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
but harden them Hereupon the Apostle gives way to an objection in a matter more sublime than yours as before mentioned and answers it in this manner O man who art thou that disputest with God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made mee thus Hath not the Potter power c. which is an answer to such a question as this Why doth God complaine of us for that which proceeds from the hardnesse of our hearts which God alone can cure but will not but rather by denying us mercy continues to harden us But now let us consider the interpretation and accommodation of this place to the plea devised by you The reason you say why men loved darknesse rather than light is because men chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the meanes of grace which might have brought them on to beleeve in Christ It is great pity that by our owne phrasiologies wee should raise unto our selves a mist whereby wee should be the more unable to discerne the truth of God Suppose the Paraphrase were both sound in it selfe and congruous to the Text yet give way I pray to such a question in the second place What was the reason that they chose rather to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse than to follow the light of the meanes of grace If you answer any thing but that of our Saviour Joh. 12. 39. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith againe Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardned their heart that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart and should be converted and I should heal them I will not cease to pursue you untill you come to this and withall put you to give a reason why you should not take hold of this answer of our Saviour Joh. 12. 39. as of that Joh. 3. 19. especially considering that if a question were moved Why some chose rather to follow the light of the meanes of grace than to cleave to their sinfull estates and wayes of darknesse I doubt not but you would forth with answer Because God had mercy on them and gave them hearts to know Christ and to beleeve in him 1 Joh. 5. 20. Phil. 1. 29. And seeing God doth not shew the like favour to others to shew them the like mercy which is in Scripture phrase to harden Rom. 9. 18. and Rom. 11. 7. or not to give hearts to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare Deut. 29. 4. why should wee not say plainly that whereas the one takes a right way it is because God shewes mercy towards them to give them so much grace and whereas the other takes not the right but the wrong way it is because God hardens them in denying the like mercy and grace to them like as our Saviour expresly signifieth also Joh. 8. 47. Hee that is of God heareth Gods words yee therefore heare them not because yee are not of God But if any man shall inquire What then moved our Saviour to give this reason why men loved darknesse rather than light to wit this because their deeds were evill I answer hee gives the immediate cause why they loved not the light that is they had no mind to heare the doctrine of our Saviour and that was in respect of the convincing nature of it and therein like unto light which makes every thing to appeare and be manifest according to its proper hiew whereas in darknesse all things are confounded according to that Ephes 5. 13. Now they who brought ill consciences along with them no marvell if they were quickly weary of our Saviours company A pregnant example whereof wee have Joh. 8. 7. For when our Saviour said unto them who brought unto him a woman taken in adultery Let him that is among you without sinne cast the first stone at her Ver. 9. When they heard this being accused by their owne conscience they went out one by one beginning at the eldest even to the last So that indeed the reason given by our Saviour Joh. 3. 19. is not so much a reason why they beleeved not as why they liked not to heare him Many did endure the hearing of him yet were not brought to beleeve in him Austin sometimes proposed such a question as this Why doe not men doe this or that As for example Why doe they not facere quod justum est and hee answers Quia nolunt But if you aske mee Quare nolunt Imus in longum saith Austin Yet sine prejudicio diligentioris inquisitionis hee takes upon him to answer it thus Vel quia latet vel quia non delectat But marke what hee brings in upon the back of this Sed ut innotescat quod latebat suave fiat quod minime delectabat gratia Dei est quae hominum adjuvat voluntates But the face of your discourse tends to this as if you were of opinion that every naturall man hath so sufficient grace as to choose to follow the light of the meanes of grace rather than to cleave to his sinfull estate and wayes of darknesse and that not onely if hee will for if hee will the greatest part of the worke is done already but that his will is indifferently of it self inclinable to the one as well as to the other which is so dangerous an opinion and so opposite to the doctrine of Gods word representing the miserable corruption of mans heart and the peculiar power of Gods regenerating grace that you are loath to breake out in plaine termes to professe as much Lastly whereas you say The light of the meanes of grace had it been followed might have brought them to beleeve in Christ You will not say upon the following hereof they had been brought but they might have beene brought to beleeve By following the light of the meanes of grace I understand a continuing to heare the word of God Now it is well knowne that many nay most in all probability though they continue all their dayes to be hearers yet as the Apostle speakes of some so may wee say of them They are ever learning and never come to the knowledge at least to any saving knowledge of the truth On the contrary Saul persecuting the Church of God even in the way marching furiously Jehu like against the Professors of the Gospel it pleased God to call him and convert him Wee know saith Austin that God hath converted the wills of men not onely aversas à verae side sed adversas verae sidei So that even opposition to grace God can cure if it please him and regenerate a man to bring him to faith and repentance if it please him and if hee doth not certainly the reasons can be no other then because hee will not and that to his owne glorious ends which is reason enough for the Creator to doe what hee will his wisedome in referring all to
this people an heart to feare mee and to keep my commandements alwayes that it may goe well with them and with their children for ever Oh that they were wise that they understood this that they would consider their latter end Oh that my people had hearkened unto mee and that Israel had walked in my wayes I should soon have subdued their enemies and turned my hand against their adversaries Do not all these speeches expresse an earnest and serious affection in God as concerning the conversion and salvation of this people whereof sundry died in their sinnes It is true God might have given them such hearts as to have feared and obeyed him which though hee did not yet his will that they had such hearts was serious still To cleare it by a comparison The father of the family hath both his son and servant dangerously sick of the stone to heale them both the father useth sundry medicines even all that art prescribeth except cutting when hee seeth no other remedy he perswades them both to suffer cutting to save their lives they both refuse it yet his sonne hee taketh and bindeth him hand and foot and causeth him to endure it and so saveth his life His servant also hee urgeth with many vehement inducements to submit himselfe to the same remedy but if a servant obstinately refuse hee will not alwayes strive with him nor enforce him to such breaking and renting of his body But yet did not his Master seriously desire his healing and life though hee did not proceed to the cutting asunder of his flesh which hee saw his servant would not abide to heare of So in this case both the elect and men of this world are dangerously sicke of a stony heart to heale both sorts the Lord useth sundry meanes promises judgements threatnings and mercies when all faile hee perswades them to breake their hearts and the stone thereof with cutting and wounding of their consciences when they refuse hee draweth them both the one with his almighty power the other with the cords of man viz. such as are resistible to this cutting and wounding that their soules might live and the elect are brought to yeeld and the men of this world break all cords asunder and cast away such bonds from them Shall we now say God did not seriously desire the healing of such mens hearts because hee procured not to bind them with strong cords to breake them with such woundings as they will not abide to heare of Thus having laid downe the grounds of my judgement touching the first Point That there is a will and purpose in God for to reward the world as well with life upon condition of obedience as with death upon condition of disobedience I come now to the grounds of the second Point You proceed in clearing a difficulty devised and shaped without all ground as if any sober man would find it strange that a conditionate will of God should not be accomplished as often as the condition failes And to this purpose you make use of the nature of a disjunct axiome All-along I savour others that have grased here yet have not rested themselves contented with this but proceeded further to more erroneous opinions A second objection you propose in the second place the solution whereof you seeme to travell with much more than of the former and yet the objection is altogether as causelesse and without all just ground as the former I have now been something more than ordinarily conversant in these Controversies for the space of seventeen yeares I never yet met with any of our Divines or any other that made any question whether Gods will being granted to passe on any object