most dangerous tending manifestly to the utter overthrow of the Freenesse of Gods grace in Predestination which indeed very frequently you shake in this unhappy discourse of yours As God in fulnesse of time doth administer and dispence the wayes of his providence so you say bee decreed to dispence them in the same manner from all eternity Wee grant it willingly but what of all this you adde that in dispencing the performance of the Covenant of workes the Lord punisheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or disobedience performed by it or rather by the persons under it This also wee willingly grant But what doe you inferre herehence onely this Therefore surely hee decreed to carry such workes of his providence upon the same conditions Now this conclusion we embrace as readily as your selfe but this is farre from justifying the decree of God to bee conditionall Nay your selfe doe plainly expresse that the carriage of such workes of his providence is upon such conditions Not that Gods decree is upon such conditions which is as much as to say in plaine termes that the execution of his decree proceeds upon condition not the decree it selfe Yet I confesse in the same manner Arminius himselfe and his followers discourse as if they would explicate themselves in this manner of argumentation Sinne alwayes goes before damnation therefore a respect to sinne goes before Gods decree of damnation As if wee should argue thus Faith in men of ripe yeares alwayes goeth before salvation therefore a respect unto faith alwayes goeth before Gods decree of salvation Doe you not perceive by this the dangerous issue of your argumentation yet this is the very thing they aime at this is the Helena they are enamoured with But I am confident you are farre from this and would not a little grieve to understand that the Orthodox faith of some in the very point of predestination is not a little shaken by such argumentations as these And the rather because they have found such an eminent man as your selfe not onely to swallow them but in a confidentiary manner to propose them as most sound to give satisfaction unto others Therefore Aquinas fairely distinguisheth of the cause or condition of Gods will either quoad actum volentis as touching the act of God willing or quoad res volitas as touching the things willed no cause or condition thereof quoad actum volentis there may be quoad res volitas As for example to give instance in predestination no cause thereof at all quod actum praedestinantis as touching the act of God predestinating there may be a cause thereof quoad res praedestinatione praeparatas as touching the things prepared by predestination As for example Grace may bee and is the cause of glory and Christs merits may be and are the cause of grace So of Reprobation no cause thereof at all quoad actum reprobantis as touching the act of God reprobating no more then of the will of God quoad actum volentis as touching the act of God willing But there is a came thereof quoad res reprobatione praeparatas as touching the things prepared by Reprobation as sin is the cause of condemnation And indeed many confound these and thereupon professe the will of God in some cases to bee conditionall the issue whereof is no more then this That some things which God will have to come to passe shall not come to passe but upon on condition Thus Vossius understands voluntas conditionata a conditionate will which hee attributeth unto God not considering how handsomely he contradicts himself And Doctor Jackson of Providence discoursing of voluntas antecedens consequens will antecedent and consequent premiseth that the distinction is to be understood non quoad actum vokntis not touching the act of God willing but quoad ves volitas as touching the things willed though his discourse hereupon bee nothing suitable A manifest evidence that hee understood not the distinction any more then Uossius did You are willing to acknowledge that Gods decree of delivering Christ to death was absolute as a work of meere grace As for the condition of Adams fall to bee premised to this decree sure I am that is not your Opinion neither doth it become any to maintaine any decree of God to be both unconditionall and conditionall And why that sinne more then any other for which Christ satisfied should be imagined to bee premised as a condition of this decree I see no reason and if every sin must bee presupposed why not the sin of crucifying Christ This sin started Arminius and this is it and this alone which he thinkee good to except in this case I doe nothing wonder that his learning and his honesty were so well met both of a very temperate nature But albeit the fall of Adam was not preconceived to this decree of delivering of Christ to death yet I am not of your Opinion who thinke hereupon that the decree of sending Christ into the world was before the decree of permitting Adams fall concerning which I have discoursed enough while I examined how well you cleared the first doubt But when you distinguish of Gods decree to deliver Christ to death and to deliver him to a sinfull death you take a course to make mad work amongst Gods decrees As if God did first intend the generality of a thing and not till after the foresight of somewhat else intend the specialty thereof I will not tell you how undecent a course School-men conceive it to bee to attribute decrees to God of things indefinite I never found any Arminian take such a course Philosophy hath taught us duplicem ordinem naturae a double order of nature as namely nature generantis naturae intendentis in generation and intention And albeit secundùm naturam generantem communia generalia are priora specialibus in generation things common and generall are before their specialls According as a man in generation prius vivit vitam plantae first lives the life of a plant then vitam animalis the life of an Animal Lastly vitam hominis the life of a man yet quoad naturam intendentem as touching the intention the order is quite contrary that the more specialls as more perfect are first in intention And whereas intentio rerum gerendarum the intention of things to be done is for the production of things in existence and it is well known that generals can not exist but in specials nor specials exist but in particulars it is very strange that God should first intend to produce a Genius and after intend the specialty seeing nothing can bee produced but in particular You may as well say that God did first intend that Christ should die but whether a natural or violent death that was at first undetermined Secondly that God determined hee should die a violent death but whether by a judiciall proceeding or extrajudiciall that as yet was left undetermined And
see whether this might not bee extended further also But let us examine it by your owne rules the best course to present before your eyes the strangenesse of these conceptions Three things are to bee considered as ordered by you one after another First Gods absolute decree to deliver Christ to death Secondly the foresight of mens corrupt dispositions Thirdly Gods decree to deliver Christ to death by the sins of men Now mens sinfull dispositions depending partly upon originall sin derived unto all from the sinne of Adam partly upon mens former actuall conversations as also upon Gods permission of it to continue uncured and uncorrected it followeth herehence that the foresight of these sinfull dispositions did presupose both that God purposed to permit Adams fall as also to bring these men forth into the world in originall sinne as also to permit their former actuall sins wherby they arrive to these vitious habits together with his purpose to deny grace whereby these vitious habits should bee corrected Before all these decrees was the decree of delivering Christ to death by certain sins of certain men according to your Opinion in this place Whence it followeth that the delivering of Christ to death by the sins of men being last in intention must bee first in execution to wit before Adam was suffered to fall or they suffered by an evill conversation to arise to so corrupt dispositions or God denyed them grace to correct such corrupt dispositions And though Christs suffering death in a speciall manner to wit by the sins of men were to bee first in execution yet Christs suffering death in generall and in an indefinite manner was to bee last in execution And this argumentation of mine throughout depends meerly upon your own rules delivered in clearing the first doubt But passe wee over these scrupulosities The course you take to explicate Gods providence in punishing sin with sin is nothing congruous to the examples thereof set down in holy Scripture For whereas Judas his betraying of Christ was a fruit of his covetousnesse you make Gods giving him over to the committing of this sin to bee the punishment of his covetousnesse Likewise whereas the High Priests and Pharisees conspiracy against Christ was a fruite of their envy for Pilate knew that for envy they had delivered him and of their ambition as appeareth Joh. 11. 