sin that was committed whereas God could undoubtedly restrain from the committing of it and that either in a gracious manner or in a meere naturall manner When it is committed his gracious restraint is not afforded but denyed rather What that other action is wherein this obduration consists and which is joyned with the denyall of grace you expound not Suppose it bee Gods moving a man to some course contrary to his corrupt nature either by his word as hee moved Pharaoh to let Israel goe or by his works or by the suggestions of conscience according to that Law which is writen in mens hearts is not this usually found also as often as sinne is committed contrary to light of Nature or light of Grace And hath not obduration consequently its course in all this And why you should pronounce of obduration indefinitely That it is both the heighth of mans sin and depth of mans misery I see no reason Do not the children of God sometimes feele it and in patheticall manner complain of it Lord why hast thou caused us to erre from thy wayes and hardned our hearts against thy feare Esay 63. 17. What saith our Saviour to his Disciples Mark 8. 17. Perceive yee not neither understand have yee your hearts yet hardned As for your phrase of inflicting obduration that doth much require explication which you doe no where perform that I know There is I confesse another operation of God besides those I mentioned formerly whereby men are given over by God whence it followeth that they will grow harder and harder and that is the suspension of his admonitions either by taking away his word or forbearing inward motives by his spirit or removing his judgements and giving outward prosperity whereby God is said to give men over to their own hearts lusts But how this or any of these can bee called the inflicting of abduration I understand not And whereas you say it is prejudiciall to Gods Justice to shew his power in hardning Pharaoh without respect to sin like as to condemn him I have already shewed the great difference between condemnation and obduration It being never said that God damnes whom hee will but the Apostle plainely professing that God hardens whom hee will even as expressely as it is said Hee hath mercy on whom hee will and no marvell For God hath revealed a Law according to which hee proceeds in damning men but you are not able to shew us a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardning of them For if the elect before their callings bee no better then reprobates it is impossible to assigne a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardning of men but that by the same Law the Elect of God must bee hardned also And hardning in the Scripture phrase is usually opposed to Gods shewing mercy It is one thing to speak of an heart hardned another to speak of a heart desperately hardned Yet if you were put to explicate your self and shew what it is to bee desperately hardned and that of God and there withall to prove how Pharaoh was at the time you speak of desperately hardned I am perswaded this phrase would cost you more pains then you are aware of for the satisfying of your self and perhaps somewhat more for the satisfying of others If then God purposed to fall upon Pharaoh in his utmost wrath c. Surely from everlasting hee purposed so to fall upon him for all Gods purposes are everlasting If your meaning bee onely to denote the precedency of such a condition of Pharaoh in sin to Gods falling upon him in bringing such judgements upon his back but not a precedency to Gods purpose I willingly concurre with you herein But then the like may bee said of God concerning Esau before hee was born to wit that God purposed to bring such a measure of obduration and confusion upon him after such a condition of sin But if your meaning bee as indeed hitherunto the genius of your opinion drives you namely that upon the foresight of some sinfull condition God did decree to bring obduration and condemnation both upon Esau and Pharaoh as this may bee said as well of one as of the other here you will give us leave to dissent from you considering how manifestly you are found herein to dissent from your self For if such a foresight of sin goe before Gods decree of obduration and condemnation then God did first decree to permit that sin before hee did decree to harden and condemne man for it so that the permission of that sin in Gods intention must bee before obduration and condemnation and consequently last in execution that is men shall first bee hardned and condemned and then suffered to commit that sinne for which they are hardned and condemned Again if Gods purpose to punish with condemnation must necessarily presuppose foresight of sin in God by the same reason Gods purpose to reward with salvation must necessarily presuppose a foresight in God of obedience and in this case what shall become of the freenesse of Gods grace in election not to trouble you with the profession of Aquinas that never any man was so mad as to introduce a cause of predestination quoad actum praedestinantis The case is the same with introducing a cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis For the ground of this is only because there can bee no cause of the will of God quoad actum volentis Now reprobation is well known to bee an act of Gods will as well as predestination Answer But say further that this hardning of Pharaoh bee an effect of the like hatred of Pharaoh as of Esau neither is it said to depend on the sin of Pharaoh but on the will of God as mercy doth as the first cause thereof I answer this hardning of Pharaoh though an effect of Gods hatred of Pharaoh yet it is not an immediate effect of the like hatred hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh viz. his malitious hatred of Gods Church comming between God hateth no man so farre as to harden him till hee hath fallen into some sin in which and for which hee may bee hardned Hardning being alwaies as far as I can perceive by Scripture not only a sin and cause of sin but a punishment of sin How can God bee said to punish sin with sin in hardning the creature if sin in Pharaoh bee not presupposed to goe before the hardning It is true indeed this hardning of Pharaoh is referred by the Apostle to the will of God as the first cause thereof For otherwise the answer of the Apostle had not been sufficient to the objection propounded ver 14. for there it was objected that unrighteousnesse might seem to bee found in God even respect of persons to deale so unequally with persons equall such as Jacob and Esau were for if Jacob and Esau had done neither good nor evill when God had exalted
the inheritance of the Saints in Light Forthwith you return to the right state of the question to wit in the concession or denegation of regenerating grace but carry your self in shew very prejudicially to the freenesse of Gods grace as when you say What if no Reprobate made such use of the means and helps offered as to obtain regenerating grace Dangerously implying that there is a certain use of the means quo posito which being put regenerating grace should bee obtained As if grace regenerating were to bee dispensed according to an unregenerate persons works Of the same leaven savour your words following when you say That because they did not make better use of the means it was just with God to deny them greater means saving that here you may bee relieved by the ambiguity of the word means by shifting from one sense of it to another For if means bee taken in the same kinde to wit of outward means like â—â— it is just with God to reward the right use of smaller meanes with the bestowing of greater so it is just with God for the abuse of the smaller not onely to deny greater but to take away those smaller But as touching the granting or denying grace regenerative herein God carryeth himself meerely according to the good pleasure of his own will according to that of the Apostle Hee hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardneth Neither can it bee otherwise For as much as mercy in regenerating any man cannot bee shewed according unto good works and consequently the denying of mercy cannot proceed according to evill works as I have already demonstrated in the first place The Sixth Doubt Question 6. HOw may it appeare that the declaration of the equity and sufficiency of Gods justice is reall and not pretended since all things are carryed and come to passe by an absolute and unconditionall decree and providence exempli gratia that fact Act. 4. 28. 2. 23. Answer To say that God carryeth all things by an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence viz. opposing absolute to all conditions presupposed in the creature in my judgment is neither agreeing to the Doctrine of Scripture nor of our Divines who doe both teach that as God in the fulnesse of time doth administer and dispense the way of his providence so hee decreed to dispense them in the same manner from eternity Now in dispensing the performance of the Covenant of works the Lord punisheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or disobedience performed by it as it is at large described Levit. 26 Deut. 28. and therefore surely he decreed to carry such works of his providence upon the same conditions The places that may bee alledged to the contrary do speak of Gods Decree in delivering Christ to death for us which as it was a work of meere grace you may safely conceive it was decreed by an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence as generally the works of free grace are For either they depend on no condition in the creature or at least on none but such as God is pleased to work in us and for us And yet I beleeve that in your own judgement you think not that God did decree the death of Christ much lesse deliver him to death but upon condition of Adams fall If you say God did as well decree a sinfull manner of the death of Christ by the hands of the wicked as the death it self and that by an absolute an unconditionall decree I answer if you mean an unconditionall decree presupposing no condition in those creatures which were the wicked instruments of his death it is spoken without warrant either from those places or from any other That God gave up Judas to betray him it was the punishment of his covetousnesse and hypocrisie That God gave up the high Priests and Pharisees to conspire against him to deliver him to Pilate it was the punishment of their ambition and envy and in some of them their sin against the Holy Ghost That Pilate against his conscience gave iudgement against him it was the judgement of his carnall popularity and his worldly feare of Caesar That the common people and Souldiers cryed out against him and laid violent hands on him it was the punishment of their ignorance and infidelity Now it is out of all controversie that God doth not punish sin with sin nor decree to punish but upon condition of sin presupposed It is true indeed God worketh all things after the counsell of his will but that proveth not that God carryeth all things with an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence For it is the counsell of his will as to work the salvation of his Elect according to the Covenant of Grace freely and absolutely so to dispense rewards and punishments to the men of this world according to the condition of their obedience or disobedience There is therefore no place left for such a question viz. How it may appeare that the declaration of the equity of Gods Justice was not pretended but reall since all things are carryed and