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
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
to will their repentance after they are damned or no If no then is hee changed if ever hee willed their repentance 7. Certainly he speaks of men defiled with originall and actuall sinne for hee speakes of such whom he exhorts to repentance yet this hinders not but that it may proceed of his antecedent will for nothing but finall impenitency makes way for Gods consequent will concerning damnation 8. Saint Paul of all his labours tendred to the good of all sorts professeth that hee suffered them for Gods Elect How much more in Gods intention was the Ministry of his Prophets for the Elect sake The question is not so much about Gods delight in the death of the wicked as about his delight concerning their repentance and life and this hath no parallel Ezech. 18. applying it to other then Gods Elect. 9. The third Answer though it seemes to mee not congruous enough in respect of life because revealed will in this distinction is usually taken onely for Gods commandement and life is no precept yet is it congruous enough in respect of repentance for it is generally commanded and consequently Gods will of life if it be called his will revealed may be reduced to congruity as consequent to repentance which God commands to all and consequently hee may be said by his revealed will to will the salvation of all The Answer to this is nothing to purpose as sticking upon the termes secret and revealed and not applied to the usuall acceptions of this distinction which is onely to signifie Gods will of commandement which wee all know to be revealed and Gods will of purpose which mostly is not revealed 10. It is untrue that it is Gods good pleasure that all should repent for the will of Gods good pleasure in the acception of all that ever I read is onely of that which God will have come to passe and consequently of what shall come to passe not of what should come to passe to wit of mans duty that is generally accounted voluntas signi in distinction from voluntas beneplaciti and in speciall wee may call it voluntas praecepti and distinguish it from voluntas propositi this is What God will have to bee done that is what God will have to be our duty to doe And thus farre it may be accounted the will of Gods good pleasure as you call it But then Gods displeasure following hath no congruous opposition hereunto as when you say It is his displeasure if they repent not the contrary whereunto is not as you shape it It is his good pleasure that all men should repent but rather thus It is his good pleasure if they doe repent That distinction tends to meere confusion Neither yet doe I like this expression shaped never so congruously rather it should runne thus God is well pleased when men doe repent and most displeased when they doe not repent which is most true but least to the present purpose as touching the distinction ventilated betweene us concerning voluntas signi voluntas beneplaciti Your second instance of voluntas beneplaciti is no lesse extravagant as when you make the object thereof thus If they repent they shall not perish If they repent not they shall perish for promises and rewards are but adjuncts to voluntas signi and nothing secret but plainly revealed But to whom God will make his commandements back'd with promises and threats effectuall to the working of repentance this is a secret and this wee commonly account voluntas beneplaciti When you adde saying Thus the will of God revealed in a distinct axiome is alwayes consonant to his revealed will and never frustrated You continue still in a miserable confusion worse rather then better as when you talke of a disjunct axiome in reference to that which went before when no disjunct axiome at all went before but certaine conditionate axiomes as these If they repent they shall not perish If they repent not they shall perish whereas disjunct oppositions are such as these They shall repent or no They shall perish or no And to say such axiomes are consonant to Gods secret will is a wild expression whereas indeed they are neither consonant nor dissonant save onely in enuntiating that in an indeterminate manner which Gods will hath made determinate and in that respect it is dissonant enough Of the cause of the death of a sinner there needeth not to be any question for undoubtedly the sinne of man is the cause thereof in the way of a cause meritorious but not in the way of a cause naturally efficient And as undoubted it is that Gods will is the cause thereof as a Judge in the way of a cause naturally efficient but not in the way of a cause meritorious And as cleare it is that onely the meritorious cause is the chiefe cause in this kind for as much as by the rendring thereof alone satisfaction is made to him that demands the reason why such a one suffereth death But I wonder what you meane to change the former Translation of the Text thus I have no pleasure in the wicked mans death into another thus I will not the death of a sinner For is it not God that inflicteth death and doth hee not doe all things according to the counsell of his will Ephes 1. 11. Yet if it were so to be rendred it will nothing advantage you And in no other sense can it be said that hee doth not will it then in that in which hee is said not to punish willingly Lam. 3. according to the Latine phrase when hee doth not punish Animi causa but by reason of some provocation the sinne of man urging and moving him thereunto as is fairely intimated in that Hos 11. 