away all excuse Of any other end intended towards them I know not except sometimes as Austin observeth Ut proficiant ad exteriorem vitae emendationem quo mitius puniantur And why I pray may not the covenant of workes promise life upon condition of obedience notwithstanding the purpose of reprobation hath absolutely determined death upon all them within the Covenant as well as the Covenant of grace threatens death upon condition of disobedience of faith and repentance notwithstanding that the purpose of election hath absolutely determined life upon all them within that Covenant And yet like as in election wee acknowledge a respect to obedience consequent thereunto in as much as it includes a purpose to give grace to work them to obedience though not any respect therto as antecedent to the decree it self how much more may you easily conceive that in reprobation wee deny not a respect to disobedience consequent for as much as it includes a purpose to deny grace which alone can prevent disobedience though not any respect to disobedience as antecedent to the decree of reprobation And to repeate by the way that which formerly hath been delivered Respect to disobedience as antecedent to the decree of damnation cannot bee imagined unlesse withall you imagine God did first decree to permit it and thereupon for the foresight thereof decree to damne for it Whence it followeth that permission of disobedience must bee first in intention in comparison with condemnation and consequently it must bee last in execution by your own rules formerly laid down as unquestionable foundations Yet doe not I maintain that God in any moment of nature doth first decree damnation and then decree the permission of sin for which hee damnes them I make these decrees not subordinate as most doe but co-ordinate and joynt decrees being onely concerning meanes tending to the same end And with Aquinas I say that reprobation includes Voluntatem permittendi culpam condemnationem inferendi proculpa The end whereof is the demonstration of his glory in the way of justice But withall I desire that culpa in this description of reprobation may bee understood aright and not as Arminius doth whose superficiall consideration of things is usually for his advantage making him thereby the more to abound in arguments for the impugning of his adversaries opinions according to his own shaping of them quite beside their meaning For culpa is not fin in generall in this definition but onely such a sin propter quod quis damnatur for which a man is damned that is finall perseverance in insidelity or impenitency When you say the grace of redemption offers the death of Christ and reacheth forth some fruite thereof unto all you walk according to your course in the clouds of your own mysteries What you mean by these fruites you speak of and by the reaching of them forth I am utterly to seek neither doth ought you have formerly delivered helpe mee in this But in these particulars it seems you love to speak darkly and keep your self to generall terms I know no condition proposed in the Gospel for receiving of any benefit from Christ but faith and repentance But you seem to bring in gracious helps for the obtaining of faith and repentance to bee tendred unto us for Christs sake upon other conditions I know not what neither have I hitherto received any ground of assurance from this your discourse that your self know what In the next place you seem to specifie what these fruites are as when you say that it promiseth and offereth sufficient helpe to bring them to the knowledge of God and means of grace still keeping your self in the generall as if you feared to bee understood And I wonder not a little that your self being a man of such reputation and much exercised in giving satisfaction addressing your self to give satisfactivn in so tender and precious points of Divinity as these should deliver your self in so strange a language But let us take the more paines in discussing the clouds of your Phrasiologies When you say the grace of redemption promiseth and offereth sufficient helps your meaning must bee that the Gospel of Christ doth promise and offer this for as much as wee are acquainted with no promises of Grace but in the Gospel Yet this phrase of expressing used by you is enough to trouble a Reader who when the matter wee treat of is difficult enough might justly desire that hee might not bee put to other trouble as to interpret mens expressions Yet it may bee you may think to have a ground for this out of Saint Paul where hee saith The grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all teaching us to deny ungodlinesse and by which grace hee seemes to meane the Gospel Bee it so yet Saint Paul doth not call it the grace of redemption as you doe Redemption in Scripture phrase signifies forgivenesse of sins Ephes 1. 7. and Col. 1. 14. If this bee your meaning I finde no congruity in this your affirmation For what will you say the Gospel preached doth promise and offer to bring men to the knowledge of God and means of grace I had thought rather it had brought the knowledge of God and meanes of grace to them Or rather is the very bringing of it or to speak more properly is the very means of grace it self All which considered I am yet to seek of your meaning I finde it so miserably involved and that in the very close of all enough to make any intelligent Reader despaire to receive satisfaction from you when in the very last act hee shall finde himselfe so farre from making any tolerable construction of your words thereby to pick out any sober meaning Then againe by offering helps you seem to imply some termes or condition whereupon it is offered them but no such condition is expressed by you If it had perhaps thereby wee might have taken the altitude I mean the depth of your meaning throughout The same grace of redemption bestows also you say sometimes some excellent though common graces I have heard I confesse you stand much upon common graces But what they are and to what end they tend and whether absolutely or conditionally imparted according to your opinion when I shall bee sufficiently informed I will doe my best indevour to weigh them in the ballance of Christian and Scholasticall examination and accordingly to give them that due respect which belongs unto them It may bee about a third covenant which they might seem to make partly of grace and partly of works I should not bee much contentious Yet it followeth not that because they doe binde the more to the keeping of the Covenant of works as having more means and helps vouchsafed unto them therefore it doth not make a third Covenant You say it is not the helps of grace offered or given that include men within any part of the covenant of grace but the condition whereupon it is
Gods love to Christ especially when both are acknowledged to be eternall and to be toward both the man Christ and us before wee or the world had a being most of all when in the issue the priority seems to be for us rather then for Christ for it is confest that priority in Gods decrees consists onely in purposing one thing for another And again it is without question that all priority in this case is on the part of that for which another thing is purposed Now albeit wee are Christs servants and hee our Lord yet undoubtedly Christ was ordained rather for our good then wee for his good yet I doe not hence collect that our predestination was before Christs much lesse that Gods love was lesse towards him then towards us but I willingly acknowledge that albeit thousands had tasted of Gods love both in the way of nature and grace and glory before Christ-man had any being at all yet was the love of God to the manhood of Christ infinitely beyond his love towards us measuring the love of God by the effects thereof and that in two respects first for as much as the fruit of Gods love to him was the taking of his humane nature into an hypostaticall union with the Sonne of God secondly in making him the Captain of our salvation Heb. 2. 10. Least of all is it my meaning to extenuate the heinous nature of sinne by setting forth the purpose of God concerning the incarnation of Christ before the consideration of the fall of Adam It is enough to make sinne out of measure sinfull that God in his wisedome saw no meanes so sit as by the sinne and fall of Adam to make way for the humiliation of Christ and thereby for the manifestation of his justice and riches of his mercy and both in Christ although we grant so far as to conceive that God had never thought of humbling the Godhead or advancing the manhood of Christ but upon consideration of sin fore-seen Ex magnitudine remedii magnitudinem cognosce periculi saith Bernard this hath place in what order soever Christ was ordained a Sacrifice for sinne neither is there any colour of remitting ought of the heinousnesse of sin by the priority or posteriority of Christs predestination in comparison to Gods decree concerning the permission of sinne Sinne and the heinousnesse thereof is amplified according to the quality of the transgression in reference to Gods law so honourable a rule of mans perfection and to Gods deserts at our hands and plentifull motives from consideration both of rewards and punishments wherewith it is estadlished It is a common and just aggravation of sinne that it caused the Son of God to be humbled but to aggravate it in making way for Christs humiliation is a very odde conceit in my judgement Neither doe I comprehend how the manifestation of justice in punishing sinne or of mercy in pardoning it doth aggravate the heinousnesse of sin This I say I comprehend not The second DOUBT WHere have wee in Scripture ground for this That the Lords first and primary intention in his decree of Predestination was to set forth Grace and Justice That the declaration of his justice was intended is not doubted but by the Apostle it seemeth his primary aime was the declaration of the soveraignty freedom and dominion of God over the creature in that hee purposeth grace and power The Apostle throughout his whole discourse of Predestination doth no where oppose grace and power for God sheweth as much power freedome and dominion over the creature in his grace toward the elect as in his justice toward the world The Apostle sets forth the like power and soveraign will of God as well in shewing mercy on whom hee will as hardening whom hee pleaseth Doe not think hee opposeth Gods power and soveraignty over Pharaoh to his grace and love unto Jacob for the power hee there speaks of is not soveraignty but ability might and power shewing it selfe forth in the hardening and overthrow of Pharaoh in Moses called the power of his wrath Power naturall is one thing power civill which wee call soveraignty another the first is ability to doe a thing the second is liberty to doe what naturally hee can doe without sinne Undoubtedly the power of God shewed in Pharaoh was in his overthrow and answerable to the power of Gods wrath I like well that the power of God shewed in Pharaoh is extended also to the hardening of his heart onely this is not so congruously applied to the power of Gods wrath for as much as wrath hath alwayes reference to something in man as the cause of it so hath not hardening in that of Paul Rom. 9. 18. Hee hardeneth whom hee will like as hee hath mercy on whom hee will But withall I confesse hardening in this place seems to consist onely in denying of mercy But Pharaohs hardening was much more for undoubtedly mercy was no more shewed him when his heart releâ—ted to the letting of Israel goe then when hee detained them So likewise when God hardened him to follow after them to bring them back this was more than a bare denying of mercy even a secret impulsion of him to take such courses as should precipitate him unto destruction and this may well be accounted a fruit of the power of Gods wrath and accordingly I am verily perswaded that Gods power or soveraignty over Pharaoh are not opposed to his grace and love to Jacob Onely freedome in my judgement doth not so well consent with the execution of justice whether justice be taken in rewarding or punishing Neither doe wee ever read of Gods rewarding or punishing whom hee will freedome and soveraignty is seen only in giving or denying good according to common account Albeit there is a further freedom and soveraignty of God over his creatures in doing evill unto them as in annihilating the most righteous which Arminius acknowledgeth and in exposing his holy Son to suffer strange pains and sorrowes for other mens sinnes when hee had none of his owne Not to speak of the soveraignty wherewith God hath indued man over his fellowes though inferiour creatures That God in his decree of Predestination did shew forth the declaration of his soveraignty freedome and dominion over the creatures I easily grant yet that it was his primary aime rather then the declaration of his justice and grace I cannot beleeve without better proofe My opinion is That all the variety of Gods glory to bee manifested in the creature was intended at once and if they that are otherwise minded come to a particular expression of what glory was intended first and what next and so in order I am perswaded the incongruity of that order will soon appear It is granted on all hands that God first aimed at the declaration of his owne glory Now wherein doth God delight principally for to manifest his glory God himselfe declared it to Moses who
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
everlasting life for it And so on the other side Reprobatio as Aquinas speaketh includit voluntatem permittendi peccatum damnationem inferendi pro peccato It is the purpose of God both to deny the grace of obedience as afore-said or which is all one to permit them to persevere in sinne and finall impenitency and to inflict damnation for their sinne And unlesse Election on the one side and Reprobation on the other doe include the parts before mentioned wee shall fall into the Arminians definition of Election and Reprobation who make them meerly conditionate either in formall terms or though they avoid the formality of such expressions yet meerly in effect as by saying that Election is Gods purpose to save them that beleeve and repent Reprobation Gods purpose to damne them that doe not beleeve and repent as if there were no other purpose of God revealed in Gods word then these no decree of shewing mercy to whom hee will by giving faith and repentance no decree of hardening whom hee will by denying it Againe when I say God doth purpose to reward every man according to his workes let us understand it aright for indeed there neither is nor can bee any such formall decree of God and of an indefinite nature as if God in priority of nature or reason did make such a decree not knowing as yet what would bee the workes of each man in particular for of such a decree there can be no correspondent execution distinct from the execution of particular and definite decrees concerning all men in particular as I have already shewed in ransacking the absurd order of Gods decrees devised by Arminians to no other end but to catch the simple there being no common sense nor sobriety in them throughout Besides this if when God is conceived to make such a decree God did know particularly the workes of all then there is no reason to conceive that hee made any such indefinite decree but rather that the decree to save or damne every one in particular according to his workes well knowne to him in that very instant not of duration onely but of nature and reason But God did in the same moment foreknow all the particular workes of every man as already I have made manifest in ransacking the Arminian order of Gods decrees But the denomination of such an indefinite decree as to reward every man according to his workes ariseth from the consideration of other definite decrees in God As for example God did decree to have mercy on Peter in giving him faith and repentance and accordingly to save him and so of every one of Gods Elect of ripe yeares On the contrary God did decree to deny to Judas the grace of faith and repentance which is as much as to say that God decreed to permit him to continue finally in sinne and accordingly to damne him and so every one of the Reprobates Whence it followeth that it is true to affirme that God decreed to reward every one of ripe yeares according to their workes not that there ever was any such particular decree conceived by God distinct from the former as the Arminians feigne but that from the former particular decrees resulteth the denomination of such a decree as this as if you should say If God did decree to save Peter and Paul it followeth that God did decree to save some not that God did first indefinitely decree to save some and then decree that Peter and Paul should be two of them And to reward men according to their workes is no more a worke of hatred then of love but as it is indefinite so it is indifferent to prove in the issue either a worke of hatred or of love as that God Who worketh in us every thing that is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ Heb. 13. 21. shall worke in some that which is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ and not in others Neither will it follow here-hence that God rejecteth and reprobateth some upon presupposall of disobedience more then that hee electeth and predestinateth others upon presupposall of their obedience for undoubtedly God purposed as well to reward the godly according to their workes as the ungodly according to theirs though I confesse there is a great difference betweene the condition of evill workes and good workes evill workes being meritorious of punishment good workes no way meritorious of reward but this nothing hinders the course of remuneration in generall And againe what is wanting of merit on the part of Gods Elect is abundantly supplyed by the merit and satisfaction of Christ It followeth I confesse that upon disobedience on the one side provided it be finall not otherwise for undoubtedly abuse both of means of grace in Christ and other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature is found also in the Elect though not finall for Novimus saith Austin that God hath converted non modo aversas à vera fide sed adversas verae fidei voluntates God damneth some for disobedience and it is no lesse true that upon obedience on the other side God saves the others But this opinion I confesse was heretofore shaped by Doctor Overall and perhaps taken from Caterinus but with a little variation and if I be not deceived first devised by the Author of the two bookes De vocatione Gentium all which notwithstanding are orthodox in the point of Election throughout excepting Caterinus whose orthodoxy therein is onely in part But in few words I will disprove this latter position of yours by your owne rules For thus I dispute If God did first fore-see mans disobedience and then ordaine them to condemnation then God did first decree to permit this disobedience before hee did decree to damne them for it Whence it followeth that the permission of this sinne was first in intention and consequently last in execution that is God must first damne them and afterwards permit their disobedience whereby they deserve damnation Yet I pray conceive not hereupon that I maintaine that God doth first purpose to damne men and secondly purpose to permit their disobedience both orders in my opinion are very dissolute though I confesse it is commonly so received that by denying the one wee must necessarily fall upon the other Herein two things are granted by common consent of our Divines 1. That the end of Gods purpose in his positive Reprobation of the world is to glorifie his justice power and wrath in their just overthrow and condemnation 2. That hee doth not purpose to condemne them but for sinne But two other things you see there bee wherein I confesse I dissent from them but with submission of my spirit to the guidance of the word and the spirit of my brethren 1. In the first act of positive Reprobation that I doe not acknowledge any unwillingnesse at all in God to reward the men of this world with life upon any condition whatsoever 2. In the
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
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