48. you make Gods giving them over to the committing of this sin to bee the punishment of their ambition and envy In like sort that Pilate gave judgement against Christ being a fruit of his popularity and worldly feare of Caesar the giving of him over to the committing of this sin you make to bee the punishment of his popularity and worldly feare of Caesar So the Jews crying out against him being a fruite of their ignorance and infidelity the giving them over unto this sin you make it to bee the punishment of their ignorance and infidelity Now shew mee any example throughout the book of God in punishing sin with sin answerable unto this As if God did punish mens sinfull dispositions by giving them over to bring forth the proper and congruous fruites of those sinfull dispositions Rom. 1. Wee read God gave the Gentiles over into a reprobate minde to doe things inconvenient to commit horrible uncleanenesse But God hereby punished not the unclean disposition the fruites whereof were brought forth by Gods giving them over into a reprobate minde but hereby God punished their Idolatry 2 Thess 2. 20. Wee read of Gods giving men over to illusions to beleeve lies hereby hee did not punish their infidelity the fruite whereof was the beleeving lies but hereby hee punished their want of love to Gods truth So when God sent an evill spirit between Abimelech and the men of Sechem to set them together by the eares hee did not hereby punish their mutuall hatred one against another but rather their joynt conspiracy against the sons of Jerubbaal I doe not deny but it may bee said as Austin saith that God hath ordained Ut omnis inordinatus animus paena sit sibi That every inordinate minde should bee a punishment to it self but in my judgement it is a strange liberty of speech to say that God doth punish a man for his covetousnesse by not restraining it but suffering it to have his course What you mean by giving Judas over to betray Christ I know not Gods providence operative in evill is of an obscure nature You speak of obduration and of giving over unto sin but wherein it consists you explicate not Yet by declining these phrases you forsake the point in question Which is not at this present whether God gave Judas over to the betraying of Christ but whether hee decreed hee should betray him and the Priests conspire against him and the people preferre Barabbas before him and Pilate condemn him Which because you not directly deny the Question is transferred to the manner of this decree as namely whether it bee absolute or conditionall You will have it to bee conditionall to wit upon the presupposall of Judas his covetousnesse Yet this you doe not in plain terms expresse as indeed you seldome set down your meaning plainly giving your self too much liberty in speaking at large which is no way conducing to the investigation of truth but a sore impediment rather Having said that it is without warrant to say that the sinfull manner of Christs death was decreed by God by an unconditionall decree presupposing no condition in the creatures which were the wicked instruments of his death Whereas hereupon you should shew upon presupposall of what condition in Judas in the Priests in Pilate God decreed that Judas should betray him the Priests deliver him to Pilate and Pilate condemn him you decline this and in a new phrase tell us that it was the punishment of Judas his covetousnesse and hypocrisie that God gave him up to betray Christ and in like manner you speak of the rest Leaving to your Reader to expiscate your direct meaning and to explicate that which you involve It seems your meaning is that upon the foresight of Judas his covetousnesse and hypocrisie God decreed hee should betray him Now let us discusse this If God did in this manner decree it then certainly upon the covetousnesse of Judas hee brought this to passe Now I demand by what course of providence God brought it to passe that Judas betrayed him you say it was by giving him over to betray him Now what you mean by this I know not neither doe you expresse but I will indevour to explain it First I presume your meaning is God did not restrain his covetousnesse for this seems to bee the meaning of this phrase Psal 81. where it is said God gave them over to their own hearts lusts and by way of explication it is added And let them follow their own inventions Now this course of providence was not sufficient to bring it to passe that Judas should betray
whereas justice is as well remunerative as vindicative as this hath place only on the wicked so the other on the good I meane those that departed the world after they came to yeares of discretion yet consider I pray you what thinke you of them that perish in no other sinne but originall derived unto them by the fall of Adam which Adam we beleeve to be saved In the condemnation of these what glory of God doth appeare more either of his justice or of his soveraignty 2. But be it granted that these glories doe appeare chiefly at such times yet if other glories doe appeare also in the same last execution how will you deduce herehence that only those glories you mention were first in intention Will it not rather follow that seeing other glories as well as these did appeare in execution though not chiefly therefore other glories as well as these were first in intention though not chiefly 3. When God blesseth his elect with all spirituall blessings in Christ we need not say he aimes rather at somewhat else then the praise of the glory of his grace when out of meere grace he made his glorious selfe known unto us he made not only his grace known unto us but all his attributes more or lesse which to our understanding are equally glorious in themselves though we take more comfort in the speculation of his grace which yet is more wonderfull when we consider his soveraignty over us his creatures and that it was indifferent to him to make us vessells of wrath as well as vessells of mercy and in this very consideration the very damnation of reprobates shall improve our glorious joyes in the apprehension of Gods free love to us at the day of judgement according to that of the Apostle Rom. 9. 