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
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
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
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
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
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
confesse this course of justifying a tenet by the usefulnesse of it is usually much made of by the Arminians but I could never brooke it in any This is a faire way to make a rule of faith unto our selves and under colour of usefulnesse to shape the doctrine of the Gospel after our owne fancies yet I am willing to examine what here you deliver also in every particular 1. As touching the first Use I finde you serve your turne with a manifest confusion of the grace of vocation with the grace of salvation Thus God of free grace saves in the one in justice damnes in the other But the comparison you make is nothing congruous For it is so carried by you as if in this dealing of God the case were alike with mans dealing as when a Judge amongst many malefactors equally guiltie of death saves some and damnes others These are nothing equall for the one die in faith and repentance the other die void of faith and in the state of impenitency Therefore to help this incongruitie you will be driven to fly to effectuall vocation And indeed before God doth effectually call some by such a grace as he denies others they whom hee cals were no better then others But let us make way for the truth to appeare in her proper colours by distinguishing those things which ought to be distinguished lest wee be found to be in love with our owne errours As touching Vocation 1. we acknowledge with you and you with us the freenesse of Gods efficacious grace bestowed on some and denyed to others and herein magnified that whereas God might have bestowed it on others and not on them he hath bestowed it on them and not on others yea on them who are but few in comparison permitting a farre greater multitude of others and which is especially to be considered though you are not willing to take notice of it Like as God hath mercy on some in giving them this efficacious grace we speak of meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will so he hardens others denying them the same grace and that meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will And thus the freenesse of his grace is magnified towards the elect by his severitie and freenesse of his will in denying it unto others whereas you so carry it as if the freenesse of his grace to the one were magnified in respect of his justice toward the world of mankinde in dealing with them according to their workes which is a plausible speech and of common course usually admitted but utterly void of truth The truth being this That like as God in inflicting damnation on men doth not proceed according to the meer pleasure of his own will but according to the works of men so in denying grace efficacious he doth not proceed according to the workes of men but meerely according to the good pleasure of his owne will For the Apostle plainely professeth in this case that looke how he hath mercie on whom hee will so likewise he hardens whom hee will And to cleare the truth in this point because as many as vary from the truth of God in this point are not very prone to heare on this eare let us consider that justice hath different acceptions In a common notion it is no otherwise taken then for justitia condecentiae as the Schoolemen call it Thus whatsoever God doth is an act of Gods justice whether it be an act of power as in makeing the world out of nothing or an act of liberalitie in doing good to the creature without cause or an act of mercy in pardoning sin all these are acts of justice in this sense The meaning whereof is no more but this In all these actions God doth no other thing then what himselfe hath lawfull power to doe In this sense it is just with God as well to have mercy on whom he will as to harden whom hee will And so your comparison here made should have no life at all to that purpose whereunto you accommodate it For in this sense the justice of God shall equally appeare on both sides Whereas you make the freenesse of Gods grace only on the one side to be magnified the more by the consideration of his justice which hath course on the other So that to hold up your owne comparison as decently proposed you must be driven to forgoe this common notion of justice and sticke to a more strict and peculiar notion thereof and that is when God rewards or punisheth men according to their workes Now I say that God doth not deny efficacious grace to any man according to his workes which I demonstrate thus The execution of justice in this kinde doth alwayes proceed according to some law which law is made to man by some superior power but unto God not by any superior power for hee acknowledgeth no superior power but by his owne will As for example Wherefore doth God crowne all them with glory who die in faith and in repentance To wit because he hath ordained and made a law that whosoever continueth to the end in the state of faith and repentance shall be saved Againe why doth God damne them to everlasting fire who die in sinne void of faith void of repentance To wit because God hath ordained and made a law that whosoever beleeveth not provided that he continueth in unbeliefe unto the end shall be damned For undoubtedly God could have turned men into nothing had it so pleased him and had hee not decreed the contrary like as hee brought men out of nothing Now shew me that God hath ordained or made a law that men found in such or such a condition shall be denyed efficacious grace if you cannot shew any such ordinance or law of God then doe not say that God in denying grace proceeds according to mens workes in justice And indeed if any such law could be assigned it would follow that in the communicating of grace also God should proceed not according to the good pleasure of his will but in justice according to mens workes Consider a second argument What is sinne originall but the spirituall death of the soule By Regeneration man formerly dead in sinne is revived Now is it congruous to say that because man is dead in sinne therefore it is just with God not to revive him Because a man is blind therefore it is just with God not to open his eyes Or because he is deafe therefore it is just with God not to open his eares Suppose sin were but the sicknesse of the soule is it congruous to say that because a man is sicke therefore it is just with God not to cure him Whereas it is manifest that unlesse a man were first sicke it were impossible to cure him unlesse first blinde or deafe it were impossible to restore sight or hearing unto him unlesse first dead it were utterly impossible to revive him Come wee now to salvation and
