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
wrath with long patience implying both by this and by this wrath that the liberty of the creature in sinning is nothing prejudiced in all this and in the course of his patience way is opened for his complaints and admonitions and that in patheticall manner unto these vessels of wrath to move them to repentance For that God doth complain and expostulate and reprove for these their sinfull courses is most evident And it is no lesse evident that when they goe on in their obstinate courses not profiting by Gods Word and Works unto Repentance the cause is though no culpable cause that God hath not given them a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to heare from the first unto the last Deut. 29. 4. That is that both man runneth on wilfully in his sinfull courses and that most culpably and also that without grace it cannot bee otherwise Though the reconciling of both these bee very obscure and difficult as indeed the providence of God especially in evill and generally in working what hee will by the free wills of the creature is of a most mysterious nature This patience of God comprehends not Gods bare suffering the wicked only but his prospering of them also Jer. 12. 1. Why are all they in wealth that rebelliously transgresse 1. As for the first materiall point of the Apostles answer I agree with you in the explication thereof 2. But as concerning the second in my judgment there is nothing sound For first you feign the rigour of that which was objected to consist in a certain manner of Gods hardning to wit by his irresistible will As if the Apostle did give us to understand that there is a double kinde of hardning that is imputed unto God The one by his irresistible will the other is not expressed by you but intimated to consist in hardning by his will resistible whereas no such distinction is either expressed or insinuated by the Apostle neither doe you once goe about to prove it And the distinction it self is very absurd both in bringing in a will of God resistible whereas the Apostle supposeth the will of God in hardning to bee irresistible without all distinction neither doth hee give any the least intimation of a twofold hardning used by God or imputable to him Hee plainly professeth that as God hath mercy on whom hee will so hee hardneth whom hee will without all distinction And you may as well distinguish Gods shewing of mercy as if that were twofold one by his will resistible another by his will irresistible For shewing mercy and hardning are made opposite by the Apostle And it is a well known rule in Schooles that Quot modis dicitur unum oppositorum tot modis dicetur alterum of two opposites look how many wayes the one is taken so many wayes may the other bee taken And upon this Doctrine of the Apostle ariseth the objection to this effect That seeing Gods will is irresistible in hardning a man it seems unreasonable that God should complain of such a mans rebellion and disobedience whom himselfe hath hardned supposing that they cannot obey God who are hardned And throughout this objection also there is no colour of any such distinction as you introduce at pleasure concerning Gods will as either resistible or irresistible and accordingly as concerning the different manner of Gods obduration to wit either by his resistible will or by his irresistible will Secondly you feign at pleasure in like manner a denyall or at least a mitigation of the rigour of St. Pauls former Doctrine whence rose this objection for so I had rather expresse it then as you doe when in very obscure manner you call it the rigour of the word objected And I wonder you would adventure to devise a deniall or any colour of deniall made by the Apostle of that which formerly hee delivered in saying Hee hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardneth when your selfe have not hitherto manifested any minde to deny ought delivered by him as it is not fit you should But it may be the rigour mentioned by you is not conceived to consist in Pauls former Doctrine of Gods hardning whom hee will but rather in complaining of their disobedience whom God himself hath hardned his will being irresistible Now this though amplified as a rigorous thing the Apostle may seem to deny or at least mitigate But first it seems to mee that the objection chargeth God not so much with a rigorous course for who shall hinder God to deal with any as rigorously as pleaseth him there being no injustice in rigour as with an unreasonable course But whether rigorous or unreasonable in shew the Apostle by saying God suffers them with long patience doth neither deny nor any way mitigate the condition of this course of his for complaining of their disobedience whom himself hath hardned For albeit God all the day long yea and all the yeer long yea and many yeers long stretcheth out his hands to a people that walk in a way that is not good even after their own imaginations such being the hardnesse of their hearts as even in despight of Gods sufferance of them and gracious proceedings with them in the ministry of his word and sparing them in his works also yet if God himself continues to harden them his will being irresistible Gods complaining of their rebellion and disobedience seems never a whit the lesse rigorous or unreasonable according to the objection proposed For as Austin saith Contra Julianum Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Quantamlibet praebuerit patientiam nisi Deus dederit quis agat paenitentiam though God afford never so great patience yet unlesse God give grace who shall perform repentance And to say that God doth harden by his long patience is a strange liberty that you take in interpreting Paul If to harden bee to suffer with long patience then to shew mercy being opposite to hardning must bee not to suffer with long patience And if to suffer with long patience bee to harden then as often as hee suffers his own elect with long patience hee hardneth them And when St. Peter saith God is patient toward us the meaning in proportion must bee hee hardens us Let me tell you that Julian the Pelagian of old took the like advantage as you doe of the word Patience in this place to corrupt the Doctrine of St. Paul lib. 5. contr Jul. Pelag. cap. 3. Quid est saith Austin quod dicis cum desideriis suis traditi dicuntur relicti per divinam patientiam intelligendi sunt non per potentiam in peccata compu si quasi non simul posuer is haec duo idem Apostolus patientiam potentiam ubi ait Si autem ostendere volens iram demonstrare potentiam suam attulit in mult a patientia vasa irae quae perfecta sunt in perditionem Quid horum tamen dicis esse quod scriptum est Et propheta si