8. How shall I give thee up Ephraim how shall I deliver thee Israel And Esay 3. They provoke the eyes of his glory For a second ground In the Covenant of Workes you may see as in a glasse what the purpose of God is in the manifesting his Justice upon the world of mankind as in the Covenant of Grace you may see as in a mirrour what the purpose of God is in manifesting his mercy upon the Elect For as it is in men renued after the Image of God so likewise it is in God himselfe Such as his Covenant or Promise is such is his Purpose God doth covenant and promise in the Covenant of Grace to give life to the Elect out of his grace in Christ So here doth God covenant and promise in the Covenant of Workes to give life to Adam and all his posterity if they continue in obedience of his Law or if breaking this Law they return again to him by repentance as it is described at large Gen. 4. 7. Levit. 18. 5. Ezek. 18. 5. 20. 11. 40. 21. Gal. 3. 12. Surely then the purpose of Gods just retribution is to give life to the world of mankind upon condition of their obedience or of their repentance
the younger to the participation of his free love and to soveraignty over his Brother and depressed the elder to the condition of a servant and as a servant reserved for him just dealing but not fatherly love might not this seeme an unequall partiality with God to deale so unequally with persons equall To resolve this doubt the Apostle could not have cleered God from unrighteousnesse by pleading the sin of Esau which deserved that hee should bee so dealt withall for neither did Jacobs sin deserve better and besides the Apostle had said before God gave out these Oracles which pronounced his different respect of them without all consideration of good or evill in either of them viz. before they had done either good or evill Therefore to satisfie the objection and cleare Gods righteousnesse the Apostle wisely alledgeth testimonie of Scripture to prove Gods absolute power and ability to shew mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will to harden When you say this hardning of Pharaoh though an effect of Gods hatred of Pharaoh yet was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh your meaning seems to bee this that it is not at all an effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill yet it is no lesse then the not writing of his name in the book of life as touching the communicating of saving grace and glory neither do wee acknowledge it to bee any more like as Aquinas doth not now the consequent of this kinde or measure of hatred in holy Scripture is no lesse then the worshipping of the beast Rev. 13. 8. nothing lesse then the obduration of Pharaoh The obduration of the children of Israel was no greater then such as was consequent unto this that God did not give them an heart to perceive and eies to see and ears to heare Deut. 29. 4. And this of not giving hearts to perceive c. undoubtedly is a consequent even to that hatred which you are content to attribute unto God concerning Esau But you helpe your self with a complicate proposition and flie to an immediate effect which alone you deny in this case for as much as the hardning of Pharaoh as you say presupposed sin committed by him but very improvidently For if it bee not an immediate effect of the like hatred that God bare unto Esau then in accurate consideration it is to bee acknowledged an effect thereof Only there is some effect thereof more immediate then this and what I pray was that was it Pharaohs sin for of no other doe you make the least intimation the more improvident is your expression intimating thereby that Pharaohs sin was a more immediate effect in Pharaoh of the like hatred God bare to Esau then this obduration But how doe you prove that Pharaohs hardening was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which God bare to Esau to wit because it presupposed sin But I deny this Argument neither doe you discoursing at large give your selfe to the proving of it but onely suppose it By the same reason you might say that salvation is not the immediate effect of election unto salvation because salvation in men of ripe years presupposeth faith repentance and good workes Nay you may as well say that Gods giving of grace is not an immediate effect of Gods love to any man because in most men of ripe years it presupposeth many good works In Saul it presupposed his zeale and his righteousnesse according to the Law which was unblameable If you say that Sauls righteousnesse whatsoever it was before his calling was no fruit of his love I may with more probability affirme that Pharaohs sin which preceded his obduration was no effect of Gods hatred If you say that though such righteousnesse in Saul was no moving cause to God to give him saving grace In like manner I say that no sin in Pharaoh was a moving cause in God to deny him saving grace For if it were then either by necessity of nature or by the constitution of God Not by necessity of nature for undoubtedly God could have pardoned this sin of his and changed his heart as well as he pardoned the sins of Manasses the sins of the Jews in crucifying the son of God Act. 2. the sins of Saul in persecuting Gods Saints and changed all their hearts Nor by any constitution of God for shew mee if you can any such constitution of God And if you would but explicate wherein the hardening of Pharaoh did consist I presume it would clearely appeare that the meere pleasure of Gods will is the cause of it like as it is the meere pleasure of God that he doth not harden others in like manner But when we carry our selves in the clouds of generallties we are very apt to deceive not others onely if they will be deceived but our selves also Againe you seem to speake of Pharaohs hardening mentioned Exod. 9. 