sin that was committed whereas God could undoubtedly restrain from the committing of it and that either in a gracious manner or in a meere naturall manner When it is committed his gracious restraint is not afforded but denyed rather What that other action is wherein this obduration consists and which is joyned with the denyall of grace you expound not Suppose it bee Gods moving a man to some course contrary to his corrupt nature either by his word as hee moved Pharaoh to let Israel goe or by his works or by the suggestions of conscience according to that Law which is writen in mens hearts is not this usually found also as often as sinne is committed contrary to light of Nature or light of Grace And hath not obduration consequently its course in all this And why you should pronounce of obduration indefinitely That it is both the heighth of mans sin and depth of mans misery I see no reason Do not the children of God sometimes feele it and in patheticall manner complain of it Lord why hast thou caused us to erre from thy wayes and hardned our hearts against thy feare Esay 63. 17. What saith our Saviour to his Disciples Mark 8. 17. Perceive yee not neither understand have yee your hearts yet hardned As for your phrase of inflicting obduration that doth much require explication which you doe no where perform that I know There is I confesse another operation of God besides those I mentioned formerly whereby men are given over by God whence it followeth that they will grow harder and harder and that is the suspension of his admonitions either by taking away his word or forbearing inward motives by his spirit or removing his judgements and giving outward prosperity whereby God is said to give men over to their own hearts lusts But how this or any of these can bee called the inflicting of abduration I understand not And whereas you say it is prejudiciall to Gods Justice to shew his power in hardning Pharaoh without respect to sin like as to condemn him I have already shewed the great difference between condemnation and obduration It being never said that God damnes whom hee will but the Apostle plainely professing that God hardens whom hee will even as expressely as it is said Hee hath mercy on whom hee will and no marvell For God hath revealed a Law according to which hee proceeds in damning men but you are not able to shew us a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardning of them For if the elect before their callings bee no better then reprobates it is impossible to assigne a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardning of men but that by the same Law the Elect of God must bee hardned also And hardning in the Scripture phrase is usually opposed to Gods shewing mercy It is one thing to speak of an heart hardned another to speak of a heart desperately hardned Yet if you were put to explicate your self and shew what it is to bee desperately hardned and that of God and there withall to prove how Pharaoh was at the time you speak of desperately hardned I am perswaded this phrase would cost you more pains then you are aware of for the satisfying of your self and perhaps somewhat more for the satisfying of others If then God purposed to fall upon Pharaoh in his utmost wrath c. Surely from everlasting hee purposed so to fall upon him for all Gods purposes are everlasting If your meaning bee onely to denote the precedency of such a condition of Pharaoh in sin to Gods falling upon him in bringing such judgements upon his back but not a precedency to Gods purpose I willingly concurre with you herein But then the like may bee said of God concerning Esau before hee was born to wit that God purposed to bring such a measure of obduration and confusion upon him after such a condition of sin But if your meaning bee as indeed hitherunto the genius of your opinion drives you namely that upon the foresight of some sinfull condition God did decree to bring obduration and condemnation both upon Esau and Pharaoh as this may bee said as well of one as of the other here you will give us leave to dissent from you considering how manifestly you are found herein to dissent from your self For if such a foresight of sin goe before Gods decree of obduration and condemnation then God did first decree to permit that sin before hee did decree to harden and condemne man for it so that the permission of that sin in Gods intention must bee before obduration and condemnation and consequently last in execution that is men shall first bee hardned and condemned and then suffered to commit that sinne for which they are hardned and condemned Again if Gods purpose to punish with condemnation must necessarily presuppose foresight of sin in God by the same reason Gods purpose to reward with salvation must necessarily presuppose a foresight in God of obedience and in this case what shall become of the freenesse of Gods grace in election not to trouble you with the profession of Aquinas that never any man was so mad as to introduce a cause of predestination quoad actum praedestinantis The case is the same with introducing a cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis For the ground of this is only because there can bee no cause of the will of God quoad actum volentis Now reprobation is well known to bee an act of Gods will as well as predestination Answer But say further that this hardning of Pharaoh bee an effect of the like hatred of Pharaoh as of Esau neither is it said to depend on the sin of Pharaoh but on the will of God as mercy doth as the first cause thereof I answer this hardning of Pharaoh though an effect of Gods hatred of Pharaoh yet it is not an immediate effect of the like hatred hee bare to Esau before hee had done good or evill but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh viz. his malitious hatred of Gods Church comming between God hateth no man so farre as to harden him till hee hath fallen into some sin in which and for which hee may bee hardned Hardning being alwaies as far as I can perceive by Scripture not only a sin and cause of sin but a punishment of sin How can God bee said to punish sin with sin in hardning the creature if sin in Pharaoh bee not presupposed to goe before the hardning It is true indeed this hardning of Pharaoh is referred by the Apostle to the will of God as the first cause thereof For otherwise the answer of the Apostle had not been sufficient to the objection propounded ver 14. for there it was objected that unrighteousnesse might seem to bee found in God even respect of persons to deale so unequally with persons equall such as Jacob and Esau were for if Jacob and Esau had done neither good nor evill when God had exalted