22. You are to looke to it how you make your Tenent good who maintaine that God doth rather aime at the one then at the other 4. As for the wicked the righteousnesse of Gods judgement upon them we can in some measure conceive at this present But as for the power of God in executing such judgements maintaining the creature in the suffering of eternall sorrows wee are not able to conceive and therefore the glory hereof is farre more admirable then the other So likewise what shall be the fruits of the grace of God towards us at that day and after neither eye hath seene nor eare hath heard c. nor that glory contained in seeing the face of God If God should but reveale unto us the wisdome whereby he hath managed his providence towards us before he called us and since the calling of us immediatly by himselfe mediatly by the ministry of good Angels contending with and crossing the counsells and practises of wicked Angels what a body of glory would appeare unto us and how should we be ravished with the contemplation of it How much more with the contemplation of his providence thoroughout both in managing the whole course of nature and the whole course of grace QUESTION â— How and by what demonstrative reasons may it appeare that there is a necessity of a departing from the doctrine delivered in our Church The reasons which moved me a little and but a little to depart from the forme of words usually received in delivering the doctrine of Reprobation are such as to me seeme if not demonstrative yet convincing And though I have learned to suspect mine owne judgement where I differ never so little from my godly and reverend loarned Brethren yet I consider we are taught to trie all things likewise and to hold fast that which is good and as wee believe so to speake submitting our selves to the feare of God But before I come to the ground wherupon I have beene led to believe and speake somewhat otherwise of this point then is commonly received let me first shew you how farre I consent with the received opinon even in all usefull truthes and how little it is then wherin I dissent In the doctrine of election I consent wholly with Augustine Calvin Beza Martyr Zanehy Perkins Paraeus and others who have taught us by plaine evidence and that from scripture 1. That before the world was God out of his free will hath chosen the elect by name by an unchangeable decree unto grace and glory in Christ Jesus to the shewing forth of the riches of the glory of his grace 2. That to restore them who were losâ— in Adam he sent forth the Lord Jesus to be obedient to the death for them and by his death to redeeme them as effectually as if they themselves had suffered in their owne persons 3. That in the fulnesse of time he calleth each one of them by an effectuall and invincible drawing even by such an almighty worke of his quickning spirit as he did put forth in raising Christ from the dead 4. That those whom he so calleth he preserveth by some powerfull worke of his spirit to himselfe in Christ so as they never fall from him totally or finally Only herein take it not amisse if I place the subject of Election in Persons considered in Christ before the world or themselves were and not in massa corrupta with the late venerable Synod For though herein they follow Augustine and Zanchy and some others yet have they dissented from the chiefe instruments of the reformation of our Religion And with reverence I speake it as I am led to conceive that it need not trouble any if taking Christ to be the head of the elect I conceive him to be first thought upon and chosen and we in him Mr. Baynes followeth the schoole in so expressing it and the reasons delivered above in the first point have carryed me with them and the difference lyeth in opening the purpose of Reprobation But see here how farre I goe with the streamâ— and â—hen I goe aside how little and upon what ground How convincing or demonstrative the reasons are I addresse my selfe to consider It is good to make progresse in the investigation of truth Austin professeth himselfe to be of the number of those qui proficiendo scribunt scribendo proficiunt only our care must be that we goe not backward and make things worse then wee found them which comes to passe especially with good men many times not so much by falling into error as by confusion of method for hereby it comes to passe that the passages opening the way to the investigation of truth are stopt up and we find our selves in a brake and see no way out To prevent them I am perswaded it is a profitable consideration to thinke with our selves that different opinions especially amongst godly Divines may be no other then the dividing of the truth betweene them About the object of predestination there hath bin a triple difference in opinion some standing for massa nondum condita others for massa pura that is condita but nondum corrupta others for massa corrupta yet
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
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
ability Dicere solet humana superbia saith Austin si scissem fecissem What was Pauls meaning when hee said of himselfe Rom. 7. 9. I once was alive without the Law I should think this impotency cannot be discerned without the life of grace For like as a dead man naturally is not sensible of his death so hee that is dead in sinne is nothing sensible of this his sinfull condition But howsoever surely grace revealed onely hath no congruity to such a worke as to bring a man to see his impotency for what greater grace in the kind of revelation then the word of God let this word testifie that a man is shaped in wickednesse and in sinne conceived and that hee is dead in sinne Is this sufficient to make him see his impotency Is the hearing of Gods word sufficient to make him beleeve it why then is it not sufficient to take away mens blindnesse and why then doth not every one that hears it cease to be blind and consequently cease to bee lame and deafe yea and cease to be dead also Nay which is more suppose a Physician discovers a man to be in a dangerous estate when hee dreames of nothing lesse and suppose the party beleeves it upon his word yet here-hence it followeth not that hee seeth the dangerous estate wherein hee is untill hee hath some feeling of it So likewise if hee should beleeve the word telling him that hee is unable to doe any thing that is good yet hee shall not be said to see it till hee hath some feeling of it and whence can this feeling proceed but from some principle of life that must be shed into his soule that hee may have a feeling of that miserable estate wherein hee is by nature otherwise though upon supposition hee should beleeve it in Gods word yet hee should not see it in himselfe Further you say It is sufficient to stirre him up to seek for help and strength and life in him where it is to bee found A strange conceit that a man should seek for life whereas if hee hath not life hee is dead and was it ever known that a dead man sought for life well Martha might seeke for the restoring of life to her dead brother Lazarus but surely Lazarus himselfe being dead neither did nor could seeke for life A man that hath life may be said to labour for life that is to hold it when hee is in danger of losing life but for a dead man to seeke for life is more then miraculous for it is utterly impossible When the Angell came downe into the Poole of Bethesda the poore Creple had never a whit the more sufficiency to enter in had his heart beene as lame to desire as his body to goe notwithstanding that he saw so good an opportunity hee should make no more haste to desire the benefit then his body could to enjoy it Againe no man seekes for that hee desires not neither can hee desire ought unlesse hee know it and loves it And is it possible that a man should know the precious nature of the life of grace and be in love with it and yet without the life of grace Is the knowledge of the precious nature of the state of grace and the love thereof a fruit of the flesh thinke you But by that which followes it seemes this is not your meaning but you suppose that notwithstanding all the operation of grace mentioned they may despise it In which case they neither love it nor understand the precious nature of it for no man despiseth that which hee loves and accounts precious Therefore this stirring up seemes to bee nothing but perswasion and exhortation Now this as Austin long agoe delivered Doctrinae generalitate comprehenditur and we willingly grant that the word preached doth equally exhort all that heare it to faith to repentance to prayer in some of which or in all which consists the seeking of life And no man makes question but the