many wholesome afflictions yea sent his holy Spirit among them And all this in the first place not to harden no not carnall Israel nor to leave them without excuse but to purge them to humble them and to prove them and to doe them good in the latter end And when these ends were not attained hee complaines hee had used these meanes in vaine which plainly argueth his first and chiefest intent was to heale and not to harden In fulnesse of time God sent his Sonne into the world not to condemne it or any thing in it but that the world might bee saved through him implying that even that part of the world which is condemned for refusing of Christ it was not Gods chiese intent to send Christ to procure their condemnation but their salvation rather If they should plead their condemnation to bee unjust for unbeleese because they were not able to beleeve Ver. 18. our Saviour answers by a reasonable prevention Ver. 19. This is their condemnation viz. the just cause of their condemnation that when light came into the world men loved darknesse rather then light men chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the meanes of grace which might have brought them on forward to beleeve in Christ Again when Christ lived here in the world and was the Minister of Circumcision and so might speake and doe some thing as man yet as man he went not to doe his owne will but the will of his Father who sent him and yet how willing and earnest was hee to gather Jerusalem under his wings even his wings in which lay healing and salvation A signe it was the will of God to have healed and saved that part of Jerusalem which would not And when our Saviour with tears tells Jerusalem Oh that thou hadst known at least in this thy day the things that doe belong unto thy peace doth hee not intimate that God had even to that day carried thoughts of peace unto them and accordingly to send them meanes of peace even those that should never from that day forward enjoy the like means of peace Finally God sent his Spirit into the world to convince it of sin because they beleeved not in Christ Which argueth that the Spirit did not onely perswade them to beleeve in Christ but did convince them also that it was their sin that they did not attaine to beleeve on him Now the Spirit of God moveth to nothing but what hee knoweth to bee according to the will of God And therefore the Spirit beares witnesse the will of God is the world of unbeleevers shall not bee shut out from Christ if they shut not out themselves through unbeleefe Still you proceed to prove that which no man denyes namely that God purposed life to the world upon condition of obedience and repentance provided that you understand it aright namely that obedience and repentance is ordained of God as a condition of life not of Gods purpose Otherwise it were a very wild expression to say that God ordained that obedience and repentance should be the condition of Gods ordination Or that God purposed that obedience and repentance should be the condition of Gods purpose Yet by the way I desire to know whether you exclude faith If you doe what ground have you to prove that God ever purposed that any of Adams posterity coming to ripenesse of age should be saved upon the condition of obedience and repentance without faith Last of all on the other side it is as undoubtedly true that God ordained that whosoever coming to ripe yeares should not beleeve and repent should be damned the very elect not excepted Not that any such conditionate decrees are agreeable unto God but upon such decrees as were absolute in God such Propositions as these are naturally inferred Whosoever beleeveth and repenteth shall be saved Whosoever beleeveth not and repenteth not shall be damned One thing I had almost forgotten In the former Section you spake of a Purpose of God to save the world upon condition of obedience or repentance in a disjunctive manner now you are come off from that and turne your former disjunctive into a copulative saying that God purposed to save the world upon condition of their obedience and repentance This argueth that you are not well grounded in your owne opinion Howsoever your third reason is drawn from the end which God aimed at in offering meanes of salvation to the world which is not say you in the first place to harden or leave them 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 I am content first to consider what you say secondly how you prove who ever said that God offered meanes of salvation to any to this end that hee might harden them Meanes of grace were never that I know of called meanes of obduration Hardening followeth hereupon by accident but meanes of grace harden not But when meanes of grace are offered the corruption of mans heart uncorrected by the spirit of regeneration is apt to suggest carnall considerations such as are apt to make a man obstinately stand out against them The motion that Israel made to Sihon to passe through his Country hardened him not but the feare of inconveniencies and dangers more than enough upon the passage of so great an Army through his Country in all likelihood was it that hardened him and God is said to harden him in not correcting that feare but moving him according to that projecting disposition wherein hee found him And mark how Cajetan commenteth upon these words Utramque hominis partem spiritum cor hoc est superiorem inferiorem malè dispositum à Deo intellige negative penes dona gratuita positivè autem quoad judicum inclinationem prosecutionem boni sensibilis It à quod Deus spiritum regis durum hoc est non cedentem petitionibus reddidit non dando ci gratiam acquiescends cooperanda cidem ad affectum securitatis boni proprii When Moses came to Pharaoh to require him in the name of the Lord to let Israel goe this was not that that hardened him but his owne pride superstition and covetousnesse Neither did Gods judgements harden him for it is divers times signified that when hee found himselfe eased then hee hardned his heart and in other places in the way of an adversative when 't is said that yet Pharaoh hardened his heart and the like This also doth remove the cause of hardening his heart from Gods judgements yet notwithstanding it cannot bee denyed but that when God offers the meanes of grace to many hee doth it with a purpose to harden their hearts if so be hee entertaines any such purpose at all as your selfe grants hee doth for Gods purposes are eternall and immutable As for your qualification
then is the meaning of the Lord saying I have smitten your children in vaine they have received no correction I answer we are to conceive Gods corrections to tend to this according to that of Peter knowing that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation or God speakes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of earthly parents seeking their childrens amendment by correction but not obtaining it And this being an end of correction in Gods children in the wicked this end is not obtained And what difference is there between meanes naturall and meanes morall but this meanes naturall have power to effect their ends meanes morall are to admonish morall agents of their duty to doe this or that and so the ends of Gods punishment is that by them wee should learne to amend our lives as is signified in the Collects of our Church In a word naturall means tend to ends that shall be thereupon morall means tend to ends that should be and each are usually said to be in vaine when the end according to each kind is not obtained God sent his Sonne into the world not that hee should condemne the world but that the world should be saved by him Most true for hee sent his Son into the world to dye for the world and to dye for them is to save them and not to condemne them But for whom did hee send his Sonne into the world to dye Surely for the world of Elect even for those whom God the Father had given him Thou hast given him power over all flesh that hee should give eternall life to all them that thou hast given him Joh. 17. 2. And if wee consider the world in distinction from those whom God hath given him hee plainly professeth that as hee did not pray for them Joh. 17. 9. so hee did not sanctifie himselfe for them Verse 19. that is offer himselfe up upon the Crosse as Maldonate acknowledgeth to be the joynt interpretation of all the Fathers whom hee had read And your selfe have but earst confessed that God did not Joh. 3. 17. give the world unto Christ by him of grace to be bought or brought unto salvation Undoubtedly hee sent not Christ into the world at all to procure any mans condemnation neither doth Christ procure any mans condemnation although infidelity and disobedience to the word of Christ procures the condemnation of many And I wonder what moved you so to speake as to imply it was Gods intent though not chiefe intent to send Christ into the world to procure the condemnation of any At length wee are come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the point controverted between us in the words following If they should plead their condemnation to be unjust for unbeleefe because they were not able to beleeve Ver. 18. our Saviour answers by a reasonable prevention ver 19. This is their condemnation viz. the just cause of their condemnation that when light came into the world men loved darknesse rather than light men chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the means of grace which might have brought them on to beleeve in Christ First let us consider the Text it selfe then your interpretation and accommodation thereof Our Saviour doth plainly derive the cause of their unbeleefe or disapprobation of the Gospel signified in these words They loved darknesse rather than light I say the cause of this our Saviour referres to their workes of darknesse expressed in these words Because their deeds were evill The full meaning whereof I take to be this The workes wherein they delight are evill that is workes of darknesse and therefore no marvell if they hate the light and preferre darknesse before it Pulchra Lavernae Da mihi fallere da justum sanctumque videri Noctem peccatis fraudibus objice nubem But give mee leave to make an honest motion As it becomes us to take notice of this cause mentioned here so it becomes us nothing lesse to take notice of other causes mentioned in other places Now another cause of unbeleefe is mentioned Joh. 5. 44. and that of the same generall nature with this but expressed in more speciall manner by our Saviour thus How can yee beleeve which receive honour one of another and seeke not the honour that cometh from God onely Yet this is not all the cause of unbeleefe which the Scripture commends unto us for the Apostle also takes notice of Sathans illusions in this worke of unbeleefe 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. If our Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost Whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded c. And because it is in the power of God to correct this delight wee take in evill workes and to deliver us from the illusions of Sathan if it please him to shew such mercy towards us and when he doth not he is said to harden us The hand of God in this our Saviour takes notice of as the cause of unbeleefe in man Joh. 12. 39 40. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith againe Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes and understand with their heart and be converted and I should heale them Like as Moses of old told the Jewes saying Deut. 29. 2 3. Yee have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and unto all his servants and unto all his land The great temptations which thine eyes have seen the signes and those great miracles Ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare unto this day And this hee doth even then when his purpose was to reprove them for their naturall incorrigiblenesse for men sinne never the lesse obstinately because God denyes them grace but rather so much the more obstinately because as Austin well saith Libertas sine gratia non est libertas sed contumacia and consequently they are never a whit the lesse faulty though it be not in their power to correct that corruption of their hearts whence this faultinesse proceeds And hereupon the Apostle gives way to the same objection in effect which you propose for having concluded that God hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardeneth hee gives place to such an objection Thou wilt say then Why doth hee yet complaine for who hath resisted his will and answers it not as our Saviour doth for our Saviour proposed no such objection to be answered as you feigne the Apostle doth plainly and in expresse termes Our Saviour discovers the immediate cause of unbeleefe to wit because their hearts were set on evill as it was sometimes with the Colossians Col. 1. 21. yet because it was not in their power to change their hearts but God alone who will change them through mercy in whom hee will and will not change them in others
but harden them Hereupon the Apostle gives way to an objection in a matter more sublime than yours as before mentioned and answers it in this manner O man who art thou that disputest with God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made mee thus Hath not the Potter power c. which is an answer to such a question as this Why doth God complaine of us for that which proceeds from the hardnesse of our hearts which God alone can cure but will not but rather by denying us mercy continues to harden us But now let us consider the interpretation and accommodation of this place to the plea devised by you The reason you say why men loved darknesse rather than light is because men chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the meanes of grace which might have brought them on to beleeve in Christ It is great pity that by our owne phrasiologies wee should raise unto our selves a mist whereby wee should be the more unable to discerne the truth of God Suppose the Paraphrase were both sound in it selfe and congruous to the Text yet give way I pray to such a question in the second place What was the reason that they chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the meanes of grace If you answer any thing but that of our Saviour Joh. 12. 39. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith againe Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardned their heart that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart and should be converted and I should heal them I will not cease to pursue you untill you come to this and withall put you to give a reason why you should not take hold of this answer of our Saviour Joh. 12. 39. as of that Joh. 3. 19. especially considering that if a question were moved Why some chose rather to follow the light of the meanes of grace than to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse I doubt not but you would forth with answer Because God had mercy on them and gave them hearts to know Christ and to beleeve in him 1 Joh. 5. 20. Phil. 1. 29. And seeing God doth not shew the like favour to others to shew them the like mercy which is in Scripture phrase to harden Rom. 9. 18. and Rom. 11. 7. or not to give hearts to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare Deut. 29. 4. why should wee not say plainly that whereas the one takes a right way it is because God shewes mercy towards them to give them so much grace and whereas the other takes not the right but the wrong way it is because God hardens them in denying the like mercy and grace to them like as our Saviour expresly signifieth also Joh. 8. 47. Hee that is of God heareth Gods words yee therefore heare them not because yee are not of God But if any man shall inquire What then moved our Saviour to give this reason why men loved darknesse rather than light to wit this because their deeds were evill I answer hee gives the immediate cause why they loved not the light that is they had no mind to heare the doctrine of our Saviour and that was in respect of the convincing nature of it and therein like unto light which makes every thing to appeare and be manifest according to its proper hiew whereas in darknesse all things are confounded according to that Ephes 5. 13. Now they who brought ill consciences along with them no marvell if they were quickly weary of our Saviours company A pregnant example whereof wee have Joh. 8. 7. For when our Saviour said unto them who brought unto him a woman taken in adultery Let him that is among you without sinne cast the first stone at her Ver. 9. When they heard this being accused by their owne conscience they went out one by one beginning at the eldest even to the last So that indeed the reason given by our Saviour Joh. 3. 19. is not so much a reason why they beleeved not as why they liked not to heare him Many did endure the hearing of him yet were not brought to beleeve in him Austin sometimes proposed such a question as this Why doe not men doe this or that As for example Why doe they not facere quod justum est and hee answers Quia nolunt But if you aske mee Quare nolunt Imus in longum saith Austin Yet sine prejudicio diligentioris inquisitionis hee takes upon him to answer it thus Vel quia latet vel quia non delectat But marke what hee brings in upon the back of this Sed ut innotescat quod latebat suave fiat quod minime delectabat gratia Dei est quae hominum adjuvat voluntates But the face of your discourse tends to this as if you were of opinion that every naturall man hath so sufficient grace as to choose to follow the light of the meanes of grace rather than to cleave to his sinfull estate and wayes of darknesse and that not onely if hee will for if hee will the greatest part of the worke is done already but that his will is indifferently of it self inclinable to the one as well as to the other which is so dangerous an opinion and so opposite to the doctrine of Gods word representing the miserable corruption of mans heart and the peculiar power of Gods regenerating grace that you are loath to breake out in plaine termes to professe as much Lastly whereas you say The light of the meanes of grace had it been followed might have brought them to beleeve in Christ You will not say upon the following hereof they had been brought but they might have beene brought to beleeve By following the light of the meanes of grace I understand a continuing to heare the word of God Now it is well knowne that many nay most in all probability though they continue all their dayes to be hearers yet as the Apostle speakes of some so may wee say of them They are ever learning and never come to the knowledge at least to any saving knowledge of the truth On the contrary Saul persecuting the Church of God even in the way marching furiously Jehu like against the Professors of the Gospel it pleased God to call him and convert him Wee know saith Austin that God hath converted the wills of men not onely aversas à verae side sed adversas verae sidei So that even opposition to grace God can cure if it please him and regenerate a man to bring him to faith and repentance if it please him and if hee doth not certainly the reasons can be no other then because hee will not and that to his owne glorious ends which is reason enough for the Creator to doe what hee will his wisedome in referring all to
sometimes you doe even in this Section more than once as when you say Gods Purpose willeth life to the world upon the condition of their obedience and repentance it would manifestly appeare that there was no reason to distinguish the Elect from the Reprobate in this Purpose of God seeing it equally passeth upon them both For undoubtedly Gods Purpose is not to give the Elect life but upon condition of their obedience and repentance And likewise his Purpose was to condemne all one as well as another upon the condition of their disobedience and unrepentance But had you dealt thus plainly then you would be driven to acknowledge another decree which alone puts the difference between the Elect and the Reprobate and that is the decree of God to shew mercy in giving the grace of obedience and repentance unto the one and of hardening in denying the grace of obedience and repentance unto the other But this plaine-dealing had utterly marred the state of your present discourse in this particular Yet to touch something by the way How I pray doth God the Father by the end of the Creation of his workes and Providence beare witnesse to this Point that it is the will and good pleasure of God to save the Elect not according to their owne workes but his grace Secondly if God the Sonne died for the whole world Reprobate and Elect how doth this testifie that onely a few called the Elect should be saved by Gods grace Is there any greater grace than the grace of Redemption by the bloud of Christ which is both of a satisfactory nature for all sinne and of a meritorious nature to purchase all grace and all glory And shall not God deale with Christ according to the exigence of his merits and satisfactions whether they were meritorious and satisfactory so farre of their owne nature or by the constitution of God all is one Last of all as touching the motions of the Spirit if they are no other then morall invitations they tend to no other end then to bring all men alike unto salvation in case they are obeyed and to expose all alike unto condemnation in case they are disobeyed If wee speake of other motions making the former effectuall unto obedience and repentance these being found onely in the Elect are documents of Gods will and purpose to save them to whom they are granted and as manifest a document that Gods will and purpose is not to save them to whom they are denyed As for the harmony you speake of between Gods Purpose and Covenant herein is your error two-fold First in that you apply this wholly to the world to Reprobates whereas it concernes as I have shewed the Elect as well as the Reprobate the reason whereof is because it respects onely the collating of salvation and inflicting of condemnation which have their course upon condition But there is another worke of Gods Providence concerning the giving or denying of grace for performing the condition of life And this worke is not performed upon any condition but meerly according to the good pleasure of God in shewing mercy to whom hee will and hardening whom he will And the Purpose of God for the execution of these is clearly absolute without all colour of condition And whereas you conceive this Purpose of God thus absolute concernes onely the Elect that is your second error For God doth not more absolutely grant the gift of obedience and repentance unto his Elect than hee doth deny it unto Reprobates as I doubt not but will be made clearly to appeare if you should come to a Collation hereabout But I doe not thinke you have any purpose to deale upon this but carry your selfe in a way of your owne not exactly considered wherein confusion of things that are to be distinguished doth afford you the best service As for the third which this harmony you speake of comprehends to wit the Providence of God I left that out because you shape to your selfe such a Providence of God as whereby God did provide for all men in all ages sufficient meanes of grace to bring them to obedience and repentance which seemes to be the opinion of the Author who wrote the two bookes De vocatione Gentium For the justification of which conceit though Arminians now-adayes relye much upon that Author in this particular I freely confesse I know no reason nor colour of reason As for the comparison you make between a godly regenerate man and God you might as well have shaped it betweene many an honest heathen man and God But you consider not a most momentous difference man purposeth to doe things upon conditions the performance or not performance whereof he is not able to fore-see much lesse able to dispose of efficacy to performe the condition to whom hee will and to deny it to whom hee will all which is incident unto God and casts us necessarily upon the acknowledgement of an absolute Purpose in God to performe this as hee thinkes good which is not to be found in man Againe you conceive this Purpose and Covenant of God to be made onely with the world who will never performe it Man enters upon no such Purposes and Covenants but rather such the conditions whereof are as soon performed as not performed And I wonder you should swallow this comparison as exact not considering the foule disproportion that is found therein between God and man But affection to our owne opinion I confesse is apt to abuse us and make us take notice onely of that which makes for us not of that which makes much more against us As for the Objection here inserted in the Answer whereunto you trouble your selfe not a little you might well have spared your paines and answered in briefe that though it were very strange that any thing should not be accomplished which God doth will absolutely yet surely it is nothing strange that that should not be accomplished which God doth will to come to passe onely upon a condition for the condition failing there is no reason why wee should expect the accomplishment thereof And such is the will of God which here you propose concerning the world namely in willing that they shall be saved on condition of their obedience and repentance damned in case of their disobedience and impenitency Yet it is not amisse to consider what you let fall in your Answer to an Objection very needlesse and which no wise man amongst them who are adverse to you in this opinion would frame That act of Gods will you say which it pleaseth God to put forth is alwayes accomplished I demand then as touching this will of God whereby hee wills life to the world upon their obedience and repentance whether it be accomplished or no If it be then it is accomplished in their condemnation for certainly it is not accomplished in their salvation And to this effect I presume tends your answer in the next Section That which followes when you
