A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twisse ...

A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twisse ...

Table of contents

Title page

The Authors Epiſtle unto the Reader.

Faults in Printing correct thus.

AN EXAMINATION of a Treatiſe written by Maſter Cotton, for the clearing of certaine doubts concerning Predeſtination.

QUESTION. 1.

The ſecond DOUBT.

QUESTION •.

To the fourth Doubt.

The Fifth Doubt. Queſtion, 5.

The Sixth Doubt. Queſtion, 6.

The Seventh Doubt. Queſtion, 7.

The Eighth and loſt Doubt. Queſtion 8.

For an Auctarium, here is laid down a ſhort Survey of the ninth Chapter to the Romans, ſo farre as it treateth of the Doctrine of Predeſtination: the better to clear ſome paſſages of the former Diſcourſe.

The Engliſh of the Latine paſſages in this Treatiſe, in the ſeverall Pages thereof, that are not formerly engliſhed.

§

[Page]

[Page]

[Page]

[Page]

A TREATISE OF Mr. Cottons, Clearing certaine DOUBTS Concerning PREDESTINATION.

Together with AN EXAMINATION Thereof; written by William Twiſſe, DD. Paſtor of Newbury.

Prov. 19. 21.

There are many devices in mans heart; nevertheleſſe the counſell of the Lord that ſhall ſtand.

2 Cor. 4. 3.

If our Goſpel be hid, it is hid to them that are loſt.

LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Andrew Crook, and are to be ſold at his Shop at the Signe of the Green Dragon in Pauls Church-yard. 1646.

The Authors Epiſtle unto the Reader.

[Page]

[Page]

IT was my purpoſe and reſolution at the firſt, to let this piece, in anſwer to Mr. Cotton, paſſe without a preface; for it was put into a Stationers hand ere I was aware: Neither did I ſee the mans face untill the whole book was printed. And for certaine yeares I knew not what was become of it, which I imputed to the confuſion of theſe times. But ſo it was, that a Knight of our County, ſent over unto mee the Miniſter who lived in his houſe, to intreate me to communicate unto him my anſwer to a book, intituled, Gods love to mankind: which I condeſcended unto; willing to ſatisfie ſo noble a friend as Sir Francis Pile. The Miniſter perceiving this anſwer of mine to Mr. Cotton lying with it, deſired that hee might take that alſo along with him, that Sir Francis might have a ſight of that together with the other: whereunto I yielded, upon promiſe made, that both pieces ſhould be returned into my hands very ſhortly, within a moneth or two.

But evill times followed not long after; and for a whole year we were full of diſtractions in the Countrey. My chiefeſt care was, for the preſervation of my manuſcripts, which I brought with me to London at the firſt: But this piece in anſwer to Mr. Cotton was wanting; I had utterly forgotten [Page] what was become of it. Sir Francis removed to Southhampton, and took care of my copies to have them along with him. It was ſomewhat long ere they were brought to London; but in good time they arrived here ſafe and ſound. And Mr. Gilbert, who brought me the firſt word of it, ſhewed me withall that he was well acquainted with a Stationer, who would undertake for the ſetting forth my Anſwer to Gods love to mankind: Onely his deſire was, he might begin with the printing of my anſwer to Mr. Cotton, becauſe that was a ſmall piece. And thus ere I was aware, I came to underſtand, that my ſtray ſheep, which I gave for loſt, was found.

And ſince that, conſidering certaine paſſages of divine providence, cauſing ſome interruption in the proceedings of bringing forth this Treatiſe unto the light of the preſſe: I have been moved thereby to prefixe this preface, partly on mine owne behalfe, and partly on the behalfe of Mr. Cotton: For men may perhaps conceive me to be well pleaſed with an adverſative diſpotion, and to affect a courſe of oppoſition, as well to the friends of the Bridegroome, as to his enemies: As if I were like Iſmael in part, of whom it was ſaid, that his hand was againſt every ones; which is enough to make me like unto him in the other part alſo, and provoke every one to have his hand againſt me. Truth it is, all my writings, both printed and manuſcript, that have an eye towards the preſſe, are of a reſponſorious nature; but the originall motive cauſe unto me was meerely mine owne ſatisfaction; and that in the points of grace and predeſtination. In arguments of this nature, I promiſed to my ſelfe more comfort then I could expect in ſtudying Tranſubſtantiation, or Purgatory. And becauſe truth is never ſufficiently known in a ſcholaſticall way, unleſſe we are able to maiſter the ſtrongeſt [Page] oppoſitions that are made againſt it; therefore I gave my ſelfe to take notice of the greateſt ſticklers in their oppoſitions againſt that doctrine, which is maintained by our Divines: and all this meerely for mine own better progreſsion in the inveſtigation of truth, without the leaſt thought at that time of publiſhing ought. And for the ſame cauſe I ſet my ſelfe upon thoſe paſſages, which ſeemed to containe the greateſt difficultie: And therefore in examining Arminius, I began in the midſt of his anſwer to Mr. Perkins, to ponder well his digreſsion and diſcourſe about divine permiſsion; for in that argument I had found no ſmall difficultie; and I made tryall, whether by that diſcourſe of his I could find ſatisfaction; but I found no ſatisfaction at all from him; neither was I able to worke out ſufficient ſatisfaction to my ſelfe: about that matter was the firſt digreſsion I began with, but it was one of the laſt that I finiſhed.

Other diſcourſes of mine, many of them, yea, moſt of them, were written by me onely at the inſtance of others. My anſwer to Mr. Hords diſcourſe (which ſince is printed with Mr. Simſons additions, and ſet forth under the ſpecious title of Gods love to mankind;) was performed by me at the requeſt of Sir Nathaniell Rich. My anſwer to the Synod of Dort, after reduced to practiſe, was penned by me to ſatisfie friends, two copies thereof manuſcript being ſent unto me from ſcholar friends in Oxford: but eſpecially I was glad, that I had ſo good an opportunitie thereby to quiet the ſpirit of my lord Say; his honour being not a little moved with the ſcoffing carriage of Tilenus, the Author of that piece (who dyed ſhortly after as I was advertiſed) and by his lordſhips honourable care it was brought forth to light. I could give the like account of many other pieces written by me, and imployed therein by others; many of them being [Page] as meane in condition as my ſelfe. This very piece of Mr. Cottons, the anſwer whereunto is now put forth, I undertooke meerely upon the motion of Mr. Bets, a young Miniſter, who at that time lived at Broughton, in the houſe of my lord Say: he intreated me to take it into conſideration, and ſhew my judgement concerning it: And to gratifie him I undertooke it; and my lord Say himſelfe liked well of it, and communicated it unto Mr. Cotton, who carried it with him into New-England; whereby I was put to my ſhifts to get a copy of it as I could for mine owne uſe.

