of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh for it is most plaine that these did make them thinke themselues within the compasse of the word because they were Israelites and the seede of Abraham in regard of bodily generation propagated from him and Arminius doth decline that in obiecting and answering which this discourse consisteth Beside that though the sonnes of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceiue of the Law yet the seede of Abraham without any adioyned is neuer so taken The assumption which is to be proued is this That many of Abrahams seede are such to whom the word belongeth not The word which belonged not to Ismael and Esau but to Isaac and Iacob onely and such as were like to them that word belonged not to many of those who are the seede of Abraham and Israelites But the word shewing Gods loue choise adoption blessing of Israel and Abrahams seede belonged not to Esau Ismael and such as they were but to Isaac and Iacob Here Arminius hauing those legall iusticiaries thus gathereth his sillogisme Ismael and Esau were types of such as sought iustice in the Law Ismael and Esau were reiected Isaac was reckoned in the seede Isaac was a type of the children of the promise Ergo the children of the promise are the seede Ismael was not in the seede but Ismael was a type of all who sought righteousnesse in the Law of all the children of the flesh Ergo the children of the flesh were not in the seede The conclusions are true but not pertinent to this sense for the children of the flesh heere are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham the children of the promise those who were so borne of Abraham that they were in Isaac called to the heauenly benediction But in laying downe this reiection of Esau from benefit of this word belonging to the seede and taking of Iacob he sheweth plainely that it is not a reiecting of those in Abrahams seede who were iusticiaries as iusticiaries because that Esau was reiected before hee was borne or had done good or euill from part in that word made to Israel and Isaac taken to the heauenly benedicton before any thing which might moue thereunto marke Ergo in the 10.11.12.13 ver three things First the equity of Esau and Isaac in Parents conception merits demerits onely in birth Esau had preheminence Secondly marke the word Came signifying the election of the one calling him to the heauenly inheritance with the reiection of the other which is laid downe verse 12.13 Thirdly Marke the end why God did choose and refuse before merits or demerits in the end of the 11. verse by a Parenthesis viz. that Gods purpose according to his free election might abide for euer while it depended not on workes in men which are changeable but on himselfe who freely calleth whom he wil to this heauenly glory The scope of this example is the same with the other viz. to proue that all of Israel and all the seede of Abraham were not such to whom the word declaring Gods free Election and Adoption to the heauenly inheritance belonged That word which belonged not to Esau but to Iacob that belonged not to many of Abrahams seed by consequence that may stand firme though a multitude of Abrahams seede be reiected but the word declaring Gods election c. But the Apostle doth lay downe the manner after which the word choosing and adopting Israell refusing Esau was giuen forth viz. that it came without respect of good or euill which might moue vnto it that hee may preuent a second obiection which the Iewes might make from their owne righteousnesse in respect of the Gentiles sinners for they might thinke it impossible that Gods word could stand with reiecting them who were righteous in comparison of the Gentiles receiued for hee conceiued this included in that quaerulous obiection First is Gods induration a cause why hee is angry with vs Secondly can he be angry with vs who are hardned by his vnresistable will Thirdly can he be angry with vs iustly The Apostle in this 21. ver telleth vs that that induration is not the cause of Gods anger but anger of induration for none are hardned but vessels now of wrath by their owne deseruing 2. Saith he God beareth them with much patience and doth not harden them by will irresistable 3. God doth it for most iust ends and thus a reddition might be framed saith he a maiori ad minus Shall the Potter haue such absolute power in his clay and shall not God haue power to decree the hardning of those who iustly deserue it and that with such a will as doth expect with much patience their conuersion and all for the obtaining of most iust things But for this latter it is plaine the argument of the Potter is a pari or minori if it be compared to God Shall we thinke that God hath lesse power ouer his creatures then the Potter God I say Besides that Gods actuall induration beginneth where his patience endeth who createth and maketh the clay hee disposeth And to vse this similitude to Arminius his order is to illustrate a thing by that