were serious yea or no I should thinke there is no intelligent man living that makes any doubt of this but puts it rather out of all question that whatsoever God wills hee wills it seriously I confesse the Arminians doe usually obtrude some such things on our Divines yet not altogether such for they doe not obtrude upon us as if wee said God doth not will seriously that which hee willeth but rather that hee doth not seriously exhort and admonish all those whom hee doth admonish to beleeve and repent as if hee made shew onely of desiring their obedience and salvation when indeed hee doth not Yet you seeme to sweat not a little in debellating this man of straw Upon these termes I might easily dispatch my selfe of all further trouble in examining your elaborate Answer to so causelesse an Objection but I will not for it may be you insperse something by the way of opposition to that which you doe professe which is this That God doth not at all will the obedience and repentance of any but those who are his Elect. And I would not pretermit any evidence you bring to countenance your cause in opposition to our Tenent unanswered That Gods Oath or Covenant or the workes of any Person in the Trinity tends to the end by you mentioned namely to give life to the world is utterly untrue Likewise it is utterly untrue that you have hitherunto proved any such thing For that which you here deliver as Gods end in giving life is proposed simply and absolutely but that which hitherunto you have endeavoured to prove is onely this that Gods will was to give the world life conditionally to wit upon their obedience and repentance and that as in the last place coming to the point you have expressed it in a disjunct axiome thus To give life to the creature upon his obedieace or to inflict death upon his disobedience Now let any sober man judge whether in this case the will of God be more to give life than to inflict death more passing upon the salvation of the creature than upon his eternall condemnation Could you prove that God doth will at all the salvation of any other save his Elect I would forthwith grant hee wills it seriously I should thinke it no lesse than blasphemy to thinke that God doth either will or sweare or covenant or doe that which hee doth not seriously as blasphemy consists in attributing that to God which doth not become him I nothing doubt but that if all and every one should beleeve and repent all and every one should be saved and none other thing hitherto have you so much as adventured to prove in this particular whereupon now we are But then it behoves you to look unto it on the other side how you cleare your selfe from blasphemy in the same kind while you maintain that God doth will the salvation of those which shall never be saved which not in my judgement only but in the judgement of Austin of old doth mainly trench upon Gods omnipotency for if hee would save them but doth not hee is hindered and resisted by somewhat and consequently his will is not omnipotent nor irresistible And more than this here-hence it will follow that either God continues still to will their
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
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
the incarnation of the Sonne of God presupposeth the fall of man or rather to speake more accurately in a scholasticall discourse the consideration of Adams fall and consequently though this be not alwaies considered the decree of God to permit Adams fall This order though very generally received yet it is contrary to manifest reason according to the rule in this Treatise mentioned and which I take to be most sound For if the permission of Adams fall were first in intention then it should be last in execution and consequently the Son of God should be first incarnate and after this Adam should be permitted to fall Others it seems though very few that I have ever bin acquainted with take another course and presuppose Gods purpose touching the incarnation of his Sonne to precede his purpose touching the permission of Adams fall yet not so much for the former reason as for the honour of Christ But this will be found upon true scanning to be as contradictions to manifest reason as the former and that upon the same ground For if God did purpose the incarnation of his Sonne before he purposed the permission of the fall of Adam much more did he purpose the incarnation of his Sonne before he purposed to permit the sinnes of all men and particularly the sins of them that crucified the Sonne of God Act. 2. 36. I say much more onely to signifie that this is much more evident But this is a thing impossible upon the former ground and upon the former rule For if the incarnation of the Sonne of God were first in intention then it should be last in execution and consequently Christ should first be permitted by God to be crucified and after this hee should be incarnate 2. Againe Did God decree that his Sonne should take humane flesh upon him indefinitely in respect of place where and time when Or definitely at such a time and in the wombe of the Virgin Mary Indefinite decrees are generally thought to be nothing becomming God If definitely how could this be without the consideration of Adams fall 3. If the decree of incarnation be advanced before the decree of permitting Adam to fall why not before the decree of the creation also and that not onely of men but of Angels Certainly it could not be before the decree of creating Angels For priority in intention is onely of the end in reference to the meanes and certainly the creation of Angels was no meanes for the incarnation of the Son of God Now if the decree of incarnation were not before the decree of the creation of Angels surely it was not before the decree of the creation of mankind For the decree of the creation of Angels was in no moment before the decree of the creation of man which I prove thus If the creation of Angels were first in intention it should be last in execution and consequently man should be created before Angels Now if the incarnation of the Sonne were not in intention before the creation of mankind in Adam I will here-hence manifestly deduce that the same incarnation of the Sonne of God was not any moment of nature in intention before the permission of mans fall for certainly creation of mankind in Adam was not as I prove thus If Adams creation were in Gods intention before the permission of his fall then should it have bin last in execution that is man should be permitted to fall into sinne before God created him Thus looke by what reason it may appeare that the permission of Adams fall was not in Gods intention before the incarnation of the Sonne of God by as good reason doth it appeare that the incarnation of the Sonne of God was not in Gods intention before the permission of Adams fall whence it followeth that the incarnation of the Son of God and the permission of Adams fall together with his creation are not subordinanda to be subordinated in Gods intention as if any of these were the end which God intended and the rest meanes ordained to that end but co-ordinanda to be co-ordinated as joynt means tending to a further end and that is the manifestation of Gods glory in a way of mercy mixt with justice Which end doth equally be speake all the three former as meanes tending thereunto For no declaration of Gods glory can be without creation nor in the way of mercy without permission of sinne and misery nor of such a mercy as is mixt with justice without the incarnation and passion of the Son of God 2. As for the order of the other two to wit the advancement of the man Christ and his humiliation thereof we are now to speake And first I confesse willingly that his humiliation could not be intended before his exaltation lest being first in intention it should be last in execution I will further prove that his advancement or exaltation could not be intended before his humiliation And first this may be made evident as touching his greatest advancement which was by incarnation all advancement following was farre inferior unto this Now this advancement was not intended before his humiliation for had it bin first in intention it had bin last in execution and consequently Christ had been first humbled and afterwards his nature taken into an hypostaticall union with the Sonne of God Secondly I prove that the advancement of his humane nature after his passion was not in Gods intention before his humiliation For I have already proved that the taking of the humane nature into an hypostaticall union with the Son of God was not before his humiliation and you will not say that the advancement of the man Christ you speake of was in Gods intention before his incarnation therefore neither was it in Gods intention before his humiliation What remaines then but that all these to wit the incarnation of the Sonne of God his humiliation in the flesh together with his succeeding advancement are not sub-ordinanda to bee subordinated in Gods intention as if onewere the end and the other meanes tending to that end but rather Co-ordinanda to be co-ordinated if not as joynt meanes tending to one and the same end throughout yet as different meanes tending to different ends or partly the one partly the other Still holding up this truth that no order is to be found in intention between any but such as have the reference of end and meanes amongst themselves As for example The incarnation of the Son of God is a sole and single means tending to the manifestation of the greatest free grace of God that ever was or can be shewed to the world his humiliation respects both our good and his owne As it respects ours together with his incarnation it is a meanes to manifest the glory of God in saving us in despight of sinne and that in the way of justice In respect of his owne good together with his advancement it is a joynt means for manifesting the remunerative justice of God in
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