16. And indeed for this cause have I appointed thee to shew my power in thee c. Whereas from the first time that Moses was sent unto him hee was hardened and that by God according as God had told Moses before-hand that hee would harden him As for his sin before ever Moses was sent unto him you doe not take any speciall notice thereof at all but whatsoever it were as suppose the cruell edict of his in commanding the male children of the Hebrews to be cast into the River like as God answered him most congruously in his works first causing the waters of Aegypt to bee turned into blood and in the last place making the waters of the red Sea the grave of Pharaoh and of his Host was this horrible sin any lesse then a consequent to more then ordinary obdurationâ— for even heathen men are seldom exposed to such unnatural courses So that if this obduration were an effect of Gods hatred but not immediate supposing sin according to the manner of your Discourse then you must be put to devise some other sin as precedent to this obduration And whereas that sin also cannot be denyed to be a consequent to Gods denyall of effectuall grace to abstaine from sin we shall never come to an end till the cause of all these obdurations be at length resolved into originall sin And what share I pray you hath the world of mankind therein which Gods elect have not When you tel us the hardening is a punishment of sin it were very fit you should deal plainly tel us in what operation of God this work of hardening doth consist which I make no doubt would cleare all All confesse that God is not the cause of hardnesse of heart in any man but man being borne in hardnesse of heart Ezek. 36. 3. 1. God is said to harden not infundendo malitiam sed non infundendo gratiam By leaving him thereunto whereby it comes
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
presupposall of the carelesse or wilfull disobedience of the world either in refusing the meanes of grace in Christ or abusing other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature God rejecteth or reprobateth them from all hope of life and purposeth to condemne them for their sinnes to the glorifying of his power justice and wrath Non-election absolute is an act of soveraignitie you grant which also you call preterition Let us speake distinctly that the fairer way may bee opened to the discovery of truth and error Preterition may be in time as when in giving grace to some God passeth by others or it may have place as well in not purposing to give grace to some when he doth purpose to give grace to others which purpose of his was from everlasting and preterition in this sense is all one with non-election Now this non-election is either a negation of election unto grace or a negation of election unto glory It is here proposed indefinitely and I conceive it is understood of both Now it is true that John Scot and Francis Mayro after him did sometimes shape the order of Gods decrees in this manner In the first instant of nature Peter and Judas being offered to the divine consideration Deus volebat Petro gloriam nihil volebat Judae in the second instant Deus volebat Petro gratiam nihil volebat Judae In the third instant Deus volebat utrūque existere in massa corrupta wherehence it followeth in the last place sayeth hee that the one shall infallibly be saved the other damned This sometimes seemed plausible to me and I did preferre it and still doe before the perverse orders of Gods decrees devised by many For est quiddam prodire tenus we have the shorter way to our jorneys end But in what instant shall God velle Judae damnationem not till after all this If it be last in intention shall it not be first in execution according to your owne rules so much insisted on in the first place The Dominicans and particularly Alvarez professeth in opposition to these negative decrees of Scotus that the decree of reprobation is positive and one reason amongst others is this because if reprobation were meerly negative then all men and Angels possible though never existent might be justly said to be reprobate as well as the reprobate men and Angels that are or shall be existent For it is most true that they are non electi in as much as one of contradictions is verified de omni ente non ente therefore certainly there goes more to reprobation then a meere negation of election And in my judgment this reason of his is a weighty reason Therefore they professe plainly that God did not only not purpose to give Judas glory but he did purpose to deny him glory that is ordaine that he should be without glory Secondly that he did not only not purpose to give him grace but also did purpose to deny him grace or ordaine that he should be without grace at least without such grace as should bring him to salvation And indeed if God doth purpose that Judas shall exist in the corrupt masse and withall doth not purpose to give him grace and glory doth it not manifestly follow that he shall exist without grace and glory for how shall he come by glory or grace if not from God Or how shall God deny him one or other but according to the Counsell of his will seeing he workes all things according to the counsell of his will Therefore God did not only not purpose that he should have grace and glory but did positively purpose that he should be without both and it is Bradwardins opinion that no pure negative act can be attributed unto God but such as is aequivalently resolved into an act positive thus If Deus non volebat gloriam Judae then Deus volebat illi non glorium that is that he should not have glory so of grace so of existencie if God did not will the existency of more Angels then are it followes that God did will that more