Now concerning Mr. Cotton, it may be his reputation will ſeeme to be touched in this; but let the indifferent Reader conſider what I ſay in my obſervation. Both Auſtin and other great Divines have written freely and largely of Election, but very ſparingly of Reprobation; the reaſon wherof I conceive to be this, There appeares more ſeeming offenſive harſhneſſe in the doctrine of Reprobation, then in the doctrine of Election. Secondly, I am perſwaded, they manifeſtly perceived, that by ſtating the doctrine aright in the point of Election, the truth, by juſt analogy and proportion, did there-hence neceſſarily follow in the point of Reprobation, to all judicious Divines. Now Mr. Cotton, as I have heard, is very ſound and orthodox in the point of Election; and comes to this work with a gracious intent, to clear the doctrine of Predeſtination (and that in the ſpeciall of Reprobation) from ſuch harſh conſequences as ſeeme to be derived there-hence; which doe very frequently break forth, as I have obſerved, when the order of Gods decrees is not ſtated aright: And by experience I have found the manifold odious imputations of ſtrange harſhneſſe layd upon Gods proceedings, and repreſented by the Remonſtrants in their Antiſynodalia Dordracena, in number 10. as I remember; but they all vaniſh and come [Page] to nothing upon the right ordering of Gods decrees: wherein, if any Divine faile, it may be his failing is only in a point of Logick, provided that he be orthodox in the point of grace; but if he be corrupt in that, then the more corrupt his Logick is, the better it may ſerve his turn for the countenancing of his erroneous wayes in matter of divinity.

Laſtly, I have been given to underſtand by Mr. Simſon, one of the reverend Divines of the Aſſembly, that Mr. Cotton upon the receiving and peruſing this treatiſe of mine, ſeemed to be moved therewith not a little; and that in ſuch a way, as not to be provoked thereby, but rather to incline to the receiving of ſatisfaction! Mr. Cotton is a Divine whom I never ſaw; but ſo much I have heard of his pietie and parts of learning, that his name ſhall ever be of reverend remembrance with me. Nevertheleſſe, becauſe this diſcourſe of his, whereunto I addreſſe my anſwer, is in the hands of many, and ſome of them may be ſtrengthned in their erroneous wayes, by this writing of his; and I have heard, that certaine Arminians have taken advantage, to juſtifie them in their wayes, from ſome paſſages in this very diſcourſe of Mr. Cottons: Others, though orthodox, may hereby be miſled into errour, in ſuch ſort, as to corrupt both themſelves and their brethren into ſuch opinions (too pleaſing unto fleſh and bloud) as may ſhake the orthodox doctrin of Gods free grace, in the precious points of Election, Predeſtination, & Regeneration. This danger I deſire to prevent; and upon my knowledge, my labour and paines herein have bin taken in very good part, by thoſe who are the very good friends of Mr. Cotton; and ſome not his good friends onely, but great and right well approved of by Mr. Cotton himſelfe; they have deſerved no leſſe at his hands. The God of all grace, bring all his into an unitie of faith, in the acknowledgement of his grace, which is the onely ſure way unto glory.

Faults in Printing correct thus.

[Page]

Page 6. line 15. if read of. p 10. l 1. thus, r. this. p. 12 l. 25. contradictions, r. contradictious. p. 27. l. 28. Apoſtle, r. Epiſtle p. 33. l. 1. r. what was Gods. p. 38. l. 29. Queſtion the 2. it ſhould be Doubt the third: the want whereof made us ſuſpect that the whole and intire Anſwer to the third Doubt was miſſing. p 39. l. laſt ſave one, hen, r. when. p. 40. l. laſt ſave one, confeſſeth, r. confeſſe. p. 43 l. 21 bought, r. brought. p. 52. l. 15. decrees to ſave, r. decree was to ſave. p. 57. l. the laſt, diſtinct, r. disjunct. p. 61. l. 33. diſtinct, r. disjunct. p. 76. l. 18. grants, r. grant. p 87. l. 9. after the word feigne there ſhould be ſuch a disjunction as this [3]. p 98. l. 12. objects, r. objection. p 114. l. the fourth from the end, controverſies but; read it thus, controverſies; but. p. 117. l. 16. manner, r. nature. p. 131. l. 18. raſh, r. harſh. l. 19. raſh, r. harſh. p. 182. l. 9. in his his purpoſes, r. in Gods purpoſe. p. 190 l. 27. r. obduration. p. 194. l. 17. like, r. life. p. 199. l. 26. objection, r. Objector. p 207. the fifth Doubt, Queſtion the fifth, line the ſixth and ſeventh ſeems to be obſcure; but yet compared with the former, and well conſidered, the miſt will break up, and the ſenſe of the Author appeare. p. 209. l. 4. mans, r. man. p. 225. l. the fourth from the end, ſerves, r. ſeems. p. 227. l. 30. leave out the word and. p. 234. l 30. effectuall, r. and effectuall. p. 236. l. the laſt, r. informe him. p. 137. l. 29. that without, leave out the word that. p. 239. l. 6. ſhort of, r. ſhort of them. p. 250. l. 3. ſpeciall, r. ſpecials. l. 13. Genius, r. genus. p. 254 l. 15. it, r. in. p. 255. Queſt. 7. l. 10. of a grace, r. of grace. p. 267. l. 17. naturalls ſhould, r. naturalls right, ſhould. p. 283. l. 20. agat, r. aget. p. 284. the laſt line ſave five, ſounding, reade ſoundneſſe.

AN EXAMINATION of a Treatiſe written by Maſter Cotton, for the clearing of certaine doubts concerning Predeſtination.

[Page]

QUESTION. 1.

HOw may it appeare that there was any thought of the incarnation of the ſecond perſon, or advancement of the man Chriſt, before the preſuppoſall of the fall of man, and his owne humiliation.

