the good pleasure of Gods will And the Apostle plainly signifies as much when hee saith That like as God hath mercy on whom bee will so hee hardneth whom bee will Neither doth hee take into consideration any sin of theirs as the cause of hardning either in the proposition delivered by him or in answer to the objection arising there-hence Why then should wee bee moved with your bare word in saying wee need not say that the Apostle gave occasion of this objection by ascribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods absolute will and without all respect to sin as the deserving cause thereof Neither do you give any reason of that you avouch in saying that albeit God doth not harden but in respect of sin yet the creature will pleade or expostulate as indeed it is most unreasonable to ask why God doth complain of hardnesse of heart and the fruits thereof when it hath been shewed that this hardnesse of heart hath been brought upon man for his own sin and no exception taken against it But when out of Gods absolutenesse men are hardned then and not till then may it justly seem strange that God should complain of the hardnesse of mens hearts and the fruites thereof As for the place of Esa 63. 17. Wherein you suppose Gods people to expostulate with God for hardning them notwithstanding they suppose that God hardens them for their sin this is to beg the question and not to prove ought there being no evidence of any such acknowledgment as you suppose namely that God doth harden them for their sins Yet if there were any such acknowledgment it would not forthwith make for your purpose unlesse they should acknowledge as much of that obduration the Apostle speaks of where hee sets it in opposition to Gods shewing mercy To serve your turn you take liberty to interpret the coherence of these parts to erre from thy waies and to bee hardned against thy feare as if the former were the cause of the other upon no other ground that I know but that thus it shall stand in more congruity with your opinion Whereas indeed there is a farre greater probability that hardning against the feare of God should bee the cause of the errour of our wayes then that errour of our wayes should bee the cause of our hardning against the feare of God especially taking hardning not confusedly hand over head but distinctly in opposition to Gods shewing mercy in mans conversion I take them only as severall expressions of the same things consisting of an inward corrupt disposition as the roote and that I conceive to bee the want of the feare of God and the fruit hereof which is aberration from the good wayes of the Lord. And they expostulate with God for not correcting all this by his grace as by his Covenant of grace which hee hath made with them hee hath ingaged himself hereunto even to keep them from going astray like a good Shepherd and to put his feare into their hearts that they shall never depart away from him Which kinde of expostulation is nothing answerable to that which the Apostle proposeth to answer Rom. 9. 16. And I may well wonder what you meant to yoke them together Non bene inaequales veniunt ad aratra juvencae The children of God doe not expostulate with God for his complaining of their disobedience unthankfulnesse and rebellions against him though they heartily wish they had never provoked him and expostulate with him for not preserving them by his grace from such courses of provocation of him even of the eyes of his glory The wicked have no such desire to bee preserved from sin and sinfull courses which are unto them as sweet bits which they roule under their tongues Although when they heare of the Doctrine of obduration and his power to harden them and in hardning they may take advantage thereby to blaspheme God and to plead Apologie for themselves Belike then you acknowledge that God hath power to harden without respect to sin for to this purpose tends your comparative illustration But then you must bee driven to deny that obduration is a punishment seeing it is impossible that just punishments can have course but with respect to sin as a meritorious cause thereof That God beateth down the objectour and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates from the soveraign authority of God over his creatures is most true ver 20 21. But that hee pleads the due desert of the persons ver 22. thereby to justifie God in hardning whom hee will as positively avouched but so farre from truth as that it involves plain contradiction no lesse then if the Apostle after hee had said that God hath mercy on whom hee will should afterward take
is to neglect the meanes And consequently to use the meanes aright was to doe accordingly as they were informed And indeed if they had done otherwise then they did they had not done so bad as they did I finde such giddinesse of discourse usually amongst the Arminians while they satisfie themselves with phrases never examining particularly the matter and substance of their own expressions Because of the abuse of these talents and meanes of grace God therefore doth deny to the men of this world such powerfull and gracious helpes as hee vouchsafeth freely to the Elect to draw them on effectually to repentance and salvation The Gentiles abusing the light of nature God gave them up to vile affections yea even to a reprobate minde The Pharisees because they employed the talent of their wealth unfaithfully God would not trust them with the true riches The Jews because they rejected Christ and his Word and his Messengers with scornfull and bitter malignity and brought forth grapes of gall and wormwood therefore God took his Word from them and hid from them the things that did belong unto their peace hee took the kingdome of God from them and gave them as a prey to sinne and misery and derision Psal 81. 