Christs humiliation was the meanes of Christs advancement and I prove it Those only are to bee accounted meanes to such an end quorum ratio petitur a ratione finis designati that is the means are onely such as the nature of the end duly considered doth bespeake But the advancement of Christ doth not bespeake any such meanes for undoubtedly God could advance Christ without any such humiliation nay having taken his manhood into an hypostaticall union with his Son even in this respect his advancement was far more requisite than in respect of his humiliation You will say God purposed to advance him no other way then this I grant it and if you consider it well you shall find the reason of it by considering the right ends hereof in the counsell of God And these are different one was in respect of others to wit that he might be a fit Saviour of Gods elect not that their salvation was the end of his humiliation but the glory of God in a certain kind the end of both to wit both of his humiliation and our salvation namely the glory of his free grace in the way of mercy mixt with justice This end required satisfaction as without which it could not be procured But here I confesse the advancement of Christ hath no place but in another consideration it shall find place and that as a joynt meanes together with his humiliation for another kind of glory would God the Father manifest in Christ And indeed the Nation of mankind is as a glasse wherein a very complete body of Gods glory doth appear in very great variety and that was the manifestation of his glory in the way of remunerative justice in the highest degree remunerating obedience I say in the highest degree both in respect of the reward deserved and also in respect of the desert it selfe the reward being the sitting in the Throne of his Father and to have all judgment committed unto the Sonne the desert being the obedience of the Son of God one and the same God with his Father humbling himselfe to death even to the death of the crosse for the salvation of Gods elect But perhaps you may further say It is not necessary that the means should bee only such as the end doth naturally require For God could have brought man to salvation the same way he brought Angels without faith and repentance yea hee could have made them and immediatly have translated them into glory yet wee commonly say Faith and Repentance are the means of salvation I answer granting not onely that wee commonly say so but that wee truly say so in respect of our selves namely that as salvation is the scope and end wee aime at so faith and repentance are the onely meanes to bring us thereunto but in respect of God it is utterly untrue for neither is our salvation the end of Gods actions but his owne glory Hee made all things for himselfe Prov. 16. 4. And if it were his end hee could have brought it about divers other wayes besides this but in that hee brings it to passe this way there is good reason for it as wee shall well perceive if wee take the end of God aright namely to manifest his glory in doing good to man in the highest degree and that in the way of mercy mixt with justice This end doth necessarily require a permission of sin again it doth require satisfaction as by the death of Christ and thirdly it doth require faith and repentance that so hee may doe him good by way of reward and lastly a glorious salvation which is the doing of him good in the highest degree And as mans salvation is not the end of Gods actions so neither is the glory of Christ as hee is man the end of Gods actions for such a glory inherent can but bee a created glory and no created thing can be the end of Gods actions but onely God himselfe For as he is the chiefe efficient of all so must hee bee the supreme end of all and as hee is most lovely and most good so must hee necessarily love that most which is most lovely even himselfe and aime at his owne glory in all 2 Now I come to the Apostles Text wherewith this Argument is backt 1 Cor. 3. 22 23. All are yours and yee Christs and Christ Gods that is say you The world for the Church and the Church for Christ and Christ for God thereby giving us to understand That God first intended his glory for which are all things and then Christ for whom the Church is and then the Church for which the world is and then the world last of all But I pray you consider whether this Interpretation and Collection thereupon be not more superficiary than sound First when he saith All are yours is the world only to be understood by all Is not the world expresly named but as a member of this universall Are not Paul Apollos and Cephas also joyned with it together with life and death and things present and things to come and joyntly comprehended under the word all Verse 21. Let no man rejoyce in men for all things are yours Verse 22. Whether it be Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death whether they be things present or things to come even all are yours 23. And yee Christs and Christ Gods As he was perswaded Rom. 8. 38. That neither death nor life nor Angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come 39. Nor heighth nor depth nor any other creature should bee able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord and therefore wee need not feare them So here he goes further and tells us that all are put as it were in subjection unto us to worke for our good and therefore wee should not rejoyce in them but rather in Christ and in God who hath wrought this and ordered all this for our good through the merits of Christ not only Apostles and Pastours but even the very Angels also who pitch their tent about us and have charge given them to keep us in all our wayes and all of them are sent forth for the good of them that are heires of salvation Yet this subjection is onely of a spirituall and gracious nature nothing prejudicing their advancement above them whom they thus serve in love and that for this their service performed for Gods sake to whom rather they are in subjection then unto us yet so farre in subjection to worke our good that it becomes us not to rejoyce in any of them but rather in God who hath thus ordered them for our good and Christ for whose sake they are thus ordered An Argument like to that the Lord useth Deut. 4. 19. Take heed lest thou lift up thine eyes to heaven and when thou seest the sunne and the moon and the starres with all the host of heaven shouldst bee driven to worship them
Gods love to Christ especially when both are acknowledged to be eternall and to be toward both the man Christ and us before wee or the world had a being most of all when in the issue the priority seems to be for us rather then for Christ for it is confest that priority in Gods decrees consists onely in purposing one thing for another And again it is without question that all priority in this case is on the part of that for which another thing is purposed Now albeit wee are Christs servants and hee our Lord yet undoubtedly Christ was ordained rather for our good then wee for his good yet I doe not hence collect that our predestination was before Christs much lesse that Gods love was lesse towards him then towards us but I willingly acknowledge that albeit thousands had tasted of Gods love both in the way of nature and grace and glory before Christ-man had any being at all yet was the love of God to the manhood of Christ infinitely beyond his love towards us measuring the love of God by the effects thereof and that in two respects first for as much as the fruit of Gods love to him was the taking of his humane nature into an hypostaticall union with the Sonne of God secondly in making him the Captain of our salvation Heb. 2. 10. Least of all is it my meaning to extenuate the heinous nature of sinne by setting forth the purpose of God concerning the incarnation of Christ before the consideration of the fall of Adam It is enough to make sinne out of measure sinfull that God in his wisedome saw no meanes so sit as by the sinne and fall of Adam to make way for the humiliation of Christ and thereby for the manifestation of his justice and riches of his mercy and both in Christ although we grant so far as to conceive that God had never thought of humbling the Godhead or advancing the manhood of Christ but upon consideration of sin fore-seen Ex magnitudine remedii magnitudinem cognosce periculi saith Bernard this hath place in what order soever Christ was ordained a Sacrifice for sinne neither is there any colour of remitting ought of the heinousnesse of sin by the priority or posteriority of Christs predestination in comparison to Gods decree concerning the permission of sinne Sinne and the heinousnesse thereof is amplified according to the quality of the transgression in reference to Gods law so honourable a rule of mans perfection and to Gods deserts at our hands and plentifull motives from consideration both of rewards and punishments wherewith it is estadlished It is a common and just aggravation of sinne that it caused the Son of God to be humbled but to aggravate it in making way for Christs humiliation is a very odde conceit in my judgement Neither doe I comprehend how the manifestation of justice in punishing sinne or of mercy in pardoning it doth aggravate the heinousnesse of sin This I say I comprehend not The second DOUBT WHere have wee in Scripture ground for this That the Lords first and primary intention in his decree of Predestination was to set forth Grace and Justice That the declaration of his justice was intended is not doubted but by the Apostle it seemeth his primary aime was the declaration of the soveraignty freedom and dominion of God over the creature in that hee purposeth grace and power The Apostle throughout his whole discourse of Predestination doth no where oppose grace and power for God sheweth as much power freedome and dominion over the creature in his grace toward the elect as in his justice toward the world The Apostle sets forth the like power and soveraign will of God as well in shewing mercy on whom hee will as hardening whom hee pleaseth Doe not think hee opposeth Gods power and soveraignty over Pharaoh to his grace and love unto Jacob for the power hee there speaks of is not soveraignty but ability might and power shewing it selfe forth in the hardening and overthrow of Pharaoh in Moses called the power of his wrath Power naturall is one thing power civill which wee call soveraignty another the first is ability to doe a thing the second is liberty to doe what naturally hee can doe without sinne Undoubtedly the power of God shewed in Pharaoh was in his overthrow and answerable to the power of Gods wrath I like well that the power of God shewed in Pharaoh is extended also to the hardening of his heart onely this is not so congruously applied to the power of Gods wrath for as much as wrath hath alwayes reference to something in man as the cause of it so hath not hardening in that of Paul Rom. 9. 