God doth not propoſe one thing before another in time, all things are at once preſent with him: But the things purpoſed by God, God Anſw. doth order them one for another, and ſo is he rightly ſaid to purpoſe one thing in order before another. Now in order of things, God hath firſt purpoſed the glorifying of himſelfe, yea, and the glorifying of himſelfe in Chriſt too, before he preſuppoſed the fall of man, and humiliation of Chriſt; as may appeare, &c.

1. I will firſt take into conſideration the doubt propoſed. Here are foure things mentioned: and the Queſtion is made touching Exam. the priority of the two firſt in reſpect of the two latter, and that in the thoughts (or intention) of God. And withall I conceive the incarnation of the Sonne of God is conſidered in reference to the fall of man. And the advancement of the man Chriſt in reference to his humiliation. Of the Priority of each in reſpect of his correlative proceeds the doubt. I thinke good to conſider them apart. As touching the firſt couple, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the fall of man: I ſhould anſwer at the firſt daſh, that there is no order between them at all: My reaſon is this, All order in intention hath courſe onely between the meanes and the end: But between theſe two there is no ſuch reference as between the means and the end. The propoſition is without queſtion; [Page] the aſſumption I prove thus: It belongs to the ſame Author to be the Author, as of the end, ſo of the meanes tending to the end. (All experience juſtifies this.) But God (though he be the Author of the incarnation of his Sonne, yet) could not be the Author of the fall of man, as he cannot be the Author of ſinne. But it is not ſit ſo weighty a queſtion ſhould be ſtrangled unius verbi praejudicio, with the prejudice of one word; therefore let the queſtion proceed (with a little alteration) in compariſon of the incarnation of the Sonne of God, and the permiſſion of the fall of Adam, which undoubtedly was Gods work as well as the former. Some thinke the decree of 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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, [Page] it is a joynt means for manifeſting the remunerative juſtice of God, in rewarding him according to his deſerts: in conformity to that of the Apoſtle, Therefore hath God exalted him. But neither Phil. 2. this advancement of his, is the end of his humiliation, nor either of theſe the end of his aſſumption into an hypoſtaticall union with the Sonne of God: Nor his hypoſtaticall union with the ſecond perſon in Trinity the end of any of theſe; and therfore they are to be accompted rather co-ordinate then ſubordinate in the intention of God.

2. Now I come to examine how this doubt is cleered. Here we have firſt a rule, then the accomodation of this rule. Touching the rule I acknowledge it, and I adde ſomething to the cleering of it. Granting that there is no order in Gods decrees, but ſuch as is grounded upon this, that God purpoſeth one thing for another. This one thing and another are only the end and the means; between which we ſay, in the intention of God there is onely prioritas rationis, priority of reaſon; which in my judgement is well expounded thus: when ratio unius petitur à ratione alterius, the reaſon of the one is taken from the reaſon of the other; as ratio mediorum petitur à ratione ſinis, the reaſon of the means is taken from the reaſon of the end. And therefore we ſay, The end is firſt in intention, and then the meanes.

As for the accomodation of the rule, it ſeems to me to be nothing at all to the purpoſe; for the doubt propoſed was not how it might appeare that there was any thought of the glorifying of God, before the preſuppoſall of Adams fall, and of Chriſts humiliation. We willingly acknowledge the glory of God was thought on before them all, both before the incarnation, advancement of the man Chriſt, mans fall, and Chriſts humiliation: I ſay, before them all, prioritate rationis, by priority of reaſon; for, undoubtedly, both the incarnation of the Son of God, That is, the hypoſtaticall union of Chriſts manhood to the ſecond perſon in the Trinitie, and the advancement of the man Chriſt, was to the glory of God as the end thereof, as well as ought elſe. And this glory of God hath been ſpecified at leaſt in part. And as for the glorifying of himſelf in Chriſt, this ſtill denotes the glory of God as the end, though it addes withall the matter wherein it ſhines, to wit, the man Chriſt. And to prevent the errour of equivocation, that uſually lurkes under generalls. This glorifying of God in [Page] Chriſt conſiſts either in ſeverall, or in common, with the glorifying of himſelf in man alſo; to wit, in the elect, conſidered in ſeverall. I confeſſe there is a double glory of God, manifeſted in Chriſt: The one is the glory of his pure grace in conferring the greateſt good and honour that the creature is capable of, as namely in the hypoſtaticall union of the manhood of Chriſt to the ſecond perſon in the Trinitie.

Secondly the glory of Gods remunerative juſtice in the higheſt degree poſſible, both in reſpect of the reward, the greateſt that poſſibly could be deſerved (for that hypoſtaticall union could not be deſerved) and that is the gloriſication of the humane nature of Chriſt, both in reſpect of his glory abſolute, and of his glory relative, as by whom ſalvation is procured to others: as alſo in reſpect of the deſert, the greateſt I thinke that poſſibly could be, to wit, the humiliation of the Sonne of God to the death of the croſſe in way of obedience to his Fathers will. There is alſo a glory of God that appeares in Chriſt, not in ſeverall, as a ſole meanes thereof, but in common with other meanes joyntly concurring thereunto: and that is the glory of God in the way of mercie mixt with juſtice, in ſaving ſinners for the obedience of Chriſt. The glory of God in all theſe ſeverall wayes was in the firſt place intended by God before ought elſe, prioritate rationis, in prioritie of reaſon; and afterwards the congruous meanes to theſe ſeverall ends, as the ends them ſelves did beſpeake, were intended by him: for ratio mediorū petitur à ratione ſinis; the reaſon of the meanes is taken from the reaſon of the end. But all this is nothing to ſhew that the incarnation of the ſecond perſon, or advancement of the man Chriſt, ſhould be before the conſideration of mans fall, or Chriſts humiliation. Yet let us examine that which followeth, delivered by way of proof of that which no man, that I know, makes queſtion of.

Becauſe Chriſt was ordained before the world was, therefore before the conſideration either of Creation or Fall. For, in ſcripture Anſw. 1. phraſe, when God is ſaid to doe one thing before another, he meaneth before the exiſtence or being of it in his conſideration, as an inducement leading him unto it, as well as before the exiſtence of it by nature: As when God is ſaid to have loved Jacob rather then Eſau before they had done either good or evill. Rom. 9. 11. He meaneth before they had done it in his conſideration, as a cauſe or [Page]condition leading him to love, or hatred, as well as in actuall performance in their owne perſons.