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
admonish them of the error of their waies either by his word or by his judgements and chastisements in his works That God doth harden out of his absolute will and yet hardens none but for sin cannot bee avouched in my judgment without manifest contradiction If they are not contradictions Then those also are not God hath mercy on whom hee will yet God hath mercy on none but in respect of their good works going before Secondly by the same reason it may bee said that God condemnes men out of his absolute will and yet hee condemnes none but for sin yet you shall never read that God condemnes whom hee will Thirdly if God doth harden out of his absolute will then also hee did purpose to harden of his absolute will Whence I infer that then God did not purpose to harden for sin For Gods purpose to harden only in respect of sin is commonly accounted and that by your self a will conditionate and a will conditionate is opposite to a will absolute Lastly I deny that God doth harden for their sins as hardning denoteth a denyall of saving grace For to harden for sin is to punish but to deny saving grace to them that never had saving grace is not to punish them to leave a man in the state wherein hee findes him is not to punish him And therefore when Epaminondas ran his Javelin through a Sentinell whom hee found in sleepe saying I did but leave him as I found him because sleep is usually said to bee Mortis Imago the Image of death had hee no better Apologie for his fact then this hee had no way freed himself from injustice If God may harden man for sin and yet sin shall not bee a primary cause moving God to harden him by the same reason though God condemnes man for sin it is not necessary that sin should bee a primary cause moving God to condemn him which is directly contrary to your tenet in the point of reprobation And this consideration of your own if you hold your self unto it attentively may bring you into the right way from which you have erred and the want of it hath been a means I fear to confirm many in their errors Wee acknowledge it to bee Gods absolute will to condemn for sin but withall wee say it is his absolute will to permit whom hee will to sin and continue in sin by denying saving grace to raise them out of sin And this deniall of grace cannot bee for sin as I have already proved To harden a man in opposition to Gods shewing mercy on him wee take to bee nothing else then his refusall to cure him Now let any man judge whether it bee a decent speech to say that because a man is sick therefore God will not cure him In the cases proposed by you of casting a servant off for a disease which hee can cure if hee list or breaking a vessell for some filthinesse which one may cleanse if hee will whether this bee not to bee resolved into the absolute will of the Master I am content to appeale to every sober mans judgement although the comparisons are not congruous to the case wee have in hand for as much as the casting of a servant off is distinct from the not curing of him the breaking of a vessell is distinct from the cleansing of it But the hardning of a man in opposition to Gods shewing mercy on him is nothing distinct from Gods refusing to cure him If the question were proposed thus Why will not a man cleanse his vessell when hee is able to cleanse it why will hee not heale his servant when hee hath power to heale him Is it a good reason to say therefore hee heales him not because hee is sick therefore hee cleanseth not his vessell because it is unclean Neither is it a more sober speech to say therefore God hardens a man because hee is a sinner For it is as much as to say therefore hee refuseth to cleanse him from his sin because hee findes him unclean by reason of his sin Answ The want of considering this point hath as I conceive it intangled the Doctrine of predestination with needlesse difficulties and exposed it to rash and hard censures in the mindes of gain-sayers Then it may bee said there was no cause of that objection Why complaineth hee and who can resist his will or at least of that answer to why doth hee yet complaine Rom. 9. 20 21 22. I answer that objection propounded by the Apostle Why doth hee yet complain for who hath resisted his will doth not arise upon occasion of Gods preferring Jacob before Esau but upon the latter part of the Corollary going immediately before v. 18. Whom hee will hee hardneth for if it bee God that hardneth the creature and that according to his absolute will then might the hardned creature say what fault is there in mee to bee so hardned Why doth God complain of mee for my hardnesse and impenitency Who hath resisted his will To make this objection colourable wee need not say as you seem to imply that the Apostle gave occasion of it by ascribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods absolute will and without all respect to sin yet the creature hardned is wont to plead with God about it Esa 63. 17. you shall there see Gods own people to erre and upon their error to have their hearts hardned from Gods feare and both done by God and yet the people expostulate with God about it which if Gods own people may doe reverently is it any wonder if the reprobates doe the same upon the same occasion petulantly and profanely But the answer of the Apostle to the objection propounded cleareth the whole matter For as a man would justifie the severe proceedings of a Master of a Colledge in refusing to elect an unworthy person and in stead thereof expelling him the Colledge by pleading first the liberty or authority of his negative voyce Secondly the desert of the person refused and expelled So the Apostle beateth down the insolency of the objection and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates hated and hardned from first the Soveraignty of God over his creature ver 20 21. secondly the due deserts of persons being vessels of wrath and fitted for destruction ver 22. What these needlesse difficulties are wherewith the Doctrine of predestination is intangled by the Doctrine of them whom you impugne you doe not expresse nor the hard and harsh censures which are passed upon it that by due comparing of the one to the other wee might examine how justly such censures are pronounced But of what nature your opinion is how inconsistent in it self on how little reason it is grounded what consequences it draws after it as also what causelesse fears you raise unto yourself and above all and which is worst of all how you deal with Scripture in this argument to serve your turn I leave it to your