say There is no good thing possible to be though it never come to passe as that all men in all things should obey the word of God but that God passeth upon it some act of his will This I say is nothing to the purpose and that for two reasons First because it proceeds of morall good whereas the object 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rising from the consideration of God willing salvation to the world upon their obedience and repentance had not its course of good morall which is mans duty but of some good naturall which he should receive by way of reward Secondly accomplishment of a thing willed consists not in the approving of it but in bringing of it to passe as all men know by common notion When as you say as touching Bonum that God as hee will prove it so hee doth approve it as if approving of it were for the present and proving of it were for the time to come is so wilde an expression that I cannot comprehend it Wee use by proving a thing to approve it as good and not first approve it and then prove it As little to the purpose is that which followeth as when you say When God commands a duty his will of command is accomplished But whereas God is said to will the thing that hee commands here ariseth a question how that can be said to be willed by God which most commonly is not accomplished For albeit the will of command is accomplished by the commanding of this or that yet Gods will of the thing commanded seemes not to be accomplished unlesse the thing willed by God be sometimes brought to passe The truth is your opinion seemes to be That God not onely willeth the salvation of the world upon the condition of their repentance for that is no more to will their salvation than their damnation but that God willeth and desireth their salvation absolutely in as much as hee willeth and desireth their repentance I confesse you doe not in expresse termes professe as much namely that God willeth and desireth the repentance of Reprobates yet hitherto you seeme to tend in this discourse of yours though concerning this you say no more than this That God gives meanes to help them to the performance of this obedience so farre as is meet for him which while you professe I doubt you understand not your owne meaning and therefore no marvell if others doe not understand it For how farre he doth help them you expresse in a very uncertaine manner which is rather to conceale than to discover and expresse your meaning But I will endeavour to bolt it out These meanes you speake of are either morall onely consisting in instructing them wherein this obedience doth consist and urging them by perswasion thereunto or in affording besides this some efficacious operation of Gods Spirit to worke them to this obedience Now this latter cannot be your meaning for if this were afforded them their obedience certainly would be wrought but the world of whom you speake doe never perform this obedience Now in granting the other there is not so much evidence of Gods will that they shall performe this obedience as by the denying of this wee have evidence that his will is not that they shall performe this obedience Againe in respect of meanes morall can any be saved without the meanes of true faith and true repentance I thinke you will not say they can Then consider have all men sufficient instruction unto the performance of true faith and true repentance How will you be able to make this good Hand over head you say God gives meanes to help them to the performance of this obedience so farre as is meet for him to doe yet I am perswaded you are not able to make this good taking it according to the confuse generality wherein you expresse it For is it not meet for God to afford any Nation or particular persons his word and Gospel as well as it is meet for him to afford it us Nay is it not as meet for God to afford any other person both the outward meanes and the inward efficacious operation of his holy Spirit to worke them unto faith and true repentance as well as by these meanes hee hath been pleased to worke us hereunto This meetnesse what is it but that which Schoolmen call Justitia condecentiae and which they professe doth accompany every action of God So that had God afforded the same grace to others which hee hath afforded unto us hee had carried himselfe therein meetly that is justly justitia condecentiae Againe had hee denyed the same grace to us which hee hath denyed unto others he had herein also carried himselfe meetly or decently that is justly justitia condecentiae I am sorry to observe from such good mens pens such illusions to have their course to the obscuring of the grace of God and his soveraignty of dispensing it to whom hee will This very ayre I find breathed forth in the writings of others and it seemes to mee very probable that they have derived it from hence Besides to cleare this point more fully the will of God towards the world is put forth in a disjunct axiome viz. either to give life unto the world upon the condition of their obedience or to inflict death upon the condition of their disobedience Now as in a disjunct axiome the whole proportion is true if either part be true so the will put forth in a disjunct axiome is alwayes accomplished if either act be accomplished But if it be objected how may it appeare this will of God to give life to the world upon condition of their obedience is serious and not pretended since if hee would hee is able to give them such hearts as would cause them to obey him I answer That God willeth it seriously appeares manifestly by the declaration of his will already mentioned viz. his Oath his Covenant yea and the workes of each Person in the Trinity tending to this end to give life to the world all which it were blasphemy to thinke they were not done seriously Doth the living God sweare and not sweare in earnest God forbid Doth God enter into Covenant with his creature and intend no performance of promise according to his Covenant farre be it from the just and holy God to doe it and from us to imagine it Shall we think each Person in the Trinity slighteth the worke of the salvation of mankind because mankind slighteth to worke out their salvation with the Trinity But besides the declaration of Gods will thus seriously expressed I produce the teares of our Saviour over Jerusalem lamenting their carelesse neglect of the day of their peace which argued not onely in Christ as man a serious compassion of their affected ignorance and misery but also as God a tender consideration of their peace and of providing the meanes for it Moreover what shall wee thinke of those passionate exclamations Oh that there were in
salvation even after they are damned or else God is changed And if these be not blasphemies and foule ones too I know not what is blasphemy I know not what you meane by slighting the salvation of mankind but sure I am it is your own opinion that in case man slights the working out of his salvation God is so farre from willing his salvation that hee hath unretractably decreed his everlasting condemnation As for the salvation of mankind this being an indefinite speech wee are ready with your selfe to maintaine that God hath peremptorily decreed to wit the salvation of his Elect and it is not faire to make use of indefinite speeches the truth whereof is confessed on all hands by prejudice of an indefinite truth to draw your Readers to the embracing of your definite Tenet which is void of truth And can it be denyed by you that God from everlasting hath decreed the condemnation of them whose salvation you would not have us thinke he slighteth Our Saviours teares not onely argued in him a serious compassion as man but a serious desire also of their salvation and whom hee wept over out of that love hee owed unto them being made under the Law hee was bound to desire their salvation as wee are bound to desire the salvation of all those to whom we are sent though this desire on all hands ought to have course and that by the very Law of God with submission to his will But that it argued in him as God a will or desire to save them your modesty would not permit you to expresse although the face of your Tenet is as manifestly set towards this marke as ever our Saviours face was set towards Jerusalem As for the consideration of their peace which you attribute unto him were it extant it were impossible but as God hee should consider it were it to come to passe it were no lesse impossible but hee should purpose it and effect it but seeing it was never to come to passe hee could no otherwise consider it then as a thing possible but such as should never come to passe and it was equally impossible as the former that hee should not so consider it But I doe easily imagine what you meane though you are very loath to speake it out which to deale plainly with you is nothing faire save that I am verily perswaded it proceeds not out of any ill mind in you but partly out of feare by speaking plainly to give offence to good men and partly out of some conscientiousnesse of your inability to justifie it namely that Christ as God did consider it as a thing possible with a tender affection desiring it And indeed otherwise the word tender added to consideration attributed to God comes in very incongruously for in proper speech to consider a thing tenderly is to consider a thing passionately which is incident to man but not to God As for the other object which you make of Gods consideration namely the providing of means for their peace this is brought in too too unseasonably for the time thereof was at this time out of season as our Saviour himselfe signifieth when hee saith But now they are hid from thine eyes And were it never so seasonable yet were it little or nothing to the purpose for what outward meanes soever he affords them yet if hee afford them not the efficacious operation of his holy spirit it is a manifest document that his purpose is to glorifie himselfe in their everlasting condemnation rather than in their salvation But whereas hitherto you have but prevaricuted pleading for that which no man denyes namely that Gods purpose towards them is but in a disjunct manner either for salvation if they obey or for condemnation in case they disobey or onely in a conditionate manner willing life unto them and that upon such a condition as hee well knowes will never be performed by them all-along concealing your opinion and sparing to deale plainly in an open profession thereof Now at length you are come to broach it and that is not onely that God wills either their salvation or condemnation according as they shall be found to repent or not repent or that hee wills life unto them upon condition of their obedience and repentance giving hitherto not the least inckling of your meaning to be this that hee wills also and desires their obedience and repentance Now you take heart to open this mystery of your meaning also namely that there is in God an earnest and serious affection as concerning the conversion and salvation of the world which never are nor shall be saved Yet here also you give cause to complain that you walk not with a right foot sparing to expresse your meaning home for you apply it onely to the people of Israel which is an indefinite terme and may be applied to the Elect concerning whom there is no question of Gods earnest and serious affection concerning their salvation All are not Israel that are of Israel saith the Apostle So that Israel are Gods chosen in the Apostles phrase And there is an universitas electorum yea and mundus electorum too as the Author of the bookes De vocatione Gentium observeth Againe that which in the places alledged by you is applied to Israel onely you by your Tenet doe and must extend to all that are not elect to the very Turks and Saracens of these dayes though you have no such exclamations to serve your turne withall to prove Gods earnest and serious affection concerning their salvation though this be the most colourable Argument which you have to stand you in stead in this particular But why should a slight and colourable interpretation of holy Scripture cast you or any sober man upon such an opinion the absurdity whereof is evident by the light of nature For doth not God know full well that notwithstanding all the meanes which hee useth to bring them to obedience they will still continue in the hardnesse of their heart Doth hee not also know full well that hee could give them such a grace as should break the hardnesse of their heart and make them humble and obedient with upright hearts And withall hath hee not resolved to deny them this grace which he knew full well would prove effectuall to their conversion and to grant them only such a grace as hee knew would prove ineffectuall Now in this case let every sober Reader judge whether God hath any affection to all much lesse earnest unto their salvation and whether hee meaneth not rather to glorisie himselfe in their utter condemnation To pretermit here my former Arguments as namely That this serious and earnest affection concerning their salvation must still continue even after they are damned or else God is mutable And that if God doth earnestly desire their obedience and repentance that they might be saved in case they doe not obey and repent it followeth that God is not able to effect it But neverthelesse
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
all as it is free for God to give grace to whom he will and so to bring them to salvation the purpose whereof is called Gods election so is it enough for God to deny grace to whom he will and thereby to expose them to condemnation the purpose whereof in God is that which wee call Reprobation which as Aquinas saith Includit voluntatem permittendi peccatum damnationem inferendi pro peccato Now of this generall impotency of doing good which cleaves unto all since the fall of Adam you take no notice at all though herein consists the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these controversies but carry your selfe throughout in such manner as if notwithstanding that shipwracke of grace which all humane soules made in Adam it were still as much in mans power to obey God as it was before or as much in mans power to rise by repentance now after he is fallen as it was in his power to stand in his integrity and in obedience unto God before he was fallen Put the case all were true that you deliver in the next place namely that God the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost proceed in the way of admonition and exhortation to turne themselves to the Lord that iniquitie might not be their ruine yet this hinders not but that the decree of condemnation might be precedent to Gods decree of taking such a course and permitting them to resist it For upon a purpose to condemne them for such a sinne he might thereupon resolve to expose them to such a sinne And if God should first decree to permit such a sinne and then decree to condemne them for it the permission of this sinne being first in intention should by your owne rule be last in execution that is first men should be condemned for such a sin and afterwards they should be suffered to commit it Not that I maintaine any such order but onely to represent the weaknesse of your discourse approaching shrewdly to such a disorderly constitution of Gods decrees and nothing at all preventing the most harsh tenet that can be devised Againe this that here you deliver were it granted you yet doth it nothing hinder the corrupt masse in Adam to be the object of Gods decree of condemnation For albeit God the Father and God the Sonne faile not of performing all this you speak of yet if by reason of the generall impotency which is come on all they are nothing able to obey these motions of Gods spirit and withall God purposeth to deny them a further grace to make them to obey shall not this be sufficient to expose them to condemnation even for this sinne of resisting the motions of Gods spirit But now let us consider your discourse it selfe and what weight it carrieth which onely makes a shew of much but comes to nothing in the end First you please your selfe in devising distinct workes applyed to the distinct persons in the Trinitie without all ground in my judgement Wee commonly say Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisibilia Were not the Sonne and the Holy Ghost as active in the creation and are still in the workes of providence as the Father How Christ enlightned the world by his death is a mystery to me his doctrine I confesse did and much more the doctrine of his Apostles But in this ministerie of Christs servants were not the Father and the Holy Ghost as operative as the Sonne As for the knocking of the spirit at mens hearts you nothing distinguish it for ought I found hitherto from the ministerie of Christs servants in admonishing and exhorting which worke is yet the Fathers and the Sonnes aswell as the Spirits But whereas you say all this is done for this very end To turne them to the Lord that iniquitie might not be their destruction I pray you observe your owne words well all the operations you specifie are drawn from these two heads Instruction and Admonition to turn to the Lord and the end of all this you say is to turne to the Lord. Put these together that you may behold the sobrietie of this discourse God exhorts them to turne to the Lord to this end to turne them to the Lord As much as to say God exhorts them to turne to the Lord to this end that in case they obey his voice and turne to the Lord which is their part then God will performe his part also and turne them to the Lord. But what need I pray of Gods worke in turning them to the Lord after they have performed their part so well as to turne themselves to the Lord Againe if God hath a purpose to turne them to the Lord why doth he not Is it because they refuse to performe some act upon the performance whereof God would turne them to himself Now I would gladly know what act that is which God expects to be performed that so he might turne them to the Lord. I am verily perswaded your selfe are not willing to be put to designe this Is it the very act of turning to the Lord or lesse or more If the very act of turning to the Lord you fall upon a manifest absurditie before specified if lesse then turning to the Lord then 't is lesse than a good act and shall God reward that which is lesse then a good act with conversion unto him What is it to conferre grace according to the workes of nature if this be not Yet I would faine know what this act is Least of all will you say 't is more than turning to the Lord for that should suppose conversion unto the Lord already wrought and consequently no need that God should turne them to the Lord which supposeth that they were not before turned to the Lord at all The providing of severall helpfull meanes for the salvation of the world after the fall doth nothing hinder Gods reprobating of the world upon the fall unto eternall condemnation and perdition For if hee purpose to deny them grace to obey these meanes this shall bee sufficient to expose them to condemnation even for the despising of those meanes of grace which God purposeth to provide for them and accordingly the objection here proposed is sound And whereas you answere that these meanes doe aggravate their condemnation by accident onely to wit through their neglect and abuse of them I answere that this their neglect and abuse doth by necessary consequence follow upon Gods purpose to deny them effectuall grace for the using of those meanes aright like as upon Gods purpose to harden Pharaohs heart that hee should not let Israel goe it followed by necessary consequence that Pharaoh through the hardnesse of his heart would not let Israel goe But that Gods end is as you say the restoring of men to salvation and life as if God did will and purpose any such thing is utterly untrue and nothing proved by you hitherto but rather flatly contradictorie to that you have most an end delivered partly in