word of God sufficiently performes its part in exhortation to faith to repentance to prayer but the Pharisees despised this and so doe most and God is blamelesse But of any power that they have to beleeve repent and pray upon the doing whereof they should obtaine life your selfe are content to say nothing at all but keep your selfe unto generall phrases which are very apt to deceive us and this is the course not onely of them that are in love with their owne errors but with good men also when out of a desire to justifie God and not content with that simplicity of satisfaction which is laid forth unto us in holy Scripture and seemes harsh to flesh and bloud making them cry out Durus est hic sermo they shape unto themselves other courses more convenient as they thinke to give satisfaction yet not so much unto themselves as unto others but all in vaine for flesh and bloud will receive no satisfaction in the plaine truth of God A third Reason then to prove that God purposed life to the world upon condition of their obedience and repentance is taken from the end God aimed at As hee declares himselfe to offer meanes of salvation unto the world which is not in the first place to harden and to leave without excuse but to bring them to the knowledge of God and of themselves to repentance to the seeking after God to the purging of themselves from sinne and to peace To the Gentiles God gave the workes of Creation and Providence and his Law written in their hearts to reveale the knowledge of God to them to teach them to doe the things of the Law to judge of them that doe amisse and thereby be brought to condemne themselves doing the same things to lead them to repentance to move them to seek after the Lord. And thus much light Christ enlighteneth every man withall that cometh into this world From whence also it was that God vouchsafed heavenly dreames and visions even to the Gentiles That hee might withdraw them from their sinnes and hide their pride and save their soules from the pit But because this light alone did not prevaile with the Gentiles as to bring them to the knowledge of God in Christ therefore it pleased God in the fulnesse of time to send the preaching of the Gospel amongst them and in the meane time not to iudge them nor condemne them for their not beleeving in Christ of whom they had not heard nor for transgressing the Law of workes which they had not received but onely for sinning against the law of nature which was written in their hearts and expounded to them daily by the workes of Creation and Providence and sealed up to them by particular amplification partly by their Consciences accusing or excusing Rom. 2. 15. partly by dreames and visions Job 33. 15 16. To the Jewes God revealed his Covenant clearly and fully sent his Prophets among them early and late gave them deliverances chastened them with
heart out of their bowels and give them an heart of flesh when he resolves to afford this grace unto some but not unto others let every one judge hereby whether God can be said earnestly to desire the changing of their hearts when hee resolves to forbeare that course which alone can change them No no this discourse favoureth strongly of a conceit that it is in the power of an unregenerate man to change his owne heart and of an heart of stone to change it into an heart of flesh And in this case I confesse it were very probable that God should earnestly desire it provided that any ineffectuall and changeable desires were incident unto God That when God putteth forth the second act of positive retribution viz. the rejection of the world or decree of their condemnation God doth behold and consider the world especially men of riper yeares not in massa primitus corrupta nor as newly fallen in Adam but as voluntarily falling off by some act of carelesse and wilfull disobedience To prove this I need not produce other reasons then what I have formerly alledged in the fone-going Point for when God did expresse by his oath his will and good pleasure to be not for the death but life and conversion of sinners was it not after the fall of Adam and all his posterity in him then notwithstanding the presupposall of the fall God had not yet rejected the creature but as hee there declareth himselfe still retaineth and reserveth thoughts of peace towards them even a desire of their conversion unto life Againe with whom did the Lord enter into a Covenant of life and death upon condition of obedience and disobedience was it not with Adam onely and his posterity in his loynes in the state of innocency by the law written in their heart Was it not also after Adams fall renewed to all his posterity both Jewes and Gentiles Then yet God had not cast them away in the fall though the fall had justly deserved it but expecteth yet further to see how they will yet keep this renewed Covenant with him before hee cast them off as Reprobates Even Cain himselfe the eldest sonne of Reprobation is after the fall offered acceptance of Gods hand if hee doe well Moreover is it not after the fall that the Father by his workes of creation and providence judgements and mercies c. the Sonne by his enlightening the world by his death and ministery of his servants and the Holy Ghost by his calling and knocking at the hearts of the wicked doe all strive with men even to this very end to turne them to the Lord that iniquity may not be their destruction If therefore all the Persons in the Trinity doe provide severall helpfull meanes for the conversion and salvation of the world of the world I say now after the fall lying in wickednesse surely God did not then upon the fall reprobate the world unto eternall condemnation and perdition If you say God might well reprobate the world unto condemnation upon the fall and yet still after the fall usâ— meanes for their conversion and salvation because those meanes doe but further aggravate their condemnation I answer these doe indeed further aggravate their condemnation but it is but by accident onely by their neglect and abuse of them but the proper end which God himselfe of himselfe aimes at in the use of these meanes himselfe plainly expresseth it to be not the aggravation or procurement of their condemnation but the restoring of them to salvation and life as hath been before declared So then to draw all to an head the summe of this first reason is If God after the fall doe retaine a will and purpose to restore life to the world upon an equall condition then hee did not upon the fall or upon the onely consideration of the fall reject the world of the ungodly unto their utter perdition But you see God retaineth after the fall an holy will and purpose of restoring life unto the world upon an equall condition as appeareth by his Oath by his Covenant and by his Workes therefore the conclusion which is the point in hand is evident I marvell what you meane to call Gods decree of condemnation his act of retribution retribution being an act temporall and transient the decree of God is an act immanent and eternall And therefore it is not so handsomely said to be the putting forth of an act for so much as it is immanent and not transient 'T is manifest I confesse that sin is alwayes precedent to the retribution of punishment as it is without controversie that sinne neither is nor can be antecedent to Gods decree sinne being temporall but all Gods decrees eternall And I have found it by experience to be an usuall course with our Adversaries to confound condemnation with the decree of condemnation And Junius himselfe very incongruously in my judgement calls this decree Praedamnatio to make the fairer place as I guesse for sins praecedencie thereunto at least in consideration But no necessity urgeth us to any such course and wee may well maintaine that God in this decree of condemnation hath alwayes the consideration of that sinne for which hee purposeth to damne them for undoubtedly hee decrees to condemne no man but for sinne It is impossible it should be otherwise