18. Hee hardeneth whom hee will like as hee hath mercy on whom hee will But withall I confesse hardening in this place seems to consist onely in denying of mercy But Pharaohs hardening was much more for undoubtedly mercy was no more shewed him when his heart releâ—ted to the letting of Israel goe then when hee detained them So likewise when God hardened him to follow after them to bring them back this was more than a bare denying of mercy even a secret impulsion of him to take such courses as should precipitate him unto destruction and this may well be accounted a fruit of the power of Gods wrath and accordingly I am verily perswaded that Gods power or soveraignty over Pharaoh are not opposed to his grace and love to Jacob Onely freedome in my judgement doth not so well consent with the execution of justice whether justice be taken in rewarding or punishing Neither doe wee ever read of Gods rewarding or punishing whom hee will freedome and soveraignty is seen only in giving or denying good according to common account Albeit there is a further freedom and soveraignty of God over his creatures in doing evill unto them as in annihilating the most righteous which Arminius acknowledgeth and in exposing his holy Son to suffer strange pains and sorrowes for other mens sinnes when hee had none of his owne Not to speak of the soveraignty wherewith God hath indued man over his fellowes though inferiour creatures That God in his decree of Predestination did shew forth the declaration of his soveraignty freedome and dominion over the creatures I easily grant yet that it was his primary aime rather then the declaration of his justice and grace I cannot beleeve without better proofe My opinion is That all the variety of Gods glory to bee manifested in the creature was intended at once and if they that are otherwise minded come to a particular expression of what glory was intended first and what next and so in order I am perswaded the incongruity of that order will soon appear It is granted on all hands that God first aimed at the declaration of his owne glory Now wherein doth God delight principally for to manifest his glory God himselfe declared it to Moses who
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
sometimes you doe even in this Section more than once as when you say Gods Purpose willeth life to the world upon the condition of their obedience and repentance it would manifestly appeare that there was no reason to distinguish the Elect from the Reprobate in this Purpose of God seeing it equally passeth upon them both For undoubtedly Gods Purpose is not to give the Elect life but upon condition of their obedience and repentance And likewise his Purpose was to condemne all one as well as another upon the condition of their disobedience and unrepentance But had you dealt thus plainly then you would be driven to acknowledge another decree which alone puts the difference between the Elect and the Reprobate and that is the decree of God to shew mercy in giving the grace of obedience and repentance unto the one and of hardening in denying the grace of obedience and repentance unto the other But this plaine-dealing had utterly marred the state of your present discourse in this particular Yet to touch something by the way How I pray doth God the Father by the end of the Creation of his workes and Providence beare witnesse to this Point that it is the will and good pleasure of God to save the Elect not according to their owne workes but his grace Secondly if God the Sonne died for the whole world Reprobate and Elect how doth this testifie that onely a few called the Elect should be saved by Gods grace Is there any greater grace than the grace of Redemption by the bloud of Christ which is both of a satisfactory nature for all sinne and of a meritorious nature to purchase all grace and all glory And shall not God deale with Christ according to the exigence of his merits and satisfactions whether they were meritorious and satisfactory so farre of their owne nature or by the constitution of God all is one Last of all as touching the motions of the Spirit if they are no other then morall invitations they tend to no other end then to bring all men alike unto salvation in case they are obeyed and to expose all alike unto condemnation in case they are disobeyed If wee speake of other motions making the former effectuall unto obedience and repentance these being found onely in the Elect are documents of Gods will and purpose to save them to whom they are granted and as manifest a document that Gods will and purpose is not to save them to whom they are denyed As for the harmony you speake of between Gods Purpose and Covenant herein is your error two-fold First in that you apply this wholly to the world to Reprobates whereas it concernes as I have shewed the Elect as well as the Reprobate the reason whereof is because it respects onely the collating of salvation and inflicting of condemnation which have their course upon condition But there is another worke of Gods Providence concerning the giving or denying of grace for performing the condition of life And this worke is not performed upon any condition but meerly according to the good pleasure of God in shewing mercy to whom hee will and hardening whom he will And the Purpose of God for the execution of these is clearly absolute without all colour of condition And whereas you conceive this Purpose of God thus absolute concernes onely the Elect that is your second error For God doth not more absolutely grant the gift of obedience and repentance unto his Elect than hee doth deny it unto Reprobates as I doubt not but will be made clearly to appeare if you should come to a Collation hereabout But I doe not thinke you have any purpose to deale upon this but carry your selfe in a way of your owne not exactly considered wherein confusion of things that are to be distinguished doth afford you the best service As for the third which this harmony you speake of comprehends to wit the Providence of God I left that out because you shape to your selfe such a Providence of God as whereby God did provide for all men in all ages sufficient meanes of grace to bring them to obedience and repentance which seemes to be the opinion of the Author who wrote the two bookes De vocatione Gentium For the justification of which conceit though Arminians now-adayes relye much upon that Author in this particular I freely confesse I know no reason nor colour of reason As for the comparison you make between a godly regenerate man and God you might as well have shaped it betweene many an honest heathen man and God But you consider not a most momentous difference man purposeth to doe things upon conditions the performance or not performance whereof he is not able to fore-see much lesse able to dispose of efficacy to performe the condition to whom hee will and to deny it to whom hee will all which is incident unto God and casts us necessarily upon the acknowledgement of an absolute Purpose in God to performe this as hee thinkes good which is not to be found in man Againe you conceive this Purpose and Covenant of God to be made onely with the world who will never performe it Man enters upon no such Purposes and Covenants but rather such the conditions whereof are as soon performed as not performed And I wonder you should swallow this comparison as exact not considering the foule disproportion that is found therein between God and man But affection to our owne opinion I confesse is apt to abuse us and make us take notice onely of that which makes for us not of that which makes much more against us As for the Objection here inserted in the Answer whereunto you trouble your selfe not a little you might well have spared your paines and answered in briefe that though it were very strange that any thing should not be accomplished which God doth will absolutely yet surely it is nothing strange that that should not be accomplished which God doth will to come to passe onely upon a condition for the condition failing there is no reason why wee should expect the accomplishment thereof And such is the will of God which here you propose concerning the world namely in willing that they shall be saved on condition of their obedience and repentance damned in case of their disobedience and impenitency Yet it is not amisse to consider what you let fall in your Answer to an Objection very needlesse and which no wise man amongst them who are adverse to you in this opinion would frame That act of Gods will you say which it pleaseth God to put forth is alwayes accomplished I demand then as touching this will of God whereby hee wills life to the world upon their obedience and repentance whether it be accomplished or no If it be then it is accomplished in their condemnation for certainly it is not accomplished in their salvation And to this effect I presume tends your answer in the next Section That which followes when you
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