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
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
of sin because they beleeved not in mee It seems you insist onely upon the latter in as much as the allegation reacheth no further The other parts being explicated in the Verses following Cannot Christ reprove the world of infidelity for not beleeving in him unlesse thereby bee acknowledged a power in a carnall man to doe more good then hee doth in the way of seeking the Lord Surely if any power in man hereto is to bee acknowledged it must bee a power to beleeve in Christ seeing infidelity is the sin whereof the world shall bee reproved by Christ and not the sin of not doing the good they could in the way of seeking the Lord. But your self acknowledge in this section that God deprives them of those drawing and effectuall means without which none can come to Faith and Repentance Much lesse doth it prove your present distinction namely that albeit God deprives them of such means without which none can come to Faith and Repentance yet they are inabled to doe more good then they doe in the way of seeking the Lord. Means of the knowledge of God wee confesse to bee partly the administration of his providence in his works which is the book of his creatures and there was a time when God did teach the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Works as Chrysostome observeth and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Writings and partly by the revelation of his word in the Scriptures And one of these meanes ever was and is afforded unto all But whereas you say God affords them to this end to lead them to salvation and repentance Here is first an incongruity which you are content to swallow to hold up your opinion For in truth the administration of Gods Providence in his works and the revelation of himself in his word is the very leading of them to that whereunto hee leads them to wit by admonition And as it is absurd to say that God doth admonish men to the end hee may admonish them so is it no lesse absurd to say that hee doth lead them to the end hee may lead them As for the things whereof hee doth admonish them repentance and salvation are ill matched And even such an incongruity doth serve your turn to blear both your own eyes and others also If these were the things God leads men to by his works and word it were but in this manner hee leads them to repentance that they may bee saved As for repentance it self admonition hereof the Apostle doth so manifestly attribute in such sort unto the ministry of his word as withall hee derogates it from the bare administration of his providence in his works Act. 17. 30. And the time of this ignorance God regarded not but now hee admonisheth all men every where to repent manifestly giving to understand that the Gentiles were not admonished till now In the time of extraordinary affliction brought upon them by the administration of Gods providence in his works men may bee stricken with feares that they have provoked a divine providence and hereupon they may bee stirred up to take a course to pacifie the wrath of God according to that counsell Non te nullius exercent numinis irae c. therefore faciles venerare Napaeas namque dabunt veniam votis irasque remittent But when they neither know God whom they have offended nor the sidne whereby they have provoked him nor the right way to pacifie him as a Jew sometimes being taken in a foule fact of collusion with the place where hee had been kindly intreated and desiring to make remonstrance of his repentance out of his familiarity with mee came to mee privatly and inquired of mee what it was to repent for saith hee I doe fast and macerate my body This manner of admonition deserves not to bee called an admonition to repentance In such a case the Athenians were sometimes brought about to erect an Altar to an unknown God as much as to say to pacifie they knew not whom nor how nor for what It is true God is said Rom. 1. 19. to manifest to the Gentiles that which may bee known of him by his works Yet not all that may bee known of him for even the wisdome of the world after all their paines and studious courses are said not to have known God no not in the wisdome of God 1 Cor. 1. 21. But his eternall power and God-head is generally made known to the world sufficiently to convict them of Idolatry â—nd the Apostle delivers no more in that place I hope wee Christians by the help of Gods Word are now adaies brought to such a measure of understanding of God by his workes that wee are able even by discourse of reason to prove many a faire attribute of God which the greatest Philosophers were ignorant of though some things are found in them concerning the nature of God which wee cannot read without admiration You adde also that God hath made manifest that which may bee known of him by his Law also writen in their hearts These you couple together though little or nothing Homogeneall The Law of God writen in our hearts is concerning mans duty no part whereof is contained in his Works His eternall power and God-head the Apostle tels us is made manifest by his works no such content doth hee make of the Law writen in our hearts Rom. 2. 14. but when you say this is done to this end to move them to seek after the Lord you fall upon the incongruity formerly spoken of For the very administration of Gods providence is the moving of them to seek after the Lord. I say the administration of Gods providence in his works moves men as the Apostle signifies to seek after the Lord. The Apostle no where refers this to the Law writen in mens hearts but you put all together and that for a speciall purpose as it serves For the phrase of seeking after the Lord Act. 17. seemes onely to import the seeking after his nature manifested by his works but you desire as it seemes to bend it to denote such a seeking after the Lord as whereby to pacifie him and to finde mercy from him In which sense you say it was farre more accommodable to the Law of God writen in mans heart then to the Administration of his providence in his works and therefore you couple both these courses together and then assign the end of them both to seek after the Lord which through the ambiguous signification thereof is applicable to both though the Apostle utters it in such a sense onely as whereby it is applyed to one course onely namely to the administration of his providence in his works Which yet I doe not conceive to proceed from any ill minde in you but out of a desire to hold our tenets up in that course of opinion which pleaseth us which is a common fault of all But with this difference some affect those opinions which are most