condemnation in the notion thereof formally including sinne But I like not your expressions in the distinction you make saying God considers men in this sinne not as newly fallen in Adam but as voluntarily falling off you mean long after by some act of carelesse and wilfull disobedience When God made this decree they were not newly that is a little before fallen in Adam for that fall in Adam was temporall but the decrees of God are eternall And to consider as newly fallen when as yet they were not much lesse were they fallen is not so much to consider as to erre or feigne But like as God decreed to suffer all to fall in Adam and many also to continue both therein and in bringing forth the bitter fruits thereof even untill death so he purposed to condemne them for those sinnes but take heed you doe not make an order of prius and posterius between these decrees lest either you make the decree of condemnation precedent to the decree of permission of those sinnes for which they shall be condemned which will be directly contradictory to your Tenet here or making Gods decree of permitting such sinnes for which they shall be condemned precedent to his decree of condemnation whereunto you doe encline unawares which will cast you upon miserable inconveniences and that by your owne rule already delivered for if the decree of permitting sinne be first in intention then by the rules received by you it should be last in execution that is men should be condemned for sinne before they be permitted to sinne But the conjunction of these decrees into one as in the same
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
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
lin 6. to 15. Thomas is of opinion that Christ should never have been predestinated if man had not sinned Whence it seemeth to follow by consequence that sinne was first seen by God and the permission thereof willed before the incarnation of the Word was willed So that in the way of the Thomists it appeares not how it can stand that the first decree of God was the incarnation or predestination of the Word if so be the permission and fore-sight of sin was before it but if Christ were predestinate before sin was fore-seen then though sin had not been yet Christ should have come into the world who was predestinate before the fore-sight of sin lin 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. That God did first will the hypostaticall union and incarnation of the Word before he willed the permission of sin and before he determined to make the nature of man and of the whole universe Yet because the incarnation was not willed without the consideration of sin but was willed dependently upon the permission of sin and of the nature of things as upon the meanes therefore it followeth not that Christ should come into the world if sinne had not entred or if the world had not at all been means tending to the incarnation of Christ Pag. 32. l. 20. From the greatnesse of the remedy take notice of the greatnesse of the danger Pag 36 l 26. beyond the worthinesse of it l. 27. lesse then it deserves Pag 40. l. 4. who by profiting write and by writing profit l. 16. the masse not made l. 17. made not yet corrupted l. 18. the masse corrupt Pag. 41. lin 23. the masse not yet created l. 28. the masse corrupt Pag. 43. lin 34 35. God willed glory unto Peter he willed nothing unto Judas l. 36. God willed grace unto Peter hee willed nothing unto Judas l. 37. God would have each of them to exist in the corrupt masse Pag. 44. l. 2. It is something to come thus farre l. 4. will damnation unto Judas l. 14. of every thing that is and of every thing that is not l. 33 34. If God did not will glory to Judas then God did will that hee should have no glory Pag. 45. l. 13. to hate l. 14. not to will grace and glory to some one Pag. 47. l. 23. as a crown of justice Pag. 51. l. 25 26. Reprobation includes the will of suffering sin and inflicting damnation for sin Pag. 53. l. 22. We know l. 23. not onely wills averse from faith but wills adverse to faith l. 29. Of the vocation of the Gentiles Pag. 54. l. 20. in the masse from the beginning corrupt Page 55. l. 34. in the masse of Adam lin 36 37. to consider to erre or feign lin 27 28. as to come in the masse of Adam Page 56. lin 5 6. as should be faithfull and repent and persevere in faith and repentance Pag. 59. lin 13 14. Let me not live if I delight in the death of a wicked man but I delight when a wicked man returns that hee may live lin 21 22. Because our defections and our sins lye upon us therefore we pine away in them and should we live lin 24 25 26. Say unto them Let me not live saith the Lord if I delight in the death of the wicked but when the wicked returnes from his way that hee may live Returne ye returne yee from your most evill wayes for why should yee die O house of Isreal Pag. 60. lin 3 4. by almighty facility convert and of unwilling make them willing lin 38. the will of signe the will of good pleasure l. 39. the will of precept Pag. 61. l. 1. the will of purpose l. 14. the will of sign and the will of good pleasure Pag. 63. l. 18. as touching the act of God willing l. 19. as touching the things willed Pag. 67. l. 20. the decrees being changed the Court of heaven had mourned lin 24. in a greater measure succoured Pag. 68. lin 23 24. Not any thing comes unlesse God will have it come to passe either by suffering it to come to passe or himselfe working it l. 25. suffers to come to passe hee will have it come to passe Pag. 69. l. 11. middle knowledge l. 21. in part lin 22. simply or thoroughly Pag. 71. l. 2 3. the pride of man is wont to say If I had known it I would have done it Pag. 72. l. 32. This is an hard saying Pag. 76. l. 1 2 c. Each part of man the spirit and the heart that is the superiour and inferiour ill disposed by God understand it negatively as touching the giving of free grace but positively as touching the judgement inclination to and prosecution of a sensible good So that God made the Kings spirit hard that is not yeelding to the requests made and not giving him grace to yeeld and working with him to the affection of security and his own good Pag. 77. lin 31 32. by works by writing Pag. 78. lin 16 17. How great patience soever God affords who will repent unlesse God give repentance Pag. 79. l. 11 12. that they may profit so farre as to performe outward repentance that so their punishment may be the lesse l. 24 25. by will of precept by will of purpose or good pleasure Pag. 82. l 4. that hee might afflict thee l. 28. of duty by conformity to the affections of men Pag. 86. l. 6 7. Fair Laverna teach me to deceive teach me to seem just and holy Cast darknesse over my sins and a cloud over my deceits lin 38 39. Liberty without grace is not liberty but wilfulnesse Pag. 89. l. 3. doe that which is just l. 4. because they will not why will they not l. 5. we goe farre without prejudice of a more diligent search l. 6 7. Either because the goodnesse of it lies hid or because 't is such as delights not l. 8. but that what lay hid is made known and that is made sweet which formerly did not delight this is from the grace of God which succoureth mens wills l. 34 35. averse from true faith but adverse to true faith Pag. 94. l. 27 28. whom no mans will resists for of unwilling he makes them willing l. 32 33. the pride of man is wont to say Had I known it I would have done it Pag. 95. l. 5 6. faith is the cause of salvation cause meritorious l. 7. cause of damnation causes disposing Pag. 97. l. 3. Of the vocation of Gentiles Pag. 99. l. 34. Justice of condecency Pag. 105. l. 29. university of elect a world of elect l. 30. Of the vocation of Gentiles Pag. 108. l. 10. the will cannot be constrained lin 15 16. God by almighty ease converts men and of unwilling makes them willing Pag. 109. l. 21. in the masse at the first corrupt Pag. 111. l. 24. of former and latter Pag. 114. lin 31 32. includes the will of suffering sin and inflicting damnation for sin l. 36.
