speak in the 9. 10. and 11. chapters Lastly we shall God willing make it appear in sundry particulars that these Adversaries by wresting of some things and omitting of others pervert the Apostles words to a strange sense how soever they think to get advantage by striking others first with that imputation And first though they account it plain and without difficulty that the Apostles meaning v. 5 6 is that not all the Israelits not all the children of Abrahams flesh specially not such as boasted of the observation of the Law were therefore in the state of salvation or should be saved yet in truth he plainly means another thing namely that all Israel all that were the seed of Abraham and children of the flesh were not that Israel that seed those children to whom the promise was made that is were not they touching whom God by his promise declared his purpose of election mentioned v. 11. For though all are saved that receiv the promise by faith and none by the works of the Law yet the Apostle in this place neither speaks a word of salvation as the effect of the promise but of election as the cause therof nor yet of mens receiving the promise by faith but of Gods making it according to election that so the purpose of God and promise manifesting it might stand according to election v. 11 that the word of God might take effect v. 6. even the word of promise At this time will I come c. v. 9 they are then called children of the promise not because they received but because the promise Sara shall haue a Son c. was made unto them according to the election of grace and stableness of Gods purpose v. 8. 9. 11 which promise also they did in time receiv by faith according to the election of that remnant from the rest the promise following the purpose of election and faith and salvation by it following the purpose and promise Though Israel that is all which were of Israel obtained not that which he seeketh for yet the election hath obtained it even the remnant of Israel to whom Gods promise is according to the election of grace in regard of which remnant according to election the word of God is effectuall and the promise fulfilled touching the yonger son of Rebeca of whose two sonns it was said before they were born or had done either good or evill the elder shall serv the yonger And as they truely affirm that neither birth nor works did prefer with God so I demand here what those works were by which Esau sought for justification The Scriptures expresly term him a prophane person that is a despiser of goodnes yea of his very birth-right which was a speciall legall priviledg How then sought he to be preferred with God and justified for birth or works Or how doth this example of Esau fit their imagined plain exposition specially to proue that the children of Abrahams flesh were not in the salvation who so much boasted of being Moses disciples in the observation of the Law when as the Law of Moses was not yet given nor the Law-giver born Their words following that God purposeth to prefer those that seek it by his free election through faith in Christ are true in themselvs but not in their sense Their meaning is that God purposed to saue them effectually that should beleev in Christ Iesus whereupon should be meant in this place onely such a purpose of God as was no more towards Iakob then towards Esau for God by their doctrine purposed to chuse Esau if he beleeved and not Iakob but upon his beleeving first But the Apostle speaks more then evidently of such a purpose of God as was towards Iakob particularly and alone excluding Esau. Besides the standing of this purpose and election are here noted as two distinct things of which election is the former and that according to which this purpose of God stands whereas they make them one and the same accounting election nothing but the purpose of bestowing salvation upon them that beleev Thirdly the Apostle cannot mean such a purpose and election as presupposeth faith in Christ which they would haue seeing he expresly affirms it to haue been when the children had done neither good nor evill Is to beleev in Christ to puâ— on the wedding garment by faith and obedience to submit to the righteousnesse of God which they will haue the condition upon vvhich election depends and the quality for which God elects the persons in whom he finds it are these to doe no good with with these men and is the doing of the contrary to doe no evill Lastly he saith not that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of vvorks but of faith as they say but not of vvorks but of him that calleth that is as followeth that vvill haue mercy on whom he vvill haue mercy By which it is plain that Paul doth not in this chapter as chap. 3. and 4 and Gal. 4 oppose works and faith but vvorks and Gods calling He should haue said for their purpose that the purpose of God stands not of works but of faith or of him that beleeveth and not as hee doth for the purpose of the Holy Ghost of him that calleth Shewing thereby his meaning to be in this whole discourse that the obtaining of righteousnesse or standing of Gods purpose in its actuall effect depends upon God alone according to three degrees here expressed first his gracious purpose of election in himselfe towards some secondly his free promise manifesting his purpose thirdly his effectuall calling in which his vvord of promise hath effect and his purpose stands firm and undisappointed notwithstanding the unbeleif of the body of Abrahams seed Their making