in carnall Christians Whereas if things were distinguished aright it would more easily appeare what is within the region of nature and what beyond it as meerely imputable to the speciall grace of God and operation of his spirit 3 As for dogs and swine wee are forbidden to give our holy things or to cast our pearles before them at all And therefore are wee not to trouble our selves in considering to what end this doctrine is to be preached unto them And yet as for the testifications proposed as proper unto them it is nothing so for not to them only but to carnall Christians also doe such belong yea to the very Children of God also to wit That God is just in all that cometh on them and his wayes equall As when after Davids foule sinnes in the matter of Uriah the sword pursued his house and Absolon defiled his fathers concubines and hee was driven to flie from Jerusalem and Shimei meeting him on the way cursed him c. And I pray you what unregenerate man throughout the world doth not love the cursed wayes of sin in some kind or other though not in all kinds And no marvell for vice is like a pike in a pond it devoures both vertue and lesser vices One vice is opposite to another and not onely unto vertue And therefore no mervaile if no man be found vicious in all kinds 4 As for the Lutheran and Arminian you professe that this Tenet of yours removes such stumbling blocks out of their way as have hitherto turned them out of the way of truth and peace But what these stumbling blocks are which you have removed I know not It seemes this hath been a chiefe inducement unto you to decline from that which you confesse to be the most received opinion of our Church and to shape unto your selfe a new forme of opinion different from that which is received if not to remove some stumbling blocks out of your owne way Now if it be so the fairest course had been to have expressed what these offences are Secondly how our most received Tenet doth either cast them in tho way of others or at least doth not remove them and thirdly to shew how by this opinion of yours they are removed But none of these have been performed by you Againe Mr. Moulin being very orthodox in the point of Election as you are varieth from us as you doe in the point of Reprobation maintaining Reprobation to be instituted upon the foresight of mans finall impenitency in his Anatome Arminianismi Corvinus an Arminan hath taken him to taske in a worke of his and is never a whit the more forward to concurre with us in the point of Election because Moulin concurres with them in the point of Reprobation Nay what doe Papists say about Durham by occasion of our complying with them but this They need not comply with us for wee come fast enough forwards to comply with them And more then this I have already shewed that this tempering or corrupting rather of the doctrine of Reprobation maketh a faire way for the utter overthrowing of that which you call the sound and comfortable doctrine of Election Forasmuch as looke by what reason you maintaine the foresight of small impenitencie and infidelitie to goe before Reprobation as it signifies the punishing with everlasting death by the same reason it will appeare that the foresight of finall perseverance in faith repentance and good workes must necessarily goe before Election as it signifies Gods decree of rewarding with everlasting life In which notion alone election or the decree of salvation is contrarily opposite to reprobation or the decree of condemnation For in maintaining that Reprobation as a purpose of God to condemne for sin doth presuppose the foresight of sinne you doe thereby imply that Election as a purpose of God to reward for righteousnesse of faith and repentance doth presuppose the foresight of faith and repentance But if your meaning be no other than this that God hath ordained no man unto damnation but for sinne what offence or scandall doe you remove hereby which wee doe not remove also who concurre with you herein And which is more wee are ready not onely to affirme but to make good also that in no moment of nature doth the purpose of Condemnation goe before the foresight of sinne even of that sinne for which men shall be damned Whereas you in maintaining that the foresight of sinne is precedent to the purpose of condemnation are not able to make it good but must necessarily fall foule upon a manifest contradiction to your owne rules For if the foresight of sinne be precedent to the decree of condemnation then God did first decree to permit sinne before hee did decree to damne for it And herehence it followeth that permission of sinne in Gods intention was before condemnation and if it were first in intention then by your owne rules it must be last in execution that is men shall be condemned for sinne before ever they be permitted to sinne Nay I appeale to your owne conscience whether wee doe not open a fairer way for composition in the point of election then you doe in the point of Reprobation Considering that like as in Reprobation Gods decree to condemne is in no moment of nature precedent to Gods foresight of sinne so in Election I am bold to affirme that Gods purpose to save is in no moment of nature before his foresight of faith repentance and good workes and finall perseverance in them all Will not you thinke that you have cause to feare hereupon that I am more dissolute in the point of Election than rigid in the point of Reprobation Yet if you will confesse that herein is a faire way opened for composition in the point of Election I dare undertake to perswade you that this shall be maintained without any prejudice either to the freenesse of Gods grace or to the absolutnesse of his power The truth