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
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
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
after disobedience Say not Surely God purposed nothing but death to the world of mankind whom hee elected not because hee offered them life upon such condition which hee knew was impossible for them to keep for first in Adam they were enabled to keep it neither impotency in Adam nor efficacy of Gods decree did put upon Adam any necessity of breaking it Againe in Christ they have so much knowledge and grace revealed to them and offered as is sufficient to bring them on to see their impotency in themselves and to stirre them up to seeke for help and strength and life in him where it is to be found which if they neglect or despise as the Pharisees did and all the rest of impenitent sinners doe God and his Covenant are blamelesse in offering them life and the meanes of it their destruction is of themselves That Proposition of yours As it is in men renued after the Image of God so likewise it is in God himselfe had need of much limitation and qualification lest it prove as often false as true or rather more That which followes Such as is his Covenant or Promise such is his Purpose is likewise as often false as true If the Promises of God are absolute such are his Purposes but if his Promises bee conditionall such are not his Purposes Both Piscator of late by evidence of Scripture and Bradwardine long before by demonstration of Reason have proved that no will in God is conditionate quoad actum volentis all the conditions are found quoad res volitas And indeed though the Purposes of God are absolute yet his Promises are therefore conditionate because they are conformed to the manner of Gods operation with man For as God workes in all things agreeable to their natures so in man hee useth to worke agreeable to his nature And therefore albeit his Purpose bee absolute to bring them to grace and glory to faith repentance and salvation yet hee allures them to faith and repentance by promises and threatnings When you say that God doth covenant and promise to give life to the Elect out of his grace in Christ You might as well have said that God promiseth to give life to them that beleeve and repent and more congruously a great deale seeing the conscience of our faith and repentance brings us to the assurance of our Election the conscience of our Election or of the assurance thereof brings us not unto faith and repentance But it seemes you desire to shape the Promises of God in the Covenant of Grace and in the Covenant of Workes in so different a manner that the one may seeme to bee absolute the other conditionall whereas they are of the same nature in both And as God doth withall intend to give the grace of obedience to the Elect so doth hee as absolutely intend to deny it to the other And I wonder you make not mention of the Reprobate in the latter as of the Elect in the former Undoubtedly the Covenant of Workes concernes all to whom it is preached as well the Elect as the Reprobate And the Covenant of Grace likewise concernes all to whom it is preached as well the Reprobate as the Elect. To all it is preached Whosoever beleeveth shall be saved as well to the Reprobate as to the Elect To all it is preached indifferently Whosoever beleeveth not shall bee damned as well to the Elect as to the Reprobate onely God shewes mercy on whom hee will in giving the grace of faith and hardens whom he will in denying it God doth covenant you say to give life to Adam and all his posterity if they continue in obedience to his Law This then undoubtedly concernes the Elect as well as the Reprobate For they are a part of Adams posterity But I wonder not a little at this language speaking in the Present Tense that God doth covenant to give Adam life whereas Adam many thousand yeares agoe hath ceased to have any thing to doe with any such Covenant Therefore this is for some speciall purpose in joyning Adam and his posterity together as persons covenanted with by God And I imagine the reason of it to be this Lest otherwise there could bee no place for continuance in obedience required of all Adams posterity for that presupposeth them to be in the estate of obedience which was never verified of them all but as they were in Adam and that in his state of Innocency But why should wee please our selves with such confusion Let us consider them apart and say that God did covenant with Adam that if hee continued in obedience to his Law or if breaking his Law hee did returne againe to him by repentance hee should have life But what evidence I pray have you for this namely that God made any such Covenant with Adam in the state of Innocency who ever was found to entertaine any such conceit before you why might not you as well devise the like Covenant to be made by God with the Angels Nay is not the contrary manifest In the day thou sinnest thou shalt dye the death How could this be verified if God made any such Covenant with Adam For if hee were under such a Covenant hee could not be said to violate it by sinning but onely by refusing to repent after hee had sinned And I verily beleeve you have no such meaning as if you conceived any such Covenant to bee made with Adam before his fall and therefore you clapt Adam and his posterity together to the end that if that which you delivered might not hold of the one it might of the other And though it hold of Adams posterity as touching this part of turning unto God by repentance after sinne committed yet of them it holds not as touching the other part of the condition to wit of continuance in obedience for the posterity of Adam through his fall are quite out of the estate of obedience till God restores them Nay God in this life never restores any to the estate of obedience which was found in Adam before his fall Out of this confusion you inferre that Surely the purpose of Gods just retribution is to give life to the world of mankind upon condition of their obedience or of their repentance As before wee were troubled with confusion so here wee are againe troubled with an unhappy distinction For what doe you meane to distinguish Obedience from Repentance as if Repentance were not Obedience Doth not God say as well unto us Repent and beleeve the Gospel as If you consent and obey you shall eat the good things of the land Is it fit to distinguish the Genus from the Species so as to set one in opposition to the other Though the contentions of Brethren are as the barrs of a Palace yet as Brethren they are all the Children of the same Father or Mother or both But take wee your meaning and that by Obedience is to be understood such a state or
moment of nature and reason will both prevent this inconvenience and also justifie Gods decree of condemnation to proceed upon the consideration of those sinnes for which hee purposeth to condemne them But then there is another point of great moment which in like manner must be accorded unto though you seeme to be little aware of it though I willingly confesse this over-sight is very generall namely that God decreeth the salvation of none of ripe yeares but upon or with a joynt consideration of their faith repentance and good workes For let us first make the decrees of salvation and condemnation matches As for example Reprobation as it is accounted the decree of condemnation is a decree of punishing with everlasting death Now if you will match Election unto this as it is the decree of salvation it must be conceived as a decree of rewarding with everlasting life Now let any man judge whether this decree must not as necessarily be conjoyned with the consideration of faith repentance and good works in men of ripe years as the decree of condemnation or of punishing with everlasting death must be conjoyned with the consideration of those sinnes for which God purposeth to punish them And I will further demonstrate it thus Like as the decree of permitting some men to sinne and to continue therein to the end and Gods decree of condemning for sinne are joynt decrees neither afore nor after other and consequently the decree of condemning for sinne must necessarily be conjoyned with the consideration of sinne In like sort Gods decree of giving some faith repentance and good workes and his decree of rewarding them with everlasting life are joynt decrees neither of them afore or after other and consequently Gods decree of saving them and rewarding them with everlasting life is joyned with the consideration of their faith repentance and good workes Now that these are joynt decrees I prove thus First the decree of salvation cannot precede the decree of giving faith and repentance for if it should then salvation were the end of faith and repentance but salvation is not the end as I prove thus The end is such as doth necessarily bespeake the meanes tending thereunto but salvation doth not necessarily bespeake faith and repentance tending thereunto for God intending the salvation of Angels brought it to passe without faith and repentance as likewise the