making Gods will of their salvation to be onely in a disjunct 〈◊〉 and partly of a conditionate 〈◊〉 which is no more to will their salvation than their damnation in case they were indifferent to performe either condition But in case they be found unable to performe the condition of life and most prone to performe the condition of death God meaning not to give them such a grace as alone can relieve them it is manifestly an evidence that God wills their condemnation and nothing at all their salvation Not to mention any other arguments against this conceit the one drawn from Gods omnipotency the other from his immutab litie In the recapitulation of this reason you help your selfe with a phrase and onely with a phrase God retaines a will and purpose to restore life to the world upon an equall condition Obedience is due to God though man be not able to performe it And therefore God in requiring that which is due unto him carrieth himselfe in an equall I had rather say in a just course though man becoming banckrupt be not able to performe it But in this case namely if God will not restore life but upon performance of such a condition which he is utterly unable to performe and withall purposeth to deny him that grace which should inable him to performe it is not this a manifest document that God hath no purpose to restore life unto him Yet I confesse the phrase used is advantageous unto you for at the hearing of an equall condition most are apt to conceive the condition to be such as lyeth in a mans power to performe But you have not hitherunto manifested any such opinion of mans abilitie If you have entertained any such as whereunto pastorall Divines dealing much upon exhortation are sometimes over-prone though I see small cause why the opinion of mans impotency unto good should any whit rebate the edge of their exhortation you should doe well to convince your adversaries by argument and not circumvent them From the condition of those men upon whom the scriptures pronounce reprobation or rejection I no where read of reprobation but of such men to whom the meanes of grace or at least of the knowledge of God in some measure or other have been offered in vaine In the Old Testament God pronounceth the house of Judah reprobate silver rejected by him But when Not till they were all become revolters and corrupters and till the meanes hee had used to purge and cleanse them had been attempted in vaine The bellows saith hee are burnt the lead is consumed in the fire the founder melteth in vaine and reprobate silver shall men call them because the Lord hath rejected them When did God reject all further care of purging the people from their filthinesse any more Not till after hee had used meanes to purge them and they were not purged When doth the Sonne of God under the name of wisdome reject the wicked Not till after he had called upon them earnestly to return stretched out his hands unto them offered to poure out his spirit upon them and they after all this had set at nought his counsell and despised the meanes of their owne reformation Prov. 1. In the New Testament the Apostle speaks of reprobates in case so powerfull a ministery as his was so long a time dispensed unto them and had notwithstanding been vainly received by them and that as yet they knew not themselves to be in Christ Yea the Gentiles themselves when did God give them up to a reprobate minde Was it not after they had disregarded the acknowledging and glorifying of God according to the meanes they had received In a word when doth God shut up the Sonnes of Adam either Jewes or Gentiles under enmitie against Christ and set forth Christ in enmitie against them thereby excluding them from attonement with him or by him with God Is it not after they are become the seed of the Serpent Now by the seed of the Serpent cannot be meant all men fallen and corrupted in Adam by originall sin though that fall was wrought by the suggestion and practice of the Serpent for then all the seed of Adam had been shut up in enmitie against Christ and cut off from all fellowship with him their head But by the seed of the Serpent I understand all such men of the world as have the image of the old Serpent stamped upon them which is a will set to doe the lusts of the devill Saith our Saviour to the Jewes Yee are of your father the devill and the lusts of your father ye will doe or which is all one an hatred of the light when it cometh amongst them and which is a character of the devill a lover of darknesse rather then light Upon which point it is our Saviour shutteth up the men of this world under condemnation viz. When by the hatred of the light they have drunke in the venome and received the image of the old Serpent till which time men are counted the seed of Adam Or if they be borne in the Church the seed of Abraham rather then the seed of the Serpent For our Divines doe wisely and justly maintaine against the Anabaptists that the seed of Abraham as pertaining to the Covenant are not only his spirituall seed partakers of his faith but also his children after the flesh till by their carelesse and willfull disobedience they have excluded themselves from the Covenant of Abraham From whence it is that all the seed of Abraham even the carnall seed are scaled up by Circumcision or Baptisme under the Covenant of Abraham Neither are they excluded from hope of benefit by the Covenant and the seales and ordinances of it till that with prophane Esau they dispise this their birth-right and sell the pledges of their inheritance for some base and sensuall lust Now if all such are to be accounted the seed of Abraham till by despising the Covenant they have broken off themselves from partaking with him in the satnesse of the olive then surely even the carnall seed of Abraham are not the seed of the Serpent from their originall pollution but doe become afterwards by their actuall voluntary rebellion As there is an election eternall and election temporall so in both senses the word is taken in holy scripture Of election eternall we read Ephes 1. 4. where God is said to have chosen us in Christ that wee should be holy before the foundation of the world Of election temporall wee read 1 Cor. 1. 26. Brothren you see your calling how that not many wisemen after the flesh c. But God hath chosen the foolish things c. Where Election is taken as all one with vocation in proportion whereunto wee must distinguish of reprobation And like as Election temporall is all one with effectuall vocation as when men find mercy at the hands of God to obey their callings So reprobation temporall is all one with obduration
as when men are not through the mercy of God and power of his grace brought about to obey their calling but through the hardnesse of their hearts uncorrected by the spirit of God they stand out and refuse to obey when they are called Now like as it followeth not that because men are not elect in respect of Election temporall untill they obey their calling therefore God did consider them as obedient to their calling before hee elected them unto life In like sort it followeth not that because men are not reprobate in respect of reprobation temporall untill they are found to disobey their calling Ergo God did consider them as disobedient to their calling before he reprobated them unto death albeit there is a vast difference between Election and Reprobation For if once men be found truly to obey their calling hereby as they are effectually called so they may be assured of their eternall Election unto grace and consequently unto glory also But although men for a while are found to disobey their calling though hereby they are obdurated yet no evidence ariseth here-hence of their non-election unto grace and consequently of their reprobation from grace and as from grace so from glory also The reason is because nothing but small obduration and continuance in sinne is an evidence of Preprobation eternall though in this case they may be accounted reprobate two wayes First in a negative opposition to Election temporall for certainly in this case they are not as yet effectually called that is converted unto God Secondly they may be called reprobate as it hath the signification of an adjective and not of a participle like as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used in holy scripture 1 Pet. 2. 9. Revel 17. 14. 2 Joh. 1. 14. And the word Reprobate in those places you take advantage of is rather an adjective then a participle As for Reprobation in opposition to Election eternall that is expressed in holy Scripture by the not writing mens names in the book of life which signifies Gods purpose to deny them both grace and glory and they are commonly stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred such as perish 1 Cor. 1. 18. and 2 Cor. 4. 3. And on the contrary the Elect are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 1. 18. But unto us which are saved it is the power of God And Act. 2. last v. God added daily to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But then whereas by consequent followeth their continuance in sinne and condemnation there is also in scripture a decree of God called Ordination unto wrath 1 Thes 5. 9. And as there is a preparing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto destruction and a creating unto an evill day so there must consequently be acknowledged in God a purpose to prepare to destruction and to create against the day of evill But let us come to the particular scanning of your discourse I willingly acknowledge that as you say wee no where read in scripture of Reprobation but of such men to whom the meanes of grace or at least of the knowledge of God in some measure or other hath been offered in vaine This qualification is brought in to prevent an exception out of Rom. 1. Where the Gentiles are said to be given over into a reprobate minde who yet had not the meanes of grace But they had you will say the knowledge of God in some measure you meane the meanes of the knowledge of God and these meanes are the world wherein they are brought forth for the world containes the workes of God and by them are manifested the invisible things of God even his eternall power and Godhead And indeed these meanes of the knowledge of God all enjoy in equall measure according to the proportion of the time of their lives But to discover unto you the loosnesse of this your discourse I pray you consider the sinne of the Gentiles here taxed is the transforming of the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of corruptible things contrary unto that knowledge which they did or might attaine unto by Gods workes Their judgement was their giving over into a reprobate minde to doe things inconvenient as there it followeth And doe you thinke indeed that all such Idolaters were given over into a reprobate minde to doe such abominable things as after are mentioned Were there not found many morall men among the Heathens which yet were reprobates as well as the most prophane amongst them Nay what thinke you of them amongst whom this sinne of transforming the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of corruptible things was not found as Varro writes of the Romans that for above an hundred yeares they had no Images and that in those dayes the Gods were worshipped more chastely and that they who brought in Images were to blame in two respects First because errorem auxerunt The Second because timorem ademerunt and were not they thinke you given over into a reprobate minde Lastly be it so they were given over are you indeed perswaded that none of these were the elect of God Doth not the contrary apeare manifestly in the Corinthians For were not they as well as others in former time carried away after dumbe Idols as they were led 1 Cor. 12. 2. Were not they also given over into a reprobate minde Were not they fornicatours idolaters adulterers wantons buggerers c 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. Yet they were sanctified in due time notwithstanding all this they were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God Therefore I conclude it is one thing to be a reprobate in that sense wee here speak of reprobates for wee speak of reprobates in opposition to Gods elect But undoubtedly the very elect of God may be for a time and that for a long time given over into a reprobate minde Againe is Reprobation onely of those to whom the meanes of grace have been offered in vaine and is Reprobation pronounced on none but such Then belike Reprobation is not eternall but temporall and consequently nothing pertinent to our present purpose And I could wish you had expressed wherin this Reprobation temporall which is pronounc't upon men after the meanes of grace have been offered unto them in vaine doth consist For to use words signifying wee know not what maketh all our disputation as much in vaine as to draw water with a bucket that hath no bottome Sure I am noe receiving of the meanes of grace in vaine is an evidence of that Reprobation wee speak of unlesse it be finall though well it may be of giving over into a reprobate minde for the present But devise what you will to be the act of Reprobation temporall you speak of will it therefore follow that the consideration of this contumacie in standing out against the meanes of grace was with God before his purpose thus to reprobate As for example because finall impenitency and infidelity go before condemnation
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
damnation you seeme to say that God of his free grace doth save a man In my judgement it is an improvident speech For consider whom doth God save of ripe yeares Doth hee save any other but those that die in the Lord That is such as die in the state of grace in the state of faith and repentance Now judge I pray Is it fit to say It is free and indifferent with God either to save or damne them who die in the Lord in the state of grace in the state of repentance For hath not God made as well such a law that whosoever beleeves and repents he shall be saved As such a law Whosoever beleeves not nor repents shall be damned And in respect of the former law is not God as much obliged to save them that beleeve and repent as in respect of the latter law hee is obliged to damne them that beleeve not that repent not So that the comparison is miserably to blame made between the freenesse of Gods grace in saving the one and his severitie and justice in condemning others And the confounding of effectuall vocation and salvation on the one side and obduration with damnation on the other hath exposed you to this incongruitie ere you are aware So that whereas I thought to have least to doe about this use a greater businesse is made unto me in clearing the truth of God herein then I could imagine and yet I am not come to an end This may suffice to discover the unsoundnesse of the maine body of your comparison But there are some other things to be considered on the by First by way of amplifying the largenesse of the riches of the grace of God You tell us how the Lord carrieth the salvation of his Elect in all the wayes of it c. And forthwith by way of addition you say that under them also are spread the everlastig armes of Gods power and eternall love to guide them to his eternall kingdome Which is no different thing but meerely the same with the former of carrying their salvation along in all the wayes of it These expressions I confesse are momentuous to stir up gracious affections in the apprehension of the freenesse and power of Gods grace But if hereby our judgement in the meane time is not a little disturbed in discerning Gods truth so that wee embrace errour in stead thereof wee shall buy good affections at too deare a rate as is the losse of truth And hereby as I have shewed the freenesse of Gods grace is miserably weakned For if God be not acknowledged freely and of the meere pleasure of his will to deny grace unto some I cannot see how well it can be maintained that hee doth freely and according to the meere pleasure of his owne will bestow it upon others Againe that phrase of yours the equitic of Gods justice toward them that are damned seemes somewhat incongruous For equitie signifies the moderation of justice in such sort that the strictnesse thereof may not hinder mans good But what good the damned reap by this equitie you speak of you have not declared Lastly you say God loves the damned as they are his creatures And it is a phrase I confesse that hath ' its course with many hand over head In the very state of damnation in hell fire they are and still continue to be his creatures what I pray is that love of God that passeth upon them in that state Undoubtedly whatsoever it be it must consist with hatred in the highest degree I would willingly know whether it be Amor complacentiae or Amor beneficentiae If it bee complacentiae what is it that God likes in them unlesse it be his own worke the nature of men Or what good is it that God doth unto them in the state of damnation Can it be any other then the continuance of their being Yet most thinke that is nothing good to them in the state of damnation Whatsoever your meaning be if you did expresse it it may be you would fly from your owne caution in this place as Moses did from his rod when it was turned into a Serpent I am perswaded the apparent incongruitie thereof would little please you I come to the Consideration of the second Use 2 That the doctrine of our Church from which you swerve doth not offer as well as yours to carnall Christians a serious exhortation to seeke after Christ whilst he may be found Or that it doth not as earnestly as yours presse upon them those heartie and quickning expostulations of the Prophets Why will yee die O house of Israel Or What could I have done more for my vineyard that I have not done Turne yee turne yee that iniquitie may not be your destruction you doe not so much as goe about to prove But I have something more to except against this use of yours The description here given by you of a carnall Christian to wit That hee sinnes of ignorance and humane frailtie and not of prophane and wilfull contempt of the meanes of grace I had thought it had been proper to the regenerate and not at all belonging to the carnall Christians whom I thinke you make no better than naturall men to whom the things of God are foolishnesse and in whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is enmitie unto God in such sort that they are not subject unto the law of God nor can be But I presume you speak this of civill and morall Christians conforming to the meanes of grace and not giving any outward evidence of contemning them But herehence it followeth not that God who seeth their hearts finds not prophanenesse in them or vile estimation of the meanes of grace But howsoever whether they are prophane or formall wee exhort all wee presse the same expostulations upon all and dare you say that never any prophane or wilfull contemner of the meanes of grace is converted Though that these expostulations doe quicken any it is meerely of the spirit of God who bloweth where hee listeth But whereas you seeme to imply though you are not willing to deale plainly and expresse so much that a carnall Christian such as here you have shaped him hath power to yeeld to these exhortations and quickning expostulations a point that we dare not take hold of without much explication For to yeeld unto them in a gracious manner I conceive to be utterly out of the sphere of a naturall man or a carnall Christians activitie And I presume you will affirme as much but to yeeld unto them either hypocritically either according to the course of grosse hypocrisie or of that hypocrisie which is secret to him that is possessed with it or ad exteriorem vitae emendationem wee deny not such a power unto a carnall Christian as you describe him nor unto any prophane person whatsoever And I am perswaded it is onely a consideration of things in generall and in a confusaneous manner holds you on to imply such a power