is our Divines have a long time erred in making different decrees of those which are but one I mean formall decree to wit of the meanes though materially different which is nothing strange For why should it seeme strange that many meanes should be required to the same end Wee commonly say that Gods decree to give salvation is the decree of the end and his decree to give faith and repentance is the decree of the meanes yet they dare not say commonly that Gods decree to inflict damnation is the decree of the end and Gods decree to deny grace is the decree of the meanes And so they are driven to overthrow all Analogie between Election and Reprobation I say that Gods decree of giving faith and salvation unto sinners are but one formall decree of God concerning the meanes the end whereof is the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of mercie mixt with justice And indeed nothing can be the end of Gods actions but his owne glory for hee made all things
consideration of Abraham I am Before the Child shall have knowledge to eschew the evill and to choose the good the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings is the meaning hereof before the consideration of the Childs knowledge to eschew the evill and to choose the good 4. Is not this a manifest course to overthrow our best evidence of the eternitie of election and Christs ordination For what evidence doth the word of God affoord comparable to these And we know that out of our selves some have risen denying the eternitie of Gods decrees and shall we do them such acceptable service as in blasting such evidences as these that make against them Then let us goe and interpret accordingly the Apostle where he speakes of some thing promised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and say the meaning is before the consideration of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 times consisting of many ages or some thing in them I know not what 5. I grant before they had done good or evill Rom 9. is as much as before the consideration of any good or evill done by them The text it selfe doth bespeake this meaning But will it follow that because before they had done good or evill Rom. 9. is as much as before the consideration of their good or evill workes the text bespeaking that sense therefore 1 Pet. 1. 20. where Christ is said to be ordained before the world it is as much as to say Christ was ordained before the consideration of the creation and fall the text bespeaking no such interpretation but rather resisting it by the comparison made betwixt the ordination of Christ and the declaration of Christ the one said to be made before the foundations of the world the other said to be made in these last times as much as to say the one before all times the other not till these last times Times with times compared not consideration of the creation and fall with these last times 6. Again the consideration of works good or evill are fit motives as hath beene said unto election and reprobation if they could precede them but the consideration of the creation and fall though preceding yet is no fit motive to the ordination of Christ wee well know they were found in Angels as well as in men By the way where I pray is it said that God loved Jacob rather then Esau I find it said Rom. 9. that God loved Jacob and hated Esau But if you take liberty to interpret it thus He loved Jacob rather then Esau why may not I as well take liberty to interpret it thus God hated Esau rather then Jacob yet I confesse the former interpretation is made by Cornelius de lapide the Jesuite God chose us before the world in Christ our head Eph. 1. 4. Therefore hee chose Christ also to bee our head before the world was For if we be chosen in him it implyeth that he as our head was chosen before us in order and we in him Now if we who were chosen in Christ and so after Christ in order if wee I say were chosen before the world and so before the consideration either of creation or fall how much more Christ who was chosen before us In the allegation of Saint Pauls text I find something left out that pertaines to the compleating of the sentence for the sentence is this Who hath chosen us in Christ that we should be holy Here the latter part of one entire sentence is quite left out And by your dismembring it the sentence is made causelesly obscure and so the fitter to serve for advantages This is Arminius course Exam. Pag. 31. Apostolus ait nos in Christo electos esse The Apostle saith we are elected in Christ And as something in the text is left out so something besides the text is put in God chose us before the world in Christ our head This likewise Arminius insists on Exam. Pag. 158. And marke I pray you how he works upon each To be elect in Christ is with him to be elect being in Christ for nos in Christo with him is nos existentes in Christo And seeing we are not in Christ but by faith hereupon he makes the object of election to be fideles the faithfull or in Christum credentes such as believe in Christ We answer first We may take as great libertie to interpret it for explication sake by supplying a participle of the future tense thus elegit nos futuros in Christo he chose us hereafter to be in Christ like as it followes who hath predestinated us to be adopted Now we are adopted by faith Gal. 3. 26. as he takes liberty to supply a participle of the present tense esspecially considering that when we were elect to wit before the foundation of the world we were not at all and consequently were not fideles believers Secondly wee answer that the compleat sentence considered at full doth manifest in what sense this phrase in Christ is taken He chose us in Christ that we should be holy This shewes to what wee were chosen to wit to obtaine holinesse and how to wit in Christ that is for Christs sake Like as v. 3. 