come to passe by an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence For neither are all things as it is evident so carryed and if they were I had rather such a question should come out of the mouth of an Arminian then of any godly and judicious Brother The Arminians you know upon a seeming faire pretence are wont to object against our Divines that God calleth the Reprobates rather simulate then sorio in semblance rather then in truth if hee hath before determined of them by an absolute and unconditionall decree But the same answer your selfe would return to their objection the same I return to your question with more probability yea I may truly say with more safety That no will of God is conditionall we have the concurrent consent both of our and Popish Divines For both Piscator maintaines it against Uorstius and Bradwardine demonstrates it And this condition which you speake of can be no lesse then some motive cause Aquinos hath professed that never any was so made as to affirm that there was any cause of Predestination quoad actum praedestinantis as touching the act of God predestinating and that for no other reason then because there can be no cause of the will of God quoad actum volentis as touching the act of God willing Whence it followeth manifestly that in like sort there can bee no cause of reprobation neither quoad actum reprobantis as touching the act of God reprobating and consequently no condition As for the contrary allegations out of Scripture and out of Divines I shall be content to consider them whensoever you shall produce them but I am perswaded you will not bee forwards to trouble your selfe there-about after I shall present unto you how incongruous a course you take to the justifying of that which here you affirme And not incongruous onely but
most dangerous tending manifestly to the utter overthrow of the Freenesse of Gods grace in Predestination which indeed very frequently you shake in this unhappy discourse of yours As God in fulnesse of time doth administer and dispence the wayes of his providence so you say bee decreed to dispence them in the same manner from all eternity Wee grant it willingly but what of all this you adde that in dispencing the performance of the Covenant of workes the Lord punisheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or disobedience performed by it or rather by the persons under it This also wee willingly grant But what doe you inferre herehence onely this Therefore surely hee decreed to carry such workes of his providence upon the same conditions Now this conclusion we embrace as readily as your selfe but this is farre from justifying the decree of God to bee conditionall Nay your selfe doe plainly expresse that the carriage of such workes of his providence is upon such conditions Not that Gods decree is upon such conditions which is as much as to say in plaine termes that the execution of his decree proceeds upon condition not the decree it selfe Yet I confesse in the same manner Arminius himselfe and his followers discourse as if they would explicate themselves in this manner of argumentation Sinne alwayes goes before damnation therefore a respect to sinne goes before Gods decree of damnation As if wee should argue thus Faith in men of ripe yeares alwayes goeth before salvation therefore a respect unto faith alwayes goeth before Gods decree of salvation Doe you not perceive by this the dangerous issue of your argumentation yet this is the very thing they aime at this is the Helena they are enamoured with But I am confident you are farre from this and would not a little grieve to understand that the Orthodox faith of some in the very point of predestination is not a little shaken by such argumentations as these And the rather because they have found such an eminent man as your selfe not onely to swallow them but in a confidentiary manner to propose them as most sound to give satisfaction unto others Therefore Aquinas fairely distinguisheth of the cause or condition of Gods will either quoad actum volentis as touching the act of God willing or quoad res volitas as touching the things willed no cause or condition thereof quoad actum volentis there may be quoad res volitas As for example to give instance in predestination no cause thereof at all quod actum praedestinantis as touching the act of God predestinating there may be a cause thereof quoad res praedestinatione praeparatas as touching the things prepared by predestination As for example Grace may bee and is the cause of glory and Christs merits may be and are the cause of grace So of Reprobation no cause thereof at all quoad actum reprobantis as touching the act of God reprobating no more then of the will of God quoad actum volentis as touching the act of God willing But there is a came thereof quoad res reprobatione praeparatas as touching the things prepared by Reprobation as sin is the cause of condemnation And indeed many confound these and thereupon professe the will of God in some cases to bee conditionall the issue whereof is no more then this That some things which God will have to come to passe shall not come to passe but upon on condition Thus Vossius understands voluntas conditionata a conditionate will which hee attributeth unto God not considering how handsomely he contradicts himself And Doctor Jackson of Providence discoursing of voluntas antecedens consequens will antecedent and consequent premiseth that the distinction is to be understood non quoad actum vokntis not touching the act of God willing but quoad ves volitas as touching the things willed though his discourse hereupon bee nothing suitable A manifest evidence that hee understood not the distinction any more then Uossius did You are willing to acknowledge that Gods decree of delivering Christ to death was absolute as a work of meere grace As for the condition of Adams fall to bee premised to this decree sure I am that is not your Opinion neither doth it become any to maintaine any decree of God to be both unconditionall and conditionall And why that sinne more then any other for which Christ satisfied should be imagined to bee premised as a condition of this decree I see no reason and if every sin must bee presupposed why not the sin of crucifying Christ This sin started Arminius and this is it and this alone which he thinkee good to except in this case I doe nothing wonder that his learning and his honesty were so well met both of a very temperate nature But albeit the fall of Adam was not preconceived to this decree of delivering of Christ to death yet I am not of your Opinion who thinke hereupon that the decree of sending Christ into the world was before the decree of permitting Adams fall concerning which I have discoursed enough while I examined how well you cleared the first doubt But when you distinguish of Gods decree to deliver Christ to death and to deliver him to a sinfull death you take a course to make mad work amongst Gods decrees As if God did first intend the generality of a thing and not till after the foresight of somewhat else intend the specialty thereof I will not tell you how undecent a course School-men conceive it to bee to attribute decrees to God of things indefinite I never found any Arminian take such a course Philosophy hath taught us duplicem ordinem naturae a double order of nature as namely nature generantis naturae intendentis in generation and intention And albeit secundùm naturam generantem communia generalia are priora specialibus in generation things common and generall are before their specialls According as a man in generation prius vivit vitam plantae first lives the life of a plant then vitam animalis the life of an Animal Lastly vitam hominis the life of a man yet quoad naturam intendentem as touching the intention the order is quite contrary that the more specialls as more perfect are first in intention And whereas intentio rerum gerendarum the intention of things to be done is for the production of things in existence and it is well known that generals can not exist but in specials nor specials exist but in particulars it is very strange that God should first intend to produce a Genius and after intend the specialty seeing nothing can bee produced but in particular You may as well say that God did first intend that Christ should die but whether a natural or violent death that was at first undetermined Secondly that God determined hee should die a violent death but whether by a judiciall proceeding or extrajudiciall that as yet was left undetermined And
Gods love to Christ especially when both are acknowledged to be eternall and to be toward both the man Christ and us before wee or the world had a being most of all when in the issue the priority seems to be for us rather then for Christ for it is confest that priority in Gods decrees consists onely in purposing one thing for another And again it is without question that all priority in this case is on the part of that for which another thing is purposed Now albeit wee are Christs servants and hee our Lord yet undoubtedly Christ was ordained rather for our good then wee for his good yet I doe not hence collect that our predestination was before Christs much lesse that Gods love was lesse towards him then towards us but I willingly acknowledge that albeit thousands had tasted of Gods love both in the way of nature and grace and glory before Christ-man had any being at all yet was the love of God to the manhood of Christ infinitely beyond his love towards us measuring the love of God by the effects thereof and that in two respects first for as much as the fruit of Gods love to him was the taking of his humane nature into an hypostaticall union with the Sonne of God secondly in making him the Captain of our salvation Heb. 2. 10. Least of all is it my meaning to extenuate the heinous nature of sinne by setting forth the purpose of God concerning the incarnation of Christ before the consideration of the fall of Adam It is enough to make sinne out of measure sinfull that God in his wisedome saw no meanes so sit as by the sinne and fall of Adam to make way for the humiliation of Christ and thereby for the manifestation of his justice and riches of his mercy and both in Christ although we grant so far as to conceive that God had never thought of humbling the Godhead or advancing the manhood of Christ but upon consideration of sin fore-seen Ex magnitudine remedii magnitudinem cognosce periculi saith Bernard this hath place in what order soever Christ was ordained a Sacrifice for sinne neither is there any colour of remitting ought of the heinousnesse of sin by the priority or posteriority of Christs predestination in comparison to Gods decree concerning the permission of sinne Sinne and the heinousnesse thereof is amplified according to the quality of the transgression in reference to Gods law so honourable a rule of mans perfection and to Gods deserts at our hands and plentifull motives from consideration both of rewards and punishments wherewith it is estadlished It is a common and just aggravation of sinne that it caused the Son of God to be humbled but to aggravate it in making way for Christs humiliation is a very odde conceit in my judgement Neither doe I comprehend how the manifestation of justice in punishing sinne or of mercy in pardoning it doth aggravate the heinousnesse of sin This I say I comprehend not The second DOUBT WHere have wee in Scripture ground for this That the Lords first and primary intention in his decree of Predestination was to set forth Grace and Justice That the declaration of his justice was intended is not doubted but by the Apostle it seemeth his primary aime was the declaration of the soveraignty freedom and dominion of God over the creature in that hee purposeth grace and power The Apostle throughout his whole discourse of Predestination doth no where oppose grace and power for God sheweth as much power freedome and dominion over the creature in his grace toward the elect as in his justice toward the world The Apostle sets forth the like power and soveraign will of God as well in shewing mercy on whom hee will as hardening whom hee pleaseth Doe not think hee opposeth Gods power and soveraignty over Pharaoh to his grace and love unto Jacob for the power hee there speaks of is not soveraignty but ability might and power shewing it selfe forth in the hardening and overthrow of Pharaoh in Moses called the power of his wrath Power naturall is one thing power civill which wee call soveraignty another the first is ability to doe a thing the second is liberty to doe what naturally hee can doe without sinne Undoubtedly the power of God shewed in Pharaoh was in his overthrow and answerable to the power of Gods wrath I like well that the power of God shewed in Pharaoh is extended also to the hardening of his heart onely this is not so congruously applied to the power of Gods wrath for as much as wrath hath alwayes reference to something in man as the cause of it so hath not hardening in that of Paul Rom. 9. 