Iakob and Esau types as they doe is like the rest or worse The Scriptures are not to be drawn from their natural simple sense without apparant warrant It is the high way to heresie to be bold in framing typical expositions And with what spirit these men are led this way appears by their expounding the parable Luk. 15 making the Iews the elder brother vvho sought salvation by vvorks and the Gentles the yonger in the offer of the Gospell seeking salvation onely by the free promise of God wheras the plain meaning of Christ is onely to avow his preaching to the Publicans and sinners resorting unto him against the pride and envy of the Pharisies those Publicans and sinners being Iews as well as the other Secondly I demand what it was in which Iakob typed out beleevers seeking righteousnesse by God and in which Esau typed out workers seeking justification by their own works The contrary in Esau is expressed in the Scriptures Lastly seeing it cannot be denyed but that Iakob as a faithfull and godly man was in time actually beloved of God and Esau as godlesse and prophane actually hated it must needs follow that God before the world was
according to which he himselfe works in loue or hatred not of that according to which he commands and appoints men to worke These men in truth confound all things setting mans will where Gods should stand God saith on whom I will they say on him that himselfe wils or seeketh as he ought c. The same Idol of mans wil they advance set up v. 16 where in stead of Gods shewing mercy they put mans beleeving mercy The Lord by willing and running v. 16 excludes whatsoever is of or in man and either within or without him and draws all to himselfe alone In the stead of God shewing mercy they put themselvs and their free will receiving mercy by God offered as the proper cause of difference between man and man The 17 vers For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh c they handle very sleightly saying something such as it is about Gods hardening Pharoahs heart but not medling at all with the place according to the coherence which it hath with the words going before unto which yet the Holy Ghost strongly tyeth them in saying For the Scripture saith c. And herein they are in truth wise in their generation These words must needs answer to the latter part of the objection of unrighteousnesse with God in hating that is as they interpret it in rejecting such as seek righteousnesse by the works of the Law as did the fleshly Israelits But wherein I wonder did Pharaoh so How sought he justification by the works of the Law Who so professedly despised the God therof saying Who is the Lord that I should obey his voyce Did they see that this example of Pharaoh and their exposition of the place could not stand together and therfore chose to cut off the coherence so firmly tying the words together rather then to let fall their preconceived erroneous exposition Whatsoever they intend herein we know it is brought for an example of Gods absolute but righteous power of hardening rather then another whom he will and not whom he finds most deserving it for whom finds he not too much deserving it if he would deal in like manner with all as it is said whom that is which rather then other he will he hardneth v. 18. And let it be diligently minded that the Apostle here opposeth Gods shewing mercy to some and his hardening of others and not his shewing mercy to some and his condemning of others The adversaries by Gods shewing mercy would haue us understand his saving of such as beleev and repent And then on the contrary by Gods hardening should onely be meant his not shewing mercy to but punishing condemning such as doe not beleev nor repent But we know that the not hearing God voyce not beleeving and repenting follow upon hardnesse of heart Wherupon the Lord promiseth that in the day of his mercy and pittie he will take from his people their stony and hard hearts And so touching Pharaoh the Scriptures expresly shew that his hardnesse of heart was the cause of his unbeliefe and disobedience Whereupon I conclude evidently that the Apostle here speaks not of such a mercy onely as follows faith as the Adversaries would haue him but as goes before it also as he speaks of such a hardening as goâ—s before unbelief Note we here also that the Apostle in this place propounds Gods will as the cause of his dealing diversly with divers persons and not of his saving such as are to be saved after a divers manner from that which some namely the carnall Israelites imagined ADVERSARIES NOW to return to them They lay down a question thus What is the meaning of the hardening of Pharaoh And in their answer wholly passe by God as no doer in the businesse They make Pharaoh a doer in hardening his own heart which is true and Satan a doer in hardening Pharaohs heart and this is true also but God no doer but a sufferer only in giving him up that is as else where they expound it in leaving him to himselfe and to Satan to be hardened DEFENCE BVT first the Text imports a further thing in God whom it brings in thus speaking For this same purpose haue I raised thee up that I might shew my power in thee and that my name might be declared through all the earth Is Gods raysing up which is his hardening v. 8 nothing but his letting a man lie still and fall down lower then he was before Besides the end which was the glory of Gods power and name shews God to be a worker Every end must haue an efficient or working cause The glory of