I pray conſider, why was Chriſt ordained, and to what end, before the world was? Was he not ordained to be incarnate in Exam. the womb of the Virgin, and to be a Lambe for a burnt offering, to make ſatisfaction for ſins? And was it poſſible that this ordination could have courſe without conſideration of the creation and fall? And though this be confeſſed, yet will it not here hence follow, that the decree of creation and permiſſion of mans fall, was before the decree of the incarnation of the Sonne of God: which alone, as I conceive, caſteth ſome mens inventions upon the platforme of a new courſe. And conſequently it will not follow, that, in this caſe, the conſideration of creation and fall ſhould precede as motives to God to ſend his Sonne: For firſt, I ſay, the conſiderations hereof are not all precedent, but conjunct and concomitant, like as are the decrees. Secondly, if they did precede, yet ſhould they not precede as motives. Good or evill workes are fit motives, I confeſſe, of election and reprobation, if it were poſſible their conſiderations could precede the one or the other: But creation and fall are no fit motives of ordaining Chriſt, (for they were found in Angels as well as in men) though the conſideration of them could precede this ordination. 2. Election is as expreſly ſaid to be before the foundation of the world, as the ordination of Chriſt. And was not reprobation in oppoſition to election in the ſame moment of time and nature alſo? Doth not election connotate reprobation? But it will be ſaid that this phraſe, before the world, ſignifies not any meaſure of duration when that worke was done, but a negation of any conſideration had of the creation or fall. This ſeems a very ſtrange conſtruction; therefore it deſerves to be diſcuſſed.

3. Before Abraham was I am; would you interpret it thus: Before the conſideration of Abraham, I am? Before the Child ſhall have knowledge to eſchew the evill, and to chooſe the good, the land that thou abhorreſt ſhall be forſaken of both her Kings, is the meaning hereof, before the conſideration of the Childs knowledge to eſchew the evill and to chooſe the good?

4. Is not this a manifeſt courſe to overthrow our beſt evidence of the eternitie of election and Chriſts ordination? For what evidence [Page] doth the word of God affoord comparable to theſe? And we know that out of our ſelves ſome have riſen, denying the eternitie of Gods decrees: and ſhall we do them ſuch acceptable ſervice, as in blaſting ſuch evidences as theſe that make againſt them? Then let us goe and interpret accordingly the Apoſtle, where he ſpeakes of ſome thing promiſed [...], and ſay the meaning is, before the conſideration of thoſe [...], times conſiſting of many ages, or ſome thing in them, I know not what. 2 Tim. 1. 9.

5. I grant, before they had done good or evill, Rom 9. is as much as before the conſideration of any good or evill done by them. The text it ſelfe doth beſpeake this meaning. But will it follow that, becauſe before they had done good or evill, Rom. 9. is as much as before the conſideration of their good or evill workes; the text beſpeaking that ſenſe, therefore, 1 Pet. 1. 20. where Chriſt is ſaid to be ordained before the world, it is as much as to ſay, Chriſt was ordained before the conſideration of the creation and fall; the text beſpeaking no ſuch interpretation, but rather reſiſting it, by the compariſon made betwixt the ordination of Chriſt, and the declaration of Chriſt; the one ſaid to be made before the foundations of the world, the other ſaid to be made in theſe laſt times? as much as to ſay the one before all times, the other not till theſe laſt times: Times with times compared, not conſideration of the creation and fall with theſe laſt times.

6. Again, the conſideration of works, good or evill, are fit motives (as hath beene ſaid) unto election and reprobation if they could precede them; but the conſideration of the creation and fall, though preceding, yet is no fit motive to the ordination of Chriſt; wee well know they were found in Angels as well as in men. By the way, where I pray is it ſaid, that God loved Jacob rather then Eſau? I find it ſaid Rom. 9. that God loved Jacob and hated Eſau. But if you take liberty to interpret it thus, He loved Jacob rather then Eſau; why may not I as well take liberty to interpret it thus, God hated Eſau rather then Jacob? yet I confeſſe the former interpretation is made by Cornelius de lapide the Jeſuite.

God choſe us before the world in Chriſt our head, Eph. 1. 4. Therefore hee choſe Chriſt alſo to bee our head before the Anſw. 2. world was. For if we be choſen in him, it implyeth that he, as our head, was choſen before us in order, and we in him, Now if we who [Page]were choſen in Chriſt, and ſo after Chriſt in order; if wee (I ſay) were choſen before the world, and ſo before the conſideration either of creation or fall, how much more Chriſt, who was choſen before us?