18. Hee hardeneth whom hee will like as hee hath mercy on whom hee will But withall I confesse hardening in this place seems to consist onely in denying of mercy But Pharaohs hardening was much more for undoubtedly mercy was no more shewed him when his heart releâ—ted to the letting of Israel goe then when hee detained them So likewise when God hardened him to follow after them to bring them back this was more than a bare denying of mercy even a secret impulsion of him to take such courses as should precipitate him unto destruction and this may well be accounted a fruit of the power of Gods wrath and accordingly I am verily perswaded that Gods power or soveraignty over Pharaoh are not opposed to his grace and love to Jacob Onely freedome in my judgement doth not so well consent with the execution of justice whether justice be taken in rewarding or punishing Neither doe wee ever read of Gods rewarding or punishing whom hee will freedome and soveraignty is seen only in giving or denying good according to common account Albeit there is a further freedom and soveraignty of God over his creatures in doing evill unto them as in annihilating the most righteous which Arminius acknowledgeth and in exposing his holy Son to suffer strange pains and sorrowes for other mens sinnes when hee had none of his owne Not to speak of the soveraignty wherewith God hath indued man over his fellowes though inferiour creatures That God in his decree of Predestination did shew forth the declaration of his soveraignty freedome and dominion over the creatures I easily grant yet that it was his primary aime rather then the declaration of his justice and grace I cannot beleeve without better proofe My opinion is That all the variety of Gods glory to bee manifested in the creature was intended at once and if they that are otherwise minded come to a particular expression of what glory was intended first and what next and so in order I am perswaded the incongruity of that order will soon appear It is granted on all hands that God first aimed at the declaration of his owne glory Now wherein doth God delight principally for to manifest his glory God himselfe declared it to Moses who
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
it is cleare that God is not bound to remunerate any creature but upon presupposition of his will for hee may convert him into nothing if it please him But if hee hath determined to reward them according to their obedience it must needs bee so for as much as the Divine nature is without variablenesse or shadow of change So likewise neither is God bound to punish any sinner for hee may pardon him if it please him but upon supposition that hee hath determined not to leave a sinner unpunished in this case onely is hee bound to punish Further I will shew that in such acts the condition whereof doth not depend upon the will of God the act may be of one condition and yet neverthelesse the purpose of God to performe such an act is of another condition As for example the act of creation is an act of Gods almighty power but Gods purpose to create the world is no act of power but of will rather So likewise Gods act of ordering all things unto their end in wonderfull manner is an act of infinite wisedome but his purpose to order all things in so admirable manner is no act of his wisedome but of his free-will Now I will demonstrate that the fore-sight of sinne cannot be the cause of Gods purpose to condemne For if it be the cause of Gods purpose then either by necessity of nature or by the free constitution of God not by necessity of nature for hee is naturally more prone as Piscator confesseth upon Exod. 24. 6. to remunerate obedience than to punish for sinne but no man will say that hee doth remunerate by necessity of nature therefore neither doth hee punish sinne by necessity of nature therefore it must be onely through the voluntary constitution of God that sinne is the cause of ordination unto condemnation But marke I pray the foule absurdity hereof for here-hence it followes that God did purpose that upon the fore-sight of sinne hee would purpose that men should be damned So that the purpose of God is made the object of his purpose and that upon a certaine condition whereas nothing can be the object of Gods purpose but some temporall thing or other and consequently one purpose of God shall be in time precedaneous to another purpose of God which is impossible first because no purpose of God begins in time secondly there is no priority between the purposes of God but priority of nature and reason and that onely in such a case as when one is of the end and the other of the meanes tending to that end which hath no place in this matter wee now treat of By the way when you say God cannot condemne the creature without sinne though hee may annihilate him what doe you meane by condemnation doe you take it for punishment If so then the formality of it expressed at full is this Affliction for sinne Now consider is it a sober speech to say God cannot afflict for sin without the presupposall of sin I doubt not but you deliver your mind of what God cannot do in the way of justice But it is utterly impossible that any man should bee afflicted for sinne without the presupposall of sin I presume your meaning is only this though incommodiously expressed God cannot excruciate or afflict a creature without the presupposall of sinne But in whom I doubt not but your meaning is in the person afflicted But what thinke you then of the Sonne of God how was hee afflicted and without any presupposall of sinne in him And I pray you tell mee hath not God as much power over us as over him Againe consider I pray what power doth God give unto man over inferiour creatures But let this passe Can God annihilate us without any respect to sinne and can hee not afflict us Alas what affliction would most men bee content to endure rather then to dye much more rather then to bee turned to the gulfe of nothing from whence wee came If it be said that God may afflict in some degree but not in the highest or for a time but not for ever such as wee conceive that torment to bee which wee signifie by the word Condemnation I pray remember wee are made after the image of God and endued with the light of reason and let us not cast our selves in a brutish manner upon conceits without all evidence of reason Now tell mee what reason can bee devised why God should bee able without all prejudice of his justice to inflict paine in one degree in two degrees in three or foure degrees in five six and seven degrees without all respect to sinne onely if in the eight degree hee should inflict it in this manner he should bee unjust Againe if without injustice hee may inflict paine on an innocent creature for a thousand yeares or ten thousand yeares or ten times ten thousand what reason why hee cannot afflict a creature for ever without injustice yet if no finite time can be set which hee cannot exceed why not for ever Nay if a creature should be put to his choyce whether he would choose to bee annihilated or to bee in eternall torment yet preserved without sinne which of these two would an holy creature make choyce of should he not preferre his being without sinne though in eternall torment before annihilation But let us consider the double act of God here devised about the world of mankind severed from the elect God you say did ordain to judge them according to their workes I pray consider who denyeth this even they that maintaine Reprobation as absolute as Election doe notwithstanding maintaine that God doth judge them no otherwise then according to their works for they doe not avouch that God doth ordaine to damne them for ought else then for sinne yea and that for sinne actuall as many as doe dye in actuall sin unrepented of and for originall sinne as many as doe dye only in originall sinne Againe will you deny the same forme of decree to have his course concerning the elect as well as concerning the Reprobate Doth not God reward them according to their workes I meane as many as live unto ripenesse of age for otherwise it cannot be verisied of the Reprobates And if God doth reward the righteous according to their workes did hee not also ordaine from everlasting so to reward them Neither is Election rightly stated and in congruous opposition unto Reprobation any other then Gods decree to reward men with everlasting life for their obedience of faith repentance and good works like as Reprobation is Gods decree to punish them with everlasting death for their continuance in sinne without repentance unto death albeit neither of these is Gods complete decree on either side but the decree of Election is Praeparatio gratiae gloriae as Austin saith that is a decree to give both the grace of obedience both in the way of faith repentance and good works and to crowne them with