't is said God hath blessed us with all spirituall blessings in Heavenly things in Christ Jesus that is for Christ his sake And like as 1. Thes 5. 9. 't is said God hath ordained us to obtaine salvation thorough Jesus Christ So here in a conformable exposition when it is said God hath chosen us in Christ that wee should bee holy a faire meaning may be this God hath ordained us to obtaine holinesse through Jesus Christ especially considering that grace is called salvation 2. Tim. 1. 9. as well as glory And thus Arminius himselfe falls upon Exam. Pag. 31. Apostolus inquit nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in mediatore cujus sanguine nobis salus parta est And thus the danger is fairely avoided of making Christ the cause of our election quoad actum eligentis which not one of our Divines that I know maintains save Rolloc But Arminius I confesse labours for it tooth and naile to no other end but that so he may somewhat plausibly bring in faith also if not as a cause yet as a pre-requisite at least of our election And yet for all the noyse he makes in this kind calling Christ the foundation of our election neverthelesse the issue is to confesse that all comes to this that Christ is therefore the foundation of our election because he is the meritorious cause bonorum electione praeparatorum of good things which are prepared by election such as he specifies to bee grace and glory as appeares both in his publique and private disputations Now if in this sense we are said to be elect in Christ that we should be holy then it is cleare we are not elect in Christ tanquam in capite for ratio capitis non est ratio causae meritoriae as
by the eares not considering the dangerous consequence here-hence utterly overthrowing the Orthodox doctrine of our Churches in the very point of Election and bringing in Arminianisme entire and whole not in Reprobation only as Master Moulin doth and you seeme to doe but in Election it selfe unavoidably though hitherto I confesse the Arminians have not been so happy as to discerne it I doubt not but your meaning is in that Proposition That sinne is not only the cause of damnation but of Gods decree also of ordaining thereunto But to affirme this seemed so foule to Aquinas namely that there should be conceived a cause of Gods will or Gods decree that hee professeth never any man was so madde as to affirme it But because the saying of Aquinas moves you little why should it seeing it little hindered not onely Valentianus the Jesuite from saying as you doe but Alvarez also the Thomist and a great Thomist therefore I will proceed further What should move you to affirme That to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative justice Condemnation I grant is an act of vindicative justice like as remuneration is an act of justice remunerative but will it follow here-hence that to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative justice I will not presse you with the authority of Master Baynes who denyes Reprobation to be an act of justice but thus I dispute If Gods purpose to condemne to death be an act of justice vindicative then also Gods purpose to remunerate with eternall life is an act of justice remunerative And if Gods purpose of condemnation presuppose sinne it followes that Gods purpose of remunerating with eternall life must also presuppose obedience even obedience of faith repentance and good works for all these God doth remunerate with eternall life Here appeareth the foule tayle of Arminianisme in the doctrine of Election which this plausible doctrine of yours and of Master Moulins in the point of Reprobation drawes after it The consequence is manifest though few or none consider it even of them that are both Orthodox in Election and most versed in the examining and discerning of just consequences Now because this consequence I presume is unexpected I imagine men may bee moved to cast about and consider how they may wind themselves out of this dangerous inconvenience And perhaps it may come to their mindes to affirme that they doe not conceive Election under this forme namely to bee the decree of God to remunerate with everlasting life And I verily believe they doe not for if they did it were not possible they should continue Orthodox in the point of Election but miserably betray their cause by giving way to a doctrine plainly contradictory in the point of Reprobation But why then doe they not consider Election as they ought Is it not generally confessed that Election and Reprobation are contrary why then should they not be shapen under contrarient formes and what act I pray you is contrary to the act of justice vindicative but the act of justice remunerative But perhaps you may say Though this bee true yet there is no place for such an opposition here for as much as though a man may merit damnation by sinne yet hee cannot merit salvation by obedience I answer therefore that this onely shewes there can be no opposition between them in a speciall kind of retribution to wit in the way of retribution according to desert on both sides yet this hinders not but that there may be and indeed is an opposition in the generall of retribution For it is well knowne that God will reward every one according to his works and that he means to bestow salvation upon every one of ripe yeares by way of reward and tanquam coronam justitiae as the Arminians urge and justly though with no just advantage to their cause but according to their shallow and unlearned conceits as if therefore God should first fore-see their obedience before