to passe that naturally it is increased especially in case a man bee moved to courses contrary to his corrupt humours whether by Gods word or by his workes and God doth not by grace correct those corrupt humours which are so contrariant to good motions good motions I mean such as have their course onely in the way of instruction and perswasion In this case thus to move and to deny grace is to harden But when God doth forbeare thus to move and gives men over to follow the swing of their own lusts this I confesse is to harden in greater measure and properly a punishment But this was not the manner of Pharaohs hardning For long after the ninth Chapter of Exodus wee read how God continued to admonish Pharaoh by his servant Moses to let his people goe neither ceased hee this Discipline till the ten plagues or nine of them at the least were fulfilled And like as to shew mercy is not to move onely to obedience but effectually to work men to obedience so the hardning of man in opposition thereunto consists not in not moving unto obedience but rather in not working unto obedience although they bee moved thereunto both in the way of instruction and exhortation As for the punishing of sin with sin in the hardning of the creature let us understand our selves aright and not confound our selves when wee need not Is it a sober speech to say that God punisheth his denyall of grace with denyall of Grace or that God punisheth the sins of the heathen with the denyall of that grace which they never injoyed But as for the punishing of sin with sin this is a large field of Gods providence consisting in divers kindes and it is no way fit to consider them without distinction God made the unnaturalnesse of Senacheribs Sons a scourge to chastise Senacheribs unnaturalnesse towards God one mans sinfull act to bee the punishment of anothers Here is one kinde utterly distinct from that you treat of Again some say and I think justly and Austin acknowledgeth it that every mans sin may bee a just punishment unto him in respect of a former as Rom. 1. 25. When men for their Idolatry were given over to vile affections to defile themselves in abominable manner it is said that herein they received in themselves such recompence of their error as was meete So 2 Thess 2. 10 11. Because men received not the truth of God with love God is said to send them strong delusions that they should beleeve lies Now seeing this concerneth the providence of God in evill which is very secret it were very fit that you should declare your opinion hereabout and shew what operation of God it is wherein consists the administration of this providence When first the one committed Idolatry contrary to the light of Nature and the other received not the truth with love contrary to the light of grace neither the one nor the other had any saving grace and therefore it is not decent to say that God exposed the one to doe things inconvenient the other to beleeves lies and herein punished them for their former misdemenour by denying unto them that which they never injoyed For to punish is either to inflict evil which formerly they suffered not or to withdraw some good which formerly they injoyed Now how God doth expose unconscionable Christians unto errors of Faith is easily comprehended For whereas unconscionable Christians apprehend the truth which they doe injoy but in a naturall and carnall manner they may easily bee withdrawne from it either by persecution or by seduction Now it is in Gods power to send persecutors or seducers amongst them and thereby expose them to the embracing of lies for not imbracing his truth with love or by withdrawing good Pastors and conscionable teachers from them and then men being naturally more prone to errour then to truth especially in matter of Salvation wee see hereby apparently how God can punish sin with sin in this kinde not by denyall of grace which they never injoyed but by denying some outward means of grace which formerly they injoyed And withall it appears that this is nothing to our present purpose who treate of obduration as it consists in or is joyned with the denyall of saving Grace in proper opposition to the shewing of mercy or affording saving grace As touching the other examples wherein the administration of Gods providence is more obscure while hee punisheth sin with sin I say also that Gods punishing consists in denying or not maintaining some kinde of grace or rather not so much to bee called grace as a naturall restraint not from sin in generall for that cannot bee but by saving grace but from some sins in speciall which are foule in the judgement of a naturall mans conscience such as are those unnaturall defilements the Apostle speaks of Rom. 1. Now God in a naturall manner restraines men from such excesse either for feare of shame of the world or by reason of some naturall detriment that may arise thereby or by the ministery of his Angels restraining the temptations of Satan in this kinde And it is found by experience that Nemo repente fit turpissimus but they grow to extreams by degrees and the longer a man lives the worse hee grows if grace correct not the course of corrupt nature according to that saying Nemo senex metuit Jovem Now if God shall forbeare this restraint and give them over to the power of Satan they shall bee exposed to the commission of such abominable things and therein they shall receive in themselves a just recompence of their former errors And therewithall wee see how this case is as extravagant from our present purpose in discoursing of obduration as the former And you confesse that the hardning of Pharaoh is referred by the Apostle to the will of God but withall you adde that it is referred thereto by him as to the first cause thereof whereas no such distinction or limitation sutable is expressed or implyed by the Apostle but onely for the advantage of your own opinion you are pleased thus to shape it And it is very strange that the Apostle should utterly omit such a cause as is of a most satisfying nature and give himselfe to the pleading of that which affords so little satisfaction in the judgement of flesh and blood such as it seems they relish most of with whom the Apostle enters upon this his Dialogue neither doth the Apostle referre this to Jacob and Esau onely as you fashion it to hold up the difference you put between Gods hatred of Esau before hee was born and his hatred of Pharaoh but to the obduration of Pharaoh also nay more properly to that his obduration alone being expressed and the Apostle being upon an answer to an objection arising from the Apostles Doctrine concerning Gods soveraignty and liberty to harden whom hee will Besides this you doe not well to qualifie the difference God puts between Jacob and
so qualifyed as to bee accounted a lesse degree of love and not a fruite of hatred for consider I beseech you is not this farre worse then to mischiefe a man by cutting off an arm or limb So that albeit Scripture did plainely professe that not to reprove a neighbour but suffer him to sin were an act of hatred yet it followeth not hence that hatred in this case signifies onely a lesse degree of love For certainly such an act to wit in sparing reproofe is worse by far then to give a man a box on the eare yet I presume you will not interpret that to bee hatred onely in such a sense as signifying a lesse degree of Love For certainly the fruites of love are the communications of good and not any contumelious inflicting of evill But by your leave I doe not finde that this is the Scriptures meaning in the place you aime at but rather in my judgement it seems to meet with a corrupt course of the world prone to conceive none to bee their greater enemies then such as reprove them To prevent this the Lord forbids the one to wit the hating of our brother and as expressely commands the other to wit to reprove our Neighbour manifesting thereby that reproofe may bee performed without any just suspition of hatred in him that reproveth In fine this interpretation of hatred which here you make is imbraced by Vossius in his Pelagion Story but hee doth not betray that hee is beholding to Cornelius de Lapide the Jesuite for it in his Commentaries on the ninth to the Romans And hee brings other manner of instances to prove it then you doe And so doth Junius also in Gen. 29. 31. though hee were farre enough off from applying it in the same sense to Esau as his son in law Vossius doth and the Jesuite doth before Vossius In few words your meaning is God did so far hate Esau even before hee had done good or evill that hee did not destinate unto him any saving grace as hee did unto Jacob. May you not as well say that hee did not destinate unto him glory as hee did to Jacob And even this in Aquinas his language is to hate where hee interpreteth Gods hatred of Esau before hee was born Yet you might bee pleased to goe a little further and to affirm that God did not onely not destinate unto him any saving grace but also that God was purposed to deny him such saving grace as hee granted unto Jacob and consequently hee purposed to deny him glory also if you bee pleased to gratifie your self in yeelding to this truth wee will willingly gratifie you in acknowledging that notwithstanding all this God purposed to deale with Esau according to his works As for that phrase of yours of putting him into the estate of a servant though it bee of little materiall consideration in this place yet I have sufficiently discussed it in examining your Answer to the first Doubt The Fifth Doubt Question 5. HOw may it appeare that all have a sufficiency of comming to Christ since no man can come without drawing Joh. 6. 44. 65. and hee who is drawn shall bee raised to life or since no man can come except it bee given him of the Father Which speech is a reason why wee ought not to murmure or bee offended if some beleeve not Rom. 11. 7. and since none but the Elect by the meanes of helpe and power Revelat. 2. 