of disobedience and impenitency appeareth from Gods Oath As I live saith the Lord I have no pleasure in the wicked mans death but rather that hee should turne from his wickednesse and live The usuall answer made to this place seems to once to straine the word beyond his native simplicity 1. Some say that God speakes not of all the wicked but of some of the elect onely who in time are brought on to repentance but the truth is hee speaketh of such wicked men whereof some dye in their sinnes as is evident by the parallel place 2. Others say that God speaketh of his antecedent will going before all causes in the creature not of his consequent will following the creature in sinne but plaine it is hee speaketh of men now wicked defiled with originall and actuall sin 3. Others say againe God speakes not of the secret will of his good pleasure but of his revealed will but though I know there be sundry parts of Gods secret will which are not revealed yet I know no part of his will by oath doctrine or historicall narration that is discrepant from his secret will as all Object If you say Yes Gods revealed will is that all should repent Resp 1. I answer It is not a part of Gods will revealed by hath doctrine or historicall narration but by a word of command 2. I say it is a part of his secret will too I meane of his good pleasure that all men should repent and it is his displeasure if they repent not 3. But there is another part of his good will also that if they repent they shall not perish and this also revealed in his word And thus the will of God revealed in a distâ—â—â—â— axiome is alwayes consonant to his secret will and never frustrated 4. Finally others say that God delights not in the death of a sinner as it is the destruction of the creature but as it is a meanes of the manifestation of his justice I answer It is true but the manifestation of his justice stands as hee expresseth himselfe in the removall of the cause of their destruction from his owne will to their will As I live saith the Lord I desire not the death of a sinner Turne yee turne yee why will yee dye O house of Israel First here is some Philosophicall error in distinguishing betweene justice distributive and justice vindicative which are no more to be distinguished than a genus is to be distinguished from his species Justice commutative is only opposite to justice distributive but justice distributive comprehends under it as well justice vindicative as justice remunerative 2. Here wee have an anxious discourse to prove that which no man denyes as before hath been shewed And on the other side it is equally as true that God hath a willingnesse to glorifie his vindicative justice as well as remunerative to punish with death any one of his Elect upon condition of finall disobedience and impenitency as well as to reward with life upon condition of obedience and repentance 3. But it appeares by the Proofe that some further Point is intended then is yet manifested and such a one as you seeme rather to insinuate then expresse For whereas hitherto you have proposed a will of God onely conditionate the place of Scripture alledged mentions no such conditionate will which is indifferent to passe either upon the life or death of a man accordingly as hee shall be found to repent or not to repent but rather intimates a will of God inclining to affect rather the life of man then his death as it is manifested in these words I have no pleasure in the wicked mans death but rather that hee repent and live Now this is nothing congruous to a conditionate will as before premised First because a conditionate will at the best is but indifferent to passe either upon life or death according to the condition proposed Secondly if the condition of life be such as whereunto man is not so well disposed and the condition of death such as whereunto man is most prone it will follow here-hence that such a conditionate will is more propense to affect a mans death than life Thirdly most of all in case it be such as that the condition of life is never performed and the condition of death alwayes performed and the event hereof well knowne to God when hee made this conditionate decree 4. But whereas you would I guesse insinuate that God doth will the life of the wicked distinguished from Gods Elect rather then their death the place alledged is nothing to this purpose as not signifying what God doth rather will to come to passe but what God doth take most pleasure in when it doth come to passe whether it doth come to passe or no for certainly the life and repentance of the world doth never come to passe according to your opinion 5. Junius renders the place so as that Gods delight is signified to be placed in the repentance of a sinner Ne vivam fi delector morte improbi sed delector cum revertitur improbus ut vivat And indeed God is glorified by our obedience as whereby hee is acknowledged to be our supreme Lord not so by our disobedience And indeed did God take pleasure in the death of a sinner what should move him to wait for his repentance and use all perswasive meanes to bring him to repentance And it is proposed to take them off from a desperate condition proposed in these words Quia defectiones nostrae peccata nostra incumbunt nobis ideò ipsis nos tabescimus ecqui viveremus To take them off from this the Lord sends his Prophet charging him and saying Dic eis ne vivam ego dictum Domini si delector morte improbi sed cum revertitur improbus à via sua ut vivat Revertimini revertimini à viis vestris pessimis cur enim moreremini domus Israelis 6. Be it spoken in generall both of Elect and Reprobate yet onely is it directed to them to whom the Prophets of God are sent it followeth not that God doth will or desire the repentance of any Reprobate though to the confirmation hereof you chiefly tend certainly whosoever repents God takes pleasure in his repentance and the Scripture saith no more But that he doth not will it or desire it out of your owne mouth may bee convinced seeing that God affords not any Reprobate such an effectuall grace as hee fore-sees will bring them to repentance but reserving that for the Elect alone unto all others hee vouchsafeth onely such a grace as hee knowes full well will never bring any of them unto repentance And if God would bring any man unto repentance who should hinder him shall the will of man how doth it hinder him in working the repentance of his Elect cannot hee omnipotenti facilitate convertere as Austin speakes whom he will ex nolentibus volentes facere Againe doth God continue
man erres and that in weighty matters I consider not any judgement of God upon him but upon the world rather that hereby are so much the more countenanced in their erroneous wayes which are advantageous to flesh and bloud and therefore they delight in them and thereby become the more worthy to be given over to illusions to beleeve lyes Let mee touch upon that also as where you say It was not the efficacy of Gods decree that did put upon Adam any necessity of breaking it This I confesse is a plausible speech now adayes and apt to bee taken up especially coming from good mens mouthes to choake others withall who feare not to give God the glory of his power with as much truth and with a greater distinction and plainnesse wee say with Aquinas that Gods will is so efficacious as to cause all things to come to passe after such a manner as they doe come to passe to wit necessary things necessarily and contingent things contingently or freely whether in good or evill And if you spare to speake with the Holy Ghost yet wee will not but professe that Both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and people of Israel were gathered together to doe that which Gods hand and Gods counsell determined before to be done And with Austin Non aliquid fit nisi Omnipotens fieri velit vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo So that even those things which God sinit sieri vult sieri Good things he will have come to passe by his working of them evill things hee will have come to passe by his suffering of them Nay otherwise it were impossible hee should foreknow them for unlesse they are future they are not knowable to be future But how can it be that things contingent and in their owne nature indifferent as well to be not future as future how I say is it possible that they should passe out of this indifferent condition into a condition determinate and things meerely possible in their owne nature become future without a cause And what cause can be devised of this transition but the will of God For from everlasting nothing was extant to cause them of things possible to become future but God himselfe and in God himselfe nothing can be imagined to be the cause hereof but the will of God This is the insoluble demonstration that cuts the throat of Scientia media whereupon the Jesuites and Arminians and all that oppose the absolutenesse of Gods proceedings doe and must relye either wittingly or unwittingly and whether they will or no unlesse they will directly turne Atheists and with Cicero deny that God fore-knowes things that are to come So that upon supposition of Gods will to permit Adam to fall it was necessary that Adam should fall necessary I say that hee should fall But how Not necessarily but contingently and freely and no other necessity is at this day found in man for the performing of any particular sinfull act but such as is joyned with liberty and that in such sort as that the necessity is only Secundum quid the liberty is Simpliciter so called I say in respect of any particular act But I confesse there is an absolute necessity of sinning in generall laid upon man by the Fall of Adam whereby it comes to passe that whether a man commits a sinfull act then questionlesse hee sinneth or whether hee omit a sinfull act yet therein hee sinneth also in as much as hee doth not abstaine from it in a gracious manner I come to the second Reason Againe you say In Christ they have so much knowledge and grace revealed to them and offered as is sufficient to bring them on to see their impotency in themselves and to stirre them up to seeke for help and strength and life in him where it is to bee found which if they neglect and despise as the Pharisees did and all impenitent sinners doe God and his Covenant are blamelesse in offering them life and the meanes of it their destruction is of themselves I have read such manner of discourse as this often in Carvinus that busie Arminian I am sorry to read it in the writings of good men especially when I find it not one jot mended in them Yet all this I see still tends to a gracious end even to the justifying of God as when you say Their destruction is of themselves But so doe Arminians also pretend to wit the justifying of God in the way of Reprobation but the issue is to justifie themselves and glorifie themselves in the way of Election But I pray you what thinke you of Infants that perish in Originall sinne how is their destruction of themselves Is it of themselves that they are borne in sinne Yet I presume you will not say with Arminians that all Infants that dye in their infancy whether they be the Children of Turkes and Saracens yet are saved as well as the children of beleeving Parents Againe was not Pharaohs destruction of himselfe also for not letting Israel goe yet will you deny that God hardned his heart that hee should not let Israel goe Sihon King of Heshbon was not his destruction of himselfe in that hee would not suffer Israel to passe by him though they promised to goe by the high-way and to turne neither to the right hand nor to the left and to pay for all that they received of them both meat and drinke neverthelesse it is said that The Lord hardned his spirit and made his heart obstinate because hee would deliver him into the hands of the Israelites The destruction of Abimelech and of the Shechemites was it not of themselves yet surely God it was that sent an evill spirit betweene Abimelech and the men of Shechem that the cruelty against the seventy sonnes of Jerubbaal and their bloud might come and be laid upon Abimelech their brother which had slaine them and upon the men of Shechem which had aided him to kill his brethren But to proceed The face of your discourse seemes to tend to the maintenance of a sufficient grace in the Reprobates themselves whereof there is much question but yet you expresse onely a sufficient grace without them whereof there is no question For undoubtedly in Gods word whereof even Reprobates are partakers as well as the Elect there is grace sufficient in the way of instruction and revelation no man makes question of this Undoubtedly therein is contained all things necessary both for faith and manners and so to bring them to salvation if they will obey it But all the question is whether they have any sufficiency of grace to enable them to obey it I presume your selfe will not avouch this And the Pelagians of old acknowledged a sufficiency of grace in the way of doctrine and instruction Onely you say There is sufficient grace given them to bring them to see their impotency But how doe you prove this The naturall man commonly is too preiant of his
