and serve them Now marke the reason whereupon the Lord dehorts them from this which the Lord thy God hath distributed to all people under the whole heaven as much as to say God hath made them to doe you service therefore doe not you make them your gods So Pastours and Apostles and Angels are made by God to doe us service therefore set not us make them our gods Thus wee see plainly by All in this place not the world only but the Church of God is signified every one of them being made to doe service unto the Church that is one unto another For are they not all members of one body though some performe more honourable service then others like as in a naturall botly some members are more honourable and for more honourable uses than others Unlesse wee thus understand it wee shall exclude the Apostles out of the Church And when it is said We are Christs this seemeth not to admit the same sense with the former for undoubtedly Christ is as much for our good as any nay more then all the world the Apostles and Angels and all for unto us hee was born unto us hee was given Esa 9. 6. given by the Father Joh. 3. 16. given by himselfe and that for us Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 2. 20. and that to dye for our sinnes and rise againe for our justification Rom. 4. and to redeeme us from all iniquity and to purge us a peculiar people unto himselfe zealous of good works Tit. 2. 14. and that by his bloud 1 Joh. 1. 7. Revel 1. 5. Wee are therefore his not so much in respect of any good wee bring to him but in respect that hee hath bought us And so we are Gods too as Who sent his Son to redeem us unto God his Father Revel 5. 9. Yee are bought with a price therefore glorifie God in your bodies and in your spirits for yee are Gods 1 Cor. 6. 20. And Christ is Gods in speciall manner as touching his Godhead the naturall Sonne of God as touching his Manhood assamed into an hypostaticall union with his naturall Sonne in both the Chiefe Servant of God for the work of mediation and redemption for Gods elect given by the Father unto him that he might bestow eternall life upon them Joh. 17. 2. according to the good pleasure of his Father Mar. 10. 40. Thus I have been bold to deliver my judgement touching the Interpretation of this place without consulting any Interpreter onely the native genius of the Text it selfe seemed to afford sufficient light and evidence to discerne the meaning thereof which I willingly submit to the judgement of any It is no part of my meaning to dispute much lesse to determine whether Christ should have been incarnate if Adam had never fallen I conceive it a question no lesse frivolous then curious The purpose of glorifying Christ though it presuppose not the creation or fall of man as making way for such an intention in God yet doth it enforce the creation and fall of Adam as making way for this purpose Nothing usually doth cause more perturbation and hinderance in the inquisition of truth than incommodious expressions The purpose of glorifying Christ say you presupposeth not the creation and fall No marvell for the creation and fall are things temporall but Gods purposes are eternall Again such a purpose you say doth not make way to any such intention This phrase such intention is spoken in reference to the creation and fall as if they were intentions which indeed they are not but rather executions of intentions it should run thus As making way for the intentions of such things in God Purpose and Intention signifying the same it is good to keep our selves in one sentence to the use of one of them lest wee expose our Readers to distraction possibly suspecting they may have different significations Your meaning questionlesse is this Gods intention of glorifying Christ doth not presuppose the intention of creation or fall of Adam And I am of your mind in this But your meaning containes two things more whereof the first is this Gods intention of the creation and fall doth presuppose his intention of glorifying Christ The second is this Gods intention of glorifying Christ doth inferre the intention of creation and fall of Adam As in both these I differ from you so I will endeavour to disprove your opinion in both And first I prove that the intention of glorifying Christ was not before the intention of creation and permission of Adams fall For although this may seeme plausible for as much as thus the glorifying of Christ as it is first in intention so also shall it be most congruously last in execution yet according to this very rule the issue will fall more foule then you are aware of For to begin with the Creation if the glorifying of Christ were before creation then also was it much more before the generation of all mankind but this will appeare to be most untrue by the same rule for if in comparison of the glorifying of Christ with the generation of all mankind the glorifying of Christ was first in intention then accordingly it should bee last in execution which is most untrue for that of the Apostle Heb. 9. 2. Wee see Jesus crowned with glory and honour was delivered above 1500. years agoe and yet the generation of all mankind is not in execution Again if the glorifying of Christ were first in intention then was it the end and the generation of all mankind should be as the meanes tending to the furthering of that end but what I pray doth the generation of a little child of mine tend to the furtherance of the glory of Christ wherewith hee was crowned above 1500. years agoe Come we to the permission of Adams fall I say the glorifying of Christ was not in intention before this though it seems never so plausible in respect of congruity in execution for by reason of incongruity in the very same kind I disprove it thus If the glorifying of Christ were in Gods intention before the permission of Adams fall then much more was it before the permission of other mens sinnes in Gods intention but this is most untrue upon the very same ground For if in comparison between the glorifying of Christ and the permission of all mens sinnes to the end of the world the glorifying of Christ were first in Gods intention then should it be last in execution which is most untrue for the glorifying of Christ was accomplished above 1500. years agoe as hath been shewed but the permission of all mens sinnes to the end of the world is not yet in execution Again if the glorifying of Christ were first in intention then should it have rationem finis and the permission of all mens sinnes to the end of the world should be a congruous meanes to that end but to averre this were most unreasonable for what furtherance doth my sinnes this day and
