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
rewarding him according to his deserts in conformity to that of the Apostle Therefore hath God exalted him But neither this advancement of his is the end of his humiliation nor either of these the end of his assumption into an hypostaticall union with the Sonne of God Nor his hypostaticall union with the second person in Trinity the end of any of these and therfore they are to be accompted rather co-ordinate then subordinate in the intention of God 2. Now I come to examine how this doubt is cleered Here we have first a rule then the accomodation of this rule Touching the rule I acknowledge it and I adde something to the cleering of it Granting that there is no order in Gods decrees but such as is grounded upon this that God purposeth one thing for another This one thing and another are only the end and the means between which we say in the intention of God there is onely prioritas rationis priority of reason which in my judgement is well expounded thus when ratio unius petitur à ratione alterius the reason of the one is taken from the reason of the other as ratio mediorum petitur à ratione sinis the reason of the means is taken from the reason of the end And therefore we say The end is first in intention and then the meanes As for the accomodation of the rule it seems to me to be nothing at all to the purpose for the doubt proposed was not how it might appeare that there was any thought of the glorifying of God before the presupposall of Adams fall and of Christs humiliation We willingly acknowledge the glory of God was thought on before them all both before the incarnation advancement of the man Christ mans fall and Christs humiliation I say before them all prioritate rationis by priority of reason for undoubtedly both the incarnation of the Son of God That is the hypostaticall union of Christs manhood to the second person in the Trinitie and the advancement of the man Christ was to the glory of God as the end thereof as well as ought else And this glory of God hath been specified at least in part And as for the glorifying of himself in Christ this still denotes the glory of God as the end though it addes withall the matter wherein it shines to wit the man Christ And to prevent the errour of equivocation that usually lurkes under generalls This glorifying of God in Christ consists either in severall or in common with the glorifying of himself in man also to wit in the elect considered in severall I confesse there is a double glory of God manifested in Christ The one is the glory of his pure grace in conferring the greatest good and honour that the creature is capable of as namely in the hypostaticall union of the manhood of Christ to the second person in the Trinitie Secondly the glory of Gods remunerative justice in the highest degree possible both in respect of the reward the greatest that possibly could be deserved for that hypostaticall union could not be deserved and that is the glorisication of the humane nature of Christ both in respect of his glory absolute and of his glory relative as by whom salvation is procured to others as also in respect of the desert the greatest I thinke that possibly could be to wit the humiliation of the Sonne of God to the death of the crosse in way of obedience to his Fathers will There is also a glory of God that appeares in Christ not in severall as a sole meanes thereof but in common with other meanes joyntly concurring thereunto and that is the glory of God in the way of mercie mixt with justice in saving sinners for the obedience of Christ The glory of God in all these severall wayes was in the first place intended by God before ought else prioritate rationis in prioritie of reason and afterwards the congruous meanes to these severall ends as the ends them selves did bespeake were intended by him for ratio mediorū petitur à ratione sinis the reason of the meanes is taken from the reason of the end But all this is nothing to shew that the incarnation of the second person or advancement of the man Christ should be before the consideration of mans fall or Christs humiliation Yet let us examine that which followeth delivered by way of proof of that which no man that I know makes question of Because Christ was ordained before the world was therefore before the consideration either of Creation or Fall For in scripture phrase when God is said to doe one thing before another he meaneth before the existence or being of it in his consideration as an inducement leading him unto it as well as before the existence of it by nature As when God is said to have loved Jacob rather then Esau before they had done either good or evill Rom. 9. 11. He meaneth before they had done it in his consideration as a cause or condition leading him to love or hatred as well as in actuall performance in their owne persons I pray consider why was Christ ordained and to what end before the world was Was he not ordained to be incarnate in the womb of the Virgin and to be a Lambe for a burnt offering to make satisfaction for sins And was it possible that this ordination could have course without consideration of the creation and fall And though this be confessed yet will it not here hence follow that the decree of creation and permission of mans fall was before the decree of the incarnation of the Sonne of God which alone as I conceive casteth some mens inventions upon the platforme of a new course And consequently it will not follow that in this case the consideration of creation and fall should precede as motives to God to send his Sonne For first I say the considerations hereof are not all precedent but conjunct and concomitant like as are the decrees Secondly if they did precede yet should they not precede as motives Good or evill workes are fit motives I confesse of election and reprobation if it were possible their considerations could precede the one or the other But creation and fall are no fit motives of ordaining Christ for they were found in Angels as well as in men though the consideration of them could precede this ordination 2. Election is as expresly said to be before the foundation of the world as the ordination of Christ And was not reprobation in opposition to election in the same moment of time and nature also Doth not election connotate reprobation But it will be said that this phrase before the world signifies not any measure of duration when that worke was done but a negation of any consideration had of the creation or fall This seems a very strange construction therefore it deserves to be discussed 3. Before Abraham was I am would you interpret it thus Before the
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
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