congruous ends being his justice as Aquinas acknowledgeth Christ was willing and earnest to gather Jerusalem under his wings and no marvell hee was bound to doe all hee could as the Minister of Circumcision to save his brethren for hee was made under the Law and was bound to love not onely his brethren but his enemies also as well as wee are bound to shew the like love to all But to inferre here-hence that therefore it was the will of God to have healed and saved that part of Jerusalem that would not is a liberty which affection to a cause may take but no reason doth justifie it Like as our Saviour in his ministery so the Prophets in theirs desired to doe as much good as they could to all but here-hence it followeth not that it was the will of God to convert all whom the Prophets desired to convert And as our Saviour by his teares so the Prophets by their teares did manifest their desire to bring them to repentance to doe the uttermost of their power to bring them hereunto but will you inferre here-hence that God also did desire to bring them to repentance As for the phrase of carrying thoughts of peace towards them that is generall and therefore ambiguous and to what specialty you doe referre it I know not Yet according to the Scripture sense thereof it is nothing correspondent to your opinion For Gods thoughts of peace in Scripture phrase towards his people consist not onely in affording meanes but in making them effectuall also to the procuring of such a gracious disposition in his people as to make them fit for the mercies which God hath resolved to conferre upon them as Jer. 29. 10. But thus saith the Lord That after seventy years be accomplished at Babel I will visit you and performe my good promise towards you and cause you to returne to this place Verse 11. For I know the thoughts that I have thought towards you saith the Lord even the thoughts of peace and not of trouble to give you an end and your hope Verse 12. Then shall yee cry unto mee and yee shall goe and pray unto me and I will heare you Ver. 13. And yee shall seek me and find me because yee shall seek me with all your heart Ver. 14. And I will be found of you saith the Lord and I will turne your captivity And as for the former phrase in saying It was the will of God to have healed them In proportion to the place now alledged out of Jeremy it may be granted that God would have healed them to wit in case they would have converted unto God with all their heart and with all their soule as our Saviour signifies Joh. 12. 40. and that out of Esay 6. and like as God himselfe expresly professeth Deut. 4. 29. If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God thou shalt find him if thou seek him with all thine heart and with all thy soule But is it thinke you in any unregenerate mans power to seek God with all their heart and with all their soule I thinke this is no more in the power of a man unregenerate than it is in his power to love the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soule Now this is expresly attributed to the circumcision of the heart wrought by God Deut. 30. 6. When you adde that the will of God is the world of unbeleevers shall not be shut out from Christ if they shut not out themselves through unbeleefe This assertion of yours is such as no man that I know denyes And it is as true of the Elect as of the Reprobate namely that they should be utterly shut out of Christ if they should shut out themselves by small unbeleefe for undoubtedly the word of God is true that saith Whosoever beleeveth shall be saved whosoever beleeveth not shall be damned But lest we should seeme to be pleased with our owne errors let us speake distinctly and keep our selves from confusion To be shut out of Christ is to be shut off from some benefit that is to be obtained by Christ Now if wee speake of the benefit of forgivenesse of sinnes and of salvation the truth is plaine and distinct that no man is bereaved of salvation and forgiveness of sinnes by Christ but through unbeleefe and whosoever beleeveth not is excluded from pardon and salvation by Christ But is there no other benefit wee obtaine by Christ besides forgivenesse of sinnes and salvation What thinke you of the gift of faith and repentance are not those spirituall blessings which wee obtaine in Christ and for Christs sake Ephes 1. 3. If it be so I pray consider Is it handsome to say that none is shut off from the gift of faith but through unbeleefe Certainly unbeleefe is no tolerable cause why God should deny them the gift of faith seeing all are in anbeleefe till God bestowes upon them the gift of faith neither can it be expected a man should beleeve till God gives him the gift of faith if so be faith be indeed the gift of God and not the work of mans free-will without any gift of God As for your discourse though it tends to a conclusion which rightly understood no man denyes in one sense nor will any wise man affirme in another sense I thinke fit to consider that also The Spirit you say convinceth the world of sinne because they beleeved not in Christ but the Spirit of God moveth to nothing but what hee knoweth to be according to the will of God Let all this be granted yet nothing followeth here-hence but that it was the will of God that the world should be convinced of sinne in not beleeving in Christ which no intelligent man will deny But yet by your leave it is no good consequence to inferre here-hence that therefore it is the will of God that the world of unbeleevers shall not be shut out from Christ if they shut not out themselves by unbeleefe Therefore we grant both the antecedent and the consequent yet by the way as touching that which you affirme that God sent his Spirit to convince the world of sinne because they beleeve not in Christ this is a truth wee confesse but perhaps wee may be to seeke of the right accommodation hereof for where is the world convinced of sinne in not beleeving in Christ or to whom I grant to all beleevers the world of unbeleevers is by the Spirit of God convinced of sinne in not beleeving in Christ but are they convinced hereof to themselves and in their owne consciences I grant this also as often as it pleaseth God to convert them by the power of his Spirit then they are convicted of the sinfull nature of their owne unbeleefe Yet be it granted that an unbeleever continuing in unbeleefe may be and is sometimes convicted of the sinfull nature of his unbeleefe because the Apostle saith of an heretique that hee is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet
confesse this course of justifying a tenet by the usefulnesse of it is usually much made of by the Arminians but I could never brooke it in any This is a faire way to make a rule of faith unto our selves and under colour of usefulnesse to shape the doctrine of the Gospel after our owne fancies yet I am willing to examine what here you deliver also in every particular 1. As touching the first Use I finde you serve your turne with a manifest confusion of the grace of vocation with the grace of salvation Thus God of free grace saves in the one in justice damnes in the other But the comparison you make is nothing congruous For it is so carried by you as if in this dealing of God the case were alike with mans dealing as when a Judge amongst many malefactors equally guiltie of death saves some and damnes others These are nothing equall for the one die in faith and repentance the other die void of faith and in the state of impenitency Therefore to help this incongruitie you will be driven to fly to effectuall vocation And indeed before God doth effectually call some by such a grace as he denies others they whom hee cals were no better then others But let us make way for the truth to appeare in her proper colours by distinguishing those things which ought to be distinguished lest wee be found to be in love with our owne errours As touching Vocation 1. we acknowledge with you and you with us the freenesse of Gods efficacious grace bestowed on some and denyed to others and herein magnified that whereas God might have bestowed it on others and not on them he hath bestowed it on them and not on others yea on them who are but few in comparison permitting a farre greater multitude of others and which is especially to be considered though you are not willing to take notice of it Like as God hath mercy on some in giving them this efficacious grace we speak of meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will so he hardens others denying them the same grace and that meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will And thus the freenesse of his grace is magnified towards the elect by his severitie and freenesse of his will in denying it unto others whereas you so carry it as if the freenesse of his grace to the one were magnified in respect of his justice toward the world of mankinde in dealing with them according to their workes which is a plausible speech and of common course usually admitted but utterly void of truth The truth being this That like as God in inflicting damnation on men doth not proceed according to the meer pleasure of his own will but according to the works of men so in denying grace efficacious he doth not proceed according to the workes of men but meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will For the Apostle plainely professeth in this case that looke how he hath mercie on whom hee will so likewise he hardens whom hee will And to cleare the truth in this point because as many as vary from the truth of God in this point are not very prone to heare on this eare let us consider that justice hath different acceptions In a common notion it is no otherwise taken then for justitia condecentiae as the Schoolemen call it Thus whatsoever God doth is an act of Gods justice whether it be an act of power as in makeing the world out of nothing or an act of liberalitie in doing good to the creature without cause or an act of mercy in pardoning sin all these are acts of justice in this sense The meaning whereof is no more but this In all these actions God doth no other thing then what himselfe hath lawfull power to doe In this sense it is just with God as well to have mercy on whom he will as to harden whom hee will And so your comparison here made should have no life at all to that purpose whereunto you accommodate it For in this sense the justice of God shall equally appeare on both sides Whereas you make the freenesse of Gods grace only on the one side to be magnified the more by the consideration of his justice which hath course on the other So that to hold up your owne comparison as decently proposed you must be driven to forgoe this common notion of justice and sticke to a more strict and peculiar notion thereof and that is when God rewards or punisheth men according to their workes Now I say that God doth not deny efficacious grace to any man according to his workes which I demonstrate thus The execution of justice in this kinde doth alwayes proceed according to some law which law is made to man by some superior power but unto God not by any superior power for hee acknowledgeth no superior power but by his owne will As