In the allegation of Saint Pauls text, I find ſomething left out that pertaines to the compleating of the ſentence: for the ſentence Exam. is this, Who hath choſen us in Chriſt, that we ſhould be holy: Here the latter part of one entire ſentence is quite left out. And by your diſmembring it, the ſentence is made cauſeleſly obſcure, and ſo the fitter to ſerve for advantages. This is Arminius courſe, Exam. Pag. 31. Apoſtolus ait, nos in Chriſto electos eſſe; The Apoſtle ſaith, we are elected in Chriſt. And as ſomething in the text is left out: ſo ſomething beſides the text is put in, God choſe us before the world in Chriſt our head. This likewiſe Arminius inſiſts on, Exam. Pag. 158. And marke I pray you how he works upon each; To be elect in Chriſt, is with him, to be elect being in Chriſt: for, nos in Chriſto, with him is, nos exiſtentes in Chriſto. And ſeeing we are not in Chriſt but by faith, hereupon he makes the object of election to be fideles, the faithfull; or in Chriſtum credentes, ſuch as believe in Chriſt. We anſwer: firſt, We may take as great libertie to interpret it, for explication ſake, by ſupplying a participle of the future tenſe, thus, elegit nos futuros in Chriſto, he choſe us hereafter to be in Chriſt: (like as it followes, who hath predeſtinated us to be adopted. Now we are adopted by faith, Gal. 3. 26.) as he takes liberty to ſupply a participle of the preſent tenſe, eſſpecially, conſidering that when we were elect, to wit, before the foundation of the world, we were not at all, and conſequently were not fideles, believers. Secondly wee anſwer, that the compleat ſentence, conſidered at full, doth manifeſt in what ſenſe this phraſe [in Chriſt] is taken. He choſe us in Chriſt, that we ſhould be holy: This ſhewes to what wee were choſen, to wit, to obtaine holineſſe, and how; to wit, in Chriſt, that is, for Chriſts ſake; Like as v. 3. 'tis ſaid, God hath bleſſed us with all ſpirituall bleſſings in Heavenly things in Chriſt Jeſus: that is, for Chriſt his ſake. And like as 1. Theſ. 5. 9. 'tis ſaid, God hath ordained us to obtaine ſalvation thorough Jeſus Chriſt: So here in a conformable expoſition, when it is ſaid, God hath choſen us in Chriſt, that wee ſhould bee holy; a faire meaning may be this, God hath ordained us to obtaine holineſſe through Jeſus Chriſt; eſpecially conſidering that [Page] grace is called ſalvation 2. Tim. 1. 9. as well as glory; And thus Arminius himſelfe falls upon Exam. Pag. 31. Apoſtolus inquit, nos in Chriſto electos eſſe tanquam in mediatore, cujus ſanguine nobis ſalus parta eſt. And thus the danger is fairely avoided of making Chriſt the cauſe of our election quoad actum eligentis, which not one of our Divines, that I know, maintains, ſave Rolloc. But Arminius, I confeſſe, labours for it tooth and naile, to no other end, but that ſo he may ſomewhat plauſibly bring in faith alſo, if not as a cauſe, yet as a pre-requiſite at leaſt of our election. And yet for all the noyſe he makes in this kind, calling Chriſt the foundation of our election, nevertheleſſe the iſſue is to confeſſe that all comes to this, that Chriſt is therefore the foundation of our election becauſe he is the meritorious cauſe bonorum electione praeparatorum, of good things which are prepared by election; ſuch as he ſpecifies to bee grace and glory, as appeares both in his publique and private diſputations. Now, if in this ſenſe we are ſaid to be elect in Chriſt, that we ſhould be holy, then it is cleare, we are not elect in Chriſt tanquam in capite; for, ratio capitis non eſt ratio cauſae meritoriae, as Arminius himſelfe acknowledgeth, Exam. Pag. 3. Apoſtolus inquit nos electos eſſe in Chriſto tanquam in mediatore, cujus ſanguine nobis ſalus parta eſt & vita: there a way hath cauſa meritoria, his courſe. And then he addes, & ut in capite, ex quo iſta bona ad nos derivantur. So that ratio capitis with him is ratio cauſae efficientis; not moraliter, but phyſicè: and therein he ſaith truth. Secondly, obſerve what he marks out of this, that we are all elect in Chriſt, tanquam in capite, for here-hence he will deduce, that we are elect in Chriſt tanquam mortuo & reſuſcitato, becauſe Chriſt was not made the head of his Church till after his reſurrection, building as it ſeemes upon that we read Epheſ. 1. 20. Which hee wrought in Chriſt, when he raiſed him from the dead, and ſet him at his right-hand in heavenly places. 21. Farre above all principalities and powers, and every name that is named, not in this world only, but alſo in that that is to come: 22. And hath made all things ſubject under his feet, and hath given him over all things to be the head of the Church. But theſe diſcourſes, if I be not deceived, have taken their originall from a ſaying of Auſtin, namely that Chriſtus eſt praedeſtinatorum caput, Chriſt is the head of the predeſtinate. Therefore I have taken paints to conſider the doctrine of Arminius hereabouts, conſiſting of three members. Firſt, Chriſt [Page] is the head of the elect or predeſtinate. Secondly, our election made in Chriſt, is made in him as in our head. Thirdly, Chriſt is not our head but as he is dead, and raiſed; which, becauſe it is much pertinent to the preſent purpoſe, I will not ſpare to ſet downe, though in another dialect: Ratio illa altera de Chriſto conſiderato ut capite his membris, niti videtur &c. See my vindicia gratiae Dei, lib. 2. crim. 24. digreſs. 10. Pag. 74. col. 2. lin. 50. which was not ſet forth when I wrote this, but ſince it is.

2. But be it granted that we are choſen in Chriſt as our head; it followes not here-hence, that Chriſt Jeſus was choſen in order before us. He was ordained to be a Lambe for a burnt offering to ſave us, and we were ordained to obtain ſalvation through him. What colour is here, why the former ordination ſhould be conceived to go before the latter, and not rather the contrary; ſeeing our ſalvation is plainly intimated to be rather the end of his miſſion, incarnation and paſſion, then his miſſion, incarnation and paſſion to bee the end of our ſalvation? So Joh. 3. 16. God ſo loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sonne; where the love of God to us men is deſigned as a motive with God for the giving of his Sonne; yet I doe not maintaine any ſuch order, I have other reaſons to overthrow that, and to bring both theſe ordinations to be co-ordinate, and not ſubordinate in the intentions of God. And indeed, as I have ſaid, if the incarnation of the Son of God were in Gods intention, before the permiſſion of the ſins of the world, it would follow, that the permiſſion of the ſinnes of the world, even in crucifying Chriſt, ſhould be firſt in execution, that is, Chriſt ſhould be crucified before he was incarnate.

Chriſt is ſaid in all things to have a preheminence, and God is ſaid to diſpoſe and carry his Counſels and waies towards the Church, Anſw. 3. that it might appeare, Chriſt in all things to have the preheminence. God dealeth with us according to the Image of his dealing with him. Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29. And therfore in the Counſell of God, Chriſt had the preheminence to be firſt purpoſed, and the elect in him, and both them, and the other creatures for him, that ſo he might bee the firſt borne among many brethren. Its accounted ſomewhat a monſtrous and unnaturall conception, the feet to be conceived in the wombe before the head: ſo were it alike unmeet and prepoſterous courſe, the members of Chriſt to be firſt thought upon, and conceived in the wombe of the Counſell of Gods predeſtination, before the head Chriſt. If God[Page]ſhould have had no thought of the advancement of Chriſt man to the fellowſhip of the ſecond perſon to become man, till upon the preſuppoſall of the fall of Adam; then were we not created for Chriſt, but Chriſt for us, contrary to that of the Apoſtle; And ſo Chriſt Col. 1. 16. ſhall be brought into the world, as it were, ens per accidens, a thing by accident, upon occaſion of the fall.