God was not the end of Satans work nor of Pharaohs work and therefore of Gods work in it Thirdly God hardened Pharaohs heart by sending Moses and Aaron unto him as by an occasion though not a cause as the Law is the occasion of sin and the Gospell the occasion of strife and variance Fourthly God deprived Pharaoh of the use of common sense and reason otherwise it could not haue been that after so many experiments by him taken of Gods powerfull hand against him and for the Israelits he should so furiously as he did haue followed them into the middest of the Sea Lastly besides and aboue all these God in whose hands the hearts of Kings are as the rivers of waters to turn them whether he will hardened Pharaohs heart by ordering his pride cruelty and contempt of God to this effect of obstinacy appearing in his most desperate course without which powerfull and unerring hand of God all the former notwithstanding it might haue come to passe that Pharaohs heart might haue been softned by the miracles and means used and so Gods word which before had foretold his hardening might not haue taken effect which is contrary to the truth and drift of the Apostle in this place God therefore was not onely a sufferer but a doer in the hardening of Pharaoh ADVERSARIES THeir next question is How consider you these words Who hath resisted his will v. 19. Vnto which they frame this untoward Answer viz. that those Iews seeking salvation by those works of the Law did not resist Gods will and so gaue him no cause to complain DEFENCE NOthing lesse as we haue shewed and shall further manifest by and by from the Apostles answer v. 20. The meaning is plain The words v. 19 Thou wilt then say unto me why doth he yet finde fault for who hath resisted his will are an objection against that which immediately went before whom he will he hardeneth Now against this it may colourably bee objected that if God hardens whom he will hee hath then no reason to complain of mens being hardened in disobedience for Who can resist his will if he will harden them A piece of an eie is sufficient to see the plainnesse of this exposition and coherence Their discourse then following that God would saue all and haue all repent amend and beleev
a necessity which takes away freedom and voluntarinesse from men but then they rather suffer then doe For example the striking or thrusting of a man with such violence as that he is compelled thereby to stagger or fall this necessity of compulsion depriues me of all freedom to this bodily motion so as I stagger or fall unwillingly but this comes from an externall principle or beginning working violently and from without me But this is nothing to that other necessity in regard of God causing and effecting the good in and by the creature according to its kinde and suffering and ordering the evill person and thing according to its kind with which mans freedom may well stand And first whatsoever God doth he doth it both most freely and most necessarily well So the elect Angels doe the will of God most voluntarily and yet most necessarily So did Christ as man the will of his Father so freely as none can doe any thing more and yet as necessarily as it was necessary for God not to sinne On the contrary the devils doe evill both most necessarily being by these mens own grant unchangeably evill and yet most willingly as carryed thereunto withall their power Christ saith it must needs be that offences come and the Apostle that there must be heresies in the Church If then freedom of will can stand with no manner of necessity the authours of these heresies and offences sinne not therin for all sinnes specially of this kinde are voluntary I add in the last place that the better any man or Angell is he doth good the more both necessarily and willingly and the worse any evill both waies Neither will it seem strange unto us that one and the same action comes under so divers considerations as in one regard to be voluntary contingent and casuall and in another necessary if we consider how divers agents concur and meet together in producing it No work of man is so mans alone as that God hath not some hand in it in sustaining and ordering the person and work yea in effecting that which is good in it as all that is which hath in it any created being or order What hinders then but that the same thing may in regard of man as the particular and immediate cause be voluntary and contingent and yet in regard of God the highest and generall cause necessary We daily see the truth of this in proportion amongst men the meeting of Ahab and Eliah was in respect of Ahab casuall but in respect of Eliah of destinate counsell These things thus cleered we will come to the exposition of the words of Ezechiel so oft and vehemently urged by these men and others which are that God takes not pleasure in the death of a sinner but that he turn from his way and liue I answer first that the Lord takes no delight in the death of a sinner that repents and turns from his wicked way but otherwise if the sinner repent not the Lord takes delight in his death not for the misery of the creature but for the glory of his justice shining therin Of such the Lord testifies that he wil laugh at their calamity mock when their fear cometh And considering that the death and destruction of the wicked is Gods own just and holy work for their sins who will deny that God delights in it Secondly for sinne who was ever so wicked as to imagine that God takes pleasure in it It pleaseth