which hath nothing like for Gods worke by that Arminius conceiueth hath no resemblance to that the Potter doth as is already shewed For the matter answered First he conceiueth not the question right They aske not whether Gods induration be cause of his anger but whether God may be angry at them who come to this state of being hardned Now this is certaine that men hardned and forsaken are the obiect about which Gods anger is exercised as a malefactor punished is the obiect about which the Magistrates anger is exercised though punishment is not the cause why he is angry but the effect of it neyther is there one word in this verse which testifieth God to harden such with whom he is angry for sinne vnlesse to beare with patience signifie to harden and vessels made or prepared to destruction men now hauing by sinne prouoked God the first absurd that an act of patience should be induration opposed to mercy the other equiuocall as a vessell prepared to glory is not a vessel now beleeuing and sanctified and actually fitted for glory so on the contrarie For the second it is false that heere is any thing to testifie Gods will vnresistable which the Apostle did neuer except against but rather iustifie and yet maintaine it equall by a comparison fore-construed And this is no argument why his decreeing will should not be irresistable this I say that hee vseth patience toward those whom he hath decreed to reiect hee conceiueth the will of God to haue come to election and otherwise to include an appetite as it were of hauing some thing which hee will not worke by his omnipotency but he whose omnipotency is not in euery thing he is not a God omnipotent for there
rather then thy selfe who dost suffer his vnauoidable pleasure Hauing thus chidden the insolencie of this muttering imputation he proueth that it is equall God should out of his meere pleasure show mercy to some of his creatures and reiect other some to induration and punishment The right which the Potter hath ouer his clay that and much more hath God in his for the Potter must haue his clay made to his hand but God must create and make the clay which he will worke with But the Potter hath the power that he may seuer certaine distinct parcels of his clay out of his meere pleasure to contrary vses v. 21. The Potter doth not seuer his clay in this manner if it shall all be fit to receiue some noble forme I will make it to such end if not I will turne it otherwise for then it must from the clay not the Potter why this parcell were a vessell to honourable vse and that otherwise The Conclusion followeth ver 22.23 Ergo. shall not God haue the same right to appoint some of his creatures to be vessels of dishonour howbeit he vseth much patience towards them that he may the better declare his wrath and power in them and his most gloririous mercy towards his chosen The words haue a rhetoricall reticency in them and are thus laid downe What if God willing to shew his wrath and power haue borne with much patience c. and that hee may shew his glorious mercy towards the vessels of mercy Now something must be vnderstood Shall his power for this be the lesser or any plead against this freedome of God in denying his mercy and reiecting some from the great patience hee vseth toward them or wee may conceiue it if not preuenting this obiection yet laying downe the conclusion with a double reason after this sort If God haue most iust ends of his glory and the good of others who are vessels of mercy and if hee execute his decree with much patience and long sufferance towards the vessels of wrath shall hee not haue power to ordaine them to this end whom in so iust manner and vpon so good considerations hee bringeth vnto c. In answering these Arminius seemeth very accurate but it is a wily diligence such as those poore creatures vse which being hard be set will run round often fetch running-iumps that by this meanes they may bring to a losse all that pursue To leaue him therefore in impertinent discourse what I can gather out of him touching these words respecteth one of these three things 1. The occasion which went before God hardneth whom hee will as hee sheweth mercy to whom he will 2. The obiection 3. The answer Let vs begin with the first for if you marke the antecedent in the sense Arminius taketh it it will not beare the obiection following Secondly If the obiection could be made yet Saint Pauls answere would proue impertinent the antecedent occasion Arminius must vnderstand of Gods decreeing to harden or actually hardening according to his decree His decree is I will deny thee mercy harden thee punish thee if through vnbeleefe and impenitency thou shalt make thy selfe worthy His actuall hardning is a powerfull executing this punishment of induration and reiecting on him who hath by finall impenitency deserued it neyther of these will beare his obiection with shew of reason And because Arminius seemeth rather to respect the decree we will take vp that and ioyne this