When once we have conceived an opinion, we are very prone to take hold of every thing that carrieth any ſhew of favouring it, howſoever Exam. it proves in the iſſue. Be it that he hath a preheminence in all things and a priority; but will you extend this to ſuch things as are not capable of priority? Is it not confeſt that God doth not purpoſe one thing before another in time? Is not the predeſtination of Chriſt, and of the elect all one act in God? onely as God ordereth one thing for another, ſo God purpoſeth one thing for another. Now which hath the preheminence in Gods predeſtination, whether that which is purpoſed for another, or that for which another thing is purpoſed? I preſume you will ſay, that for which another thing is purpoſed. why, then cōſider, whether the ſalvation of the elect be purpoſed for the incarnation & paſſion of the Son of God, or the incarnation & paſſion of the Son of God purpoſed for the ſalvation of Gods elect.

2. The preheminence the Apoſtle ſpeaks of is the preheminence of Chriſts perſon, not of the priority of predeſtination. Now the preheminence of a perſon alwaies preſuppoſeth the being of a perſon; for, to ſay a thing had a preheminence before it had any being, is a ſtrange phraſe, and contradictions. Therefore preheminence of any perſon is not to be looked for in predeſtination, which is rather in ordaining to preheminence, then containing preheminence: for we commonly ſay, that Praedeſtinatio nihil ponit in praedeſtinato, Predeſtination puts nothing in the perſon predeſtinated.

3. But come we nearer to the Apoſtle, Col. 1. 18. that he might have the preheminence [...] this [...] is indefinite, and may be applyed two waies, as Calvin obſervs; vel in, omnes creaturas, vel in omni re, either over all creatures, or in every thing. You take it as in omni re, in every thing, and indeed ſo the Engliſh tranſlation renders it; but if we find in ſcripture it ſelf this indefinite [...], or that which is equivalent thereunto defined, and that in ſpeaking of the preheminence of Chriſt, why ſhould we not comply with ſcripture in the accommodation of it in this place? Now, in the other place alledged, Rom. 8. 29. its defined not to things but to perſons, [Page] that Chriſt might be the firſt begotten [...], that is, among many brethren; why may we not then in like ſort render it here, that he might have the preheminence among all the children of God? So Luke 1. 28. Bleſſed art thou among women: So [...], Inter omnes: So Piſcator, Ex cujus ſententiae collatione pateſcit, illud [...] recte hic redditum eſſe, inter omnes. Phraſis graeca eſt, ne quis putet vertendum eſſe, in omnibus, ſcilicet rebus; and Beza, Miminerimus de Chriſti in eccleſia regno coepiſſe ab hoc verſiculo diſserere, quod nemo negabit qui verba ipſa vel leviſſimè conſiderarit, ac proinde vniverſali particula non aliud comprehendi quam omnes omnium temporum fideles. And ſo Anſelme alſo, Chriſtus primus eſt reſurgentium, ut in omnibus ſanctis, tam prioribus quam ſequentibus, teneat primatum dignitatis, potentiae, ſanctitatis. And Lyra, ut ſic in omnibus primatum tenens, non ſolum reſpectu hominum, ſed etiam omnium Angelorum.

4. But let it run in the neuter gender, of all things, as Beza confeſſeth it may be ſo taken, poteſt quidem hoc accipi neutro genere, quum in proximo verſiculo ſcribat; yet what meaning doth he make of it but this, vera eſt (ſaith he) haec univerſalis ſententia, Chriſtum inter omnia ſine ulla exceptione eminere? making it ſignifie ſtill preheminence above or amongſt all things, but not in all things.

5. Taking it as in all things, Ambroſe interprets it thus, ut ſemper in omni vita ſit primus & Princeps: in gratia & gloria (ſaith Aquinas:) In geneſi & reſurrectione, (ſaith Cajetan:) Tam in viſibilibus quam in inviſibilibus creaturis, (ſaith Hierome.) Some practicall Divines extend it farre, interpreting it according to our Engliſh tranſlation; as, firſt in time, firſt in order, firſt in the dignitie of the perſon, firſt in degree, firſt in government, firſt in acceptation with God, firſt effectively as the cauſe of all the reſpect, order, and excellency in others, none extending it to predeſtination.

6. Nay, conſider whether the text it ſelfe be not againſt it, He is the head of the body of the Church, the beginning, the firſt begotten of the dead, that in all things he might have the preheminence. Now conſider, was Chriſt made the head of the body of the Church; was he the firſt begotten of the dead, to this end, that he might have the preheminence in predeſtination?

When it is ſaid, that the other creatures were for him, that ſo he might be the firſt borne among many brethren; I find want of [Page] convenient proportion: for what did the being of other creatures for him further his primacie or elderſhip amongſt many brethren?

It is true, all things were for him: but take the reſt along with this; all things are created by him and for him: which clearly hath reference to his Godhead, one with the Father and holy Ghoſt, as Rom. 11. From him, and by him, and for him are all things: and Heb. 2. 10.

It is, I confeſſe, Maiſter Baynes his conceit, that it is as unmeete and prepoſterous for the members of Chriſt to be firſt thought upon in the wombe of Gods counſell in predeſtination, as it is accompted monſtrous and unnaturall for the feete to be conceived in the wombe before the head. And is it not as unnaturall to have the feete brought forth before the head? Yet we know many thouſands of Chriſts members were brought forth, both into the world of nature, and into the world of grace, before the man Chriſt. Yet am not I of their mindes that thinke that any was elect before the predeſtination of Chriſt. I ſay with Aquinas, ſi conſideretur praedeſtinatio Chriſti & noſtra, quantum ad actum praedeſtinantis, ſic una non eſt cauſa alterius, quia idem non eſt cauſa ſui ipſius; ſed eodem actu divino praedeſtinatus eſt Chriſtus & nos: ergo praedeſtinatio Chriſti non eſt cauſa noſtrae praedeſtinationis. Si verò conſideretur quoad effectum & terminum, cum effectus noſtrae praedeſtinationis ſit gratia, & gloria, & adoptio ſiliorum; ſic dicendum, quod utra (que) praedeſtinatio Chriſti cauſa eſt praedeſtinationis noſtrae & efficiens & exemplaris. And I hope 'tis nothing unmeet that God ſhould at once thinke of Chriſt and his elect; as at once he thought of Angels & wormes; eſpecially conſidering that Chriſt and his elect are correlatives; as he the head and they his myſticall body. Nay at once God did from everlaſting both know himſelfe, and know all things in himſelfe. Yet I am perſwaded the chiefeſt motive to deviſe a prioritie of Chriſts predeſtination before others, was only this conceite, that if it be not prior, it muſt needs be poſterior. But I have endeavoured in briefe to ſhew here (as elſewhere more at large) that the predeſtination of Chriſt is neither prior nor poſterior to the predeſtination of the elect. And indeed moſt are ſo puſled about deviſing a right place for the predeſtination of Chriſt amongſt the decrees of God, that uſually that is left quite out, becauſe they know not where to finde a fit place for it: and all becauſe they preſume he muſt be predeſtinate either [Page] before the decree of creation and premiſſion of ſinne, or after; neither of which can hold water, but they are both equally removed from the truth.