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
man erres and that in weighty matters I consider not any judgement of God upon him but upon the world rather that hereby are so much the more countenanced in their erroneous wayes which are advantageous to flesh and bloud and therefore they delight in them and thereby become the more worthy to be given over to illusions to beleeve lyes Let mee touch upon that also as where you say It was not the efficacy of Gods decree that did put upon Adam any necessity of breaking it This I confesse is a plausible speech now adayes and apt to bee taken up especially coming from good mens mouthes to choake others withall who feare not to give God the glory of his power with as much truth and with a greater distinction and plainnesse wee say with Aquinas that Gods will is so efficacious as to cause all things to come to passe after such a manner as they doe come to passe to wit necessary things necessarily and contingent things contingently or freely whether in good or evill And if you spare to speake with the Holy Ghost yet wee will not but professe that Both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and people of Israel were gathered together to doe that which Gods hand and Gods counsell determined before to be done And with Austin Non aliquid fit nisi Omnipotens fieri velit vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo So that even those things which God sinit sieri vult sieri Good things he will have come to passe by his working of them evill things hee will have come to passe by his suffering of them Nay otherwise it were impossible hee should foreknow them for unlesse they are future they are not knowable to be future But how can it be that things contingent and in their owne nature indifferent as well to be not future as future how I say is it possible that they should passe out of this indifferent condition into a condition determinate and things meerely possible in their owne nature become future without a cause And what cause can be devised of this transition but the will of God For from everlasting nothing was extant to cause them of things possible to become future but God himselfe and in God himselfe nothing can be imagined to be the cause hereof but the will of God This is the insoluble demonstration that cuts the throat of Scientia media whereupon the Jesuites and Arminians and all that oppose the absolutenesse of Gods proceedings doe and must relye either wittingly or unwittingly and whether they will or no unlesse they will directly turne Atheists and with Cicero deny that God fore-knowes things that are to come So that upon supposition of Gods will to permit Adam to fall it was necessary that Adam should fall necessary I say that hee should fall But how Not necessarily but contingently and freely and no other necessity is at this day found in man for the performing of any particular sinfull act but such as is joyned with liberty and that in such sort as that the necessity is only Secundum quid the liberty is Simpliciter so called I say in respect of any particular act But I confesse there is an absolute necessity of sinning in generall laid upon man by the Fall of Adam whereby it comes to passe that whether a man commits a sinfull act then questionlesse hee sinneth or whether hee omit a sinfull act yet therein hee sinneth also in as much as hee doth not abstaine from it in a gracious manner I come to the second Reason Againe you say 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 bee found which if they neglect and despise as the Pharisees did and all impenitent sinners doe God and his Covenant are blamelesse in offering them life and the meanes of it their destruction is of themselves I have read such manner of discourse as this often in Carvinus that busie Arminian I am sorry to read it in the writings of good men especially when I find it not one jot mended in them Yet all this I see still tends to a gracious end even to the justifying of God as when you say Their destruction is of themselves But so doe Arminians also pretend to wit the justifying of God in the way of Reprobation but the issue is to justifie themselves and glorifie themselves in the way of Election But I pray you what thinke you of Infants that perish in Originall sinne how is their destruction of themselves Is it of themselves that they are borne in sinne Yet I presume you will not say with Arminians that all Infants that dye in their infancy whether they be the Children of Turkes and Saracens yet are saved as well as the children of beleeving Parents Againe was not Pharaohs destruction of himselfe also for not letting Israel goe yet will you deny that God hardned his heart that hee should not let Israel goe Sihon King of Heshbon was not his destruction of himselfe in that hee would not suffer Israel to passe by him though they promised to goe by the high-way and to turne neither to the right hand nor to the left and to pay for all that they received of them both meat and drinke neverthelesse it is said that The Lord hardned his spirit and made his heart obstinate because hee would deliver him into the hands of the Israelites The destruction of Abimelech and of the Shechemites was it not of themselves yet surely God it was that sent an evill spirit betweene Abimelech and the men of Shechem that the cruelty against the seventy sonnes of Jerubbaal and their bloud might come and be laid upon Abimelech their brother which had slaine them and upon the men of Shechem which had aided him to kill his brethren But to proceed The face of your discourse seemes to tend to the maintenance of a sufficient grace in the Reprobates themselves whereof there is much question but yet you expresse onely a sufficient grace without them whereof there is no question For undoubtedly in Gods word whereof even Reprobates are partakers as well as the Elect there is grace sufficient in the way of instruction and revelation no man makes question of this Undoubtedly therein is contained all things necessary both for faith and manners and so to bring them to salvation if they will obey it But all the question is whether they have any sufficiency of grace to enable them to obey it I presume your selfe will not avouch this And the Pelagians of old acknowledged a sufficiency of grace in the way of doctrine and instruction Onely you say There is sufficient grace given them to bring them to see their impotency But how doe you prove this The naturall man commonly is too preiant of his