murmuring obiection with it If I am hardned by Gods decree which doth set downe the hardning and reiecting of all such who shall by finall vnbeleefe and impenitency prouoke him to it then hath God no reason to be angry with me on whom this sentence is executed by his vnresistable will But I am hardned according to that decree Take the antecedent in the other sense If God now in his wrath execute induration on me hauing deserued it by my finall impenitency and that with such power that I cannot resist him then hath hee no cause to be angry with me who am thus hardned by his almighty power I doe appeale to any conscience what shew of reason there is inferring such a consequence on such antecedents No had Gods will beene not absolute within himselfe but respecting conditions meritorious in the creature or had his induration beene a meere inferring of punishment now deserued and not a deniall of mercy which should haue remooued the entrance of the other which the opposition teacheth to be meant by induration then there had beene no shew of reason thus to grant against God But come to the obiection He conceiued in it thus much as if it should say Can Gods induration cause him to be angry against vs who are hardned Can that which is the effect of his vnresistable will cause him to be angry with vs iustly First the Apostle chideth this insolency suggesting the state of the person murmuring and the person of God against whom it is murmured Secondly from comparison well hauing thus repelled it he defendeth the equity of God and answereth to the matter First in the 2. verse He who hath power to decree the life and death of his creature on some conditions and so to harden some and shew mercy to others If he harden or shew mercy we must not reason against it But God hath this power set downe in the comparison of the Potter but the comparison of a Potter pleadeth a farre higher thing in God then making a decree of sauing such as should become fit through vse of their owne liberty and condemning such who should most iustly deserue it For this legall kinde of induration as some of his schollers call it giueth no occasion of imputing with show of reason any fault to God seeing Gods decree doth not any thing to mee vnlesse further then I make my selfe a vessell of dishonour Secondly this sense hath no affinity with the Potters fact this decree doth not make definitely any persons vessels of honor but such of them as should belieue all if they will belieue this doth not make the persons become vessels of honour but the performance of the condition in the decree this maketh God to frame persons diuersly qualified to diuers ends whereas the Potter frameth a masse all alike to diuers purposes Thus hauing repelled this murmuring he doth make answer to the matter of their obiection three waies which likewise may make to his iudgement a limited reddition of the former comparison Thus by the way I haue runne ouer part of the ninth to the Romanes in which were not all error a thing connaturall I should maruell how any could euer imagine things so directly against the meaning discourse of it The plot of his election was as strong in his braine as numbers in theirs who thought they saw them in euery thing Let vs euer hold that the choyse and purpose of calling to the heauenly inheritance is meerely from his will because hee will without
an edge vpon our thankesgiuing Least we should forget this dutie to God God hath left some trouble some remainders like the weather in ache of a wrested ioynt when now it is restored How thankefully would wee take it to be set free from the drakenesse deadnesse sensuality earthly mindednesse which we still finde as a clog and chaine to the spirits of vs If this would be so gratefull to be set free from circumstances which molest vs onely how much more is that our substanciall deliuerance from the reuenging iustice of God from the power of the diuell holding vs vnder the curse from the power of our conscience iustly condemning vs from the power of sinne commanding as King how much more is this to be extolled This mercy was not showed to the Angels creatures more excellent then our selues Should one set vs free from the state of Villenage or ransome vs from the Gallies we could not think our selues thankfull enough to them much lesse can wee euer be thankefull enough for this benefit Vse 2 It should stirre vp spirituall ioy Looke Isa 44.23 where the insensible creatures are called vpon to reioyce for the redemption of Gods people when they were redeemed from Babell the ioy did put them into an extasie they knew not whither they were a sleepe or a wake Let vs pray to God to moue the scales from our eyes and take the vaile from our hearts which will not let vs reioyce in so excellent mercy It followeth Through his bloud Obserue what it is by which wee are ransomed and redeemed euen the bloud of Christ This was it which in the bloud of all the Sacrifices was prefigured We are redeemed saith