Where we are ſaid to be created for Chriſt, it is joyntly ſaid, we were created by Chriſt, which undoubtedly proceeds of Chriſt as God. And if Adam had not fallen, but the world of mankind ſtood in integrity, what glory had redounded to the man Chriſt more by our creation, then by the creation of Angels?

Though God had decreed the advancement of the man Chriſt upon preſuppoſall of Adams fall (which yet I hold to be impoſſible) yet this had not hinderd but we had been created for Chriſt, and that divers wayes: 1. To reape benefit by him after our fall. 2. To be of the number of thoſe over whom the man Chriſt ſhould one day rule, if not in grace (for thouſands were out of that ſtate before Chriſt man had any being) yet in glory. 3. As alſo to glorifie him both in this world (though this is verified of thoſe only who were brought forth after his incarnation, for Chriſt man had no being before, and conſequently could not be glorified before) and in the world to come. Yet it cannot be denyed, but that Chriſt alſo was both incarnate, and lived, and died for us and for our ſalvation, though that of the Apoſtle which you mention is nothing to this purpoſe, as ſpoken of Chriſt God, and not of Chriſt man.

Undoubtedly, Chriſt came into the world upon the occaſion of mans fall, for he came into the world as a Phyſitian, and to call ſinners unto repentance; which had beene meerely in vaine, had not ſinne entred into the world by Adam.

It doth not follow, that if we were not created for Chriſt, but Chriſt for us, then Chriſt ſhould be brought into the world as Ens per accidens; for the heavens and the earth, together with the fights of the one, and herbes and trees of the other, and bruit beaſts, were created for man and not man for them; yet neither of them all were brought forth as Ens per accidens: yet, had they beene brought forth per accidens, never-a-whit the more had they been Entia per accidens; Entia per ſe may be brought forth per accidens: to be Ens per accidens is one thing, and to be brought forth per accidens is another thing.

It had been more tolerable to argue thus; If Chriſt had been brought forth into the world only upon occaſion of Adams fall, then he had beene brought forth per accidens; yet no truth had [Page] beene found in it; for upon occaſions wiſe-men doe work, and proceed deliberately and with counſell, not temerariouſly; only man, not forſeeing the events of things, doth many times (upon emergent occaſions which himſelfe could not foreſee) alter his former counſels, and caſt himſelfe upon new deliberations. It is otherwiſe with God, as who infallibly foreſeeth all things, and not only fore-ſeeth them, but ordaineth they ſhall come to paſſe as well as he ordaineth cauſes and effects. For, not the things themſelves are ordained by God, but alſo the very order of them; ſome to bee effects, ſome cauſes, ſome occaſions. And ſo the very fall of Adam was both fore-ſeen and fore-ordained by God to come to paſſe; but how? Not as good things which he ordaineth to come to paſſe, ipſo faciente, himſelfe working them; but as all evill things which are ordained alſo to come to paſſe, but Deo tantummodo permittente qua mala ſunt, God only permitting them as they are evill; according to that of Auſtin, Non aliquid fit niſi Omnipotens fieri velit, vel ſinando ut fiat, vel ipſe faciendo. Enchirid. 95. And according to the 11. article of Ireland, God did from all eternitie ordain whatſoever in time ſhould come to paſſe.

That which is firſt in the intention of every agent, is laſt in execution. Now the glory of Chriſt is laſt in execution (ſave onely the Anſw. 4. glory of the Father;) And therefore ſurely it was Gods firſt and chiefeſt intendment, after the glorifying of himſelfe, to glorifie Chriſt, before the conſideration of glorifying us, either in the firſt or ſecond Adam, Pſal. 2. 9, 10, 11. It is true, in fulnes of time Christ was first humbled, that he might be glorified; but yet in Gods counſell (wherein the end in order is firſt purpo ed, before the meanes leading to that end) the glorious advancement of Chriſt was first purpoſed, before the preſuppoſall of his humiliation, which made way for it. The Apoſtle deſcribing the ſubordination of things one to another, in the order wherein God hath ſet them; the world to be for the Church, and the Church for Chriſt, and Chriſt for God; he thereby gives us to underſtand, God firſt intended his glory, for which are all things, and then Chriſts, for whom the Church is, and then the Church, for which the world is, and then the world laſt of all.

Here we have an argument, and a place of ſcripture wherewith it is backt: I will conſider them ſeverally. Exam. 1.