for example Wherefore doth God crowne all them with glory who die in faith and in repentance To wit because he hath ordained and made a law that whosoever continueth to the end in the state of faith and repentance shall be saved Againe why doth God damne them to everlasting fire who die in sinne void of faith void of repentance To wit because God hath ordained and made a law that whosoever beleeveth not provided that he continueth in unbeliefe unto the end shall be damned For undoubtedly God could have turned men into nothing had it so pleased him and had hee not decreed the contrary like as hee brought men out of nothing Now shew me that God hath ordained or made a law that men found in such or such a condition shall be denyed efficacious grace if you cannot shew any such ordinance or law of God then doe not say that God in denying grace proceeds according to mens workes in justice And indeed if any such law could be assigned it would follow that in the communicating of grace also God should proceed not according to the good pleasure of his will but in justice according to mens workes Consider a second argument What is sinne originall but the spirituall death of the soule By Regeneration man formerly dead in sinne is revived Now is it congruous to say that because man is dead in sinne therefore it is just with God not to revive him Because a man is blind therefore it is just with God not to open his eyes Or because he is deafe therefore it is just with God not to open his eares Suppose sin were but the sicknesse of the soule is it congruous to say that because a man is sicke therefore it is just with God not to cure him Whereas it is manifest that unlesse a man were first sicke it were impossible to cure him unlesse first blinde or deafe it were impossible to restore sight or hearing unto him unlesse first dead it were utterly impossible to revive him Come wee now to salvation and
to omit but not in a gracious manner which alone is not in his power to performe and say what justice is there in the damnation of such a man I answer as much as in the damnation of an infant for originall sinne considering that by reason of originall sin it is that a naturall man cannot performe any thing in a gracious manner to wit for want of the love of God Originall sinne being an habituall aversion from God and conversion unto the creature or more breifly an inordinate conversing with the creature either in enjoying it whereas hee should onely use it God alone being to be enjoyed or in using it but not in a gracious manner that is not for Gods sake to wit through want of the love of God which is brought upon us by the sinne of Adam as whereby our natures were bereaved of the spirit of God Thus in prosecuting mine answer unto a devised argument I have made bold to open my minde concerning originall sinne A point that hath seemed unto me of such difficultie that I have been wont to range it amongst those three whereabouts I could not expect to be satisfied whilst I lived Another was the very point wee have in hand To the fourth Doubt HOw may it appeare that Gods hatred of Esau is of a lesse degree of love since the making of him who by birth is superiour to be a servant to his underling argueth no good will at all but First rather a purpose to passe him by in respect of communicating grace and glory Secondly since the raising of Pharaoh which was to this intent to shew his power in his overthrow argueth the like Thirdly since hardning is an effect of hatred and depends on the will of God as the first cause thereof even as Mercy doth Fourthly since there is no cause of that objection why complaines hee Who hath resisted his will or at least of that answer Rom. 9. 20 21 22. I Answer as Jacob preferring Ephraim the younger brother to greater estate then his elder brother Manasses did not thereby declare a positive hatred of Manasses but a lesse degree of love to him in comparison of his brother So Gods preferring Jacob to bee a superiour and Lord to his elder brother Esau doth not argue that in him there is no good will at all to Esau but a lesse degree of love To subject Esau as a servant to Jacob doth not reprobate Esau but puts him into the condition of the world of mankind who together with the rest of the Creatures are made to bee servants to the Church of the elect and to the members of it But grant Gods hatred of Esau and making him a servant to his underling argueth no lesse then a purpose to passe him by in respect of communicating glory unto him out of grace And for my part thus farre I yeeld that it may well argue a purpose of God to passe by him in respect of communicating glory to him out of grace that grace I mean whereby hee hath made us accepted in his beloved for this grace or free love is made Jacobs preheminence and is denyed to Esau and though it put him into the estate of a servant to his elect brother and so into the condition of the world of mankind yet it doth not reprobate him or argue a purpose to passe him by in respect of communicating life or glory at all unto him but implyeth only a purpose to deale with him in justice viz. to give him life or death according to his works as I have already shewed in the answer to the former doubt and shall have occasion more fully to declare it in the end of this Surely Jacob in doing that which hee did to Manasses and Ephraim did neither preferre one to a greater estate then the other or love one lesse then the other But in the spirit of prophecy fore-signifyed what would bee the condition of each in their race and posterity But suppose a father in that which lyeth in his power preferres one son before another and accordingly in that way of Amor beneficentiae bee said to love one lesse then another will any sober man say that hee loves the one and hates the other is this a decent expression of lesse love Wee know full well that a lesse love in the way of beneficence may bee joyned with a greater love in the way of complacency As for example an earthly Father though hee suffer his eldest son to goe away with the Land yet hee may bear greater affection to a younger sonne though hee assigne unto him a farre lesse portion then to his elder brother And if it were decent to say hee hates him whom hee loves lesse in respect of beneficence then hee should bee said to hate him whom hee loves best Lastly if the hating of Esau bee interpreted lesse loving why may not the loving of Jacob by the same liberty bee interpreted the lesse hating of him Amongst Gods elect some are more beloved of God and some lesse according as hee ordaines one to greater grace and glory then another and is it fit to attribute that to Esau which wee attribute to Gods elect I grant that to subject Esau to Jacob as a servant is not to reprobate him for this subjection is made in time But reprobation as wee take it in opposition to election Ephes 1. 4. was made before all times It is your own phrase to distinguish the world of mankinde from the elect as if the elect were none of the world of mankinde For the very elect themselves are subjected as servants to the elect every one unto others though as great as Paul and Apollo as appeares by the very place your self have now in a contrary sense alledged more then once And who doubts that wee must all serve one another through love since Christ himself was content to wash his Disciples feete Lastly the yoke of Esau unto Jacob was at length shaken off as appeares by Isaacs prophesie it should bee but the yoke of subjection of all things unto the Church shall never bee shaken off But you perceive well enough that the discourse which you answer considered this temporall preferment which yet had course onely in their seed onely in a typicall manner as that which under temporall things prefigured spirituall and accordingly you proceed to shape your answer thereunto in that respect also The same is this Though God had no purpose to deale with Esau as hee dealt with Jacob that is to communicate glory unto him out of grace yet hee had a purpose of communicating glory unto him some other way and what can that bee but of communicating glory unto him not out of grace A very strange assertion and therefore no marvell you spared to set it down in so many words Onely you say that the putting him into the state of a servant did not reprobate him or argue a purpose to passe him by in respect of
Esau as if it consisted onely in making Esau Jacobs servant and Jacob Esaus Lord according to your opinion it extends further then this even to the granting of such grace to Jacob as should bee accompanied with salvation and denying of the same to Esau whereupon infallibly followed condemnation It is true God is just in dealing with Esau and God is as just every whit in dealing with Jacob for hee deales with each according to the Law himself made But God shewed mercy also unto Jacob in providing a Saviour to die for him and in circumcising his heart and making him to perform the condition of life hee shewed no such mercy unto Esau You see well how incongruous it were to plead the sin of Esau why hee should bee so dealt withall seeing Jacob at that time deserved no better But why doe you not observe that this Discourse of the Apostle hath every way as pregnant a reference to the obduration of Pharaoh or of any one that is hardned as to Gods dealing with Esau Again suppose some are not so bad as Pharaoh was when God hardens Pharaoh and doth not harden others but rather shews them mercy will you say the reason hereof is because these deserved better at the hands of God then Pharaoh Doe you not perceive how this Doctrine carryeth you ere you are aware to trench upon the freenesse of Gods grace in mans effectuall vocation Suppose Nicodemus who sought to our Saviour by night were converted and Saul had not been at all converted but still hardned would you have said that Paul was hardned because of his sin in persecuting the Church of God but Nicodemus deserved better at the hands of God then Saul Yet wee are sure that Saul in spight of all his persecution was converted when in all probability many a morall Jew and nothing factious in opposing the Gospel of Christ yea and many a Gentile too were not converted but perished in their sins and in the blindnesse of their minde If it bee urged thereupon that God doth harden the creature and also hateth him with a positive hatred without all respect of sin in the creature out of his absolute will I answer in these deep counsels and unsearchable wayes of God it is safe for us to wade no farther then wee may see the light of the Scriptures clearing our paths and the grounds thereof paving our wayes and as it were chalking it out before us The Scripture telleth us That God hardens whom hee will And again sin is the cause in which and for which God doth harden any both which will stand together That as God sheweth mercy on whom hee pleaseth so hee hardneth whom hee pleaseth out of his absolute will Yet hardneth none but with respect of sin going before For First when wee speak of the reprobate with comparison of the elect they are both alike sinners And therefore if the question bee why God hardneth the reprobate and doth not harden but shew mercy on the Elect Here no cause can bee rendred of this different dealing but onely the will and good pleasure of God sin is alike common to both and cannot bee alledged as the cause of this diversity Idem qua idem semper facit idem But when wee speak of the Reprobates alone considered in themselves If the question bee why God is pleased to harden them The answer