to omit but not in a gracious manner which alone is not in his power to performe and say what justice is there in the damnation of such a man I answer as much as in the damnation of an infant for originall sinne considering that by reason of originall sin it is that a naturall man cannot performe any thing in a gracious manner to wit for want of the love of God Originall sinne being an habituall aversion from God and conversion unto the creature or more breifly an inordinate conversing with the creature either in enjoying it whereas hee should onely use it God alone being to be enjoyed or in using it but not in a gracious manner that is not for Gods sake to wit through want of the love of God which is brought upon us by the sinne of Adam as whereby our natures were bereaved of the spirit of God Thus in prosecuting mine answer unto a devised argument I have made bold to open my minde concerning originall sinne A point that hath seemed unto me of such difficultie that I have been wont to range it amongst those three whereabouts I could not expect to be satisfied whilst I lived Another was the very point wee have in hand To the fourth Doubt HOw may it appeare that Gods hatred of Esau is of a lesse degree of love since the making of him who by birth is superiour to be a servant to his underling argueth no good will at all but First rather a purpose to passe him by in respect of communicating grace and glory Secondly since the raising of Pharaoh which was to this intent to shew his power in his overthrow argueth the like Thirdly since hardning is an effect of hatred and depends on the will of God as the first cause thereof even as Mercy doth Fourthly since there is no cause of that objection why complaines hee Who hath resisted his will or at least of that answer Rom. 9. 20 21 22. I Answer as Jacob preferring Ephraim the younger brother to greater estate then his elder brother Manasses did not thereby declare a positive hatred of Manasses but a lesse degree of love to him in comparison of his brother So Gods preferring Jacob to bee a superiour and Lord to his elder brother Esau doth not argue that in him there is no good will at all to Esau but a lesse degree of love To subject Esau as a servant to Jacob doth not reprobate Esau but puts him into the condition of the world of mankind who together with the rest of the Creatures are made to bee servants to the Church of the elect and to the members of it But grant Gods hatred of Esau and making him a servant to his underling argueth no lesse then a purpose to passe him by in respect of communicating glory unto him out of grace And for my part thus farre I yeeld that it may well argue a purpose of God to passe by him in respect of communicating glory to him out of grace that grace I mean whereby hee hath made us accepted in his beloved for this grace or free love is made Jacobs preheminence and is denyed to Esau and though it put him into the estate of a servant to his elect brother and so into the condition of the world of mankind yet it doth not reprobate him or argue a purpose to passe him by in respect of communicating life or glory at all unto him but implyeth only a purpose to deale with him in justice viz. to give him life or death according to his works as I have already shewed in the answer to the former doubt and shall have occasion more fully to declare it in the end of this Surely Jacob in doing that which hee did to Manasses and Ephraim did neither preferre one to a greater estate then the other or love one lesse then the other But in the spirit of prophecy fore-signifyed what would bee the condition of each in their race and posterity But suppose a father in that which lyeth in his power preferres one son before another and accordingly in that way of Amor beneficentiae bee said to love one lesse then another will any sober man say that hee loves the one and hates the other is this a decent expression of lesse love Wee know full well that a lesse love in the way of beneficence may bee joyned with a greater love in the way of complacency As for example an earthly Father though hee suffer his eldest son to goe away with the Land yet hee may bear greater affection to a younger sonne though hee assigne unto him a farre lesse portion then to his elder brother And if it were decent to say hee hates him whom hee loves lesse in respect of beneficence then hee should bee said to hate him whom hee loves best Lastly if the hating of Esau bee interpreted lesse loving why may not the loving of Jacob by the same liberty bee interpreted the lesse hating of him Amongst Gods elect some are more beloved of God and some lesse according as hee ordaines one to greater grace and glory then another and is it fit to attribute that to Esau which wee attribute to Gods elect I grant that to subject Esau to Jacob as a servant is not to reprobate him for this subjection is made in time But reprobation as wee take it in opposition to election Ephes 1. 4. was made before all times It is your own phrase to distinguish the world of mankinde from the elect as if the elect were none of the world of mankinde For the very elect themselves are subjected as servants to the elect every one unto others though as great as Paul and Apollo as appeares by the very place your self have now in a contrary sense alledged more then once And who doubts that wee must all serve one another through love since Christ himself was content to wash his Disciples feete Lastly the yoke of Esau unto Jacob was at length shaken off as appeares by Isaacs prophesie it should bee but the yoke of subjection of all things unto the Church shall never bee shaken off But you perceive well enough that the discourse which you answer considered this temporall preferment which yet had course onely in their seed onely in a typicall manner as that which under temporall things prefigured spirituall and accordingly you proceed to shape your answer thereunto in that respect also The same is this Though God had no purpose to deale with Esau as hee dealt with Jacob that is to communicate glory unto him out of grace yet hee had a purpose of communicating glory unto him some other way and what can that bee but of communicating glory unto him not out of grace A very strange assertion and therefore no marvell you spared to set it down in so many words Onely you say that the putting him into the state of a servant did not reprobate him or argue a purpose to passe him by in respect of
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