conscience to judge not to mention how this Discourse of yours is found to harden many in the way of error and to offend others in the way of truth Indeed there were no cause of any such objection as that Rom. 9. 29. if so bee God hardens no man but for sin and withall it is just with God to harden men in their sine and lesse cause of such an answer Rom. 9. 20 21 22. No man I think makes any doubt but that the objection Why doth hee complain for who hath resisted his will ariseth from the 18 ver where it is said that God as hee hath mercy on whom hee will so hee hardneth whom hee will even as hee hardned Pharaoh but yet you doe not shape the objection right when you shape it thus What fault is there in mee to bee hardned which is in effect as if you would shape it thus Wherein then have I deserved to bee hardned For the negative to this namely that God doth not harden upon desert is that which the Apostle avoucheth Like as neither doth hee shew mercy upon desert But like as upon the meere pleasure of his will hee shews mercy on some So according to the good pleasure of his will hee hardneth others But well might hee say why then doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart and my impenitency or rather the Apostle proposeth it in reference to the fruits of mans hardnesse of heart and impenitency such as God complains of Esa 1. I have nourished and brought up a people and they have rebelled against mee And Esa 56. All the day long have I stretched out mine hands to a rebellious people that walk in a way which is not good even after their own imaginations Or as if Pharaoh hearing of this ministry of Gods providence should say Why doth hee complain of the hardnesse of my heart in not letting Israel goe when hee hath hardned my bea rt that I should not let Israel goe and who hath resisted his will I have already shewed that this hardning of Pharaoh and so likewise of all reprobates as it consists in denying of saving grace in congruous opposition to Gods mercy proceeds meerely according to the good pleasure of Gods will And the Apostle plainly signifies as much when hee saith That like as God hath mercy on whom bee will so hee hardneth whom bee will Neither doth hee take into consideration any sin of theirs as the cause of hardning either in the proposition delivered by him or in answer to the objection arising there-hence Why then should wee bee moved with your bare word in saying wee need not say that the Apostle gave occasion of this objection by ascribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods absolute will and without all respect to sin as the deserving cause thereof Neither do you give any reason of that you avouch in saying that albeit God doth not harden but in respect of sin yet the creature will pleade or expostulate as indeed it is most unreasonable to ask why God doth complain of hardnesse of heart and the fruits thereof when it hath been shewed that this hardnesse of heart hath been brought upon man for his own sin and no exception taken against it But when out of Gods absolutenesse men are hardned then and not till then may it justly seem strange that God should complain of the hardnesse of mens hearts and the fruites thereof As for the place of Esa 63. 17. Wherein you suppose Gods people to expostulate with God for hardning them notwithstanding they suppose that God hardens them for their sin this is to beg the question and not to prove ought there being no evidence of any such acknowledgment as you suppose namely that God doth harden them for their sins Yet if there were any such acknowledgment it would not forthwith make for your purpose unlesse they should acknowledge as much of that obduration the Apostle speaks of where hee sets it in opposition to Gods shewing mercy To serve your turn you take liberty to interpret the coherence of these parts to erre from thy waies and to bee hardned against thy feare as if the former were the cause of the other upon no other ground that I know but that thus it shall stand in more congruity with your opinion Whereas indeed there is a farre greater probability that hardning against the feare of God should bee the cause of the errour of our wayes then that errour of our wayes should bee the cause of our hardning against the feare of God especially taking hardning not confusedly hand over head but distinctly in opposition to Gods shewing mercy in mans conversion I take them only as severall expressions of the same things consisting of an inward corrupt disposition as the roote and that I conceive to bee the want of the feare of God and the fruit hereof which is aberration from the good wayes of the Lord. And they expostulate with God for not correcting all this by his grace as by his Covenant of grace which hee hath made with them hee hath ingaged himself hereunto even to keep them from going astray like a good Shepherd and to put his feare into their hearts that they shall never depart away from him Which kinde of expostulation is nothing answerable to that which the Apostle proposeth to answer Rom. 9. 16. And I may well wonder what you meant to yoke them together Non bene inaequales veniunt ad aratra juvencae The children of God doe not expostulate with God for his complaining of their disobedience unthankfulnesse and rebellions against him though they heartily wish they had never provoked him and expostulate with him for not preserving them by his grace from such courses of provocation of him even of the eyes of his glory The wicked have no such desire to bee preserved from sin and sinfull courses which are unto them as sweet bits which they roule under their tongues Although when they heare of the Doctrine of obduration and his power to harden them and in hardning they may take advantage thereby to blaspheme God and to plead Apologie for themselves Belike then you acknowledge that God hath power to harden without respect to sin for to this purpose tends your comparative illustration But then you must bee driven to deny that obduration is a punishment seeing it is impossible that just punishments can have course but with respect to sin as a meritorious cause thereof That God beateth down the objectour and pleadeth the justice of Gods proceedings against Reprobates from the soveraign authority of God over his creatures is most true ver 20 21. But that hee pleads the due desert of the persons ver 22. thereby to justifie God in hardning whom hee will as positively avouched but so farre from truth as that it involves plain contradiction no lesse then if the Apostle after hee had said that God hath mercy on whom hee will should afterward take