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
from maintaining such foule collusions By the way give mee leave to wonder that you expresse your self in such a manner But alas what should wee look for when the cause is no better and yet a gracious respect unto a gracious end namely the justifying of Gods proceedings hath cast a good man upon such a course So dangerous a thing it is when a man is to seek in some particulars not to content himself with acknowledgment thereof and to waite upon God for a time of revelation but to cut out his own way in seeking satisfaction Thirdly the men of this world doe not walk answerably to the means they have received neither doe they imploy or use these talents to such advantage as they might The Gentiles though they knew God yet they glorified him not as God but became unthankfull and vain in their imaginations they did not like to retaine God in their knowledge but to detain the truth in unrighteousnesse The Jews resisted the Holy Ghost despised the messengers and word of God acknowledged not the day and meanes of their own peace refusing him and all his benefits preferring a murtherer and false prophet before him brought forth wilde grapes of injustice and oppression instead of the sweet grapes of righteousnesse and judgement In this they abused the talents and meanes of Grace in a worse manner then could bee excused by any necessity or impotency of corrupt nature Corrupt nature resisting not but by these helps they might have avoided these sinnes which they fell into and might have reached to the performance of these duties for the neglect of which they are here reproved for comming short of 〈◊〉 Yea Pilate himselfe would have brought forth better fruit then some of these which the Jews yeelded but that the Jews themselves prevailed with him for worse To speake plainely that phrases doe not deceive us it is true that the men of the world doe not live according to their knowledge nor abstaine from foule sinnes from which they might abstaine But what if they did should they finde mercy the sooner for unlesse you make this good you say nothing to the purpose Therefore to the maintenance of this you tended in the former Section but all in vaine For consider why then did not the Philosophers find mercy Plato Socrates Phocion the most morall men of the world Again did any of these abstaine from any foule finne in a gracious manner or out of their love to God Look to Isocrates his incitements to morality what are they other then the reward of praise and applause of the world and why I pray you should God regard them any whit the more for this nay did they not look for justification by this all their goodnesse did they not attribute to their own Free will and why should not God hate them the more for this Doe not Publicans and Harlots and did not our Saviour tell us as much enter into the kingdome of Heaven before Scribes and Pharisees Bee it so that the men of the world were Fornicators when they might have forborn it were Idolaters but might have abstained from that were Adulterers Wantons Buggerers and might have kept themselves pure from such abominations were theeves when they might have abstained from laying hands on their neighbours goods were covetous yet might have contemned the world as many did were Drunkards yet might have tempered themselves from such excesse were Railers yet might have ordered their tongnes were Extortioners yet might have been more mercifull then so Now I pray you tell me were not the elect of God such also See what the Apostle saith in reference to every one of these particulars 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were some of you but yee are washed but yee are justifyed but yee are sanctifyed in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God Nay how many a naturall man was more morall then to be guilty of so foule pollutions as many of Gods elect have been conscious of yet never found mercy at the hands of God If otherwise God should call men not so much according to his purpose and grace as according to workes directly coutrary to Pauls text 1 Tim. 1. 9. And what then should become of that Hee hath mercy on whom hee will and whom hee will hee hardneth Rom 9 18. As for the fault you mention of the Gentiles was it not common to the Elect as well as to the Reprobates What saith Paul to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 12. 2. Yee know yee were Gentiles and were carryed away unto dumb Idols even as ye were led Yet the Romans for above a hundred years had no Images as Varro testifies saying That then the Gods were worshipped castius more chastly and that they who brought in Images timorem ademerunt errorem auxerunt took away the feare of God and increased the errour concerning the nature of God Yet in these dayes of Image-worship thousands were from Idols turned to serve the living God 1 Thess 1. 8. in those former daies not one that we read of Wee come to the Jews bee it so that they were worse then Pilate yet many of them in despight of their sinnes were converted unto Christ I say of them that crucified him and preferred a murtherer before him Pilate was not at least wee have a record of the conversion of the one Acts 2. none of the other Yea Saul breathing nothing but wrath and fury against the Church of God as Ferox scelerum Quia prima provenerant being heartned with the bloud of Stephen as with a cup of sweet Wine was converted unto Christ when many a morall quiet peaceable and nothing factious Jew had not the mercy shewed him that Saul had They abused you say their talents and meanes of grace in a worse manner then could bee excused yet who worse then Saul or Manasses by any necessity or impotency of corrupt nature But who I pray goes about to excuse them this way wee certainly excuse them not no nor they themselves neither for it were most incongruous they should even as if Epicures should complain of the sweet morsels which they roule under their tongues that they are so sweet that they cannot forbeare to bee in love with them But will you deny God to have a hand in hardning them to the committing of so foule excesse what is the meaning of giving over to vile affections to doe things inconvenient and that in an abominable kind and that to what end but this that so they might receive the just recompence of their errour yet that errour is well known to have been incident as well to the very elect of God as unto Reprobates By the way you signifie that by the neglect of the helpes and meanes afforded them they fell short of these duties to the performance whereof they might have reached Their sin was in doing contrary to their knowledge and conscience upon due information out of Gods Word this
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