salvation of many an infant hee brings to passe without faith and repentance Secondly the end of Gods actions can be nothing but himselfe and his owne glory and therefore salvation it selfe must have for end the glory of God Now examine what glory of God is manifested in mans salvation and it will forth with appeare upon due examination that the glory of God manifested in mans salvation is such as whereunto not salvation only doth tend but diverse other things joyntly concurring with salvation thereunto As for example Gods glory manifested on the elect is in the highest degree of grace but in the way of mercie mixt with justice This requires permission of sin the sending of Christ to make satisfaction for sinne faith and repentance for Gods justice is seen partly in conferring salvation by way of reward and last of all salvation Out of all these results the glory of God in doing good to his creature in the highest degree of grace proceeding in the way of mercie mixt with justice Thirdly if God gave faith and repentance to this end to bring his elect unto salvation as to the end thereof then by just proportion of reason God should deny the gift of faith and repentance unto others that is to permit them finally to persevere in their sinners thereby to procure their condemnation as the end thereof which you will not affirme neither can it with any sobrietie be affirmed In the next place I will shew that neither can the decree of giving faith and repentance precede the decree of salvation for if it should then should faith repentance be the last in execution to wit if it were first in intention and consequently men should first be saved and afterwards have faith and repentance granted unto them Thus I have shewed my readinesse to concurre with you in opinion in this particular and that upon other grounds than yours and whose grounds are more sound yours or mine I am content to remit it to the judgement of any indifferent Reader As for your reason here mentioned repeating onely what you have formerly delivered as touching the will and good pleasure of God not for the death but for the life not onely of the elect but of all others also the vanitie of this assertion of yours I thinke I have sufficiently discovered And I wonder you should carry it thus not of the death but of the life when most an end you have carried it onely thus hitherunto that Gods willing their life is onely upon condition of their obedience and repentance not otherwise Or in a disjunct axiome thus Either of life in case they repent or of death in case they did not repent and what should move you to call this a willing to give them life and not to inflict death Why should you not rather call it a will to inflict death and not to give life considering that God was resolved to deny them such grace as would effectually bring them to obedience and repentance and to grant them only such a grace as he fore-knew full well would never bring them to obedience and repentance 1. Cain was of the familie of Adam to whom the promise was made concerning the seed of the woman that he should break the serpents head and although Cain was offered acceptance upon his repentance yet it followeth not that all were offered the same acceptance even those that never received any tidings or promise concerning the Messiah And the Apostle plainly signifies that the Gentiles were not admonished to repent untill Christ was preached unto them Act. 17. 30. But suppose it were so yet this hinders nothing at all the precedencie of the decree of condemnation unto the decree of giving such a Covenant and permitting them to dispise it For because God purposed to damne them for such a sinne therefore hee might decree to give them such a Covenant and permit them or expose them by leaving them destitute of his grace to the despising of it Not that I doe approve of any such conceit as before I have manifested but to shew how short your discourse falls of making good that which you undertake to prove And I am much deceived if you mistake not their tenet who make reprobation to proceed upon the consideration of the corrupt masle in Adam For undoubtedly their meaning hereupon is not to maintaine that God did purpose to condemne all reprobates only for the sin of Adam or for originall sinne drawne from him this were a very mad conceit But supposing that by Adams fall an impotency of doing that which is good is come upon
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle alludeth to the common course of Judges and suites in the law or of wrestlings in the Olympian or of captaines in the war who were wont conscribere to designe afore-hand or set downe in writing the names of such adversaries as were to have their causes or tryalls tryed before them And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies of old I dare not stretch it so farre as to reach it to eternitie neither doth the place require it nor any other in scripture to my remembrance Yea God himselfe in Jeremy plainly distinguisheth time of old from eternitie as the lesser from the greater If you then aske what is that old time Jude here speakes of wherein God wrought afore-hand and as it were designed viz. these false teachers to the tryall of his Church and contention with him I answere About 4040. yeares before Jude wrote this Epistle when God pronounced in ' Paradise that ancient curse upon the serpent and his seed I will put enmitie saith he between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed then was that of old when God did assigne and appoint these false teachers under these generall words the seed of the serpent to this enmitie and contention with the Church concerning the faith once given to the Saints And indeed the description which Jude gives of these false teachers thus set out by God unto this contention doth plainly decipher them as the seed of the serpent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ungodly men turning the grace of God into wantonnesse denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ Thus have I declared how farre or rather how little I have departed and upon what grounds not so much from the received doctrine of our Church as the received manner of the explication of it In all which I humbly submit my spirit not only to the judgment of the reformed Churches whether of England or of foreigne countries if ever they come to take notice hereof but also of every learned godly brother into whose hands this discourse may fall As for that place of Jude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sense hereof you say is given to be that these false teachers were of old ordained to judgement viz. As they take it from eternitie and so before themselves were and had given any former cause of such condemnation This you make the interpretation of the place given by others and their doctrine accordingly And the consequent thereof you make to be this namely That according to this sense the subject whereabout the decree of Reprobation is conversant is not the world as fallen in Adam much lesse as fallen from Christ but as considered in massa pura before they had done good or evill yea before they were Now I have diverse things to object against you in this First were I of your opinion in the point of Reprobation I should utterly deny that there is any such consequent that may be lawfully inferred from the former interpretation and doctrine For albeit men are from eternitie ordained to condemnation and consequently before themselves were or had given any former cause of such condemnation yet if when God did ordaine them hereunto he did foresee not only their fall in Adam but their finall infidelitie and impenitency also and thereupon did proceed to ordaine them to condemnation as it is acknowledged on all hands at this day both Papists Arminians and orthodox Protestants your selfe onely that I know excepted then surely herehence it will not follow that massapura should be the object of Reprobation but massa corrupta and that not in Adam onely but with actuall sinnes and that throughout the whole course of their lives all along even untill death And I perswade my selfe you also will be of the same opinion if you give your selfe to a due and serious consideration of it which might have saved you all this paines in straining a poore text to serve your turne in a miserable manner and that most causelesly For certainely you feare in this place where there is no cause of feare at all on your part Secondly why should you straine courtesie to acknowledge Gods ordination which is no other then Gods decree of men unto condemnation to have been from all eternitie For what Papist Arminian Lutheran or orthodox Protestant provided that he be learned withall is found to deny this Was it not one of the prodigious doctrines of Vorstius to maintaine that Gods decrees are not eternall Whence it should manifestly follow that God is changeable For if God should now begin to will that which formerly hee willed not this would introduce a change in God as well as if hee should cease to will that which