a course to justifie God herein by saying that God hath mercy on none but in respect to their former good works Nay much more contradictions for as much as no good works in the state of nature or grace can bee meritorious of reward But sins may bee and are truely meritorious of punishment In the 22 vers there is not the least mention of obduration much lesse any mention of the cause thereof least of all any reversing of the former cause expressed ver 18. and justifyed ver 20. from the authority of God the Creator having power to make his creatures of what fashion hee will and substituting a new in the place thereof And although all that are vessels of wrath are sinners and consequently deserve punishment yet obduration in opposition to shewing mercy consisting in the deniall of saving grace is no punishment for as much as God doth not thereby withdraw any saving grace from them which formerly they injoyed and as for inflicting evill that hath no place in obduration for as much as all confesse that God doth not obdurate any man infundendo malitiam but non infundendo gratiam Neither is it sin either originall or actuall that which constitutes a man a vessell of wrath as a vessell of wrath is opposite to a vessell of mercy For sin both originall and actuall is incident to the Elect as well as to the Reprobate but like as Gods shewing mercy makes a man a vessell of mercy so Gods denyall of mercy finally constitutes a vessell of wrath exposing him to finall infidelity or impenitency which sin alone is not found in any of the elect It seems you think they are fitted to destruction by themselves as if vasa the vessels did separate and not Herus the Master rather Sin alone makes a man obnoxious to condemnation as deserving it and so there is sin in the best of Gods children to drive them to confesse that if the Lord should bee extream to mark what is done amisse none were able to abide it Yet the sin of the Reprobates you confesse God could prevent and not preventing it yet could cure it by the blood of Christ so that though sin bee granted to bee a cause hereof yet a more originall cause though nothing culpable must bee acknowledged to bee the deniall of Grace as our Saviour budgeth not to professe to the faces of some Yee therefore heare not my words because yee are not of God and Joh. 12. 40. Therefore they could not beleeve because Esaias saith Hee hath blinded their eyes and hardned their hearts that they should not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and should bee converted and I should heale them All this while have I maintained the safenesse of that exposition which interpreteth Gods hatred of Esau of a lesse degree of love and the same word is also used in the same sense But yet so understand mee I conceive this lesse degree of Love to have somewhat in it of the true nature of Hatred For as the nature of Love standeth in affecting communion with one and communicating good unto him So likewise the nature of hatred stands in the contrary to this either in affecting separation from one or inflicting evill on him or at least in not vouchsafing communion or communicating good unto him So is a man said to hate his brother that will not vouchsafe him such an office of brotherly communion as that hee will communicate a kindly reproofe to him for his sin Now I would easily grant that before Esau had done good or evill God so hated him as that hee did not communicate to him that fellowship with Christ which by Gods election and donation the members of the body have with him their head in Gods account even before the world was Neither did God vouchsafe that plentifull communication of his free grace unto him as might in time by a reall actuall power draw him to Christ and to live by him Yea God was pleased to set him in a state further remote and separate from him then his elect brother Even in the estate of a servant to the elect and in stead of communicating free grace hee purposed to deale with him rather according to his works by a covenant of Justice For both these are implyed in Gods putting of Esau into the state of a servant First the denyall of such grace and fatherly love to him as is reserved for children Secondly the not refusing of him to just dealing such as is due to servants according to their works I look to receive from you some proofe that the word Hatred is used in the same sense to wit to signifie a lesse degree of Love for to my judgement it is a wilde interpretation for in this sense God might bee said to hate every one of Gods elect excepting Christ for hee loves them all in a lesse degree then hee loved Christ and one in a lesse degree then another according as degrees of Love attributed to God are to bee estimated that is not quoad affectum for undoubtedly there are no degrees to bee found in the nature of God but quoad affectum and undoubtedly God alots one degree of grace to one and another degree to another and as hee deales with them in communicating of grace so in the communicating of Glory also Love and hatred undoubtedly are opposite contrarily and not onely contradictorily And because quot modis dicitur unum oppositorum tot modis dicitur alterum as love of complacency consists in delectation so hatred opposite is of displicency or aversation And as love of beneficence consisteth in wishing or doing good So hatred opposite consists in wishing or doing evill to another Here at length I observe the place you stand upon to prove that hatred in holy Scripture doth sometimes signifie a lesse degree of love and that seemes to bee Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart thou shalt plainely rebuke thy brother and suffer him not to sin And to serve your turn in this interpretation you shape a correspondent practise of Love consisting in vouchsafing communion which unlesse it bee a communion of reproofe is nothing to your purpose who desire to shape hatred in contradiction thereunto And yet hatred all conceive to bee much more then not to love But were all this yeelded unto you yet doth it fall short of your purpose for albeit hee that forbears to reprove his brother doth him harm yet if hee doe not intend him harm hee cannot bee said to hate him For in Scripture phrase hatred denotes an intention to harm as Deut. 4. 42. Where wee reade that certain Cities were appointed That the slayer might fly unto which had killed his Neighbour at unawares and hated him not in times past But if you measure hatred by the harm done why should the sparing of reproofe to preserve a brother from sin and consequently from incurring the wrath of God bee