in carnall Christians Whereas if things were distinguished aright it would more easily appeare what is within the region of nature and what beyond it as meerely imputable to the speciall grace of God and operation of his spirit 3 As for dogs and swine wee are forbidden to give our holy things or to cast our pearles before them at all And therefore are wee not to trouble our selves in considering to what end this doctrine is to be preached unto them And yet as for the testifications proposed as proper unto them it is nothing so for not to them only but to carnall Christians also doe such belong yea to the very Children of God also to wit That God is just in all that cometh on them and his wayes equall As when after Davids foule sinnes in the matter of Uriah the sword pursued his house and Absolon defiled his fathers concubines and hee was driven to flie from Jerusalem and Shimei meeting him on the way cursed him c. And I pray you what unregenerate man throughout the world doth not love the cursed wayes of sin in some kind or other though not in all kinds And no marvell for vice is like a pike in a pond it devoures both vertue and lesser vices One vice is opposite to another and not onely unto vertue And therefore no mervaile if no man be found vicious in all kinds 4 As for the Lutheran and Arminian you professe that this Tenet of yours removes such stumbling blocks out of their way as have hitherto turned them out of the way of truth and peace But what these stumbling blocks are which you have removed I know not It seemes this hath been a chiefe inducement unto you to decline from that which you confesse to be the most received opinion of our Church and to shape unto your selfe a new forme of opinion different from that which is received if not to remove some stumbling blocks out of your owne way Now if it be so the fairest course had been to have expressed what these offences are Secondly how our most received Tenet doth either cast them in tho way of others or at least doth not remove them and thirdly to shew how by this opinion of yours they are removed But none of these have been performed by you Againe Mr. Moulin being very orthodox in the point of Election as you are varieth from us as you doe in the point of Reprobation maintaining Reprobation to be instituted upon the foresight of mans finall impenitency in his Anatome Arminianismi Corvinus an Arminan hath taken him to taske in a worke of his and is never a whit the more forward to concurre with us in the point of Election because Moulin concurres with them in the point of Reprobation Nay what doe Papists say about Durham by occasion of our complying with them but this They need not comply with us for wee come fast enough forwards to comply with them And more then this I have already shewed that this tempering or corrupting rather of the doctrine of Reprobation maketh a faire way for the utter overthrowing of that which you call the sound and comfortable doctrine of Election Forasmuch as looke by what reason you maintaine the foresight of small impenitencie and infidelitie to goe before Reprobation as it signifies the punishing with everlasting death by the same reason it will appeare that the foresight of finall perseverance in faith repentance and good workes must necessarily goe before Election as it signifies Gods decree of rewarding with everlasting life In which notion alone election or the decree of salvation is contrarily opposite to reprobation or the decree of condemnation For in maintaining that Reprobation as a purpose of God to condemne for sin doth presuppose the foresight of sinne you doe thereby imply that Election as a purpose of God to reward for righteousnesse of faith and repentance doth presuppose the foresight of faith and repentance But if your meaning be no other than this that God hath ordained no man unto damnation but for sinne what offence or scandall doe you remove hereby which wee doe not remove also who concurre with you herein And which is more wee are ready not onely to affirme but to make good also that in no moment of nature doth the purpose of Condemnation goe before the foresight of sinne even of that sinne for which men shall be damned Whereas you in maintaining that the foresight of sinne is precedent to the purpose of condemnation are not able to make it good but must necessarily fall foule upon a manifest contradiction to your owne rules For if the foresight of sinne be precedent to the decree of condemnation then God did first decree to permit sinne before hee did decree to damne for it And herehence it followeth that permission of sinne in Gods intention was before condemnation and if it were first in intention then by your owne rules it must be last in execution that is men shall be condemned for sinne before ever they be permitted to sinne Nay I appeale to your owne conscience whether wee doe not open a fairer way for composition in the point of election then you doe in the point of Reprobation Considering that like as in Reprobation Gods decree to condemne is in no moment of nature precedent to Gods foresight of sinne so in Election I am bold to affirme that Gods purpose to save is in no moment of nature before his foresight of faith repentance and good workes and finall perseverance in them all Will not you thinke that you have cause to feare hereupon that I am more dissolute in the point of Election than rigid in the point of Reprobation Yet if you will confesse that herein is a faire way opened for composition in the point of Election I dare undertake to perswade you that this shall be maintained without any prejudice either to the freenesse of Gods grace or to the absolutnesse of his power The truth is our Divines have a long time erred in making different decrees of those which are but one I mean formall decree to wit of the meanes though materially different which is nothing strange For why should it seeme strange that many meanes should be required to the same end Wee commonly say that Gods decree to give salvation is the decree of the end and his decree to give faith and repentance is the decree of the meanes yet they dare not say commonly that Gods decree to inflict damnation is the decree of the end and Gods decree to deny grace is the decree of the meanes And so they are driven to overthrow all Analogie between Election and Reprobation I say that Gods decree of giving faith and salvation unto sinners are but one formall decree of God concerning the meanes the end whereof is the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of mercie mixt with justice And indeed nothing can be the end of Gods actions but his owne glory for hee made all things
for himselfe and as all things are from him so all things must be for him for the supreame efficient must be the supreame end Now if God at once and in one moment of nature decreeth to give salvation by way of reward of faith judge you or let any indifferent Reader judge whether this decree of salvation be not necessarily conjunct with the foresight of saith 5 As for the occasions of slandering and reviling the orthodox truth of God which as you conceive this doctrine of yours cutteth of to the cavilling and froward spirit you have not so much as expressed what they are much lesse justified them to be such occasions as you speak of or shewed how they are removed by your doctrine and not by ours In like sort what is that equitie of the wayes of God the credit of the clearing whereof you attribute to your owne doctrine and derogate from ours you take no paines to explicate If your meaning be that you maintaine that God condemnes no man but for sinne voluntarily and freely committed by him and withall doe obtrude upon us the contrary you doe us the greater wrong provided you speak of men of ripe yeares As for the damnation of infants I doubt you feare so much to offend men that you come too neere the Pelagian and Arminian tenet hereabouts And if you thinke there is any active power in a naturall man to believe and repent wee will not feare offence to resist you or any man in this the scripture having so plainely expressed the contradictorie to this 1 Cor. 2. 14. and Rom. 8. 8. Or if your opinion be that God doth not harden whom he will as well as hee shewes mercie on whom hee will where the good pleasure of God is as evidently signified to be the cause of the one as of the other wee shall not forbeare by Gods grace through feare of offence to resist you in this also And if Pharaoh shall hereupon object and say Why doth God complaine of my not letting Israel goe when he himselfe hardens my heart that I may not let Israel goe wee thinke it fit to take the Apostles course to stop such a ones mouth and say O man who art thou that disputest with God shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus Hath not the potter power c. And let men take heed they doe not take upon them to be wiser then the Holy Ghost and thinke to satisfie men by devises of their owne when the word of God doth not satisfie them Yet in all this the Apostle doth not impeach the libertie of their wils nor Austin neither but rather justifieth it throughout yet is hee bold to pronounce that libertas sine gratia non est libertas sed contumacia As much as to say a man without grace hath will too much to that which is evill and averse from that which is good as being wilfully bent to the one and opposite to the other And the providence of God in the efficacie of working all things to his owne ends compared with the libertie of the creature hath ever been accounted of a secret nature whereas now a dayes nothing will satisfie the Patrons of free will unlesse this secret and misterious providence of God as it was wont to be accounted come to be utterly overthrowen and libertie of the creature if not chance be brought to domineere in the place thereof When you speak of the orthodox truth of God I presume you doe not distinguish of the truth of God as if some were orthodox and some not Yet I confesse Epithites have another use besides the use of distinction yet in this case also the Epithite is not congruous for orthodox is as much in effect as true 6 As touching the last I presume you will not deny but that the riches of Gods grace to Christ and in him to all the Elect are by our Tenet acknowledged to be as wonderfull as by yours As for the absolute power of his soveraigntie in dealing farre otherwise with the world I presume your opinion is that wee doe exceed rather then come short of you in the acknowledging thereof For wee maintaine God to be as absolute and free in the denying of grace to some as in giving it to others And by denying of grace wee understand the hardning of men at least as touching the chiefe part wherein it consists Yet this you will have to proceed not so much according to Gods absolutnesse as according to his justice in punishing men with obduration yet I grant there is an obduration which is properly enough a punishment of sinne and when men are thereby prostituted unto danger and exposed unto destruction Yet I dare appeale to the judgment of any intelligent Arminian whether in case you doe maintaine as you speak the absolute power of Gods soveraigntie in dealing farre otherwise with the world then with the elect any scandall is removed out of their way by your tenet which is cast in their way by ours As for the unsearchable depth of his wisdome in the order and end of all his wayes as also of his patience towards all men I presume you will not say it is more maintained by your tenet then by ours But by the way I hope you will not except against that of Austin Quantam libet praebuerit patientiam nisi Deus dederit quis aget poenitentiam cont Jul. liber 5. Cap. 4. And againe in the same place Istorum neminem to wit non praedestinatorum adduoit Deus ad salubrem spiritualemque poenitentiam quâ homo reconoiliatur Deo in Christo sive ampliorem illis patientiam sive non imparem praebeat And againe adducit ad poenitentiam sed praedestinatum adducit and none other in his opinion As for the justice of God to obstinate sinners I hope you will not say the common tenet of our Divines doth any way infringe it wee generally maintaine him to be righteous in all his workes and holy in all his wayes For hee punisheth none but for sin none of ripe yeares but for sinne voluntarily and freely committed by them and that in such sort as they might avoide it speaking of any outward transgresion Onely it is not in their power to change their hearts and to love God with all their hearts and feare him and depend upon him Whence it cometh to passe that albeit there is no particular materiall transgresion which they could not avoide yet it is not in the power of a naturall man to avoid it in a gracious manner and all for want of that love of God before spoken of which cannot be wrought in a man but by the spirit of regeneration If any man should further object as I wish you had objected to the uttermost against our Tenet supposing a naturall man to performe what good lieth in his power to performe but not in a gracious manner and likewise to omit what lyeth in his power
sin that was committed whereas God could undoubtedly restrain from the committing of it and that either in a gracious manner or in a meere naturall manner When it is committed his gracious restraint is not afforded but denyed rather What that other action is wherein this obduration consists and which is joyned with the denyall of grace you expound not Suppose it bee Gods moving a man to some course contrary to his corrupt nature either by his word as hee moved Pharaoh to let Israel goe or by his works or by the suggestions of conscience according to that Law which is writen in mens hearts is not this usually found also as often as sinne is committed contrary to light of Nature or light of Grace And hath not obduration consequently its course in all this And why you should pronounce of obduration indefinitely That it is both the heighth of mans sin and depth of mans misery I see no reason Do not the children of God sometimes feele it and in patheticall manner complain of it Lord why hast thou caused us to erre from thy wayes and hardned our hearts against thy feare Esay 63. 17. What saith our Saviour to his Disciples Mark 8. 17. Perceive yee not neither understand have yee your hearts yet hardned As for your phrase of inflicting obduration that doth much require explication which you doe no where perform that I know There is I confesse another operation of God besides those I mentioned formerly whereby men are given over by God whence it followeth that they will grow harder and harder and that is the suspension of his admonitions either by taking away his word or forbearing inward motives by his spirit or removing his judgements and giving outward prosperity whereby God is said to give men over to their own hearts lusts But how this or any of these can bee called the inflicting of abduration I understand not And whereas you say it is prejudiciall to Gods Justice to shew his power in hardning Pharaoh without respect to sin like as to condemn him I have already shewed the great difference between condemnation and obduration It being never said that God damnes whom hee will but the Apostle plainely professing that God hardens whom hee will even as expressely as it is said Hee hath mercy on whom hee will and no marvell For God hath revealed a Law according to which hee proceeds in damning men but you are not able to shew us a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardning of them For if the elect before their callings bee no better then reprobates it is impossible to assigne a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardning of men but that by the same Law the Elect of God must bee hardned also And hardning in the Scripture phrase is usually opposed to Gods shewing mercy It is one thing to speak of an heart hardned another to speak of a heart desperately hardned Yet if you were put to explicate your self and shew what it is to bee desperately hardned and that of God and there withall to prove how Pharaoh was at the time you speak of desperately hardned I am perswaded this phrase would cost you more pains then you are aware of for the satisfying of your self and perhaps somewhat more for the satisfying of others If then God purposed to fall upon Pharaoh in his utmost wrath c. Surely from everlasting hee purposed so to fall upon him for all Gods purposes are everlasting If your meaning bee onely to denote the precedency of such a condition of Pharaoh in sin to Gods falling upon him in bringing such judgements upon his back but not a precedency to Gods purpose I willingly concurre with you herein But then the like may bee said of God concerning Esau before hee was born to wit that God purposed to bring such a measure of obduration and confusion upon him after such a condition of sin But if your meaning bee as indeed hitherunto the genius of your opinion drives you namely that upon the foresight of some sinfull condition God did decree to bring obduration and condemnation both upon Esau and Pharaoh as this may bee said as well of one as of the other here you will give us leave to dissent from you considering how manifestly you are found herein to dissent from your self For if such a foresight of sin goe before Gods decree of obduration and condemnation then God did first decree to permit that sin before hee did decree to harden and condemne man for it so that the permission of that sin in Gods intention must bee before obduration and condemnation and consequently last in execution that is men shall first bee hardned and condemned and then suffered to commit that sinne for which they are hardned and condemned Again if Gods purpose to punish with condemnation must necessarily presuppose foresight of sin in God by the same reason Gods purpose to reward with salvation must necessarily presuppose a foresight in God of obedience and in this case what shall become of the freenesse of Gods grace in election not to trouble you with the profession of Aquinas that never any man was so mad as to introduce a cause of predestination quoad actum praedestinantis The case is the same with introducing a cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis For the ground of this is only because there can bee no cause of the will of God quoad actum volentis Now reprobation is well known to bee an act of Gods will as well as predestination Answer But say further that this hardning of Pharaoh bee an effect of the like hatred of Pharaoh as of Esau neither is it said to depend on the sin of Pharaoh but on the will of God as mercy doth as the first cause thereof I answer this hardning of Pharaoh though an effect of Gods hatred of Pharaoh yet it is not an immediate effect of the like hatred hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh viz. his malitious hatred of Gods Church comming between God hateth no man so farre as to harden him till hee hath fallen into some sin in which and for which hee may bee hardned Hardning being alwaies as far as I can perceive by Scripture not only a sin and cause of sin but a punishment of sin How can God bee said to punish sin with sin in hardning the creature if sin in Pharaoh bee not presupposed to goe before the hardning It is true indeed this hardning of Pharaoh is referred by the Apostle to the will of God as the first cause thereof For otherwise the answer of the Apostle had not been sufficient to the objection propounded ver 14. for there it was objected that unrighteousnesse might seem to bee found in God even respect of persons to deale so unequally with persons equall such as Jacob and Esau were for if Jacob and Esau had done neither good nor evill when God had exalted
the younger to the participation of his free love and to soveraignty over his Brother and depressed the elder to the condition of a servant and as a servant reserved for him just dealing but not fatherly love might not this seeme an unequall partiality with God to deale so unequally with persons equall To resolve this doubt the Apostle could not have cleered God from unrighteousnesse by pleading the sin of Esau which deserved that hee should bee so dealt withall for neither did Jacobs sin deserve better and besides the Apostle had said before God gave out these Oracles which pronounced his different respect of them without all consideration of good or evill in either of them viz. before they had done either good or evill Therefore to satisfie the objection and cleare Gods righteousnesse the Apostle wisely alledgeth testimonie of Scripture to prove Gods absolute power and ability to shew mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will to harden When you say this hardning of Pharaoh though an effect of Gods hatred of Pharaoh yet was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh your meaning seems to bee this that it is not at all an effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill yet it is no lesse then the not writing of his name in the book of life as touching the communicating of saving grace and glory neither do wee acknowledge it to bee any more like as Aquinas doth not now the consequent of this kinde or measure of hatred in holy Scripture is no lesse then the worshipping of the beast Rev. 13. 8. nothing lesse then the obduration of Pharaoh The obduration of the children of Israel was no greater then such as was consequent unto this that God did not give them an heart to perceive and eies to see and ears to heare Deut. 29. 4. And this of not giving hearts to perceive c. undoubtedly is a consequent even to that hatred which you are content to attribute unto God concerning Esau But you helpe your self with a complicate proposition and flie to an immediate effect which alone you deny in this case for as much as the hardning of Pharaoh as you say presupposed sin committed by him but very improvidently For if it bee not an immediate effect of the like hatred that God bare unto Esau then in accurate consideration it is to bee acknowledged an effect thereof Only there is some effect thereof more immediate then this and what I pray was that was it Pharaohs sin for of no other doe you make the least intimation the more improvident is your expression intimating thereby that Pharaohs sin was a more immediate effect in Pharaoh of the like hatred God bare to Esau then this obduration But how doe you prove that Pharaohs hardening was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which God bare to Esau to wit because it presupposed sin But I deny this Argument neither doe you discoursing at large give your selfe to the proving of it but onely suppose it By the same reason you might say that salvation is not the immediate effect of election unto salvation because salvation in men of ripe years presupposeth faith repentance and good workes Nay you may as well say that Gods giving of grace is not an immediate effect of Gods love to any man because in most men of ripe years it presupposeth many good works In Saul it presupposed his zeale and his righteousnesse according to the Law which was unblameable If you say that Sauls righteousnesse whatsoever it was before his calling was no fruit of his love I may with more probability affirme that Pharaohs sin which preceded his obduration was no effect of Gods hatred If you say that though such righteousnesse in Saul was no moving cause to God to give him saving grace In like manner I say that no sin in Pharaoh was a moving cause in God to deny him saving grace For if it were then either by necessity of nature or by the constitution of God Not by necessity of nature for undoubtedly God could have pardoned this sin of his and changed his heart as well as he pardoned the sins of Manasses the sins of the Jews in crucifying the son of God Act. 2. the sins of Saul in persecuting Gods Saints and changed all their hearts Nor by any constitution of God for shew mee if you can any such constitution of God And if you would but explicate wherein the hardening of Pharaoh did consist I presume it would clearely appeare that the meere pleasure of Gods will is the cause of it like as it is the meere pleasure of God that he doth not harden others in like manner But when we carry our selves in the clouds of generallties we are very apt to deceive not others onely if they will be deceived but our selves also Againe you seem to speake of Pharaohs hardening mentioned Exod. 9. 16. And indeed for this cause have I appointed thee to shew my power in thee c. Whereas from the first time that Moses was sent unto him hee was hardened and that by God according as God had told Moses before-hand that hee would harden him As for his sin before ever Moses was sent unto him you doe not take any speciall notice thereof at all but whatsoever it were as suppose the cruell edict of his in commanding the male children of the Hebrews to be cast into the River like as God answered him most congruously in his works first causing the waters of Aegypt to bee turned into blood and in the last place making the waters of the red Sea the grave of Pharaoh and of his Host was this horrible sin any lesse then a consequent to more then ordinary obdurationâ— for even heathen men are seldom exposed to such unnatural courses So that if this obduration were an effect of Gods hatred but not immediate supposing sin according to the manner of your Discourse then you must be put to devise some other sin as precedent to this obduration And whereas that sin also cannot be denyed to be a consequent to Gods denyall of effectuall grace to abstaine from sin we shall never come to an end till the cause of all these obdurations be at length resolved into originall sin And what share I pray you hath the world of mankind therein which Gods elect have not When you tel us the hardening is a punishment of sin it were very fit you should deal plainly tel us in what operation of God this work of hardening doth consist which I make no doubt would cleare all All confesse that God is not the cause of hardnesse of heart in any man but man being borne in hardnesse of heart Ezek. 36. 3. 1. God is said to harden not infundendo malitiam sed non infundendo gratiam By leaving him thereunto whereby it comes