is alway truely and safely given It pleased God to harden them for their sins And which is yet more when God is said to harden a wicked man for his sin it is not sin that moved God primarily to harden him but his absolute will it was to harden him for his sin for what sin could God see in the creature to provoke him to harden it but what hee might have prevented by his providence or healed by the blood of Christ if it had so seemed good to his good pleasure When therefore God doth harden a creature for his sin it is because it is his good pleasure even his absolute will so to harden him To will a thing absolutely and yet to will it on this or that condition may well stand together in many a voluntary agent when the condition is such as that the will might easily help if it so pleased As if a man should cast off a servant for some disease hee hath which hee might easily heale if it pleased him or break his vessell for some such uncleannesse which hee could easily rinse out Both these may well bee said of him at once that hee cast off his servant for his disease and brake his vessell for its uncleanenesse and yet might hee cast out his servant and break his vessell and both out of his good pleasure and out of his absolute and his free will It is true the Word of God is a Lantborn unto our feete and a Light to our paths and it is fit wee should rest contented herewith for discovering unto us the whole counsell of God Now this Word of God plainly teacheth us that God bardneth whom hee will Now I presume you doe not doubt but that God out of his absolute will shews mercy on whom hee will Nay I can hardly beleeve but that your opinion is that like as God out of his absolute will granted saving grace to Jacob so out of his absolute will he denyed saving grace to Esau And still doth to those whom you account the world of mankinde And I have already shewed that the deniall of this grace can bee no punishment For as much as punishment consisteth either in inflicting evill or in denying some good which formerly was granted them But in denying saving grace to the world of mankinde hee doth not deny them any thing which they formerly injoyed I have already shewed what that hardning is which is for sin and wherein it doth consist not in denying saving grace which they never injoyed but in denying that naturall restraint from some foule sin which formerly they injoyed as I exemplifyed it in that Rom. 1. 27. That in Rom. 11. 7 8 9 10 11. is nothing for you where there is no mention of sin as the cause of their obduration As for that in Psalm 69. 21. Their blinding is referred to their giving unto Christ Gall in his meate and in his thirst vinegar to drink I pray consider Were they not even then blinded when they persecuted Christ unto death And yet notwithstanding some of these were converted Act. 2. But upon this their opposition unto Christ God did proceed to blinde them more and more but how Not by denying saving illumination for this they never injoyed it was denyed them from the first to the last But by withdrawing from them the meanes of illumination more and more as namely the preaching of Gospel and the working of miracles and the giving them over unto the power of Satan This also is to give them over to their own hearts lust Psal 81. 11 12. by ceasing to
admonish them of the error of their waies either by his word or by his judgements and chastisements in his works That God doth harden out of his absolute will and yet hardens none but for sin cannot bee avouched in my judgment without manifest contradiction If they are not contradictions Then those also are not God hath mercy on whom hee will yet God hath mercy on none but in respect of their good works going before Secondly by the same reason it may bee said that God condemnes men out of his absolute will and yet hee condemnes none but for sin yet you shall never read that God condemnes whom hee will Thirdly if God doth harden out of his absolute will then also hee did purpose to harden of his absolute will Whence I infer that then God did not purpose to harden for sin For Gods purpose to harden only in respect of sin is commonly accounted and that by your self a will conditionate and a will conditionate is opposite to a will absolute Lastly I deny that God doth harden for their sins as hardning denoteth a denyall of saving grace For to harden for sin is to punish but to deny saving grace to them that never had saving grace is not to punish them to leave a man in the state wherein hee findes him is not to punish him And therefore when Epaminondas ran his Javelin through a Sentinell whom hee found in sleepe saying I did but leave him as I found him because sleep is usually said to bee Mortis Imago the Image of death had hee no better Apologie for his fact then this hee had no way freed himself from injustice If God may harden man for sin and yet sin shall not bee a primary cause moving God to harden him by the same reason though God condemnes man for sin it is not necessary that sin should bee a primary cause moving God to condemn him which is directly contrary to your tenet in the point of reprobation And this consideration of your own if you hold your self unto it attentively may bring you into the right way from which you have erred and the want of it hath been a means I fear to confirm many in their errors Wee acknowledge it to bee Gods absolute will to condemn for sin but withall wee say it is his absolute will to permit whom hee will to sin and continue in sin by denying saving grace to raise them out of sin And this deniall of grace cannot bee for sin as I have already proved To harden a man in opposition to Gods shewing mercy on him wee take to bee nothing else then his refusall to cure him Now let any man judge whether it bee a decent speech to say that because a man is sick therefore God will not cure him In the cases proposed by you of casting a servant off for a disease which hee can cure if hee list or breaking a vessell for some filthinesse which one may cleanse if hee will whether this bee not to bee resolved into the absolute will of the Master I am content to appeale to every sober mans judgement although the comparisons are not congruous to the case wee have in hand for as much as the casting of a servant off is distinct from the not curing of him the breaking of a vessell is distinct from the cleansing of it But the hardning of a man in opposition to Gods shewing mercy on him is nothing distinct from Gods refusing to cure him If the question were proposed thus Why will not a man cleanse his vessell when hee is able to cleanse it why will hee not heale his servant when hee hath power to heale him Is it a good reason to say therefore hee heales him not because hee is sick therefore hee cleanseth not his vessell because it is unclean Neither is it a more sober speech to say therefore God hardens a man because hee is a sinner For it is as much as to say therefore hee refuseth to cleanse him from his sin because hee findes him unclean by reason of his sin Answ The want of considering this point hath as I conceive it intangled the Doctrine of predestination with needlesse difficulties and exposed it to rash and hard censures in the mindes of gain-sayers Then it may bee said there was no cause of that objection Why complaineth hee and who can resist his will or at least of that answer to why doth hee yet complaine Rom. 9. 20 21 22. I answer that objection propounded by the Apostle Why doth hee yet complain for who hath resisted his will doth not arise upon occasion of Gods preferring Jacob before Esau but upon the latter part of the Corollary going immediately before v. 18. Whom hee will hee hardneth for if it bee God that hardneth the creature and that according to his absolute will then might the hardned creature say what fault is there in mee to bee so hardned Why doth God complain of mee for my hardnesse and impenitency Who hath resisted his will To make this objection colourable wee need not say as you seem to imply that the Apostle gave occasion of it by ascribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods absolute will and without all respect to sin yet the creature hardned is wont to plead with God about it Esa 63. 17. you shall there see Gods own people to erre and upon their error to have their hearts hardned from Gods feare and both done by God and yet the people expostulate with God about it which if Gods own people may doe reverently is it any wonder if the reprobates doe the same upon the same occasion petulantly and profanely But the answer of the Apostle to the objection propounded cleareth the whole matter For as a man would justifie the severe proceedings of a Master of a Colledge in refusing to elect an unworthy person and in stead thereof expelling him the Colledge by pleading first the liberty or authority of his negative voyce Secondly the desert of the person refused and expelled So the Apostle beateth down the insolency of the objection and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates hated and hardned from first the Soveraignty of God over his creature ver 20 21. secondly the due deserts of persons being vessels of wrath and fitted for destruction ver 22. What these needlesse difficulties are wherewith the Doctrine of predestination is intangled by the Doctrine of them whom you impugne you doe not expresse nor the hard and harsh censures which are passed upon it that by due comparing of the one to the other wee might examine how justly such censures are pronounced But of what nature your opinion is how inconsistent in it self on how little reason it is grounded what consequences it draws after it as also what causelesse fears you raise unto yourself and above all and which is worst of all how you deal with Scripture in this argument to serve your turn I leave it to your
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