a new heart Austin was wont to say and advise rather in this manner In praecepto cognosce quid debe as habere in correptione cognosce tuo te vitio non habere in oratione cognosce unde possis habere In Gods precept know what you ought to have in his rebuke take notice that through your fault you have it not in prayer know whence you may have it The twelfth is out of 2 Chron. 36. 15 16. And the Lord God of their fathers sent unto them by his Messengers rising early and sending for hee had compassion on his people and on his habitation 16. But they mocked the messengers of God and despised his words and misused his Prophets untill the wrath of God rose against his people and till there was no remedy I doe not deny but that it was in their power not to misuse the Prophets not to mock his Messengers but doe you not think that amongst these naughty figges some were nothing so bad and yet did not the wrath of God come upon them as well as upon others Again consider what of all this yet if they had repented had not their foulest sins hereupon been done away so that for want of repentance the wrath of God brake forth against them Now why doe you not as well infer herehence that they had power to repent and so to seek after the Lord and find mercy from him Thirdly was it not enough to bring the wrath of God upon them to bee found guilty of despising his words and hath any naturall man power to keep himself from this sin Is there any greater despising of them then to esteem so basely of them as to account them no better then foolishnesse Now is any naturall man free from this Doth not the Holy Ghost tell us 1 Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man perceives not the things of God for they are foolishnesse unto him But by the way I observe wee little agree in the notion of free will which if I bee not deceived was never accounted by the Learned to consist in ought other then in election of means As for the end according to the habituall disposition of the heart and will a man is necessarily carryed to the affection of an agreeable end agreeable I say to his own disposition Whence it followeth that albeit it bee in the power of grace alone to change the heart and renew the will yet whatsoever the unregenerate either doe or refuse to doe they carry themselves herein freely in as much as they proceed herein with choyce in respect of their own ends I come to the thirteenth out of Hos 11. 4. I led them with cords of a man and with bands of love and I was to them as hee that taketh away the yoke from their jawes and I laid their meate unto them Was not such like the Lords dealing with the children of Israel when hee took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt Did hee not leade them with the cords of Love did hee not take off the yoke from their jaws did hee not lay Manna before them yet of them doth Moses professe that notwithstanding all this God gave them not an heart to perceive nor eyes to see nor eares to beare unto that day And in this Text alledged what colour is there to justify this your distinction namely that albeit God deprives Reprobates of those drawing and effectuall means without which none can come to faith and repentance yet they are inabled by him to doe much more then they doe in seeking after the Lord and finding mercy from him The fourteenth is out of Esa 5. 3 4 5. Judge I pray you between mee and my vineyard 4. What could I have done more to my Vineyard that I have not done unto it why have I looked that it should bring forth grapes and it brought forth wilde grapes 5. And now I will tell you what I will doe to my vineyard I conceive herein you may devise a treble ground to build upon I could wish your self had dealt plainely and argued herehence the justification of your premised distinction It might have saved your Reader a great deale of paines whereas now by the manner of your Discourse hee is driven as well to argue for you as to answer for himself that hee may keep himself from being overtaken with errour upon a generall consideration ere hee is aware The first ground may bee that God seems to professe that hee had done what hee could doe now undoubtedly hee could give them power to doe more good then they did in the way of seeking the Lord which is the thing that you affirm and therefore hee did give this power but say I God could give means also to draw effectually unto repentance and consequently hee did draw them hereunto which is the thing that your self deny and the Text it self also for instead of sweet grapes they brought forth wilde grapes Secondly you may ground upon this that God expected they should bring forth sweet grapes and upon such grounds you usually make Collections and herehence you may infer that therefore they had power to bring forth sweet grapes But this consequent is untrue by your opinion for sweet grapes must needs bee gratefull unto God and no lesse then Faith and Repentance But you confesse that God deprives them of such drawing and effectuall means without which none can come and with which none ever failed to come to faith and repentance The third ground may bee Gods resolution to lay his vineyard waste And thence you may infer that they had power to avoid such sins as were the causes thereof But consider I pray you is it not just with God to damne the world for infidelity and impenitency and will you herehence infer that it was in their power to beleeve and repent I presume you will not The fifteenth is Job 33. 14. to the 18. there wee read that God speaketh once and twice and one seeth it not even in dreams and visions of the night 15. When this will not serve the turn hee opens the eares of man even by the corrections which hee hath sealed ver 16. and that which God aimes at in this is That hee might cause man to turn away from his enterprise and that hee might hide the pride of man ver 17. and keepe back his soule from the pit and that his life should not passe by the Sword ver 18. All this represents the power of Gods grace in overcomming the hardnesse of mans heart together with the wisdome of God proceeding various wayes to the same end an instance whereof wee have in Manasses But as for any power in man to doe any more good then hee doth in seeking after the Lord here is not the least indication much lesse to justifie the distinction here devised by you I come to the last taken out of Joh. 16. 8 9. And when hee is come hee will reprove the world