15. I no where say nor ever thought that all men had a sufficiency of power to beleeve or to come to Christ Far bee it from mee to avouch such ungracious Pelagianisme But this I say God giveth to the men of this world this world I say as opposed to the elect such meanes and helps of seeking after the Lord and finding mercy from him that they are sufficiently enabled by him to doe much more then they doe that way they are deprived of those drawing and effectuall means without which none can come and with which none ever failed to come to Faith and Repentance Else how shall wee understand these and sundry such like places of Scripture Act. 17. 25 26 27. Rom. 1. 19. to 25. Rom. 2. 4 5. 14 15. Luk. 16. 11 12. Act. 1. 51 52. Act. 13. 46. Matth. 22. 37 38. Luk. 19. 41 42. Ezek. 24. 13. Prov. 1. 20. to 30. 2 Chron. 36. 15 16. Hose 11. 4. Esa 5. 3 4 5. Job 33. 14. to 18. Joh. 16. 69 From all which places I gather foure Conclusions pertinent to the point in hand First That God offereth to the men of this world helps and means either of the knowledge of God in Nature or of grace in Christ and that to this end to lead them to Repentance and Salvation Thus is God said to manifest to the Gentiles that which may bee known of him by his works and by his Law writen in their hearts and that to this end to make them to seek after the Lord to leade them to Repentance to withdraw them from their courses to heale their pride and to save their soules from the pit Thus God offered to the carnall Israelites means of grace to purge them to turn them Prov. 1. 13. to gather them Mat. 23. 37. to convince them Joh. 16. 8 9. To draw them with cords of man and bands of love Hos 11. 4. To dresse them to bring forth good fruit Esa 5. 4. Secondly That the meanes God useth for these good ends are in some measure sufficient if they bee not hindered by men to bring them to the attainment of these ends for when God saith himself hee useth these meanes for these ends for us to say these meanes are not sufficient for these ends seemeth to mee to derogate from the wisdom and sufficiency of God whose works are all of them perfect Deut. 32. 4. and so sufficient for the ends for which hee wrought them Yet God forbid I should doubt of that which our Saviour telleth the Jews No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him Joh. 6. 44. by the same Almighty power and authority whereby hee sent Christ into the world The whole tenour of your Answer in clearing the Fifth Doubt looks this way as if you maintained a sufficiency of power in those whom wee account Reprobates to perform such things upon the performance whereof they should bee saved I confesse you doe not make any expresse mention of Faith but of obedience in generall and of repentance which I presume you will acknowledge will bee inseparable from Faith And that you doe acknowledge a sufficiency in them to perform Obedience and Repentance requifite to Salvation I prove thus You maintain a true desire in God of their Salvation and how can this stand with the denyall of such sufficiency as is in his power to grant Againe You expressely maintain that there is in God a serious and fervent affection not concerning their Salvation only but their Conversion also
by you give any testimony to these your uncouth assertions much lesse evident testimony Indeed I blame you not for desiring your Reader would take them so to save your paines of proving it For you take no pains at all to inforce any place by Logicall argumentation to give evidence to such a sense you put upon them though it stand in manifest opposition to the nature of God even to the bereaving him both of his omnipotency and immutability to make him to contradict himself and strangely to go about to perswade the world that God intends the repentance of those men to whom hee denies those helps without which none can repent as your self also acknowledge So that wee need not to bee put to deny the sufficiency of Gods word to those ends whereunto God hath given it which is to instruct in all points of Faith and duties of life and to admonish us to give obedience unto it and reprove them that doe not and consequently to take away all excuse for want of any of these gratious operations And thus it is sufficient ex parte Dei and ex parte hominum too as for God to admonish thereby and men to bee admonished and instructed But otherwise to require any thing on mans part to adde sufficiency to God is too too absurd For whether man doth yeeld obedience the word is never a whit the more sufficient or whether hee yeelds not obedience the word is never the lesse sufficient As for the desire of the Repentance and life of Reprobates which you attribute unto God you keep your course I consesse in strange expressions manifestly contradictious to the nature of God and to your self Can you perswade your self that ever the world will bee brought about to beleeve or any intelligent or sober man amongst them that God desires the repentance and life of them whom hee hath determined from everlasting to deprive of those helps without which no man can repent and bee saved yet that hee doth deprive them hereof it is your own most expresse profession in the former Section As for hardning them doth hee not harden whom hee will and hath hee not from everlasting ordained all Reprobates unto destruction As for any desire hereof in God I account it a very absurd thing to treat of any will in God under the notion of desire in proper speech Speak wee of the desires of weak men who cannot effect what they will but bee advised to spare to attribute any desires to God in proper speech as you would spare to attribute to him eyes and ears and hands and heart in proper speech and though God bee pleased in condescension to our capacities to take upon him our infirmities let us not recompence his goodnesse so ill as to conceive of his nature as obnoxious to the same imperfections whereto our natures are When you say that the Word inables not onely the Elect but others to perform such duties and having but erst spoken of the duty of repentance and this being delivered in the same breath whereto doth this tend but to work in your Reader an opinion that even Reprobates are inabled by the Word to perform the duty of Repentance which you know full well cannot bee affirmed by you without palpable contradiction to your self as well as to the truth of God and therefore I wonder not a little what you mean to carry your self in this your Discourse in such sort as to draw so neere to such foule assertions Therefore you forbeare to name particularly the duty of Repentance but flee to generalls and say that even Reprobates are inabled by the Word to perform such duties in which their naturall conscience would excuse them And I confesse that as Paul hath taught mee even without the word naturall men are inabled to doe some duties wherein their naturall conscience doth excuse them as namely in doing the things contained in the Law and that by nature mark that well I beseech you that you may see the uncouthnesse of that which follows as when you say And in that way they sooner finde mercy For what is a man by nature able to perform some things whereby hee may the sooner finde mercy Was ever mercy found at the hand of God by performing some duty by power of nature What revelation of God hath taught you this that a work of nature should further us to obtaining the mercy of God I speak of morall works of nature not of naturall such as are to goe to Church and to heare a Sermon to goe and to heare are actions naturall not morall unlesse they bee considered as joyned with affections and intentions morall And to go to Church and heare a Sermon with ill affections and intentions as namely either to mock or to take a nap is a naturall way I confesse whereby a man may and doth finde mercy farre sooner then by keeping at home though never so civilly imployed And therefore Father Latimer reprehending some for comming to Church to take a nap yet saith hee let them come for they may bee taken napping which is as much as to say they may finde mercy at the hands of God whilest they are napping Yet I presume you will not say that so to come to Church is the performing of a duty whereby they may finde mercy sooner In the next place you indirectly imbrace the sower leaven of Arminianisme plainly professing that God doth vouchsafe more powerfull effectuall helps to them that walk according to the knowledge and helps they have received As if that of our Saviour Habenti dabitur to him that hath shall bee given you did interpret especially after the same manner as Arminius doth to wit that if men use their naturals right God will give them means of grace But here is the difference they speak their minds plainely you carry your Discourse so that wee are driven to groape as in the dark after your meaning For you deliver this of Reprobates who doe already injoy the Word the means of grace And therefore the more powerfull helps you speak of are not outward means for that they injoy already but inward grace As if God had ordained that grace should bee given according unto works which is direct Pelagianisme And withall you imply a power in Reprobates to walk according to knowledge and helpes already received to wit under the means of grace And what can this bee lesse then a power to beleeve and repent How many a godly mans heart would bleed to understand so foule assertions to drop from the pen of such a man as your self In fine you adde a new qualification of the way to finde mercy the sooner and that is not to sin against conscience but onely of ignorance and withall by the coherence imply that even reprobates and unregenerate persons have power to keep themselves from sinning against their conscience and so to keep themselves as to sin onely through ignorance Whence it manifestly followeth that in such
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