11 12. What if none of the world as opposed to the Elect ever came to Christ or made such use of the means and helpes offered in him unto them as to obtaine salvation and regenerating grace by him yet might they have made better use of the means then they did which because they did not it was just with God to deny them greater means who thus abused the lesser In all this wee have as pure Arminianisme tendred unto us as could drop from the pen of Arminius himselfe or Corvinus Yet God forbid wee should co nomine for that cause dislike it It truth wee must embrace it though it come out of the mouth of the Devill If falshood wee shall by Gods grace disclaim it though it proceed out of the mouth of Angels of light and not disclaim it onely but disprove it also You may as well say that God doth not draw the men of this world effectually to Repentance because they doe abuse the talents and means of grace but this I disprove thus First if this bee the cause why God doth not draw them to repentance then this is the cause why hee sheweth not to them that mercy which hee doth to the Elect but this is not the cause thereof which I prove thus The meer pleasure of God is the cause therefore that is not The antecedent thus God shews mercy on whom hee will and hardens that is denies mercy to whom hee will If to harden were not to deny mercy it could not stand in opposition to shewing mercy The consequence I demonstrate thus If to deny mercy to whom hee will doth not inferre that mercy is not denyed according unto works then to shew mercy to whom hee will doth not inferre that mercy is not shewed according unto works Secondly if mens evil works were the cause why God denies them mercy then it could not bee said that God denies mercy because it is the pleasure of his will to deny it For if a reason bee demanded why a malefactor is hanged it were very absurd to answer that the reason is because it was the pleasure of the Magistrate to have him hanged Thirdly if evill works bee the deserving cause why Gods mercy is denyed unto men then either by necessity of nature or by constitution of God Not by necessity of nature in opposition to the constitution of God for then by necessity of nature God must bee compelled to deny mercy unto such what then shall become of Gods Elect unlesse you will say that their workes before mercy shewed them were not so bad as others which were equally to contradict both experience and the Word of God For in this case men should have mercy shewed on them according to their works to wit as they were found lesse evill then the works of others Nor by constitution of God For first shew mee any such constitution that men in such a condition of evill works shall bee denyed mercy Secondly by the same constitution mercy should bee denyed to the Elect also When you speak of the Gentiles in this case abusing the light of Nature and given over to vile affections you take your aime miserably amisse For the Gentiles are not the men of the world in opposition to the Elect. But God forbid that the Gentiles and the men of the world should bee terms convertible in this kinde for then what should become of us Certainly the number of Gods Elect is greater amongst the Gentiles then among the Jews and even of those that were given over to vile affections some were Elect as appears 1 Cor. 6. 9 10 11. And to say that the cause why God denies them mercy was because they abused the light of nature I have freshly disproved this and that evidently as I presume the intelligent Reader will observe though the contrary I confesse bee very plausible at the first sight and before wee come to the discussing of it Thirdly you take your aime amisse also though not in so great measure as in the former in the phrases For even of the Pharisees some were Elect witnesse holy Paul Who abused his zeale of the Law more foully then hee even to the persecuring of Gods Church yet was not the true treasure denyed to him and that in the highest measure And as for Reprobates if you think their unfaithfulnesse in the use of their wealth was the cause why mercy was denyed them for the disproofe hereof I refer mee to my former arguments Fourthly the very Elect of God not onely rejected Christ for a time but also crucifyed him That which you urge of Gods taking his word and Kingdom in plain terms the means of grace from such a Nation as contemns them is nothing to the purpose For wee treat of Gods shewing and denying mercy not in the means but as touching the grace it self of Repentance But this benefit you have confounded by comprehending both under the name of meanes and helpes for your advantage to passe from the one to the other as you see good Here indeed it is as true that because men doe make precious account of the means of grace therefore God continueth these means unto them like as because of mens perseverance in Faith and Repentance and good works God rewards them with everlasting life like as because men die in their sins therefore God inflicts on them everlasting death Onely with this difference Sin on the one side is the meritorious cause both of withdrawing the means of grace and of damnation but conscionable walking before God in the use of the means is only the disposing cause both to the continuance of the means and to eternall salvation For God by grace makes us meet partakers of