resistance unto Gods intention Directly contrary to the Discourse of Austin Enchir. cap. 96. whose words are these Deo proculdubio quam facile est quod vult facere tam facile est quod non vult esse non sinere Hoc nisi credamus periclitatur ipsum nostrae fidei consessionis initium qua nos in Deum Patrem omnipocentem credere confitemur Neque enim ob aliud veraciter vocatur omnipotens nisi quia quicquid vult potest nec voluntate cujusquam creaturae voluntatis omnipotentis impeditur effectus And if it bee so as you professe That no man can come to Christ except the Father draw him by the same Almighty authority and power whereby hee sent Christ into the world and withall if you adde thereunto as else-where you doe that this power I leave out authority as of an alien signification is shewed onely in drawing his Elect what need all these paines that you have taken since it is cleare that so long as you hold to this you shall never satisfie any Pelagian or Arminian and all the absurdities they charge our Doctrine with are directed against this But well you may puzzle the wits and trouble the minde of many an Orthodox and well-affected Christian with so intricate a discourse labouring to devise a new way to justifie our Doctrine of Election by so tempering the Doctrine of reprobation as utterly to overthrow your own Orthodox opinion in the very point of election as I have already shewed as occasion hath been given Object How then will you say can these two stand together there is a sufficiency and power in the meanes to lead the men of this world to the knowledge of God and to grace in Christ and yet there is an impotency yea an impossibility in the men of the world to come to Christ without greater and stronger means then these bee Answ For answer whereto I will not content my self to say that these means are sufficient because they suffice to leave men without excuse onely in the second place and by accident after when men have neglected to make so good use of them as they might have done but you see that God aimes at other ends in the first and principall place viz. to lead them to repentance to save their soules from the pit as the places alledged give evident witnesse and for these ends it is that these means must bee acknowledged and conceived as sufficient For else the Word of God argued an imperfection or insufficiency of such meanes to their proper ends I think it safe to say these means are sufficient ex parte Dei on Gods behalf to manifest the will of God rather to desire repentance and life then the hardning and destruction of the Creature And ex parte hominum in regard of men sufficient to inable them to the performance of such duties in which their naturall consciences would excuse them and in which way they might the sooner finde mercy mercy vouchsafing more powerfull and more effectuall helps whilest they walk according to the knowledge and helps which they have received and sin not against conscience but only out of ignorance in the state of unbeleef It is Arminius his superficiary conceit that Hortatio non facta sed sprâ—ta makes a man inexcusable not considering that admonition and instruction it self takes away excuse although none have need of excuse but they that doe evill For the excuse is this si scissem fecissem or si audivissem credidissem now this excuse is manifestly removed by the preaching of the Gospel And the word inexcusable though it formally signifie without excuse yet withall it con-notates a condition delinquent and such as had need of excuse though bereaved thereof and such a condition ariseth from the contempt of the means of grace Neither is this condition by accident like as the neglecting to make good use of them is not by accident For God intending to deprive them of those drawing and effectuall helpes without which none can make good use of them did never intend they should make good use of them but rather the contrary in asmuch as hee purposed not to shew that mercy towards them which hee shews towards his Elect but rather to harden them As the Lord tells Ezek. Chap. 2. 4. They are impudent children and stiffe-hearted I doe send thee unto them and thou shalt say unto them Thus saith the Lord God But surely they will not heare neither indeed will they cease for they are a rebellious house yet shall they know that there hath been a Prophet among them So that albeit the Lord knew full well what sorry entertainment his Prophets should finde yet would hee not give way to any such excuse as this If the Lord had sent his Prophet to admonish us of our wandrings from him wee would soon have turned unto the good way of the Lord. No they shall know there hath been a Prophet among them And as for the ground of this his fore-knowledge Esay manifesteth this to bee Gods purpose to harden them Esa 6. 9. Goe and say unto this people yee shall heare indeed but shall not understand yee shall plainly see and not perceive make the heart of this people fat and make their eares heavy and shut their eyes lest they see with their eyes and heare with their eares and understand with their hearts and convert and I shall heale them What place is here for such conceites of leaving men without excuse in a second place and that by accident Yet if you can prove that God did intend any better thing unto them in a first place wee shall bee willing to confesse that this comes in in a second place You say God leads them to repentance to save them from the pit I answer this leading to repentance Rom. 2. is onely his sparing them in their sins and admonishing them to repent and this wee say is done to the Reprobates not with any purpose to bring them to repentance for if God had any such purpose hee would not deprive them of those helpes without which none can come to repentance as your self professe hee doth and if hee had any such purpose to bring them to repentance and yet doth not it followeth that hee cannot And if hee hath any such purpose either this purpose must continue still in God even after their damnation or otherwise God must bee charged with mutability all which you consider not much lesse accommodate any tolerable answer thereto For the same reason I deny that God hath any intention or purpose to save them how can hee considering that from everlasting hee hath ordained them to condemnation And of this also you take no notice much lesse goe about to shape any convenient answer thereunto carrying the matter all along in such manner as if Gods decree of their condemnation were not conceived untill the means of Grace offered are found to bee finally despised Neither doe the places alledged