Angels then are should not exist and that this positive act doth better become the nature of God then the former negative by reason of his most perfect actuality And as for the purpose of forsaking the creature and excluding it from glory that is no other then Gods purpose not to give certaine creatures any such grace as whereby they shall be brought to glory And seeing this is acknowledged by you I see no cause why you should stick in acknowledging a purpose of God to forsake some creatures and exclude them from glory It is pity that the prejudice of phrases whereby it is expressed should strangle any doctrine when there lyes no just exception against it as untrue in the substance thereof When you confesse that God did not so love the world as the elect which is no more then to acknowledge a non-election of some if you expound it in reference unto his purpose of not giving grace and glory unto them as to the elect Aquinas himselfe acknowledgeth that odisse in Scripture phrase is no other then non velle alicui gratiam gloriam And it is well knowne that Mr. Moulin doth as eagerly oppose this absolute reprobation negative as absolute reprobation positive For he manifestly perceives that damnation follows as infallibly and unavoidably upon that doctrine of reprobation negative as upon this of reprobation positive If you conceive that God did give the world to Christ by him of grace to be bought to some kind of grace though not to salvation as he did the elect I doubt you are not able to bring any sufficient reason to justifie this wherehence it will follow that Christs death was meritorius unto them but not satisfactorie or if satisfactorie yet onely for some sinnes of theirs but not for all As touching the act positive of reprobation I trust when all things are rightly stated there will appeare to be as litle reason why there should be any difference between us in this act as in the former For what I pray is the meaning of this God ordaines none to condemnation but upon sinne presupposed Is there any other meaning of the words then this God hath ordained that no man shall be condemned but for sinne who ever denyed this What one of our Divines or Papists or of any Sect ever called this into question But herehence it only followes that sinne is the cause of condemnation and that by the ordination of God it follows not that sin is the cause of Gods ordination although I confesse the confusion of these is most frequent amongst our Divines amongst Papists though otherwise very learned and chiefly among the Arminians for the advantage of their cause yet see not a farre greater advantage to their cause then any yet hath been taken hold of by any one of them And this confusion alone is that which sets our Divines together
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
second act of positive Reprobation that I doe conceive the decree of Reprobation to be conversant about the world not as considered in massa primitus corrupta as in the first fall of Adam but as afterwards voluntarily falling from the meanes either of grace in the second Adam or of the knowledge of God in nature by some acts of carelesse or wilfull disobedience These two things above mentioned are granted not onely by the common consent of our Divines but by the common consent also of all Christians as I conceive whether Papists or Arminians yet observe I pray as touching the second that sinne is apparently made the cause onely of condemnation but not of Gods purpose whereas hitherto you have carryed the matter so as if sinne were the cause not onely of condemnation but also of Reprobation as much as to say of Gods purpose to condemne But to say that God for sinne did purpose to condemne for sin is so harsh an expression that in all my reading I never found any adventure thereupon Come wee to your proper opinion You doe not acknowledge any unwillingnesse in God to reward the men of this world with life upon any condition whatsoever I know no reason why you should conceive any of our Divines to differ from you in this although you had spoken out your meaning never so plainly and fully not onely denying unwillingnesse but acknowledging a willingnesse as afterwards you doe not a willingnesse onely which may have place though joyned with a will to the contrary as in all mixt actions which yet are not incident to God though they are to a creature as who sometimes doth some thing volens nolens for certainly God will save any man upon condition hee beleeves and repents And on the other side neither is there any unwillingnesse in God but a willingnesse rather yea and that a resolute will to damne any man in case hee dyeth in infidelity and impenitency For we have the cleare word of God to justifie us herein professing most evidently that Whosoever beleeveth shall be saved whosoever beleeveth not shall be damned So that I wonder not a little whereto these expressions tend save that commonly such is the issue of imperfect conceptions all preparations to the justifying of them fall miserably short of that whereunto they aime 2. As touching the second act either you must professe that no Infants perish in originall sinne or you must according to your Tenet consider them onely in massa primitus corrupta for as much as they dying before they came to the use of reason were never guilty of any voluntary falling off from the meanes either of grace in the second Adam or of the knowledge of God in nature by some acts of carelesse or wilfull disobedience As for their opinion who thinke the consideration of all men in massa Adae sufficient to justifie God in decreeing the condemnation of all I take it to be a very rude and undigested conceit for