formerly hee willed Can it be denyed but that God did everlastingly foresee whatsoever should come to passe If hee did then he did from everlasting foresee the finall infidelitie and impenitency of every one that in such a condition departs out of the world And why then should it not become God from everlasting to ordaine all such unto condemnation Thirdly who are they that interpret St. Jude in such a manner as you obtrude upon them I cannot beleeve any is found so absurd What that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie no more then ordaine to judgement What shall become of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then a word in this place most significant I perswade my selfe you cannot name one the Author of so loose an interpretation But let us consider how you carry your selfe in the clearing of it as you speak which indeed is to raise a mist rather in the clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you say in the first place signifies judgement and I say neither doe they render it otherwise whom you undertake to confute Yet holding the translation here as it were at bay without specification it cannot stand with your interpretation to wit of Gods ordaining men to judgement in generall according to their workes a judgement of mercy in case their workes prove good or of wrath in case they prove evill whatsoever you pretend to the contrary but most improvidently For albeit the word judgement be generall and indifferently appliable to either kind yet the Apostles phrase here this judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood and maintained in any such generalitie and indifferencie And therefore you could not rest in this sense without much oversight as your selfe observe and forthwith confesse Therefore you proceed further to observe that the Apostle v. 3. thought it needfull to exhort them to contend earnestly for the faith once given to the Saints That is true In the v. 4. hee addes the reason hereof that also is true in these words For there are certaine men crept in of old ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And these men you call Antagonists hawking thereby after some congruitie to your interpretation following And thirdly you observe that
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
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
the inheritance of the Saints in Light Forthwith you return to the right state of the question to wit in the concession or denegation of regenerating grace but carry your self in shew very prejudicially to the freenesse of Gods grace as when you say What if no Reprobate made such use of the means and helps offered as to obtain regenerating grace Dangerously implying that there is a certain use of the means quo posito which being put regenerating grace should bee obtained As if grace regenerating were to bee dispensed according to an unregenerate persons works Of the same leaven savour your words following when you say That because they did not make better use of the means it was just with God to deny them greater means saving that here you may bee relieved by the ambiguity of the word means by shifting from one sense of it to another For if means bee taken in the same kinde to wit of outward means like â—â— it is just with God to reward the right use of smaller meanes with the bestowing of greater so it is just with God for the abuse of the smaller not onely to deny greater but to take away those smaller But as touching the granting or denying grace regenerative herein God carryeth himself meerely according to the good pleasure of his own will according to that of the Apostle Hee hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardneth Neither can it bee otherwise For as much as mercy in regenerating any man cannot bee shewed according unto good works and consequently the denying of mercy cannot proceed according to evill works as I have already demonstrated in the first place The Sixth Doubt Question 6. HOw may it appeare that the declaration of the equity and sufficiency of Gods justice is reall and not pretended since all things are carryed and come to passe by an absolute and unconditionall decree and providence exempli gratia that fact Act. 4. 28. 2. 23. Answer To say that God carryeth all things by an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence viz. opposing absolute to all conditions presupposed in the creature in my judgment is neither agreeing to the Doctrine of Scripture nor of our Divines who doe both teach that as God in the fulnesse of time doth administer and dispense the way of his providence so hee decreed to dispense them in the same manner from eternity Now in dispensing the performance of the Covenant of works the Lord punisheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or disobedience performed by it as it is at large described Levit. 26 Deut. 28. and therefore surely he decreed to carry such works of his providence upon the same conditions The places that may bee alledged to the contrary do speak of Gods Decree in delivering Christ to death for us which as it was a work of meere grace you may safely conceive it was decreed by an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence as generally the works of free grace are For either they depend on no condition in the creature or at least on none but such as God is pleased to work in us and for us And yet I beleeve that in your own judgement you think not that God did decree the death of Christ much lesse deliver him to death but upon condition of Adams fall If you say God did as well decree a sinfull manner of the death of Christ by the hands of the wicked as the death it self and that by an absolute an unconditionall decree I answer if you mean an unconditionall decree presupposing no condition in those creatures which were the wicked instruments of his death it is spoken without warrant either from those places or from any other That God gave up Judas to betray him it was the punishment of his covetousnesse and hypocrisie That God gave up the high Priests and Pharisees to conspire against him to deliver him to Pilate it was the punishment of their ambition and envy and in some of them their sin against the Holy Ghost That Pilate against his conscience gave iudgement against him it was the judgement of his carnall popularity and his worldly feare of Caesar That the common people and Souldiers cryed out against him and laid violent hands on him it was the punishment of their ignorance and infidelity Now it is out of all controversie that God doth not punish sin with sin nor decree to punish but upon condition of sin presupposed It is true indeed God worketh all things after the counsell of his will but that proveth not that God carryeth all things with an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence For it is the counsell of his will as to work the salvation of his Elect according to the Covenant of Grace freely and absolutely so to dispense rewards and punishments to the men of this world according to the condition of their obedience or disobedience There is therefore no place left for such a question viz. How it may appeare that the declaration of the equity of Gods Justice was not pretended but reall since all things are carryed and come to passe by an absolute and unconditionall decree of providence For neither are all things as it is evident so carryed and if they were I had rather such a question should come out of the mouth of an Arminian then of any godly and judicious Brother The Arminians you know upon a seeming faire pretence are wont to object against our Divines that God calleth the Reprobates rather simulate then sorio in semblance rather then in truth if hee hath before determined of them by an absolute and unconditionall decree But the same answer your selfe would return to their objection the same I return to your question with more probability yea I may truly say with more safety That no will of God is conditionall we have the concurrent consent both of our and Popish Divines For both Piscator maintaines it against Uorstius and Bradwardine demonstrates it And this condition which you speake of can be no lesse then some motive cause Aquinos hath professed that never any was so made as to affirm that there was any cause of Predestination quoad actum praedestinantis as touching the act of God predestinating and that for no other reason then because there can be no cause of the will of God quoad actum volentis as touching the act of God willing Whence it followeth manifestly that in like sort there can bee no cause of reprobation neither quoad actum reprobantis as touching the act of God reprobating and consequently no condition As for the contrary allegations out of Scripture and out of Divines I shall be content to consider them whensoever you shall produce them but I am perswaded you will not bee forwards to trouble your selfe there-about after I shall present unto you how incongruous a course you take to the justifying of that which here you affirme And not incongruous onely but