to passe that naturally it is increased especially in case a man bee moved to courses contrary to his corrupt humours whether by Gods word or by his workes and God doth not by grace correct those corrupt humours which are so contrariant to good motions good motions I mean such as have their course onely in the way of instruction and perswasion In this case thus to move and to deny grace is to harden But when God doth forbeare thus to move and gives men over to follow the swing of their own lusts this I confesse is to harden in greater measure and properly a punishment But this was not the manner of Pharaohs hardning For long after the ninth Chapter of Exodus wee read how God continued to admonish Pharaoh by his servant Moses to let his people goe neither ceased hee this Discipline till the ten plagues or nine of them at the least were fulfilled And like as to shew mercy is not to move onely to obedience but effectually to work men to obedience so the hardning of man in opposition thereunto consists not in not moving unto obedience but rather in not working unto obedience although they bee moved thereunto both in the way of instruction and exhortation As for the punishing of sin with sin in the hardning of the creature let us understand our selves aright and not confound our selves when wee need not Is it a sober speech to say that God punisheth his denyall of grace with denyall of Grace or that God punisheth the sins of the heathen with the denyall of that grace which they never injoyed But as for the punishing of sin with sin this is a large field of Gods providence consisting in divers kindes and it is no way fit to consider them without distinction God made the unnaturalnesse of Senacheribs Sons a scourge to chastise Senacheribs unnaturalnesse towards God one mans sinfull act to bee the punishment of anothers Here is one kinde utterly distinct from that you treat of Again some say and I think justly and Austin acknowledgeth it that every mans sin may bee a just punishment unto him in respect of a former as Rom. 1. 25. When men for their Idolatry were given over to vile affections to defile themselves in abominable manner it is said that herein they received in themselves such recompence of their error as was meete So 2 Thess 2. 10 11. Because men received not the truth of God with love God is said to send them strong delusions that they should beleeve lies Now seeing this concerneth the providence of God in evill which is very secret it were very fit that you should declare your opinion hereabout and shew what operation of God it is wherein consists the administration of this providence When first the one committed Idolatry contrary to the light of Nature and the other received not the truth with love contrary to the light of grace neither the one nor the other had any saving grace and therefore it is not decent to say that God exposed the one to doe things inconvenient the other to beleeves lies and herein punished them for their former misdemenour by denying unto them that which they never injoyed For to punish is either to inflict evil which formerly they suffered not or to withdraw some good which formerly they injoyed Now how God doth expose unconscionable Christians unto errors of Faith is easily comprehended For whereas unconscionable Christians apprehend the truth which they doe injoy but in a naturall and carnall manner they may easily bee withdrawne from it either by persecution or by seduction Now it is in Gods power to send persecutors or seducers amongst them and thereby expose them to the embracing of lies for not imbracing his truth with love or by withdrawing good Pastors and conscionable teachers from them and then men being naturally more prone to errour then to truth especially in matter of Salvation wee see hereby apparently how God can punish sin with sin in this kinde not by denyall of grace which they never injoyed but by denying some outward means of grace which formerly they injoyed And withall it appears that this is nothing to our present purpose who treate of obduration as it consists in or is joyned with the denyall of saving Grace in proper opposition to the shewing of mercy or affording saving grace As touching the other examples wherein the administration of Gods providence is more obscure while hee punisheth sin with sin I say also that Gods punishing consists in denying or not maintaining some kinde of grace or rather not so much to bee called grace as a naturall restraint not from sin in generall for that cannot bee but by saving grace but from some sins in speciall which are foule in the judgement of a naturall mans conscience such as are those unnaturall defilements the Apostle speaks of Rom. 1. Now God in a naturall manner restraines men from such excesse either for feare of shame of the world or by reason of some naturall detriment that may arise thereby or by the ministery of his Angels restraining the temptations of Satan in this kinde And it is found by experience that Nemo repente fit turpissimus but they grow to extreams by degrees and the longer a man lives the worse hee grows if grace correct not the course of corrupt nature according to that saying Nemo senex metuit Jovem Now if God shall forbeare this restraint and give them over to the power of Satan they shall bee exposed to the commission of such abominable things and therein they shall receive in themselves a just recompence of their former errors And therewithall wee see how this case is as extravagant from our present purpose in discoursing of obduration as the former And you confesse that the hardning of Pharaoh is referred by the Apostle to the will of God but withall you adde that it is referred thereto by him as to the first cause thereof whereas no such distinction or limitation sutable is expressed or implyed by the Apostle but onely for the advantage of your own opinion you are pleased thus to shape it And it is very strange that the Apostle should utterly omit such a cause as is of a most satisfying nature and give himselfe to the pleading of that which affords so little satisfaction in the judgement of flesh and blood such as it seems they relish most of with whom the Apostle enters upon this his Dialogue neither doth the Apostle referre this to Jacob and Esau onely as you fashion it to hold up the difference you put between Gods hatred of Esau before hee was born and his hatred of Pharaoh but to the obduration of Pharaoh also nay more properly to that his obduration alone being expressed and the Apostle being upon an answer to an objection arising from the Apostles Doctrine concerning Gods soveraignty and liberty to harden whom hee will Besides this you doe not well to qualifie the difference God puts between Jacob and
Esau as if it consisted onely in making Esau Jacobs servant and Jacob Esaus Lord according to your opinion it extends further then this even to the granting of such grace to Jacob as should bee accompanied with salvation and denying of the same to Esau whereupon infallibly followed condemnation It is true God is just in dealing with Esau and God is as just every whit in dealing with Jacob for hee deales with each according to the Law himself made But God shewed mercy also unto Jacob in providing a Saviour to die for him and in circumcising his heart and making him to perform the condition of life hee shewed no such mercy unto Esau You see well how incongruous it were to plead the sin of Esau why hee should bee so dealt withall seeing Jacob at that time deserved no better But why doe you not observe that this Discourse of the Apostle hath every way as pregnant a reference to the obduration of Pharaoh or of any one that is hardned as to Gods dealing with Esau Again suppose some are not so bad as Pharaoh was when God hardens Pharaoh and doth not harden others but rather shews them mercy will you say the reason hereof is because these deserved better at the hands of God then Pharaoh Doe you not perceive how this Doctrine carryeth you ere you are aware to trench upon the freenesse of Gods grace in mans effectuall vocation Suppose Nicodemus who sought to our Saviour by night were converted and Saul had not been at all converted but still hardned would you have said that Paul was hardned because of his sin in persecuting the Church of God but Nicodemus deserved better at the hands of God then Saul Yet wee are sure that Saul in spight of all his persecution was converted when in all probability many a morall Jew and nothing factious in opposing the Gospel of Christ yea and many a Gentile too were not converted but perished in their sins and in the blindnesse of their minde If it bee urged thereupon that God doth harden the creature and also hateth him with a positive hatred without all respect of sin in the creature out of his absolute will I answer in these deep counsels and unsearchable wayes of God it is safe for us to wade no farther then wee may see the light of the Scriptures clearing our paths and the grounds thereof paving our wayes and as it were chalking it out before us The Scripture telleth us That God hardens whom hee will And again sin is the cause in which and for which God doth harden any both which will stand together That as God sheweth mercy on whom hee pleaseth so hee hardneth whom hee pleaseth out of his absolute will Yet hardneth none but with respect of sin going before For First when wee speak of the reprobate with comparison of the elect they are both alike sinners And therefore if the question bee why God hardneth the reprobate and doth not harden but shew mercy on the Elect Here no cause can bee rendred of this different dealing but onely the will and good pleasure of God sin is alike common to both and cannot bee alledged as the cause of this diversity Idem qua idem semper facit idem But when wee speak of the Reprobates alone considered in themselves If the question bee why God is pleased to harden them The answer is alway truely and safely given It pleased God to harden them for their sins And which is yet more when God is said to harden a wicked man for his sin it is not sin that moved God primarily to harden him but his absolute will it was to harden him for his sin for what sin could God see in the creature to provoke him to harden it but what hee might have prevented by his providence or healed by the blood of Christ if it had so seemed good to his good pleasure When therefore God doth harden a creature for his sin it is because it is his good pleasure even his absolute will so to harden him To will a thing absolutely and yet to will it on this or that condition may well stand together in many a voluntary agent when the condition is such as that the will might easily help if it so pleased As if a man should cast off a servant for some disease hee hath which hee might easily heale if it pleased him or break his vessell for some such uncleannesse which hee could easily rinse out Both these may well bee said of him at once that hee cast off his servant for his disease and brake his vessell for its uncleanenesse and yet might hee cast out his servant and break his vessell and both out of his good pleasure and out of his absolute and his free will It is true the Word of God is a Lantborn unto our feete and a Light to our paths and it is fit wee should rest contented herewith for discovering unto us the whole counsell of God Now this Word of God plainly teacheth us that God bardneth whom hee will Now I presume you doe not doubt but that God out of his absolute will shews mercy on whom hee will Nay I can hardly beleeve but that your opinion is that like as God out of his absolute will granted saving grace to Jacob so out of his absolute will he denyed saving grace to Esau And still doth to those whom you account the world of mankinde And I have already shewed that the deniall of this grace can bee no punishment For as much as punishment consisteth either in inflicting evill or in denying some good which formerly was granted them But in denying saving grace to the world of mankinde hee doth not deny them any thing which they formerly injoyed I have already shewed what that hardning is which is for sin and wherein it doth consist not in denying saving grace which they never injoyed but in denying that naturall restraint from some foule sin which formerly they injoyed as I exemplifyed it in that Rom. 1. 27. That in Rom. 11. 7 8 9 10 11. is nothing for you where there is no mention of sin as the cause of their obduration As for that in Psalm 69. 21. Their blinding is referred to their giving unto Christ Gall in his meate and in his thirst vinegar to drink I pray consider Were they not even then blinded when they persecuted Christ unto death And yet notwithstanding some of these were converted Act. 2. But upon this their opposition unto Christ God did proceed to blinde them more and more but how Not by denying saving illumination for this they never injoyed it was denyed them from the first to the last But by withdrawing from them the meanes of illumination more and more as namely the preaching of Gospel and the working of miracles and the giving them over unto the power of Satan This also is to give them over to their own hearts lust Psal 81. 11 12. by ceasing to
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
conscience to judge not to mention how this Discourse of yours is found to harden many in the way of error and to offend others in the way of truth Indeed there were no cause of any such objection as that Rom. 9. 29. if so bee God hardens no man but for sin and withall it is just with God to harden men in their sine and lesse cause of such an answer Rom. 9. 20 21 22. No man I think makes any doubt but that the objection Why doth hee complain for who hath resisted his will ariseth from the 18 ver where it is said that God as hee hath mercy on whom hee will so hee hardneth whom hee will even as hee hardned Pharaoh but yet you doe not shape the objection right when you shape it thus What fault is there in mee to bee hardned which is in effect as if you would shape it thus Wherein then have I deserved to bee hardned For the negative to this namely that God doth not harden upon desert is that which the Apostle avoucheth Like as neither doth hee shew mercy upon desert But like as upon the meere pleasure of his will hee shews mercy on some So according to the good pleasure of his will hee hardneth others But well might hee say why then doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart and my impenitency or rather the Apostle proposeth it in reference to the fruits of mans hardnesse of heart and impenitency such as God complains of Esa 1. I have nourished and brought up a people and they have rebelled against mee And Esa 56. All the day long have I stretched out mine hands to a rebellious people that walk in a way which is not good even after their own imaginations Or as if Pharaoh hearing of this ministry of Gods providence should say Why doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart in not letting Israel goe when hee hath hardned my bea rt that I should not let Israel goe and who hath resisted his will I have already shewed that this hardning of Pharaoh and so likewise of all reprobates as it consists in denying of saving grace in congruous opposition to Gods mercy proceeds meerely according to the good pleasure of Gods will And the Apostle plainly signifies as much when hee saith That like as God hath mercy on whom bee will so hee hardneth whom bee will Neither doth hee take into consideration any sin of theirs as the cause of hardning either in the proposition delivered by him or in answer to the objection arising there-hence Why then should wee bee moved with your bare word in saying wee need not say that the Apostle gave occasion of this objection by ascribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods absolute will and without all respect to sin as the deserving cause thereof Neither do you give any reason of that you avouch in saying that albeit God doth not harden but in respect of sin yet the creature will pleade or expostulate as indeed it is most unreasonable to ask why God doth complain of hardnesse of heart and the fruits thereof when it hath been shewed that this hardnesse of heart hath been brought upon man for his own sin and no exception taken against it But when out of Gods absolutenesse men are hardned then and not till then may it justly seem strange that God should complain of the hardnesse of mens hearts and the fruites thereof As for the place of Esa 63. 17. Wherein you suppose Gods people to expostulate with God for hardning them notwithstanding they suppose that God hardens them for their sin this is to beg the question and not to prove ought there being no evidence of any such acknowledgment as you suppose namely that God doth harden them for their sins Yet if there were any such acknowledgment it would not forthwith make for your purpose unlesse they should acknowledge as much of that obduration the Apostle speaks of where hee sets it in opposition to Gods shewing mercy To serve your turn you take liberty to interpret the coherence of these parts to erre from thy waies and to bee hardned against thy feare as if the former were the cause of the other upon no other ground that I know but that thus it shall stand in more congruity with your opinion Whereas indeed there is a farre greater probability that hardning against the feare of God should bee the cause of the errour of our wayes then that errour of our wayes should bee the cause of our hardning against the feare of God especially taking hardning not confusedly hand over head but distinctly in opposition to Gods shewing mercy in mans conversion I take them only as severall expressions of the same things consisting of an inward corrupt disposition as the roote and that I conceive to bee the want of the feare of God and the fruit hereof which is aberration from the good wayes of the Lord. And they expostulate with God for not correcting all this by his grace as by his Covenant of grace which hee hath made with them hee hath ingaged himself hereunto even to keep them from going astray like a good Shepherd and to put his feare into their hearts that they shall never depart away from him Which kinde of expostulation is nothing answerable to that which the Apostle proposeth to answer Rom. 9. 16. And I may well wonder what you meant to yoke them together Non bene inaequales veniunt ad aratra juvencae The children of God doe not expostulate with God for his complaining of their disobedience unthankfulnesse and rebellions against him though they heartily wish they had never provoked him and expostulate with him for not preserving them by his grace from such courses of provocation of him even of the eyes of his glory The wicked have no such desire to bee preserved from sin and sinfull courses which are unto them as sweet bits which they roule under their tongues Although when they heare of the Doctrine of obduration and his power to harden them and in hardning they may take advantage thereby to blaspheme God and to plead Apologie for themselves Belike then you acknowledge that God hath power to harden without respect to sin for to this purpose tends your comparative illustration But then you must bee driven to deny that obduration is a punishment seeing it is impossible that just punishments can have course but with respect to sin as a meritorious cause thereof That God beateth down the objectour and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates from the soveraign authority of God over his creatures is most true ver 20 21. But that hee pleads the due desert of the persons ver 22. thereby to justifie God in hardning whom hee will as positively avouched but so farre from truth as that it involves plain contradiction no lesse then if the Apostle after hee had said that God hath mercy on whom hee will should afterward take