undoubtedly if the consideration of sinne be at all prerequired to the decree of condemnation it must bee the consideration rather of that sinne for which they are chiefly damned For shall the consideration of that sinne onely which deserves the least degree of damnation justifie God in the decreeing the greatest degree of condemnation what colour of justice is found in this Shall the consideration of telling an officious lye justifie a Magistrate in decreeing to inflict such a punishment as is due onely to high treason I say rather that God considers none in massa Adae before they are in massa Adae for thus to consider is not considerare but errare or fingere which wee cannot decently attribute to God but God considered all men tanquam in massa Adae futuros and as many as should dye in infancy God considered them in no other state of sinne tanquam futuros but in that As for as many as should survive to the use of reason God considered them tanquam futuros not onely in massa Adae but guilty of their owne personall transgressions and whom hee so considered and withall as finally persevering therein all them hee decreed to damne So likewise whom hee considered tanquam fideles futuros resipiscentiam acturos in fide resipiscentia perseveraturos hee decreed to save But take heed that herehence you inferre not Therefore fore-sight of perseverance in sin was the cause or prerequisite of Reprobation lest you be driven by just proportion to confesse that fore-sight of faith also and perseverance therein was the cause or prerequisite at least of Election Yet doe not hereupon fall into the contrary extreme as to thinke that then the decree of Salvation and Damnation precedes the foresight of faith on the one side or of finall impenitency on the other though such delusions have had their course and passed in the world a long time and all for want of a little Logick in discerning the right order in intention of the meanes tending to a certaine end For both creation and permission of sinne in Adam and finall perseverance in sinne and damnation for sinne are but joynt meanes tending to one end to wit the glory of God in the way of justice vindicative and consequently the intention of all those meanes is at once neither before nor after other howsoever they are not at once in execution which perhaps is the rock of offence whereat many stumble ere they are aware As for example To the curing of a disease a Physician discerneth that many operations are necessarily requisite these are at once intended the nature of the disease bespeaking them all but they are not nor cannot be executed at once The like may bee said of all other proceedings according to the order of media and finis So on the other side creation permission of sin deliverance from sinne by the grace of faith and repentance and finally salvation are all but joynt meanes tending to one and the same end to wit the glory of God in the way of mercy mixt with justice and consequently all at once in intention though not all at once in execution But to disprove that which here you affirme as if some wilfull disobedience in Gods fore-sight was before the decree of condemnation I dispute thus according to your owne rules If the fore-sight of disobedience did precede the decree of condemnation then God did first decree to permit this disobedience before hee did decree to damne any man for it which is as much as to say Mans disobedience was first in Gods intention and consequently it must be last in execution that is men must first be damned for their disobedience before God permits them to become disobedient But let us consider your grounds in the next place That God hath some willingnesse to glorifie his distributive justice as well as vindicative in rewarding the world with life upon condition of obedience and repentance as well as with death upon condition
condition of obedience as is without all sinne then let your Position runne plainly thus Surely the purpose of Gods just retribution is to give life to the world of mankind upon condition of their being without sinne or of their repentance after obedience To this I answer That there never was any such Covenant of God with man I meane in such sort conditionate and consequently there never was any purpose in God to make any such Covenant with man at least for the time past As for the times to come let them speake for themselves by their owne experience when they come But that never any such Covenant had place hitherto between God and man it is manifest For since the Fall of Adam all being borne in sinne there is no place for such a Covenant as touching the first part of the condition which is of being without sinne And before the Fall of Adam there was no place for this Covenant as touching the latter part of the condition as I presume you will not deny onely the confusion of these two states before the Fall and after the Fall hath brought forth this wild conceit of such a Covenant By that which followeth it seemes that all these conceptions tend to no worse end then to justifie Gods disposition towards the Reprobate And it is great pity that so good an end as the justifying of God should bee brought about by no more congruous courses then these But I would faine know what blemish should redound to the nature of God if hee should intend nothing but death to the world of mankind yet your selfe will acknowledge that hee might have intended nothing but annihilation And is not annihilation as bad as death But your meaning is by death to understand sorrow And is there not just cause to preferre sorrow before death Yea but your meaning is of sorrow in the highest degree and that everlasting Why but if it