hee should ordaine them to a reward which yet will follow if on the other side wee grant them that God first fore-seeth mans finall impenitency and thereupon ordaines them to condemnation Perhaps you may say Is not the contrariety between Election and Reprobation sufficiently maintained by saying the one is Gods purpose ordaining to salvation the other Gods purpose ordaining to condemnation I confesse it seemes so and is generally reputed to be so and this I take to bee the principall cause of this error one confusion drawing on more and more after it But I say there is no congruous opposition between salvation and damnation for to damne is either finally to punish or to adjudge to punishment Now as the Negative opposition hereunto is onely not to punish or to adjudge to punishment so the contrary opposition hereunto is to reward or to adjudge to a reward So that Election as it is Gods purpose ordaining to salvation by way of reward is onely opposite contrarily to Reprobation as it signifies Gods purpose ordaining to condemnation More fairly and voyd of all equivocation thus Like as Reprobation is Gods purpose to punish with everlasting death so Election is Gods purpose to remunerate with everlasting life And thus the contrariety of these acts being rightly stated it followes as evidently that Election must presuppose not obedience but the fore-sight of obedience as Reprobation presupposeth not sinne but the fore-sight of sin And thus are wee tumbled into the very gulfe of Arminianisme over head and eares before wee are aware But it may bee this discourse of mine may raise such a Spirit as will not easily bee laid and hereupon some may the more profusely bee carryed to embrace Arminianisme in the very point of Election also because as Reprobation seemes to bee an act of justice vindicative so Election also as here it is stated seemes to bee an act of justice remunerative And I willingly confesse I never found any Arminian that discernes the advantage which our Divines doe afford them by shaping the doctrine of Reprobation as they doe Therefore I will endeavour to quiet this Spirit that I have raised first by discovering the Sophistry that bleares our eyes in this and secondly by cleare demonstration I will prove that no fore-sight of sinne and obedience can precede the purpose of God ordaining to salvation and damnation As for the discovering of the Sophistry which hath place herein consider first It is agreed between Vasquez and Suarez though otherwise much at odds about the nature of justice in God that there is no justice in God towards his creature but upon the presupposition of his will whence it followeth manifestly that the purposes of God being the very acts of his will are no acts of justice but onely the executions of these purposes may bee acts of justice to wit upon the presupposition of some act or purpose of his will And the reason hereof not to insist wholly upon any humane authority is manifest for as much as in remunerating
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
then is the meaning of the Lord saying I have smitten your children in vaine they have received no correction I answer we are to conceive Gods corrections to tend to this according to that of Peter knowing that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation or God speakes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of earthly parents seeking their childrens amendment by correction but not obtaining it And this being an end of correction in Gods children in the wicked this end is not obtained And what difference is there between meanes naturall and meanes morall but this meanes naturall have power to effect their ends meanes morall are to admonish morall agents of their duty to doe this or that and so the ends of Gods punishment is that by them wee should learne to amend our lives as is signified in the Collects of our Church In a word naturall means tend to ends that shall be thereupon morall means tend to ends that should be and each are usually said to be in vaine when the end according to each kind is not obtained God sent his Sonne into the world not that hee should condemne the world but that the world should be saved by him Most true for hee sent his Son into the world to dye for the world and to dye for them is to save them and not to condemne them But for whom did hee send his Sonne into the world to dye Surely for the world of Elect even for those whom God the Father had given him Thou hast given him power over all flesh that hee should give eternall life to all them that thou hast given him Joh. 17. 2. And if wee consider the world in distinction from those whom God hath given him hee plainly professeth that as hee did not pray for them Joh. 17. 9. so hee did not sanctifie himselfe for them Verse 19. that is offer himselfe up upon the Crosse as Maldonate acknowledgeth to be the joynt interpretation of all the Fathers whom hee had read And your selfe have but earst confessed that God did not Joh. 3. 