so qualifyed as to bee accounted a lesse degree of love and not a fruite of hatred for consider I beseech you is not this farre worse then to mischiefe a man by cutting off an arm or limb So that albeit Scripture did plainely professe that not to reprove a neighbour but suffer him to sin were an act of hatred yet it followeth not hence that hatred in this case signifies onely a lesse degree of love For certainly such an act to wit in sparing reproofe is worse by far then to give a man a box on the eare yet I presume you will not interpret that to bee hatred onely in such a sense as signifying a lesse degree of Love For certainly the fruites of love are the communications of good and not any contumelious inflicting of evill But by your leave I doe not finde that this is the Scriptures meaning in the place you aime at but rather in my judgement it seems to meet with a corrupt course of the world prone to conceive none to bee their greater enemies then such as reprove them To prevent this the Lord forbids the one to wit the hating of our brother and as expressely commands the other to wit to reprove our Neighbour manifesting thereby that reproofe may bee performed without any just suspition of hatred in him that reproveth In fine this interpretation of hatred which here you make is imbraced by Vossius in his Pelagion Story but hee doth not betray that hee is beholding to Cornelius de Lapide the Jesuite for it in his Commentaries on the ninth to the Romans And hee brings other manner of instances to prove it then you doe And so doth Junius also in Gen. 29. 31. though hee were farre enough off from applying it in the same sense to Esau as his son in law Vossius doth and the Jesuite doth before Vossius In few words your meaning is God did so far hate Esau even before hee had done good or evill that hee did not destinate unto him any saving grace as hee did unto Jacob. May you not as well say that hee did not destinate unto him glory as hee did to Jacob And even this in Aquinas his language is to hate where hee interpreteth Gods hatred of Esau before hee was born Yet you might bee pleased to goe a little further and to affirm that God did not onely not destinate unto him any saving grace but also that God was purposed to deny him such saving grace as hee granted unto Jacob and consequently hee purposed to deny him glory also if you bee pleased to gratifie your self in yeelding to this truth wee will willingly gratifie you in acknowledging that notwithstanding all this God purposed to deale with Esau according to his works As for that phrase of yours of putting him into the estate of a servant though it bee of little materiall consideration in this place yet I have sufficiently discussed it in examining your Answer to the first Doubt The Fifth Doubt Question 5. HOw may it appeare that all have a sufficiency of comming to Christ since no man can come without drawing Joh. 6. 44. 65. and hee who is drawn shall bee raised to life or since no man can come except it bee given him of the Father Which speech is a reason why wee ought not to murmure or bee offended if some beleeve not Rom. 11. 7. and since none but the Elect by the meanes of helpe and power Revelat. 2. 15. I no where say nor ever thought that all men had a sufficiency of power to beleeve or to come to Christ Far bee it from mee to avouch such ungracious Pelagianisme But this I say God giveth to the men of this world this world I say as opposed to the elect such meanes and helps of seeking after the Lord and finding mercy from him that they are sufficiently enabled by him to doe much more then they doe that way they are deprived of those drawing and effectuall means without which none can come and with which none ever failed to come to Faith and Repentance Else how shall wee understand these and sundry such like places of Scripture Act. 17. 25 26 27. Rom. 1. 19. to 25. Rom. 2. 4 5. 14 15. Luk. 16. 11 12. Act. 1. 51 52. Act. 13. 46. Matth. 22. 37 38. Luk. 19. 41 42. Ezek. 24. 13. Prov. 1. 20. to 30. 2 Chron. 36. 15 16. Hose 11. 4. Esa 5. 3 4 5. Job 33. 14. to 18. Joh. 16. 69 From all which places I gather foure Conclusions pertinent to the point in hand First That God offereth to the men of this world helps and means either of the knowledge of God in Nature or of grace in Christ and that to this end to lead them to Repentance and Salvation Thus is God said to manifest to the Gentiles that which may bee known of him by his works and by his Law writen in their hearts and that to this end to make them to seek after the Lord to leade them to Repentance to withdraw them from their courses to heale their pride and to save their soules from the pit Thus God offered to the carnall Israelites means of grace to purge them to turn them Prov. 1. 13. to gather them Mat. 23. 37. to convince them Joh. 16. 8 9. To draw them with cords of man and bands of love Hos 11. 4. To dresse them to bring forth good fruit Esa 5. 4. Secondly That the meanes God useth for these good ends are in some measure sufficient if they bee not hindered by men to bring them to the attainment of these ends for when God saith himself hee useth these meanes for these ends for us to say these meanes are not sufficient for these ends seemeth to mee to derogate from the wisdom and sufficiency of God whose works are all of them perfect Deut. 32. 4. and so sufficient for the ends for which hee wrought them Yet God forbid I should doubt of that which our Saviour telleth the Jews No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him Joh. 6. 44. by the same Almighty power and authority whereby hee sent Christ into the world The whole tenour of your Answer in clearing the Fifth Doubt looks this way as if you maintained a sufficiency of power in those whom wee account Reprobates to perform such things upon the performance whereof they should bee saved I confesse you doe not make any expresse mention of Faith but of obedience in generall and of repentance which I presume you will acknowledge will bee inseparable from Faith And that you doe acknowledge a sufficiency in them to perform Obedience and Repentance requifite to Salvation I prove thus You maintain a true desire in God of their Salvation and how can this stand with the denyall of such sufficiency as is in his power to grant Againe You expressely maintain that there is in God a serious and fervent affection not concerning their Salvation only but their Conversion also
principall place whereon you insist not only by setting it in the first place but in as much as you deliver your opinion in the phrase of seeking the Lord here alone expressed But this doth nothing serve your turn For first here is no mention at all of any sufficiency and power that naturall men either by this providence of God or otherwise have attained unto for seeking of the Lord. For consider I pray the manifestation of Gods grace in his word is farre more able to inable us to seek the Lord then the manifestation of his providence in his works yet by the manifestation of his grace in his word it followeth not that as many as are partakers thereof are indued with power of seeking the Lord in such sort as to finde mercy from him I confesse that to seek the Lord is a phrase of a very generall signification not denoting any materiall action but containing onely a certain denomination which may passe upon many materiall actions and this Discourse of yours is throughout carryed in such generalities which are very apt to deceive For in genere latent multae aequivocationes And for a man to rest on such is to bee in love with his own errours But I am confident it is onely your zeale of justifying God in his waies against the imputation cast upon him by flesh and blood that makes you take hold of and content your self with such generall notions I should think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seek the Lord in this place in reference to Gods workes is of the same signification in the generall with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seek the Lord in reference to his word that is the thing not whereunto we are hereby enabled but the thing whereof wee are thereby admonished As Verse 30. it is said Now hee admonisheth every man every where to repent to wit by the preaching of his Word Hee doth not say Hee doth enable every man every where to repent So The Heavens declare the glory of God and the Firmament sheweth his handy-worke And that which may bee knowne of God is made manifest by his workes Rom. 1. And hee leaves not himselfe without witnesse giving rain and fruitfull seasons filling our hearts with food and gladnesse And so here Hee hath assigned the seasons which hee ordained before and the bounds of their habitations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seek the Lord that is as I conceive to admonish them to seek the Lord forasmuch as though the invisible things of God are said to be manifested by his workes yet it is in such a manner as it requires study and deep contemplation to attaine to these invisible things of God in the most indifferent measure But say wee have power and all men have power to seek the Lord that is to search out those invisible things of God which are made manifest by his Works as many Naturalists have done and to give instance As Aristotle hath searched after an Ens primum a first being and hath found out immateriall substances and amongst them a first mover in the contemplation of whom the felicity of all the rest consists and hath delivered strange conclusions concerning his Nature Yet I deny that any man hath power naturall so to seek after the Lord as to finde mercy from him To this purpose it is not enough to know him as the Authour of Nature but wee must take forth and know him as a Redeemer and authour of Grace For I presume you wil not say that Aristotle after his most studious inquisitions after the Lord did finde mercy from him Nay this great searcher into the secrets of Nature denyed his Omnipotency for they could not bee drawn to beleeve that hee was able to produce any thing out of nothing this was the generall opinion of them all in a manner Thence hee proceeded to deny that the world had a beginning and to maintain that God wrought all that hee wrought by necessity of nature and not by freedom of will Yet this eternall power and Godhead they did acknowledge and that hee was to bee worshipped for the dignity of his nature But not either out of feare of punishment or hope of reward Such notions were rather popular then Scholasticall a manifest evidence that the world was brought to conceive more soberly of the nature of God by instinct of Nature then by discourse of reason For such as followed discourse of reason most became most Atheisticall as touching the providence of God yet all agreed in this that hee was incorruptible which was sufficient to convict them of impiety in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God unto the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man and of birds and of foure-footed beasts and creeping things And did not they profit best in the Schoole of Nature who by the observation of providence in the way of mercies and judgments were driven to acknowledge an unknown God and to erect Altars for his worship And as for seeking of the Lord so as to finde him in any comfortable manner doth not the Apostle as good as confesse despaire of such power in naturall men when forthwith hee addeth If so bee they might have groaped after him and found him though doubtlesse hee bee not farre from every one of us for in him wee live move and have our being And yet as for the Apostles finding of him in this place I should rather thinke that it is in reference to the apprehension of his nature as the Creator of all rather then of his goodnesse as a Redeemer so to finde mercy from him though you seem to aime at this interpretation Your second place is out of Rom. 1. 19. to 25. That which may bee known of God is manifest in them for God hath shewed it unto them Where In his works as it followeth For the invisible things of him that is his eternall power and God-head are seen not by but from the creation of the world being considered in his works If the Apostle had here added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seek the Lord and to finde mercy from him it had beene more faire for your purpose But the Apostle addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the intent that they should bee without excuse viz. in a particular case to wit because they did not glorifie God as God but turned the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed beasts and of creeping things Neither do wee deny but men have power to discern the nature of God to bee incorruptible and consequently they are inexcusable in the way of Idolatry But whereas Idolatry is but the third kinde of blasphemy in attributing to the creature that which belongs to God himself And there are two sorts of blasphemy besides this One in attributing to God that which doth not become him Another in denying unto God that which doth become
him will you say that every naturall man hath power to discern the nature of God in such sort as to preserve himself from blasphemy every way The third place is out of Rom. 2. 4 5. Despisest thou the riches of his bountifulnesse and patience and long sufferance not knowing that the bountifulnesse of God leadeth thee to repentance 5. But thou after thine hardnesse and heart that cannot repent heapest up unto thy self as a treasure wrath against the day of wrath Now if this doth imply any ability in man of seeking the Lord and finding mercy from him it must needs bee in the way of repentance And this I confesse is a cleare way both of seeking the Lord and of finding mercy from him But dare you say that a naturall man hath power to repent I presume you will not unlesse you frame repentance after such a notion as will bee found to bee neither seeking of the Lord nor finding mercy from him And you your self here professe that God deprives them of those drawing and effectuall means without which none can come to repentance And in the very place alledged it is expressely said of them whom God is said to lead to repentance that the hardnesse of their heart is such that they cannot repent The fourth is taken out of Rom. 2. 14 15. When the Gentiles which have not the Law doe by nature the things contained in the Law they having not the Law are a law unto themselves which shew the effect of the Law written in their heart their conscience also bearing witnesse and their thoughts accusing one another or excusing I wish things were carryed with lesse ostentation and with more judgement then to alledge Scriptures and put the Reader upon making Arguments for them thence For my part I see no colour in all this to justifie any power and sufficiency in a Reprobate to seek the Lord and to finde mercy from him though I make no question but they have power to abstain from many things prohibited in the Law of God and to doe things commanded as touching the substance of the duty commanded or the action forbidden though they are farre enough off from doing it for Gods sake and out of the love of God with all their heart and with all their soule as whom they knew not even the very best of them 1 Cor. 1. 21. 1 Thess 4. 5. The fifth is drawn out of Luk. 16. 11 12. If yee have not been faithfull in the wicked riches who will trust you in the true treasures And if you have not been faithfull in another mans goods who shall give you that which is your own Hence you seem to infer that carnall men naturall men have power and ability to perform faithfulnesse in the administration of temporall riches and you might proceed further to inferre that by performing such fidelity which is in their power to perform they should have true riches and such as should never bee taken from them And what is to maintain that God doth dispence grace according to works if this bee not And yet this latter is with more probability inferred then the former For certainly God doth reward faithfulnesse in little with the bestowing of greater gifts as Matth. 25. 21. 23. But albeit they that are unfaithfull in little are unworthy to have greater gifts bestowed upon them yet herehence it doth not follow that meer naturall men have so much power of goodnesse in them as to bee faithfull unto God in the use of those naturall gifts which God hath bestowed upon them yet in spight of this unworthinesse which God findes in his Elect before their calling hee doth neverthelesse trust them with true riches And if they were faithfull therein they would bee found faithfull also in greater things For ver 10. our Saviour professeth That hee who is faithfull in the least is also faithfull in much The sixth place is Act. 7. 51 52. Yee stiffe-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and eares yee have alwayes resisted the Holy Ghost 52. Which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted That which you stick upon I doubt not is this that they are said alway to have resisted the Holy Ghost both they and their Fathers Wee deny it not but will you herehence infer that they had power and ability to yeeld to the Holy Ghost If this inference like you then you may bee bold to inferre in like manner That because many resist the Holy Ghost moving them to faith and repentance therefore they have power and ability to yeeld to the Holy Ghost in this also that is to beleeve and repent Yet your self professe in this very Section that God deprives them of those drawing and effectuall means without which none can come to wit to the Lord and finde mercy from him which yet undoubtedly they should do did they beleeve and repent Yet I deny not but they might have abstained from persecuting the Prophets but I deny that it was in the power of any of them being but naturall men to abstaine from it in a gratious manner and acceptable in the sight of God And so long as they did not abstain so is it fit to call it a seeking after the Lord or finding of mercy from him I presume you will not deny but that many a Jew in the Apostles daies were free from faction contenting himself to enjoy his own course quietly and peaceably was yet further off from grace then Paul that persecuted the Church God calling him in the midst of his furious pursuite and not calling others though farre more peaceably disposed toward the Church of God then Saul The seventh place alledged is Act. 13. 46. Then Paul and Barnabas spake boldly and said It was necessary that the Word should first have been spoken unto you but seeing you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life wee turn unto the Gentiles Hence you inferre that these Jewes were inabled to doe more then they did in seeking the Lord and finding mercy from him But I would gladly know wherein that seeking of the Lord consists Had they not railed against Paul as I confesse they had power to spare that had they not contraryed him nor spoken against those things which were spoken by him as I confesse they might have held their tongue had this been to seek the Lord more then they did or in better manner then they did I think not for they might have contained themselves from all this nay they might have pretended some propensions to imbrace the Gospel which yet had it been performed in hypocrisie it had nothing commended them in the sight of God As Diasius when hee could not prevaile with his brother to draw him back to Popery pretended some propension in himself to hearken unto him but wee know what the issue was even to slit his head as the issue of Judas his following Christ was to betray him I think they that deale so and through zeale
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
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
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
my Covenant between mee and thee and thy seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant To bee a God to thee and to thy seed after thee This I conceive to bee the Word of God which the Apostle had before his eyes when hee delivered this and denyed that this word and promise of God can bee of none effect although it bee granted that most part of the Jews bee rejected provided that all are not And hee gives this reason to wit because this word and promise of God concerning Abrahams seed to bee taken into his Covenant of Grace did not comprehend all his seed for all are not Israel that are of Israel c. seeing then wee doe not maintain that all Israel are rejected for as it followeth Rom. 11. 1. I demand then Hath God cast away his people God forbid For I am also an Israelite God hath not cast away his people whom hee knew before ver 5. Even so then at this present there is a remnant according to the Election of grace Withall the Apostle signifyeth that not one of Gods people is rejected to wit not one of them whom hee did foreknow which Rom. 9. 8. are called children of promise in opposition to the children of the flesh alluding to Isaac who was begotten beyond the power of nature and by vertue of Gods promise made to Abraham for a Son when both hee and Sarah were dead as touching any naturall power to beget or conceive a Childe But God to make his promise good inabled them with power hereunto above nature And conformably hereunto alluding also to the condition of Gods children begotten unto him not by power of nature but above nature by vertue of a promise likewise even that which hee made unto Abraham that in his seed that is in Christ all the Nations of the earth should bee blessed That is the Elect of God amongst all Nations And to make this good by the power of his grace and his holy Spirit hee begets them unto himself each in his appointed time according to their generations Quest Is there not then unrighteousnesse with God to deale so unequally with persons equall ver 14. Answ God forbid which denyall the Apostle proveth by a double testimony of Moses both of them declaring the absolute Soveraignty of God over the creatures and thereby his liberty to deale diversly or unequally with persons equall First the one by shewing the independency of his mercy ver 15. wherein hee inferreth a Corollary denying the obtaining of mercy to the means which the creature useth who findeth mercy ver 16. Secondly by declaring and setting forth the right God challengeth to himself to stirre up a sinfull Creature to this purpose to shew his power on him though it bee in his just hardning and overthrow ver 17. Where hee inferreth another Corollary arising from both these places ascribing as well the hardning of the creature that is hardned as the shewing mercy to him that obtaineth mercy both to the absolute Soveraignty of Gods will ver 18. This objection ariseth from the consideration of the equality of Esau and Jacob before they were born and whilest they were in their mothers wombe The Answer is rightly conceived as freeing God from injustice by reason of the soveraignty hee hath over his creatures and liberty thereupon to deale not onely as here it is expressed in generall diversly or unequally with persons equall for so hee deales even with his Elect giving a greater measure of grace to one as even to Saul a persecutor and lesse to another though never so morall and free from such as the world accounts foule sinnes before their callings but so unequally as to shew mercy unto one and to deny mercy unto the other For the more full explication whereof wee are to consider that righteousnesse or Justice is taken in a double notion The one is when things are carried towards men according to their works The other is when a man doth no other thing then hee hath power to doe as in executing the power that God hath given them over inferiour Creatures wee are just though wee doe kill Sheep or Oxen c. Not in reference to any works of theirs but onely in reference to our own necessary use and unto that lawfull power which God hath given us to serve our own turns of them And thus God is not unjust or unrighteous but righteous and just in shewing mercy on some and not on others when there is no difference between them But whereas it is said ver 16. that the Apostle inferreth a Corollary denying the obtaining of mercy to the means which the Creature useth to finde mercy implying that when the Apostle saith it is not of him that willeth and of him that runneth this of willing and running are the meanes to obtaine mercy I no way like this for if it bee understood of willing and running in a naturall manner such willing and running are no means to obtain mercy Or if it bee to bee understood of willing and running in a gracious manner whosoever thus willeth and runneth hath obtained mercy as the Apostle signifyeth when hee saith I found mercy that I should bee faithfull And to obtain mercy in the Apostles phrase Rom. 11. 30. and 31. is clearely to obtain faith and repentance So that according to this exposition the meaning of the Apostle is this though man is hee who beleeveth and repenteth yet the glory of all is to bee given unto God as who sheweth mercy to whom hee will when as freely hee denyeth it to others and so hardneth them And that this is the Apostles meaning in this place it appeareth by the Antithesis which the Apostle makes between shewing mercy on the one side and hardning on the other Again whereas the right of God in stirring up a creature to this purpose to shew his power on him though it bee in his hardning and overthrow this right I say or rather the exercise of this right in God is confined to a sinfull creature this is quite besides the Apostles Text For albeit the creatures hee speaketh of as Pharaoh and the rebellious Israelites were sinfull creatures yet it doth not follow that the Apostle in the Doctrine which here hee delivereth taketh any notice of their sinfulnesse As indeed it is apparent that hee doth not justifie Gods courses here mentioned upon the consideration of their sinfulnesse but only upon the consideration of Gods Soveraignty over his creatures And indeed it is plain that of two sinners God can give the grace of raising from sin to whom hee will and deny it unto the other so it is manifest that of two creatures standing in the estate of grace God can maintain the one in that estate by his corroborating grace and by denying the same grace permit the other to fall from that estate of innocency wherein hee stood As it is clear in the difference that God put betwixt the Angels that stood to