him for his holy ends to suffer sin and to order the creature sinning by his own freewill election of evil as hath been formerly proved Thirdly it must be noted that the Prophet speaks there of such sinners onely as to whom the word comes saying Turn yee turn yee from your evill waies for why will yee die ô house of Israel Whence we doe gather evidently these two particulars First that the Prophet doth not here speak of all men universally as they conceiu but onely of the house of Israel or of such as to whom he◠sends his Prophets to call them to repentance secondly that he speaks not of that decree of the Lord willing which is accompanied with the powerfull work of his grace by which hee will giue repentance to wicked men instructed in the truth by his servants but onely of that degree of his will which stands in commanding that which is good and in approving of it if it be performed And so we grant it to be the Lords pleasure and will that all repent to whom the Word is preached It is true which they add that Adam and others sinned against the will of God but not that any ever sinned against the secret will of God as they affirm The will of God is no law to man till it be revealed and where there is no law there is no transgression It is also truely sayd that the Iewes unwillingnesse to be gathered to Christ was against Gods and Christs will that is his commanding will for he would that is commanded and they would not but disobeyed but that it was against that decree of Gods willing which sets his almightie power awor◠that I deny For God could if thus he would haue giuen them repentance and drawn them to his son Whatsoever he thus wills he can do That which they add as an eye-salue to cure our blindnes namely that we haue nothing to do with Gods secret wil not revealed in his word is true in regard of our obedience to God expectation from him but not absolutely as they conceiue The particular events of things in the world though not so much as insinuated in the scriptures concern us when they come to passe so as we may and ought to say it was the will of God they should so be either his will to work them if good or to suffer and order them and their doers if evill ADVERSARIES NExt comes into consideration a speciall distinction of ours which is that God is the author of the action or fact but not of the sin of the fact or crime Over which they insult and in it over all learned men though they mention Calvin onely with high contempt and great triumph before the victory calling it a merely fabulous ridle and marvellous sophistication telling us that a spade is a spade c. but in truth shewing themselues sitter to medle with a spade and a mattock then with those high mysteries Let us see their reasons In the first whereof they make us say that God is the author of the very fact and deed of Adams sin yea of adultery theft murder c. DEFENCE WE deny their charge and answer by distinction that Adams taking and eating the forbidden fruit Davids adultery Ioahs murther and the like are to be considered two waies First naturally and as they are motions in nature performed by mans natural created faculties and powers of soul and body secondly morally as
purposed in himself accordingly to loue the one and hate the other seeing whatsoever God in time doth by way of emanation or application to and upon the creature that he purposed to do as he doth it from eternity If the Apostle v. 13 Iakob haue I loved and Esau haue I hated confirm his former doctrine as they say then he confirms the doctrine of Gods eternall and stedfast election from eternity And their boldnesse is excessiue in calling them perverters of the words of Paul which will haue this to be before Iakob and Esau were born seeing the Apostle adds this Scripture out of Malachy to shew the reason of that contained in the former which both Moses and Paul with him expresly affirm to haue been before the children were born namely that the highest cause of the elder to wit Esau his serving the yonger to wit Iakob was Gods loue to Iakob and hatred of Esau. That following is partly true namely that v. 12. 13 is not shewed for what cause God loved Iakob and hated Esau for that is shewed so far as God would haue us see v. 15. 18. But fals where they say that they shew not when this was For this loue and hatred was and before when God said The elder shall serv the yonger and this he said when the children were not yet born the effect of which was that the purpose of God according to election might stand in after time and that both in respect of the two persons themselvs and of the bodies of the Nations to come of them though not of every particular And so indeed they are to be considered both as instances in their persons and heads of their Nations the Scriptures accordingly every where testifying that God loved and chose from the rest the Israelits in their fathers Abraham Isaak and Iakob according to the tenour of his gracious promise and covenant of being their God and the God of their Seed expressing his eternall and most stedfast purpose of will That which they adde in the last place of Gods not hating to wit actually and destroying without desert is most true But when we speak of Gods loving or hating any before the world we mean onely of his decree of loving which he actually exerciseth in time for Christs righteousnesse by faith applyed upon the so loved and so of his decree of hating which hatred he comes not to exercise actually but for sin deserving