my Covenant between mee and thee and thy seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant To bee a God to thee and to thy seed after thee This I conceive to bee the Word of God which the Apostle had before his eyes when hee delivered this and denyed that this word and promise of God can bee of none effect although it bee granted that most part of the Jews bee rejected provided that all are not And hee gives this reason to wit because this word and promise of God concerning Abrahams seed to bee taken into his Covenant of Grace did not comprehend all his seed for all are not Israel that are of Israel c. seeing then wee doe not maintain that all Israel are rejected for as it followeth Rom. 11. 1. I demand then Hath God cast away his people God forbid For I am also an Israelite God hath not cast away his people whom hee knew before ver 5. Even so then at this present there is a remnant according to the Election of grace Withall the Apostle signifyeth that not one of Gods people is rejected to wit not one of them whom hee did foreknow which Rom. 9. 8. are called children of promise in opposition to the children of the flesh alluding to Isaac who was begotten beyond the power of nature and by vertue of Gods promise made to Abraham for a Son when both hee and Sarah were dead as touching any naturall power to beget or conceive a Childe But God to make his promise good inabled them with power hereunto above nature And conformably hereunto alluding also to the condition of Gods children begotten unto him not by power of nature but above nature by vertue of a promise likewise even that which hee made unto Abraham that in his seed that is in Christ all the Nations of the earth should bee blessed That is the Elect of God amongst all Nations And to make this good by the power of his grace and his holy Spirit hee begets them unto himself each in his appointed time according to their generations Quest Is there not then unrighteousnesse with God to deale so unequally with persons equall ver 14. Answ God forbid which denyall the Apostle proveth by a double testimony of Moses both of them declaring the absolute Soveraignty of God over the creatures and thereby his liberty to deale diversly or unequally with persons equall First the one by shewing the independency of his mercy ver 15. wherein hee inferreth a Corollary denying the obtaining of mercy to the means which the creature useth who findeth mercy ver 16. Secondly by declaring and setting forth the right God challengeth to himself to stirre up a sinfull Creature to this purpose to shew his power on him though it bee in his just hardning and overthrow ver 17. Where hee inferreth another Corollary arising from both these places ascribing as well the hardning of the creature that is hardned as the shewing mercy to him that obtaineth mercy both to the absolute Soveraignty of Gods will ver 18. This objection ariseth from the consideration of the equality of Esau and Jacob before they were born and whilest they were in their mothers wombe The Answer is rightly conceived as freeing God from injustice by reason of the soveraignty hee hath over his creatures and liberty thereupon to deale not onely as here it is expressed in generall diversly or unequally with persons equall for so hee deales even with his Elect giving a greater measure of grace to one as even to Saul a persecutor and lesse to another though never so morall and free from such as the world accounts foule sinnes before their callings but so unequally as to shew mercy unto one and to deny mercy unto the other For the more full explication whereof wee are to consider that righteousnesse or Justice is taken in a double notion The one is when things are carried towards men according to their works The other is when a man doth no other thing then hee hath power to doe as in executing the power that God hath given them over inferiour Creatures wee are just though wee doe kill Sheep or Oxen c. Not in reference to any works of theirs but onely in reference to our own necessary use and unto that lawfull power which God hath given us to serve our own turns of them And thus God is not unjust or unrighteous but righteous and just in shewing mercy on some and not on others when there is no difference between them But whereas it is said ver 16. that the Apostle inferreth a Corollary denying the obtaining of mercy to the means which the Creature useth to finde mercy implying that when the Apostle saith it is not of him that willeth and of him that runneth this of willing and running are the meanes to obtaine mercy I no way like this for if it bee understood of willing and running in a naturall manner such willing and running are no means to obtain mercy Or if it bee to bee understood of willing and running in a gracious manner whosoever thus willeth and runneth hath obtained mercy as the Apostle signifyeth when hee saith I found mercy that I should bee faithfull And to obtain mercy in the Apostles phrase Rom. 11. 30. and 31. is clearely to obtain faith and repentance So that according to this exposition the meaning of the Apostle is this though man is hee who beleeveth and repenteth yet the glory of all is to bee given unto God as who sheweth mercy to whom hee will when as freely hee denyeth it to others and so hardneth them And that this is the Apostles meaning in this place it appeareth by the Antithesis which the Apostle makes between shewing mercy on the one side and hardning on the other Again whereas the right of God in stirring up a creature to this purpose to shew his power on him though it bee in his hardning and overthrow this right I say or rather the exercise of this right in God is confined to a sinfull creature this is quite besides the Apostles Text For albeit the creatures hee speaketh of as Pharaoh and the rebellious Israelites were sinfull creatures yet it doth not follow that the Apostle in the Doctrine which here hee delivereth taketh any notice of their sinfulnesse As indeed it is apparent that hee doth not justifie Gods courses here mentioned upon the consideration of their sinfulnesse but only upon the consideration of Gods Soveraignty over his creatures And indeed it is plain that of two sinners God can give the grace of raising from sin to whom hee will and deny it unto the other so it is manifest that of two creatures standing in the estate of grace God can maintain the one in that estate by his corroborating grace and by denying the same grace permit the other to fall from that estate of innocency wherein hee stood As it is clear in the difference that God put betwixt the Angels that stood to
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
a case of performance which you esteem possible either the conscience of a naturall man shall not convict him of nay sin or convicting him of sin shall not convict him that hee ought to repent of it Or lastly it followeth that hee hath power to repent The two first are unreasonable to affirm the last is to contradict your self having lately professed that God deprives all save his Elect of those helps and means without which none can repent And truely it seems in denying the power of repenting unto the world you did not well consider what you delivered for the face of your Discourse seems to lead to the contrary namely to the maintaining that it is in the power of a naturall man to repent though hee bee in the state of unbeleefe Where again in signifying that you speak of a man in the state of unbeleef you confound if not your self yet I am sure your Reader For but erst you discoursed how men of the world are inabled by Gods Word to the performance of such duties in which their naturall conscience would excuse them Now I should think they that injoy the Word of God and are thereby so inabled as you speak are not to bee accounted in the state of unbeleefe which I should think is a state peculiar unto heathens who have not so much as an outward profession of Christianity In like sort it is your course to confound the inward operation of Gods Spirit with the outward means and comprehend them both under the terms of means and helps which have no univocall notion common unto them It is bad enough to hold ones self to generals considering that may bee verifyed of one species which cannot bee verifyed of another but it is too too bad to confound those under generall termes that have no more univocation between them then creation and exhortation Another confusion I finde abuseth your fancy in this very Section and that is spread all over it like a Leprosie For whereas the objection arising naturally from the former discourse is grounded upon a seeming contradiction in professing a naturall man to bee impotent to perform faith and repentance and yet giving power to a man to attaine those ends whereunto the means given tend namely to his conversion and salvation instead of comparing the sufficiency you give to man with the sufficiency you deny to man and there with all shewing how the one doth not contradict the other I say instead of comparing these you compare the sufficiency of the means with the impotency of man to convert and bee saved which you expresse by comming to Christ Varying your phrases at every turn which is good for nothing but to trouble disputation Whereas indeed there is no question to bee made of the sufficiency of the means if by means you understand the word of the Gospel in that kinde wherin means are capable of sufficiency to wit in the way of instruction exhortation reprehension beyond which kinde of operations their sufficiency doth not extend The question is onely of the sufficiency of man to perform what the means doe move us unto I confesse under means you comprehend not only the book of grace which is Gods word but the book of Nature also which is Gods works the sufficiency whereof to inform either as touching the nature of God or duty of man wee utterly deny neither are you able to prove And therefore you doe not so well to carry it in the general seeing as touching the specials it is true of the one not of the other