wit his elect Angels and those that fell they that stood being amplius adjuti more succoured then the other as Austin professeth De Civ Dei lib. 12. cap. 9. And Coquaeus at large upon him So that in this respect the denying of corroborating grace to those Angels that fell while before they were without sin was just with God not in any reference unto their works as if they had deserved that God should permit them to fall into sin it being impossible that any creature should deserve this For in this case there should bee acknowledged a sin to precede the first sin which cannot bee avouched without manifest contradiction But it is just in respect of Gods Soveraignty to keep from sin whom heo will and to permit whom hee will to fall into sin Quest Thou wilt further say unto me Why doth hee yet find fault for who hath resisted his will Answ To this the Apostle returneth answer in foure materiall points First Hee checketh the petulancy of the creature by shewing that though God should harden the creature by his irresistible will yet it is not for the creature to reply thus to God this hee doth by a comparison arguing Gods Soveraignty over the creature suitable to the power which the potter hath over the clay ver 20. Secondly hee admitteth a deny all or at least a mitigation of the rigour of that word objected in the manner of Gods hardning by his irresistible will instead whereof the Apostle implyeth hee doth rather harden by his suffering and long patience What if God suffer in long patience c. ver 22. Thirdly Hee cleareth the justice of God in hardning the creature by shewing the conditions of those persons whom hee thus hardneth not creatures that have done neither good nor evill but 1. vessels of wrath which men are not till first considered as sinners 2. fitted or as it were perfected and ripened unto destruction which Ephes 2. 23. men are not till after the refusall of the means of grace Ephes 2. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 15 16. or else after grosse and unnaturall iniquity Gen. 15. 16. compared with Levit. 28. 27 28 29. Fourthly hee declares the holy ends which God aimes at in all this his dealing with vessels of wrath after this manner which ends are the manifestation first of his power and wrath toward the wicked ver 22. secondly of the riches of his glorious grace toward the elect in dealing far otherwise with them v. 23. Rom. 11. 33. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdome and of the power of God! how unsearchable are his judgments and his wayes past finding out To him bee glory for ever Amen By this objection arising out of the former Doctrine namely that God hath mercy on whom hee will and hardneth others hee doth evince that by shewing mercy is signifyed Gods giving the grace of obedience by hardning his denying the same grace of obedience And withall that by denying this grace it comes to passe that men cannot obey the will of God seeing hereby is manifested that Gods will is not they should obey but rather continue in their hardnesse of heart uncured and consequently in their disobedience whereupon it seems unreasonable that God should complain of mens disobedience as oftentimes hee doth as Esa 1. Hear O Heavens and hearken O Earth I have nourished and brought up a people and they have rebelled against mee Again Esa 65. All the day long have I stretched out my hands unto a people that walk in a way that is not good even after their own imaginations And Jer. 8. 7. Even the Stork in the aire knoweth her appointed times and the Turtle and the Crane and the Swallow observeth the time of their comming but my people knoweth not the judgements of the Lord and ver 6. I hearkned and heard but none spake aright no man repented of his wickednesse saying what have I done Every one turneth into their race as the horse rusheth into the battle And Hose 7. 14. Though I have bound and strengthened their arm yet they have rebelled against mee And Exod. 10. 2. Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews How long wilt thou refuse to humble thy self before mee Let my people goe that they may serve mee ver 4. But if thou refuse to let my people goe behold to morrow I will bring Grashoppers into thine house c. ver 20. But the Lord hardned Pharaohs heart and hee did not let the children of Israel goe Now this I say seems most unreasonable in the judgement of flesh and blood Namely both to harden a mans heart and yet to complain of and finde fault with the hardnesse of his heart with his rebellion and disobedience considering that no man can resist his will To this the Apostle answereth in certain notable particulars First shewing that when the Scripture doth manifest this to bee Gods course namely to harden and yet to complain of a mans hardnesse and disobedience it becommeth not the creature to quarrell with God or dispute with God hereabout because his weak capacity is not able to comprehend the reasonablenesse thereof As for hardning by a will irresistible implying that there may bee a kinde of hardning by a will resistible as Arminius interpreteth the Apostle it is to put upon the Apostle the conceits of man for hee maketh no such distinction Secondly Hee proceeds to shew how that God as the Creator hath power over the creature to dispose of him as he thinks good in two notable particulars First in making him of what fashion hee will ver 20. Secondly in making him to what end hee will and that without controll from the creature the one being answerable to the other in these words Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it why haste thou made mee thus Now these different conditions as different fashions of a vessell are to bee conceived in congruous reference to the double act of God formerly mentioned First the one was in shewing mercy on whom hee will whereby a man is made a vessell of grace fit for honour Secondly the other was in hardning whom hee will whereby a man left destitute of grace is exposed to rebellion and disobedience and consequently made a vessell fit for dishonour Secondly to what end hee will to wit either to honour or dishonour that is either to become finally a vessell of mercy or a vessell of wrath like as the potter disposeth of clay in making vessels thereof answerable hereunto in each particular according to the meere pleasure of his will Thirdly hee sheweth that the end of all this is threefold 1. The manifestation of his wrath or justice on the one 2. The riches of his glory that is of his glorious grace on the vessels of mercy 3. His power and soveraignty in making whom hee will vessels of wrath or mercy Fourthly hee shews withall that before the execution of his wrath comes hee suffers these vessels 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
God over his creatures by the power of the Potter over the Clay in making therehence one vessell to honour and another to dishonour It is true since the fall of Adam man in his generation hath no being without sin for wee are even conceived in sin yet it is not that sin that makes a man a vessell of wrath for if it did then all should bee made by God vessels of wrath But albeit the Apostle signifies that wee are all born children of wrath which is verifyed in respect of the desert even of sin originall yet neither Apostle nor Prophet doth any where give us to understand that all men are made vessels of wrath This phrase includes first the intention of God like a Potter to make such use of them as to make his just wrath appeare upon them and this purpose of God was everlasting not onely as old as every mans generation but as old as the creation of all yea and from everlasting before the Creation Secondly it includes also a fitnesse in the vessell for such an use not fitnesse in the way of desert only such fitnesse being found in all the naturall sons of Adam but fitnesse in respect of Gods purpose to shew wrath Now like as in proportion hereunto the making of a man fit for mercy is the giving of him grace so the denying of grace finally makes him fit for wrath in this sense for as much as God will damn none but such as die in their sins Here I speak of wrath and mercy as they consist in giving salvation or inflicting damnation Lastly if none are ripened for destruction till the refusall of meanes of grace or the committing of grosse and unnaturall iniquity then it followeth that no Infants of Turks and Sarecens are vessels of wrath No nor men of ripe yeers amongst the heathen many of whom never having either refused the means of grace for as much as they never injoyed them and having lived civilly and morally all their dayes Philosopher-like free from grosse and unnaturall iniquity And though all this bee granted you yet if God to that end refuse to shew mercy on them in giving them Faith and Repentance and continues to harden them by denying such grace look how rigorous or unreasonable soever the objection pretended Gods course to bee in complaining of them for their disobedience when God himself hath hardned them in the same degree of rigour and unreasonablenesse it continues still without all mitigation notwithstanding all that you have said hitherto to the contrary Fourthly as for the fourth I have no desire to quarrell with you thereabout Gods judgements indeed Rom. 11. 33. that is his agendirationes as Piscator interpreteth it are unsearchable and his wayes past finding out But you take a course quite contrary to make them nothing unsearchable but easie to be found out For if obduration bee in respect of sin surely there is no unsearchable depth in this And in my opinion the chief wayes of God which the Apostle aimes it in the place alledged consists in having mercy on whom hee will and hardning whom he will and in generall thus in proportion to that which goeth before There was a time when God had a Church without distinction of Jews and Gentiles as before the Flood and after till the bringing of the children of Israel out of Aegypt Again there was a time after this for about 1600. yeers that God had a Church of the Jews in distinction from the Gentiles And since that for the space of about 1600. yeers God hath had a Church among the Gentiles in distinction from the Jews And we look for a time to come when God shall have a Church and that here on earth consisting both of the Nation of the Jews and of the Nations of the Gentiles Three of these states are signifyed by the Apostle immediately before Rom. 11. 30. For even as yee in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past have not beleeved God yet have now obtained mercy through their unbeleef there have wee two of them one past another then present Then follows the third ver 31. Even so now have they not beleeved by the mercy shewed unto you this is part of the second that they also may obtain mercy This is the third which wee look for ver 32. For God hath shut up all in unbeleefe that hee might have mercy upon all Then follows the exclamation ver 33. O the deepnesse of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God for hee knows all courses possible to bee taken both wise and unwise and out of the depth of his wisdome makes choyce of what hee thinks fit O how unsearchable are his judgements for out of all these different courses results such a splendor of the glory of God as no creature till it bee revealed can project nor devise any courses countervailable thereunto when it is revealed and his wayes past finding out FINIS The English of the Latine passages in this Treatise in the severall Pages thereof that are not formerly englished PAge 10. lin 2 3 4. The Apostle saith that we are chosen in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud salvation is procured for us lin 5. As touching the act of God choosing lin 17 18. as in the head The nature of an head is not the nature of a cause meritorious lin 19 20 21. The Apostle saith that we are elect in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud life is precured for us l. 21. a meritorious cause lin 22 23 24. and as in an head from whence these good things are derived to us So that the reason of an head is the reason of a meritorious cause not morally but naturally l. 26. as in the head l. 27. as dead and raised again l. 37. Christ is the head of the predestinate Page 11. lin 5 6. The other reason concerning Christ considered as the head seemeth to depend on these parts Page 12. l. 5. a thing being by accident l. 28. Predestination puts nothing in the thing predestinated l. 31. in all things Page 13. lin 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. By the comparing of which sentense it appeares that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rightly rendred among all It is a Greek phrase lest some one might conceive it ought to be translated in all to wit in all things We are to remember that the Apostle from this verse began to discourse of Christs kingdom in his Church which no man will deny if hee doth but lightly consider the very words themselves and therefore under the universall particle no other thing is comprehended but all believers of all times Christ is the first of them that rise again that among all the Saints both of them that went before and of them that came after he might have the primacy of dignity power and holinesse that so among all hee might have the preheminence not onely in respect of men but also of
all angels lin 23 24 25 26. that alwayes in every life he may be chiefe and principall in grace and glory in generation and resurrection as well in visible as in invisible creatures Page 14. lin 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. If Christs predestination and ours be considered as touching the act of God predestinating so the one is not the cause of the other for the same thing cannot be the cause of it selfe but by the same divine act both Christ and we are predestinated therefore the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our predestination But if it be considered as touching the effect seeing the effect of our predestination is grace and glory and the adoption of sonnes so it is to be said that the predestination of Christ is the cause of our predestination both the cause efficient and the cause exemplary l. 32. first l. 33. latter Page 15. lin 28 29 c. a being by accident Page 16. l. 14. God only permitting them as they are evill lin 16 17. not any thing comes to passe unlesse God will have it come to passe either by suffering it to come to passe or himselfe working it Page 21. l. 3. the reason whereof is derived from the reason of the end designed Page 26. l. 10. the reason of the end Page 27. lin last thirteen 1. Of all things which God from everlasting did in his mind devise to doe the first was the hypostaticall union of the divine Word The second was the predestination of all the elect The third was the condition of the nature of things And therefore supernaturals are before naturals and the order of nature presupposeth the order of grace 2 The fore-knowledge of no future thing is in the mind of God supposed to goe before predestination but all things follow from it and so farforth that God decreed nothing at all from eternity to doe nor in time doth he permits nothing or intends whether naturall or supernaturall whether it be of great weight or of least weight or of no weight which proceeds not there-hence and is the effect and means of the predestination of the elect and of Christ So that all things fall under the order of the divine predestination as means ordained to the glory of Christ and of his Saints Pag. 28. 3. There is no other providence in God preceding predestination to wit from which providence proceed things naturall and some other effects supernaturall but there is one onely providence and that is predestination from which all things throughout proceed without all exception So that according to this conclusion the whole universe as it comprehends things naturall and supernaturall things good and evill substances and accidents and all wayes throughout of being and working not onely in generall but in speciall and individuall are to be considered as the onely totall object of divine predestination so that not any one thing is without the breadth of its object and which falls not under that act of predestination 4. If there had not been a predestination of Gods elect nothing at all had been in the nature of things Therefore I hold this as certaine that unlesse Christ had been to come into the world there had been no predestination of the elect made by God and if no predestination had been by vertue whereof all things follow there should have been neither heaven nor earth nor other elements nor living things nor men nor angels nor sins nor devils nor reprobates and last of all that I may conclude in one word God alone had been and nothing else had been besides God neither naturall nor supernaturall neither good nor evill we speak according to the common law and order of things and according to those ends which probably we conceive God to have had in the making of creatures For our purpose is not at all so to tye the majesty of the divine power to the weaknesse of our apprehensions to deny that God could such is his absolute power make and ordaine the nature of things without dependance upon grace and glory and grace without dependance upon Christ our Lord. Pag. ibid. five last lines Behold where look by what reason Christ is said to be Gods and the predestinate are said to be Christs by the same reason all naturall things whether present or to come whether life or death are said to be the predestinates owne things But so it is that Christ is therefore said to be Gods and the elect are said to be Christs because Pag. 29. God is the end of Christ and Christ is the end of the elect that is because Christ is ordained unto God as unto the end and the elect unto Christ as unto the end and unlesse hee that is God were the first end or the manifestation of his glory there should be no Christ and if there were no Christ there should be no elect therefore altogether by the same reason the creatures are therefore said to be theirs who are elect because they are for the elect and the elect are the ends of them and so if the elect should not have been no natures of the creatures should have been Pag. ibid. l. 9 10 c. He hath chosen us in him before the constitution of the world Now hee speaks of Christ man to wit of Christ the head as Hierome expresseth upon that place and it appeares most plainly by the text Certainly either I am deceived or Saint Paul intends not that onely to wit that God hath chosen us in Christ before the true and reall constitution of the world which was made in time now six thousand yeares agoe For that God had chosen us in Christ before the temporall creation of all things was no great thing nor worthy of so great a pen for so he chose oxen and stones For he decreed them and fore-saw them before the creation of things in time or before he made any thing in time now before the constitution of the world and from everlasting he devised them and determined to make them Therefore Paul intends some higher and more divine matter to wit that God in his eternity when he devised with himselfe the creation of the world even before that in order of reason he devised with himselfe concerning the election of his elect and even then I say he had intended and fore-seen Christ and in him he had chosen the predestinate lin 27 28 c. a most efficacious reason Every one willing things ordinately first willeth the end and of means those means which are nearer to the end But Christ and the predestinate and therefore all supernaturals are nearer to the end that is to the manifestation of the divine goodnesse than all naturall things therefore supernaturals are willed by God before naturals and the manifestation of the goodnesse of God before them all because we consider it as the end of all lin 37. 38. After what order and manner things are determined with God Pag. 30.