it God from eternity purposed in time to glorifie his justice in the deserved destruction of Esau and not of Iakob Of this different decree of God touching Esau and not Iakob and his leaving him in and to his own corruption and hardning him in the same rather then Iakob our reason is the will of God but of Gods actuall hating and destroying of him rather then the other the Scriptures shew sufficient reason to wit his obstinacy in sin the onely cause of his destruction Vers. 14 upon the premises that God of two alike in themselvs and without respect of good or evill in the one or other had loved the one and hated the other an objection is framed that by this injustice might seem to be with God which the Apostle denyes with God forbid This objection our Adversaries understand to be upon Gods rejecting the fleshly Israelites for contemning their salvation offered them by faith in Christ as Esau was rejected for contemning his birth-right But herein as children skip where they cannot reade they leav out the principall part of the objection which is not onely moved upon Gods rejecting some but withall upon his receiving of others The Apostle in the words before going which occasion the objection mentions not onely Esau the elder hated and serving but also Iakob the yonger loved and served so in answering the same objection he speaks first and most of Gods shewing mercy and compassion and last and least of his hardning any Now whether they have omitted this part of the objection in cunning or inconsideratenesse themselves best know This is certain that the adjoyning it qutie overturns their exposition For comparing together two such persons as whereof the one glories in his own righteousnesse as perfectly answering to the holinesse and righteousnesse of the Law justifying himselfe when the Law condemnes him despising the grace and mercy of God in Christ offered and making him a lyar in not receiving the testimony which he gives of his Son and joyning with these blasphemy and persecution and all injurious dealing against them that doe receive this grace of Christ all which those proud justiciaries and carnall Israelits did and the other as honoring Gods justice and holinesse in the sense and confession of sin and misery due therefore flying to the mercie of God in Christ and by receiving the testimony of his Sonn setting to his seal that God is true and therewith repenting with all his heart which every true beleever doth that God now should shew mercie upon the latter of these and not upon the former cannot minister to any man indued with common sense occasion of objecting injustice to God seeing the light of nature teacheth every naturall man the reason of a difference And if any should be so senselesse as to object injustice to God in such a case as they conceive the objecter to be yet was not the Apostle so witlesse as to fly for answer to the absolute will of God and to plead that God will doe so because he will or pleaseth to doe it as v. 15. 18. I will haue mercie on whom I will have mercie c. Which answer of the Apostle also ministers matter of further and more difficult objection as appeares v. 19. 20. Whereas if the objection had been cast in their mould a child could have answered it and sayd that it had been a most just and equall thing for God to have received and loved the one rather then the other considering how the one honored the holynesse justice truth and mercy of God which the other dishonored and despised They erre therefore in applying to this purpose Rom. 2. 4. 5. Neither doth the Apostle there speak of a mercy and bounty to be shewed to them that beleeve and repent as they conceive but of that which goes before repentance as a means to lead unto it But here he speaks of a higher work of Gods shewing mercy namely the purpose of his will according to election to glory and the means thereunto And truely these mens boldnesse is too great in putting for God hath mercy on whom he wil have mercy God hath mercie on them that seek him by the means that he himselfe appoynts For though it be most true that God hath mercie on such yet the Apostle here speaks no more of Gods appoynting or commanding will for his shewing of mercy then of his appoynting or commanding vvill for his hardening v 18 whom he will he hardens He speaks of that will
haue not known them The Heathens therfore if we will giue credit to the word of God had not the knowledg of Gods word so not of the Gospel which is most hidden as being of supernatural revelation onely Of the same Gentiles the Apostle testifieth that God in times past suffered them all to walk in their own wayes that is did not manifest Christ unto them for faith in his bloud and repentance through him but onely his power and God-head giving them rain from heaven and other bodily blessings to witnesse the same With this accords that elswhere The times of this ignorance which had been amongst the Gentiles before Christ God regarded not or winked at but now commandeth all men every where as well Gentiles as Iewes to repent The Apostle opposeth the time now in which he preached to the former times and shews that God now and not in times past called all to repentance by the preaching of the word To conclude the same Apostle expresly teacheth that there is no salvation but by beleeving in the name of the Lord Iesus by the preaching of the word and Gospell by preachers sent of God for that end But now for any to say that every particular person in the world