17. give the world unto Christ by him of grace to be bought or brought unto salvation Undoubtedly hee sent not Christ into the world at all to procure any mans condemnation neither doth Christ procure any mans condemnation although infidelity and disobedience to the word of Christ procures the condemnation of many And I wonder what moved you so to speake as to imply it was Gods intent though not chiefe intent to send Christ into the world to procure the condemnation of any At length wee are come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the point controverted between us in the words following If they should plead their condemnation to be unjust for unbeleefe because they were not able to beleeve Ver. 18. our Saviour answers by a reasonable prevention ver 19. This is their condemnation viz. the just cause of their condemnation that when light came into the world men loved darknesse rather than light men chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the means of grace which might have brought them on to beleeve in Christ First let us consider the Text it selfe then your interpretation and accommodation thereof Our Saviour doth plainly derive the cause of their unbeleefe or disapprobation of the Gospel signified in these words They loved darknesse rather than light I say the cause of this our Saviour referres to their workes of darknesse expressed in these words Because their deeds were evill The full meaning whereof I take to be this The workes wherein they delight are evill that is workes of darknesse and therefore no marvell if they hate the light and preferre darknesse before it Pulchra Lavernae Da mihi fallere da justum sanctumque videri Noctem peccatis fraudibus objice nubem But give mee leave to make an honest motion As it becomes us to take notice of this cause mentioned here so it becomes us nothing lesse to take notice of other causes mentioned in other places Now another cause of unbeleefe is mentioned Joh. 5. 44. and that of the same generall nature with this but expressed in more speciall manner by our Saviour thus How can yee beleeve which receive honour one of another and seeke not the honour that cometh from God onely Yet this is not all the cause of unbeleefe which the Scripture commends unto us for the Apostle also takes notice of Sathans illusions in this worke of unbeleefe 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. If our Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost Whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded c. And because it is in the power of God to correct this delight wee take in evill workes and to deliver us from the illusions of Sathan if it please him to shew such mercy towards us and when he doth not he is said to harden us The hand of God in this our Saviour takes notice of as the cause of unbeleefe in man Joh. 12. 39 40. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith againe Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and be converted and I should heale them Like as Moses of old told the Jewes saying Deut. 29. 2 3. Yee have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and unto all his servants and unto all his land The great temptations which thine eyes have seen the signes and those great miracles Ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare unto this day And this hee doth even then when his purpose was to reprove them for their naturall incorrigiblenesse for men sinne never the lesse obstinately because God denyes them grace but rather so much the more obstinately because as Austin well saith Libertas sine gratia non est libertas sed contumacia and consequently they are never a whit the lesse faulty though it be not in their power to correct that corruption of their hearts whence this faultinesse proceeds And hereupon the Apostle gives way to the same objection in effect which you propose for having concluded that God hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardeneth hee gives place to such an objection Thou wilt say then Why doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his will and answers it not as our Saviour doth for our Saviour proposed no such objection to be answered as you feigne the Apostle doth plainly and in expresse termes Our Saviour discovers the immediate cause of unbeleefe to wit because their hearts were set on evill as it was sometimes with the Colossians Col. 1. 21. yet because it was not in their power to change their hearts but God alone who will change them through mercy in whom hee will and will not change them in others
this people an heart to feare mee and to keep my commandements alwayes that it may goe well with them and with their children for ever Oh that they were wise that they understood this that they would consider their latter end Oh that my people had hearkened unto mee and that Israel had walked in my wayes I should soon have subdued their enemies and turned my hand against their adversaries Do not all these speeches expresse an earnest and serious affection in God as concerning the conversion and salvation of this people whereof sundry died in their sinnes It is true God might have given them such hearts as to have feared and obeyed him which though hee did not yet his will that they had such hearts was serious still To cleare it by a comparison The father of the family hath both his son and servant dangerously sick of the stone to heale them both the father useth sundry medicines even all that art prescribeth except cutting when hee seeth no other remedy he perswades them both to suffer cutting to save their lives they both refuse it yet his sonne hee taketh and bindeth him hand and foot and causeth him to endure it and so saveth his life His servant also hee urgeth with many vehement inducements to submit himselfe to the same remedy but if a servant obstinately refuse hee will not alwayes strive with him nor enforce him to such breaking and renting of his body But yet did not his Master seriously desire his healing and life though hee did not proceed to the cutting asunder of his flesh which hee saw his servant would not abide to heare of So in this case both the elect and men of this world are dangerously sicke of a stony heart to heale both sorts the Lord useth sundry meanes promises judgements threatnings and mercies when all faile hee perswades them to breake their hearts and the stone thereof with cutting