Peter not with siluer or gold but with the bloud of Christ a lambe vndefiled When any are captiue here and there we haue but two waies vsually by which we redeeme them The first is by force of armes when we powerfully rescue them the other is by course of iustice when wee send some ransome and by way of change set them free For with-draw that voluntary couenant who doubteth but that had the creature kept his innocency a thousand yeares God was free to haue annihilated him Now it is in vaine to dispute what God might haue done by absolute power for God may out of his absolute soueraignty not haue punished Adams sinne both because it was against himselfe not others to whom he is tyed to doe iustice and especially for that the demonstration of his reuenging iustice springeth not from the necessity of his nature but from his voluntary disposition as well as the giuing life perpetuall to obedience for a certaine space performed And finally because God is able were he pleased to shew this power to turne it to his glory which mens impotency not attaining maketh them that they cannot alwaies with iustice forgiue euen that in which themselues are trespassed Yet seeing God hath determined that his iustice shall take her reuenge if by breach of couenant she be wronged hee cannot but execute punishment neither may he set vs free from the same but so as wronged iustice may receiue satisfaction Againe we know which maketh the Scripture say it was meete and necessary that Christ should be consecrated through suffering that he should suffer and so enter his glory See Luke 24.26 Heb. 2.17 Death corporall and spirituall such as is a punishment of sinne but not sinfull Desertion not in regard of vnion and sustentation but of consolation Impression of wrath death being made as seruiceable for our good and the feare of it being taken away by him who hath tasted it for vs and swallowed it vp into victory We know that he hath by way of ransome redeemed vs as being the fittest way both to deliuer vs out of his grace freely and yet to show himselfe iust in so iustifying or redeeming of vs See Rom. 3.25 For further opening this point Marke two things 1. What is vnderstood by Christ his bloud 2. How it hath set vs free from bondage By his bloudy death vpon the crosse or his bloudy and cursed death the Scripture maketh vs redeemed By his death Heb. 9.12 and by yeelding himselfe to be made a curse for vs Gal. 3.13 the commandement giuen to Christ being this That he should lay downe his life for our redemption For looke as a surety must pay in such death as the Law inflicteth on sinners such death as is ioyned with the curse As he was our surety and vndertooke to answer our sinnes the God-head did but sustaine him that he should not be swallowed vp of it as the brasen couering of the Alter did make it fit to endure that materiall fire 3. The assault of those impure spirits for the houre or time for all those powers of darkenesse was then come when this his redemptory suffering approached Christ our surety was to take vpon him our debt of death both corporall and spirituall so farre as he might neither the vnion of his person nor yet the holinesse of his nature any whit diminished The Scripture doth mention his bloud so frequently both because this circumstance is most sensible and was the body in which all the typicall bloud of sacrifices in the Law had his accomplishment And Ergo as when wee reade that Christ was flesh we must not thinke as Apollinarius that he tooke no soule so when we reade his bloud shed or bodily death wee must not thinke that he dyed not a spirituall death in soule also The fathers who denyed that he dyed in soule deny it not absolutely but after a sort viz. that he dyed not such a death in soule as did destroy the essentiall life of it like as death bodily doth the life of the body nor yet any such death as did either separate his soule from vnion with God or did imply any sinfull corruption as it did in vs whose soules are dead in sinnes and trespasses Now this death is it by meanes whereof Gods grace doth set vs free and that in most iust manner First from the guilt of sinne in as much as it doth pacifie and satisfie iustice her displeasure against sinne This obedience of that great God our Sauiour being farre more effectuall to please and satisfie then the sinne of the whole world could be to displease and prouoke iustice against vs For though it be finite in it selfe yet in the person it becommeth infinite for the value of it Hence it is that God that is God as now in his reuenging iustice is gone forth is said to smell a sauour of rest in the death of Christ and by Christs being put vnder the Law or curse of Gods reuenging iustice made manifest in the Law we are said to be redeemed from the Law or curse as by an al-sufficient ransome accepted of iustice Secondly Now this bloud or death doth free vs from the Diuell for Sathans power ouer vs was by reason of sin and the punishment due to it from the