be no blemish to God to intend nothing but sorrow in seven degrees to the world of mankind why should it be any blemish to him to intend nothing but sorrow in a degree more And if it be no blemish to God to intend nothing but sorrow to the world of mankind for millions of yeares why should it be any blemish to his reputation to intend to the world of mankind nothing but everlasting sorrow Yet whom doe you oppose in this Who ever said that God did intend nothing but death to the world of mankind those on whom you obtrude this conceit doe not affirme this of the world of mankind but onely of the Reprobates if they doe affirme any such thing And why I pray should the Reprobates be taken for the world of mankind rather than the Elect Neither doth any man say that God did intend nothing but death to the Reprobates Hee did intend to them all life as well as death but withall that all the posterity of Adam should be borne or at least conceived in sinne and also that many thousands should perish in that sinne wherein they were conceived and borne And I presume you dare not deny this which yet is the harshest proceeding of God above all others except his dealing with his owne Sonne As for others he intended to expose them to actuall sinnes of infidelity and impenitency by denying to them that grace which alone would preserve them from such sinnes as your selfe spare not to professe and yet for all this you would obtrude upon us a strange conceit and that as very reasonable namely That God did not intend their death onely but their life also whereas God is nothing at all advantaged hereby in his reputation but onely in words which is no reall reliefe to his honour but the adding of another injury if that bee an injury unto him as you conceive namely to mock him also And if wee shall nothing pleasure him by a lye lying for God as man doth for man to gratifie him surely wee shall doe him no pleasure by thus mocking him I would you had tried your strength in oppugning their opinion to the uttermost who maintaine God to carry himselfe as absolutely in the way of Reprobation as in the way of Election I would gladly have considered it But let us consider your present discourse First you say They were in Adam enabled to keep the condition therefore say not God intended nothing but death to them I pray transferre the case to the Angels were not they also enabled to keep the condition of life as well as their fellowes yet did not God grant his Elect Angels such a grace as whereby hee knew they would stand denying such a grace unto the others and that as absolutely as hee granted it unto the other And could hee not as absolutely have granted this grace unto them 〈…〉 and denyed it to them that stood And what would have 〈◊〉 the issue but quite contrary versis luxisset curia fatis Now let any man that is not possessed with a prejudicate conceit consider whether God did not as absolutely will the damnation of the one as the salvation of the other making the one amplius adjutos as Austin speakes then the other For the absolutenesse of Gods Election of Angels is seene by the absolutenesse of his giving them such a grace as to keep them from sinne And if hee doth as absolutely deny others the same grace as hee must needs for before the first sinne of Angels there could bee no cause moving God to deny them grace it will follow that their Reprobation was as absolute as the others Election Yet what a poore relieving of Gods reputation is this to say that Judas had power in Adam to keep the condition of life proposed to him though since his Fall hee hath not yet wee beleeve that Adam is saved who bereaved Judas of his ability and Judas damned for not keeping that whereunto hee had no ability and that through the Fall of Adam Further observe I pray you the miserable consequents of this your Argument as it runnes thus in few words In Adam we were enabled to keep the Condition Therefore say not that God intended nothing but death to the Reprobate By the same reason I may dispute thus In Adam they were enabled to breake the condition of life therefore Say not that God intended nothing but life to his Elect. But as hee intended salvation and not damnation onely to the Reprobates In like sort hee intended damnation and not salvation onely to the Elect Especially considering that not in Adam onely but in themselves also they are able enough to breake it and the best of them have that in them that deserves damnation nothing that deserves salvation As for the Reprobates there neither was nor is any thing in them that sits them for salvation It is strange that these incongruities should not bee discerned or being discerned men should be so little moved with them But these are dayes of vengeance and when a good
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
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
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
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