and wounding of their consciences when they refuse hee draweth them both the one with his almighty power the other with the cords of man viz. such as are resistible to this cutting and wounding that their soules might live and the elect are brought to yeeld and the men of this world break all cords asunder and cast away such bonds from them Shall we now say God did not seriously desire the healing of such mens hearts because hee procured not to bind them with strong cords to breake them with such woundings as they will not abide to heare of Thus having laid downe the grounds of my judgement touching the first Point That there is a will and purpose in God for to reward the world as well with life upon condition of obedience as with death upon condition of disobedience I come now to the grounds of the second Point You proceed in clearing a difficulty devised and shaped without all ground as if any sober man would find it strange that a conditionate will of God should not be accomplished as often as the condition failes And to this purpose you make use of the nature of a disjunct axiome All-along I savour others that have grased here yet have not rested themselves contented with this but proceeded further to more erroneous opinions A second objection you propose in the second place the solution whereof you seeme to travell with much more than of the former and yet the objection is altogether as causelesse and without all just ground as the former I have now been something more than ordinarily conversant in these Controversies for the space of seventeen yeares I never yet met with any of our Divines or any other that made any question whether Gods will being granted to passe on any object were serious yea or no I should thinke there is no intelligent man living that makes any doubt of this but puts it rather out of all question that whatsoever God wills hee wills it seriously I confesse the Arminians doe usually obtrude some such things on our Divines yet not altogether such for they doe not obtrude upon us as if wee said God doth not will seriously that which hee willeth but rather that hee doth not seriously exhort and admonish all those whom hee doth admonish to beleeve and repent as if hee made shew onely of desiring their obedience and salvation when indeed hee doth not Yet you seeme to sweat not a little in debellating this man of straw Upon these termes I might easily dispatch my selfe of all further trouble in examining your elaborate Answer to so causelesse an Objection but I will not for it may be you insperse something by the way of opposition to that which you doe professe which is this That God doth not at all will the obedience and repentance of any but those who are his Elect. And I would not pretermit any evidence you bring to countenance your cause in opposition to our Tenent unanswered That Gods Oath or Covenant or the workes of any Person in the Trinity tends to the end by you mentioned namely to give life to the world is utterly untrue Likewise it is utterly untrue that you have hitherunto proved any such thing For that which you here deliver as Gods end in giving life is proposed simply and absolutely but that which hitherunto you have endeavoured to prove is onely this that Gods will was to give the world life conditionally to wit upon their obedience and repentance and that as in the last place coming to the point you have expressed it in a disjunct axiome thus To give life to the creature upon his obedieace or to inflict death upon his disobedience Now let any sober man judge whether in this case the will of God be more to give life than to inflict death more passing upon the salvation of the creature than upon his eternall condemnation Could you prove that God doth will at all the salvation of any other save his Elect I would forthwith grant hee wills it seriously I should thinke it no lesse than blasphemy to thinke that God doth either will or sweare or covenant or doe that which hee doth not seriously as blasphemy consists in attributing that to God which doth not become him I nothing doubt but that if all and every one should beleeve and repent all and every one should be saved and none other thing hitherto have you so much as adventured to prove in this particular whereupon now we are But then it behoves you to look unto it on the other side how you cleare your selfe from blasphemy in the same kind while you maintain that God doth will the salvation of those which shall never be saved which not in my judgement only but in the judgement of Austin of old doth mainly trench upon Gods omnipotency for if hee would save them but doth not hee is hindered and resisted by somewhat and consequently his will is not omnipotent nor irresistible And more than this here-hence it will follow that either God continues still to will their
Esau that hee should serve Jacob before hee had done good or evill The Hebrew and Greek word signifie neither to create nor bring into the world but to preserve or to cause to stand to stirre up or to advance which presupposeth Pharaoh already born yea and of such a Spirit that if God preserve him and stirre him up hee was become a fit subject upon whom God might shew his power in his hardning and overthrow Otherwise God might as well bee said to condemn Pharaoh out of his absolute will without all respect to sin as to shew his power in hardning of him without all respect to sin Hardning when it falls upon the creature is both the height of his sin and depth of his misery and therefore is it as prejudiciall to Gods justice to inflict it without respect of sin going before and to the creature as dangerous to undergoe it as condemnation to hell it self Hell hath