And in such cases the issue of generalls is rather to circumvent a simple Reader then to inform him And yet as touching that undue comparison by you made and formerly mentioned you doe not carry it so cleanly but that by the way you supplant your self as when you speak of the sufficiency of the means to the ends formerly mentioned except they bee hindered by men For it cannot bee understood of bringing a man passively to those ends to wit unto repentance For man neither is nor can bee meerely passive in repentance but must bee active also Nay for ought I see you make him passive therein onely in respect of instruction and exhortation which nothing hinders but that hee may bee altogether active in performing repentance if hee will Sith then repentance is the end whereto these means tend and the means are sufficient to bring any to repentance as you avouch except they bee hindred by men it must necessarily follow that man hath power by these means to attain to these ends whereto these means lead him if hee will and consequently hath power to repent and to obtain grace in Christ if hee will for the means lead hereunto namely to the knowledge of God and grace in Christ as your self have professed in expresse terms And consequently when you say to the contrary that there is an impotency yea an impossibility in the men of this world to come to Christ without greater and stronger means then these bee you doe directly contradict your self neither will all the labour following expressing your selfe in various phrasiologies serve turn to free you from this contradiction but leave men suspitious that you affirm this contradiction onely in words but the contrary potency you maintain in deed And because that without all tergiversation you professe that such men have power to perform something upon the performance whereof they might the sooner finde mercy I beseech you in the feare of God no longer to abuse your self and others in speaking thus indefinitely but tell us plainly and particularly what that is which you say Reprobates have power to perform and upon the performance whereof they should finde mercy To confesse my bold weaknesse ingenuously I am perswaded you are not able to define any such particular if you should it will not satisfie to the full unlesse withall you explicate your self and shew whether that work you speake of bee a worke of nature or a work of grace If a work of grace then an unregenerate man is not so farredead in sin but hee is able to perform a work of grace and if hee bee able to perform one work of grace why not two why not twenty If a work of nature onely then seeing hereupon you say hee shall finde mercy you fall foule upon that which was censured in the Synod of Palestine one thousand two hundred years agoe namely that grace is given according unto works If some may say on your behalf that you doe not say they shall finde mercy in this case but onely that they shall the sooner finde mercy or if this like not if any shall otherwise plead in this manner namely that you doe not say that hee shall finde mercy in this case but hee might finde mercy I will bid him content himself and expect while you warrant such Apologies and then I doubt not but hee shall waite long enough for I am confident you are farre off
wit his elect Angels and those that fell they that stood being amplius adjuti more succoured then the other as Austin professeth De Civ Dei lib. 12. cap. 9. And Coquaeus at large upon him So that in this respect the denying of corroborating grace to those Angels that fell while before they were without sin was just with God not in any reference unto their works as if they had deserved that God should permit them to fall into sin it being impossible that any creature should deserve this For in this case there should bee acknowledged a sin to precede the first sin which cannot bee avouched without manifest contradiction But it is just in respect of Gods Soveraignty to keep from sin whom heo will and to permit whom hee will to fall into sin Quest Thou wilt further say unto me Why doth hee yet find fault for who hath resisted his will Answ To this the Apostle returneth answer in foure materiall points First Hee checketh the petulancy of the creature by shewing that though God should harden the creature by his irresistible will yet it is not for the creature to reply thus to God this hee doth by a comparison arguing Gods Soveraignty over the creature suitable to the power which the potter hath over the clay ver 20. Secondly hee admitteth a deny all or at least a mitigation of the rigour of that word objected in the manner of Gods hardning by his irresistible will instead whereof the Apostle implyeth hee doth rather harden by his suffering and long patience What if God suffer in long patience c. ver 22. Thirdly Hee cleareth the justice of God in hardning the creature by shewing the conditions of those persons whom hee thus hardneth not creatures that have done neither good nor evill but 1. vessels of wrath which men are not till first considered as sinners 2. fitted or as it were perfected and ripened unto destruction which Ephes 2. 23. men are not till after the refusall of the means of grace Ephes 2. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 15 16. or else after grosse and unnaturall iniquity Gen. 15. 16. compared with Levit. 28. 27 28 29. Fourthly hee declares the holy ends which God aimes at in all this his dealing with vessels of wrath after this manner which ends are the manifestation first of his power and wrath toward the wicked ver 22. secondly of the riches of his glorious grace toward the elect in dealing far otherwise with them v. 23. Rom. 11. 33. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdome and of the power of God! how unsearchable are his judgments and his wayes past finding out To him bee glory for ever Amen By this objection arising out of the former Doctrine namely that God hath mercy on whom hee will and hardneth others hee doth evince that by shewing mercy is signifyed Gods giving the grace of obedience by hardning his denying the same grace of obedience And withall that by denying this grace it comes to passe that men cannot obey the will of God seeing hereby is manifested that Gods will is not they should obey but rather continue in their hardnesse of heart uncured and consequently in their disobedience whereupon it seems unreasonable that God should complain of mens disobedience as oftentimes hee doth as Esa 1. Hear O Heavens and hearken O Earth I have nourished and brought up a people and they have rebelled against mee Again Esa 65. All the day long have I stretched out my hands unto a people that walk in a way that is not good even after their own imaginations And Jer. 8. 7. Even the Stork in the aire knoweth her appointed times and the Turtle and the Crane and the Swallow observeth the time of their comming but my people knoweth not the judgements of the Lord and ver 6. I hearkned and heard but none spake aright no man repented of his wickednesse saying what have I done Every one turneth into their race as the horse rusheth into the battle And Hose 7. 14. Though I have bound and strengthened their arm yet they have rebelled against mee And Exod. 10. 2. Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews How long wilt thou refuse to humble thy self before mee Let my people goe that they may serve mee ver 4. But if thou refuse to let my people goe behold to morrow I will bring Grashoppers into thine house c. ver 20. But the Lord hardned Pharaohs heart and hee did not let the children of Israel goe Now this I say seems most unreasonable in the judgement of flesh and blood Namely both to harden a mans heart and yet to complain of and finde fault with the hardnesse of his heart with his rebellion and disobedience considering that no man can resist his will To this the Apostle answereth in certain notable particulars First shewing that when the Scripture doth manifest this to bee Gods course namely to harden and yet to complain of a mans hardnesse and disobedience it becommeth not the creature to quarrell with God or dispute with God hereabout because his weak capacity is not able to comprehend the reasonablenesse thereof As for hardning by a will irresistible implying that there may bee a kinde of hardning by a will resistible as Arminius interpreteth the Apostle it is to put upon the Apostle the conceits of man for hee maketh no such distinction Secondly Hee proceeds to shew how that God as the Creator hath power over the creature to dispose of him as he thinks good in two notable particulars First in making him of what fashion hee will ver 20. Secondly in making him to what end hee will and that without controll from the creature the one being answerable to the other in these words Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it why haste thou made mee thus Now these different conditions as different fashions of a vessell are to bee conceived in congruous reference to the double act of God formerly mentioned First the one was in shewing mercy on whom hee will whereby a man is made a vessell of grace fit for honour Secondly the other was in hardning whom hee will whereby a man left destitute of grace is exposed to rebellion and disobedience and consequently made a vessell fit for dishonour Secondly to what end hee will to wit either to honour or dishonour that is either to become finally a vessell of mercy or a vessell of wrath like as the potter disposeth of clay in making vessels thereof answerable hereunto in each particular according to the meere pleasure of his will Thirdly hee sheweth that the end of all this is threefold 1. The manifestation of his wrath or justice on the one 2. The riches of his glory that is of his glorious grace on the vessels of mercy 3. His power and soveraignty in making whom hee will vessels of wrath or mercy Fourthly hee shews withall that before the execution of his wrath comes hee suffers these vessels of