hath had or hath the word of the Gospell preached unto him by a preacher sent of God for that purpose were an assertion of him whose impudencie better deserved a club then any grounds that possibly he could lay a refutation considering both the infallible experience of all ages and testimony of scripture to the contrary and that there were places even in the latter end of the last Apostles time where Christ had not been named nor spoken of Next follows to be examined their exposition upon Rom. 9 in the introduction whereunto they mingle truth with errour They deal craftily in bearing the Reader in hand that the disputation of Paul herein is hard and the matter darkly handled that so they may turn the thoughts of the Reader from it or at least dim them with prejudice against that plain and evident truth of Gods free election and reprobation joyned therewith Both which things he sets down most clearly though the reason of the Lords different dealing towards them that are in themselves alike he makes unsearchable and determines in the free purpose of his will if men did not trouble the pure and cleare water of Gods sanctuary with the foul feet of their corrupt glosse They also erre in makeing this one of the places in Pauls Epistles of which the Apostle Peter speaketh 2. Pet. 3. 16. Peter doth not say neither wil the Greek text beare it that there are things hard in Pauls Epistles but that in those matters in his Epistles to wit about the day of the Lords comming and the dissolution of the heavens and elements and the new heavens and new earth promised were things hard to understand c. Their perverting of the Scriptures which they lay to the charge of others both in the Epistles of Peter and Paul and every where else wee haue formerly disclosed Neither do we affirm as they here charge us that God reprobates either the greatest number or any as they understand and elsewhere expound themselves that is predestinates them to condemnation without any condition Hee predestinates none to condemnation or which is all one purpose to condemne none but for sin freely by them to be practised as the fore-going condâ—tion and onely deserving cause of condemnation Neither say we as they slander us that God denieth means of salvation to men because he would haue them perish but as the Apostle reacheth that he hardens by that and other his holy dispensations whom he will that he might shew his wrath and make his power known upon the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction ADVERSARIES LEt us now come to their exposition The scope say thâ—y as of the whole Epistle so of this chapter is that not the Law but the Gospell is the power of God to salvation and that we are not justified by the workes of the Law but by faith even that faith which Abraham had DEFENCE AS the proper and particular scope of divers parts of this Epistle is divers so do they misse of the drift of this particular chapter which is not as they conceive to prove justification not to be by the workes of the Law but by the faith of Christ in the Gospell But to shew that the first and highest cause why of all mankinde faln in Adam one is cleared and another not is onely the good pleasure and free wil of God and not mans deservings and yet that God in so choosing or electing one before another doth nothing unjustly as shall appeare in the particulars hereafter to bee explained and may in the mean while be gathered by these three generall reasons First for the Apostle when of purpose he handles the matter of justification by faith chap. 3. 4. doth so oft and againe iterate and inculcate the terms of Faith and Iustification almost in every verse whereas here he never so much as once mentions either of them in the disputation it selfe which is to the end of vers 24. where he descends from the matter of election to the calling of the elected both of Iewes and Gentiles Secondly it is unreasonable to conceive that the Apostle having in the third and fourth chapter so fully handled and so expresly concluded that matter of Iustification by faith and not by works and chap. 7. the effect and end thereof Peace with God and perseverance to salvation and chap. 6. the matter of sanctification and chap. 7. the imperfection of that sanctification in this life and chap. 8. the afflictions of the faithfull and their perseverance notwithstanding to the death should now again without any occasion and against all order return to the same matter of justification so fully handled and ended before This might wel agree with these mens wandrings in this their treatise but agrees not with the wisdom either divine or humane wherewith the Apostle was furnished Much more absurd is it to imagine that having formerly handled that subject matter of justification so plainly as he hath done chap. 3 and 4. he should returne to handle the same matter so darkly and obscurely as all the adversaries to the truth and fautors of this conceit are compelled to confesse he hath done in this place Thirdly if this were the Apostles proper drift what needed he to have made such deep protestation of his hearty sorrow for the Iewes as he did more in this place then in the former where he handled that matter more clearly then here It was in truth no other thing that moved the man of God to these sad and sorrowfull protestations then to remov the offence which might be taken at the Iews rejection and calling of the Gentiles in their stead of which and the highest cause thereof hee was now to