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
God over his creatures by the power of the Potter over the Clay in making therehence one vessell to honour and another to dishonour It is true since the fall of Adam man in his generation hath no being without sin for wee are even conceived in sin yet it is not that sin that makes a man a vessell of wrath for if it did then all should bee made by God vessels of wrath But albeit the Apostle signifies that wee are all born children of wrath which is verifyed in respect of the desert even of sin originall yet neither Apostle nor Prophet doth any where give us to understand that all men are made vessels of wrath This phrase includes first the intention of God like a Potter to make such use of them as to make his just wrath appeare upon them and this purpose of God was everlasting not onely as old as every mans generation but as old as the creation of all yea and from everlasting before the Creation Secondly it includes also a fitnesse in the vessell for such an use not fitnesse in the way of desert only such fitnesse being found in all the naturall sons of Adam but fitnesse in respect of Gods purpose to shew wrath Now like as in proportion hereunto the making of a man fit for mercy is the giving of him grace so the denying of grace finally makes him fit for wrath in this sense for as much as God will damn none but such as die in their sins Here I speak of wrath and mercy as they consist in giving salvation or inflicting damnation Lastly if none are ripened for destruction till the refusall of meanes of grace or the committing of grosse and unnaturall iniquity then it followeth that no Infants of Turks and Sarecens are vessels of wrath No nor men of ripe yeers amongst the heathen many of whom never having either refused the means of grace for as much as they never injoyed them and having lived civilly and morally all their dayes Philosopher-like free from grosse and unnaturall iniquity And though all this bee granted you yet if God to that end refuse to shew mercy on them in giving them Faith and Repentance and continues to harden them by denying such grace look how rigorous or unreasonable soever the objection pretended Gods course to bee in complaining of them for their disobedience when God himself hath hardned them in the same degree of rigour and unreasonablenesse it continues still without all mitigation notwithstanding all that you have said hitherto to the contrary Fourthly as for the fourth I have no desire to quarrell with you thereabout Gods judgements indeed Rom. 11. 33. that is his agendirationes as Piscator interpreteth it are unsearchable and his wayes past finding out But you take a course quite contrary to make them nothing unsearchable but easie to be found out For if obduration bee in respect of sin surely there is no unsearchable depth in this And in my opinion the chief wayes of God which the Apostle aimes it in the place alledged consists in having mercy on whom hee will and hardning whom he will and in generall thus in proportion to that which goeth before There was a time when God had a Church without distinction of Jews and Gentiles as before the Flood and after till the bringing of the children of Israel out of Aegypt Again there was a time after this for about 1600. yeers that God had a Church of the Jews in distinction from the Gentiles And since that for the space of about 1600. yeers God hath had a Church among the Gentiles in distinction from the Jews And we look for a time to come when God shall have a Church and that here on earth consisting both of the Nation of the Jews and of the Nations of the Gentiles Three of these states are signifyed by the Apostle immediately before Rom. 11. 30. For even as yee in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past have not beleeved God yet have now obtained mercy through their unbeleef there have wee two of them one past another then present Then follows the third ver 31. Even so now have they not beleeved by the mercy shewed unto you this is part of the second that they also may obtain mercy This is the third which wee look for ver 32. For God hath shut up all in unbeleefe that hee might have mercy upon all Then follows the exclamation ver 33. O the deepnesse of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God for hee knows all courses possible to bee taken both wise and unwise and out of the depth of his wisdome makes choyce of what hee thinks fit O how unsearchable are his judgements for out of all these different courses results such a splendor of the glory of God as no creature till it bee revealed can project nor devise any courses countervailable thereunto when it is revealed and his wayes past finding out FINIS The English of the Latine passages in this Treatise in the severall Pages thereof that are not formerly englished PAge 10. lin 2 3 4. The Apostle saith that we are chosen in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud salvation is procured for us lin 5. As touching the act of God choosing lin 17 18. as in the head The nature of an head is not the nature of a cause meritorious lin 19 20 21. The Apostle saith that we are elect in Christ as in a Mediatour by whose bloud life is precured for us l. 21. a meritorious cause lin 22 23 24. and as in an head from whence these good things are derived to us So that the reason of an head is the reason of a meritorious cause not morally but naturally l. 26. as in the head l. 27. as dead and raised again l. 37. Christ is the head of the predestinate Page 11. lin 5 6. The other reason concerning Christ considered as the head seemeth to depend on these parts Page 12. l. 5. a thing being by accident l. 28. Predestination puts nothing in the thing predestinated l. 31. in all things Page 13. lin 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. By the comparing of which sentense it appeares that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rightly rendred among all It is a Greek phrase lest some one might conceive it ought to be translated in all to wit in all things We are to remember that the Apostle from this verse began to discourse of Christs kingdom in his Church which no man will deny if hee doth but lightly consider the very words themselves and therefore under the universall particle no other thing is comprehended but all believers of all times Christ is the first of them that rise again that among all the Saints both of them that went before and of them that came after he might have the primacy of dignity power and holinesse that so among all hee might have the preheminence not onely in respect of men but also of