God over his creatures by the power of the Potter over the Clay in making therehence one vessell to honour and another to dishonour It is true since the fall of Adam man in his generation hath no being without sin for wee are even conceived in sin yet it is not that sin that makes a man a vessell of wrath for if it did then all should bee made by God vessels of wrath But albeit the Apostle signifies that wee are all born children of wrath which is verifyed in respect of the desert even of sin originall yet neither Apostle nor Prophet doth any where give us to understand that all men are made vessels of wrath This phrase includes first the intention of God like a Potter to make such use of them as to make his just wrath appeare upon them and this purpose of God was everlasting not onely as old as every mans generation but as old as the creation of all yea and from everlasting before the Creation Secondly it includes also a fitnesse in the vessell for such an use not fitnesse in the way of desert only such fitnesse being found in all the naturall sons of Adam but fitnesse in respect of Gods purpose to shew wrath Now like as in proportion hereunto the making of a man fit for mercy is the giving of him grace so the denying of grace finally makes him fit for wrath in this sense for as much as God will damn none but such as die in their sins Here I speak of wrath and mercy as they consist in giving salvation or inflicting damnation Lastly if none are ripened for destruction till the refusall of meanes of grace or the committing of grosse and unnaturall iniquity then it followeth that no Infants of Turks and Sarecens are vessels of wrath No nor men of ripe yeers amongst the heathen many of whom never having either refused the means of grace for as much as they never injoyed them and having lived civilly and morally all their dayes Philosopher-like free from grosse and unnaturall iniquity And though all this bee granted you yet if God to that end refuse to shew mercy on them in giving them Faith and Repentance and continues to harden them by denying such grace look how rigorous or unreasonable soever the objection pretended Gods course to bee in complaining of them for their disobedience when God himself hath hardned them in the same degree of rigour and unreasonablenesse it continues still without all mitigation notwithstanding all that you have said hitherto to the contrary Fourthly as for the fourth I have no desire to quarrell with you thereabout Gods judgements indeed Rom. 11. 33. that is his agendirationes as Piscator interpreteth it are unsearchable and his wayes past finding out But you take a course quite contrary to make them nothing unsearchable but easie to be found out For if obduration bee in respect of sin surely there is no unsearchable depth in this And in my opinion the chief wayes of God which the Apostle aimes it in the place alledged consists in having mercy on whom hee will and hardning whom he will and in generall thus in proportion to that which goeth before There was a time when God had a Church without distinction of Jews and Gentiles as before the Flood and after till the bringing of the children of Israel out of Aegypt Again there was a time after this for about 1600. yeers that God had a Church of the Jews in distinction from the Gentiles And since that for the space of about 1600. yeers God hath had a Church among the Gentiles in distinction from the Jews And we look for a time to come when God shall have a Church and that here on earth consisting both of the Nation of the Jews and of the Nations of the Gentiles Three of these states are signifyed by the Apostle immediately before Rom. 11. 30. For even as yee in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past have not beleeved God yet have now obtained mercy through their unbeleef there have wee two of them one past another then present Then follows the third ver 31. Even so now have they not beleeved by the mercy shewed unto you this is part of the second that they also may obtain mercy This is the third which wee look for ver 32. For God hath shut up all in unbeleefe that hee might have mercy upon all Then follows the exclamation ver 33. O the deepnesse of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God for hee knows all courses possible to bee taken both wise and unwise and out of the depth of his wisdome makes choyce of what hee thinks fit O how unsearchable are his judgements for out of all these different courses results such a splendor of the glory of God as no creature till it bee revealed can project nor devise any courses countervailable thereunto when it is revealed and his wayes past finding out FINIS The English of the Latine passages in this Treatise in the severall Pages thereof that are not formerly englished PAge 10. lin 2 3 4. The Apostle saith that we are chosen in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud salvation is procured for us lin 5. As touching the act of God choosing lin 17 18. as in the head The nature of an head is not the nature of a cause meritorious lin 19 20 21. The Apostle saith that we are elect in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud life is precured for us l. 21. a meritorious cause lin 22 23 24. and as in an head from whence these good things are derived to us So that the reason of an head is the reason of a meritorious cause not morally but naturally l. 26. as in the head l. 27. as dead and raised again l. 37. Christ is the head of the predestinate Page 11. lin 5 6. The other reason concerning Christ considered as the head seemeth to depend on these parts Page 12. l. 5. a thing being by accident l. 28. Predestination puts nothing in the thing predestinated l. 31. in all things Page 13. lin 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. By the comparing of which sentense it appeares that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rightly rendred among all It is a Greek phrase lest some one might conceive it ought to be translated in all to wit in all things We are to remember that the Apostle from this verse began to discourse of Christs kingdom in his Church which no man will deny if hee doth but lightly consider the very words themselves and therefore under the universall particle no other thing is comprehended but all believers of all times Christ is the first of them that rise again that among all the Saints both of them that went before and of them that came after he might have the primacy of dignity power and holinesse that so among all hee might have the preheminence not onely in respect of men but also of
all angels lin 23 24 25 26. that alwayes in every life he may be chiefe and principall in grace and glory in generation and resurrection as well in visible as in invisible creatures Page 14. lin 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. If Christs predestination and ours be considered as touching the act of God predestinating so the one is not the cause of the other for the same thing cannot be the cause of it selfe but by the same divine act both Christ and we are predestinated therefore the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our predestination But if it be considered as touching the effect seeing the effect of our predestination is grace and glory and the adoption of sonnes so it is to be said that the predestination of Christ is the cause of our predestination both the cause efficient and the cause exemplary l. 32. first l. 33. latter Page 15. lin 28 29 c. a being by accident Page 16. l. 14. God only permitting them as they are evill lin 16 17. not any thing comes to passe unlesse God will have it come to passe either by suffering it to come to passe or himselfe working it Page 21. l. 3. the reason whereof is derived from the reason of the end designed Page 26. l. 10. the reason of the end Page 27. lin last thirteen 1. Of all things which God from everlasting did in his mind devise to doe the first was the hypostaticall union of the divine Word The second was the predestination of all the elect The third was the condition of the nature of things And therefore supernaturals are before naturals and the order of nature presupposeth the order of grace 2 The fore-knowledge of no future thing is in the mind of God supposed to goe before predestination but all things follow from it and so farforth that God decreed nothing at all from eternity to doe nor in time doth he permits nothing or intends whether naturall or supernaturall whether it be of great weight or of least weight or of no weight which proceeds not there-hence and is the effect and means of the predestination of the elect and of Christ So that all things fall under the order of the divine predestination as means ordained to the glory of Christ and of his Saints Pag. 28. 3. There is no other providence in God preceding predestination to wit from which providence proceed things naturall and some other effects supernaturall but there is one onely providence and that is predestination from which all things throughout proceed without all exception So that according to this conclusion the whole universe as it comprehends things naturall and supernaturall things good and evill substances and accidents and all wayes throughout of being and working not onely in generall but in speciall and individuall are to be considered as the onely totall object of divine predestination so that not any one thing is without the breadth of its object and which falls not under that act of predestination 4. If there had not been a predestination of Gods elect nothing at all had been in the nature of things Therefore I hold this as certaine that unlesse Christ had been to come into the world there had been no predestination of the elect made by God and if no predestination had been by vertue whereof all things follow there should have been neither heaven nor earth nor other elements nor living things nor men nor angels nor sins nor devils nor reprobates and last of all that I may conclude in one word God alone had been and nothing else had been besides God neither naturall nor supernaturall neither good nor evill we speak according to the common law and order of things and according to those ends which probably we conceive God to have had in the making of creatures For our purpose is not at all so to tye the majesty of the divine power to the weaknesse of our apprehensions to deny that God could such is his absolute power make and ordaine the nature of things without dependance upon grace and glory and grace without dependance upon Christ our Lord. Pag. ibid. five last lines Behold where look by what reason Christ is said to be Gods and the predestinate are said to be Christs by the same reason all naturall things whether present or to come whether life or death are said to be the predestinates owne things But so it is that Christ is therefore said to be Gods and the elect are said to be Christs because Pag. 29. God is the end of Christ and Christ is the end of the elect that is because Christ is ordained unto God as unto the end and the elect unto Christ as unto the end and unlesse hee that is God were the first end or the manifestation of his glory there should be no Christ and if there were no Christ there should be no elect therefore altogether by the same reason the creatures are therefore said to be theirs who are elect because they are for the elect and the elect are the ends of them and so if the elect should not have been no natures of the creatures should have been Pag. ibid. l. 9 10 c. He hath chosen us in him before the constitution of the world Now hee speaks of Christ man to wit of Christ the head as Hierome expresseth upon that place and it appeares most plainly by the text Certainly either I am deceived or Saint Paul intends not that onely to wit that God hath chosen us in Christ before the true and reall constitution of the world which was made in time now six thousand yeares agoe For that God had chosen us in Christ before the temporall creation of all things was no great thing nor worthy of so great a pen for so he chose oxen and stones For he decreed them and fore-saw them before the creation of things in time or before he made any thing in time now before the constitution of the world and from everlasting he devised them and determined to make them Therefore Paul intends some higher and more divine matter to wit that God in his eternity when he devised with himselfe the creation of the world even before that in order of reason he devised with himselfe concerning the election of his elect and even then I say he had intended and fore-seen Christ and in him he had chosen the predestinate lin 27 28 c. a most efficacious reason Every one willing things ordinately first willeth the end and of means those means which are nearer to the end But Christ and the predestinate and therefore all supernaturals are nearer to the end that is to the manifestation of the divine goodnesse than all naturall things therefore supernaturals are willed by God before naturals and the manifestation of the goodnesse of God before them all because we consider it as the end of all lin 37. 38. After what order and manner things are determined with God Pag. 30.