erraverit locutus suerit ego dominus seduxi prophetam illum extendam manum meam super eum exterminabo eum de medio populi mei Israel patientia est an potentia Quod libet eligas vel utrumque fatearis vides tamen falsa prophetantis peccatum esse paenamque peccati An hic dicturus es quod ait Ego dominus seduxi prophetam illum intelligendum esse deserui ut pro ejus meritis seductus â—rraret Age ut vis tamen eo modo punitus est pro peccato ut falsum prophetando peccaret sed illud intuere quod vidit Micheas propheta Dominum sedentem super thronum suum omnis exercitus caeli stabat circa eum a dextris ejus a sinistris ejus Et dixit dominus Quis seducet Achab Regem Israelis ascendet cadet in Ramoth Gilead dixit iste sic iste sic Et exiit spiritus stetit in conspectu Domini dixit Ego seducam eum Et dixit Dominus ad cum in quo Et dixit exibo ero spiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum ejus Et dixit Seduces praevalebis exi fac sic Quid ad ista dicturus es Nempe Rex ipse peccavit falsis eredendo prophetis At haec ipsa erat paena peccati Deo judicante Deo mittente angelum malum Ut apertius intelligeremus quomodo in psalmo dictum sit Misisse iram indignationis suae per angelos malos Sed numquid errando numquid injuste quicquam aut temere judicando sive faciendo Absit Sed non frustra illi dictum est Judicia tua sicut abyssus multa Non frustra exclamat Apostolus O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae scientiae Dei quam inscrutabilia sunt judicia ejus investigabiles viae ejus Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini aut quis consiliarius ejus suit aut quis prior dedit illi ut retribuatur ei And again in the same Chapter Sequitur propter hoc Tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae Audis propter hoc quaeris inaniter quomodo intelligendus sit tradere Deus multum laborans ut ostendas cum tradere deserendo sed quomodo libet tradat propter hoc tradidit Propter hoc desâ—ruit vides ejus traditionem qualem libet quomodo libet intelligas quae consecuta sunt Curavit enim Apostolus dicere quanta paena sit a Deo tradi passionibus ignominiae sive deserende sive alio quocunque vel explicabili vel inexplicabili modo quo facit hoc summe bonus ineffabiliter justus Thirdly as touching the third there is as little sounding in that also for already you have confessed that the Apostle in answering this objection to justifie God hath recourse to Gods soveraignty over his creatures as great as the potter hath over the clay who maketh vessels of what fashion hee will and to what end hee will But in the last place you feign most unreasonably a justification of Gods course in hardning whom hee will from the consideration of the persons hardned as being sinners I say this is most unreasonable First because when the creature is dealt withall according to his deserts this alone is most sufficient and satisfactory to every one that acknowledgeth it for the justification of any course taken with such And it is meerly in vain to fly to any other course of justification especially when it is lesse satisfactory then this And how strange were it that the Apostle should insist so fully and directly upon that other course of satisfaction upon the consideration of Gods soveraignty and should onely intimate this and that obscurely when this doth afford farre better satisfaction then the former Secondly in this case there were no ground for any such objection nor any colour of unreasonablenesse if God did but deale with them according to their deserts as often as hee hardneth them Thirdly the objection ariseth not upon Gods hardning a man simply but upon the hardning of whom hee will and that in a conjunct consideration with his shewing mercy therewithall on whom hee will In which case if God bee justifyed from the consideration of their conditions with whom hee deales like as hee dealeth differently with them in shewing mercy on some and hardning others so there should bee acknowledged a different condition in the persons with whom God dealeth in so different a manner But it is confessed by you that the persons here in St. Pauls consideration are equall with whom neverthelesse God deales very unequally Fourthly though this bee a plausible course in the judgement of man especially of the Arminians for the smothering of the light of Gods truth in this place yet when it is well considered in the proper nature of it I presume it will bee very dissonant unto common reason For what I pray you is hardning in this place standing in opposition to the shewing of mercy but onely the denying of the grace of Faith and Repentance to them that heare the Gospel like as to shew mercy is to give the grace of Faith and Repentance as appeareth manifestly both by the same phrase used Rom. 11. 30 31. and also by this very place cleering it self For it is such an operation whereupon it will follow that God shall have cause or occasion to complain as appeareth by the objection moved hereupon Now I say to deny Faith and Repentance is not of the nature of a punishment neither can it bee said with sobriety that man by sin doth deserve that God should deny him faith and repentance like as it cannot bee with sobriety affirmed that man by being sick hath deserved that the Physitian should not cure him or that man being dead hath deserved thereby that God should not raise him from death whereas indeed a man could not bee raised from death unlesse hee were first dead nor cured unlesse first sick neither were there any need of Faith in Christ crucifyed and of repentance unlesse man were a sinner Lastly consider as there is a grace of raising from out of sin so there is a grace of pieserving from sin This grace God granted to the elect Angels hee denyed to the rest meerly out of his own free pleasure according to the Soveraignty hee hath over his creatures and not with any reference unto sin preceding For how was that possible namely that there could bee any sin found in Angels before their first sin yet were the one to wit the elect Angels amplius adjuti more succoured then the other as Austin exprestely profesteth lib. 12. De Civ Dei cap. 9. Indeed I finde Ephes 2. 3. That wee are born children of wrath in respect of sin but that sin makes a man a vessell of wrath or that hee is not a vessell of wrath till sin comes the Apostle saith not nay the Apostle intimates the contrary when hee represents the power of