no greater torment then an heart desperately hardned under the wrath curse and judgement of God which was Pharaohs case But consider Pharaoh not in the estate of Esau as having done neither good nor evill but in the state wherein he stood when God gave out his Oracle concerning him that for this cause hee stirred him up to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow and then may I easily grant more then is required viz. When God purposed to passe by him not only in communicating grace and glory unto him but also to fall upon him in his utmost wrath as well in outward strange calamity as especially in spirituall judgements hardnesse of heart and blindnesse of minde to his utter perdition In the former part you declined a direct answer to the question proposed for whereas the question proposed was touching the communicating of grace and glory you not adventuring to maintaine a purpose of God to communicate grace and glory to them whom you call the world of mankinde onely maintain a purpose in God at least you seem so to doe of communicating life and glory some other way then out of grace But with what advantage to your cause that hath been carryed I have already considered Now you seem to answer the question looking it directly in the face For though you acknowledge such a purpose in God concerning Pharaoh to wit of passing him by in communicating grace and glory yet the cause you say is not alike of Esau when Gods Oracle was given out concerning him hee being not then born as of Pharaoh when the Oracle here spoken of was given out concerning him hee being then a fit subject upon whom God might shew his power in his hardning and overthrow Yet here againe you decline the question For the question was not whether Pharaoh at that time when God said For this cause I have raised thee up c. were a fitter subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow then Esau was while yet hee was in his mothers wombe But whether God had not a purpose to passe by Esau as touching the communicating of grace and glory even before hee was born which hee had concerning Pharaoh at that time before spoken of which that hee had I prove thus It was said of Esau before hee was born that God hated him What more could bee said of Pharaoh to expresse his alienation from him Secondly look how you qualifie the hatred of God to Esau in the same manner may it bee qualifyed towards Pharaoh even at this time you speak of For Gods hatred towards Esau you qualifie thus God had a purpose to deale with him according to his works But say I even then when God professed of Pharaoh saying For this cause have I raised thee up c. God had a purpose to deale with him according to his works Thirdly if therefore God had no such purpose towards Esau namely to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow because Esau was not yet born then belike God had no such purpose towards Pharaoh himself while Pharaoh was not yet born But this is utterly untrue for as much as Gods purposes are eternall and not temporall And in like manner it may bee proved that if ever God had the like purpose towards Esau to wit after his preferring a messe of pottage before his birthright or at any other time it followeth that God had the same purpose towards Esau even before hee was born for Gods purposes are not temporall but eternall Lastly as for the difference you put between them besides the question one being a more fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow then the other I grant it to bee true in part as touching the hardning of them For obduration presupposeth a man of such ripenesse of years as to have the use of reason But this hinders not but that God might at the same time have a purpose to harden him in his time as Pharaoh in his time And yet why I pray was not Pharaoh as fit a subject for God to shew his power in changing his heart as well as Saul was in the middest of his bloody persecutions of the Church of God And what naturall man such as I presume are all those whom you call the world of mankinde is not a fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning and overthrow though hee bee never so morall yea as morall as Trajan who raised one persecution or Marcus Antoninus Philosophus who raised another or as Aurelianus who raised a third It is true if God will move any man unto courses contrary to his corrupt inclination and not give him grace to master that corrupt inclination that man whatsoever hee bee shall bee a fit subject for God to shew his power in his hardning yea and overthrow also if it please him But if God move any man never so contrariously to his corrupt inclination and withall give him grace to master that corrupt inclination of his hee shall bee a fit subject for God to shew the power of his grace in his conversion and salvation You speak much of hardning even according unto pleasure without giving your Reader any explication of the words whereby hee might understand your meaning wherein obduration consists Surely obduration is either the denyall of grace or whatsoever it bee it is alwaies joyned with the denyall of grace as I take it But in very different manner I confesse which you distinguish not As for the deniall of grace that was found to have course in the first sin that was committed both in Angels and men For I am of Austins minde concerning the Angels that stood that they were Amplius adjuti then the other that fell De Civit. Dei lib. 12. cap. 9. As also concerning Adams fall that in that case Though God gave him posse si voluit yet hee gave him not velle quod potuit and these hee makes severall adjutoria The like may bee said of every
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