1. As for the argument; that is grounded upon ſuch a rule as [Page] I deſire no better direction for the right ordering of Gods decrees, which is the matter wee have in hand; but in the proſecuting of the argument in hand, upon this rule, I find no ſoundnes, no truth, neither in the matter nor in the method. For firſt, though the rule be propoſed only of two, the firſt and laſt; yet in the exemplification there is mention made of three, as if the rule did not only extend to firſt and laſt; but alſo to former and latter, how many wayes ſoever they are in ſubordination; that looke what ſubordination they have in execution, the contrary ſubordination they ſhould have in intention; which will be found contrary to all reaſon: As for example, the laſt of the good of man is his glory, but how? Both of body and ſoule in the reſurrection. But before this there was a glory of the ſoule in departure from the body, or a bleſſed condition of it, accordingly as they are called the ſpirits of juſt men perfected, Heb. 12. and they enjoy Chriſts preſence, 2 Cor. 5. Now ſhall we ſay, that in Gods intention was the glory of body and ſoule, jointly firſt, and ſecondly the glory of the ſoule in departure from the body? Come we to the ſtate of grace, there we have in execution, firſt effectuall calling unto faith, and repentance, after this perſeverance finall in both; ſhall we therefore ſay, God did firſt intend to give them perſeverance in faith and repentance, and then intend to give them faith and repentance? Or that God did firſt intend to give them repentance, ſecondly intend to permit them to ſinne? After this manner, I confeſſe, Piſcator had ſometimes ordered Gods decrees, wherein upon due examination I have ſcarce found one member ſound: But ſee the iſſue of it; upon latter thoughts he fell quite off from this order, and embraced the contrary in every particular, and ſo recompenced his extream raſhneſſe with extream looſneſſe. And no marveile, for truth alone is ſtable; as for error, it is a ſlippery thing, there is no ſtabilitie in it. Secondly here is nothing but miſerable confuſion throughout: Firſt in the word glory; for the glory of the Father is delivered in one ſenſe, our glory in another ſenſe. And as for the glory of Chriſt, in what ſenſe that is delivered, is utterly uncertaine; as whether in conformitie to the glory of the Father, or in conformitie to our glory, or in conformitie to both, which will be ſo much the more equivocall: by that which goes before, it may ſeeme to be ſpoken in conformitie to the glory of God the Father; as when it is often inculcated, that all things were made for him: by that which commeth [Page] after, it may ſeeme to be ſpoken in conformitie to our glory; as when it is ſaid, the glorious advancement of Chriſt was firſt purpoſed. Againe, the glory of God the Father is in very great varietie; and therefore it behooved to be ſpecified in what kind the glory of God herein ſpecified is to be underſtood: as I will ſhew in the firſt place, when I come to oppoſe it particularly.

Secondly the glory of Chriſt is very ambiguous, both in reſpect of his perſon, as whether it be ſpoken of him in reſpect of his Godhead, or of his manhood; and it is nothing ſitt theſe ſhould be confounded: as alſo in reſpect of the word glory it ſelfe; for it is to be doubted (as before I ſaid) whether it be ſpoken in conformitie to the glory of the Father, or in conformitie to our glory. And out of ſuch a maſſe of confuſion what ſatisfaction can be expected in any diſtinct and particular truth? 3. I ſee no reaſon why the glory of Chriſt only ſhould be conſidered as the meanes of advancing the glory of God the Father. I conceive the glory of God is as much ſeen in the abaſing of his Sonne, as in his exaltation; and if this very abaſing of himſelfe be called his glory, as indeed it may; for even on the croſſe he ſpoyled principalities and powers, and made a ſhew of them openly, and triumphed over them, Col. 2. then this diſcourſe ſhall labour with a new aequivocation. In like ſort, Is nothing but our glory a fit meanes to advance the glory of Chriſt, and of God? Is not God glorified as well in the martyrdome of his Saints? This is my confidence (ſaith Paul) that God ſhall be glorified in my body, whether by life or by death, Philip. 1. yea and Chriſt alſo; Even when we beare about us the dying of the Lord Jeſus, that the life of Jeſus might alſo be made manifeſt in our bodies. 2 Cor. 4. 10 If our glory alſo be extended unto martyrdome, this is a very ſore aequivocation, eſpecially conſidering how the ſcripture doth diſtinguiſh them: firſt to ſuffer, then to enter into glory, Luk. 24. 26. and if we ſuffer with him, we ſhall alſo reigne with him, 2 Tim. 2. 12. 4. But as it lyeth, let us diſcuſſe it as well as we can. Therfore I ſay, firſt, Gods glory is not onely laſt in execution, but firſt alſo; even from the very firſt creation, even then when the ſtars of the morning prayſed him, and all the Sonnes of God rejoyced, Job 38. 7. And I will deale plainely, and ſhew what glory of his was manifeſted herein, to wit, the glory of his power, Revel. 4. 11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power, for thou haſt created all [Page]things, and for thy wills ſake they have beene and are created. Yea and his wiſdome alſo, Pſal. 130. 5. which by his wiſdome made the heavens. Jeremiah puts them both together, He hath made the earth by his power, and eſtabliſhed the World by his wiſdome, and hath ſtretched out the heavens by his diſcretion. And as in the creation, ſo the ſame glory of God doth ſend forth 'its beames in the preſervation and governance of all things. In the meaneſt creatures we behold the glory of God; neither are we able to comprehend the wiſdome of God therein; every thing therein, as in a Bee or ſilke-worme, coming to paſſe by courſe of nature; yet who is able to give a reaſon of it? I thinke, if Solomon had continued to this day, and his wiſdome with him, yet had he not beene able to finde it out; for although the ſpirit of man be as the lampe of God, Verſ. 10, 27. which ſearcheth all inwardneſſe, and God hath ſet the world in mans heart, yet is he not able to finde out the worke that he hath Eccleſ. 3. 11. wrought from the beginning to the end. I behold the flowers of my garden, in great varietie of colours; yet wonder at their uniformitie; each ſingle one hath five leaves, each moſt uniforme in the colour, in the ſhape, riſing, and ſpreading, and indented alike in their edges; all together make a moſt comely proportion of the whole round in forme, only indented in the edges, which is as bonelace to ſet it forth, ſome of one colour throughout the pageant, ſpeckled, having ſtrakes like lines, ſo direct and proportionable in all, that it repreſents unto me ſome curious Mathematicall circle cut thorough with lines, the matter of many curious demonſtrations. And what a curious ſpeculation would it appeare to repreſent the cauſes of all this varietie? In the meane time, our contemplation is broken off, and loſeth it ſelfe, and turnes into admiration at the wiſdome of God, which confounds us in the contemplation of a flower, which is worn in the breaſt at morning, and troden under foot at night. But to returne, you will ſay, Another kind of glory is ſeene in the advancement of Chriſt; but then you ſhould have ſpecified it: which had you done, I doubt not but it would have afforded good matter to have wrought upon in the inveſtigation of truth. 2. As the glorifying of God the Father was the very firſt, even from the creation, before either Chriſt man was, or we; ſo I ſay, it is not ſo laſt, as if it ſhould be after Chriſts glory, and our glory ſhall ceaſe to be; for certainly, the glory of Chriſt, and the glory of the elect ſhall continue for ever; [Page] and the glory of God cannot continue any longer then for ever.

3. Come wee to the conſideration of the glory of Chriſt: There is a glory of Chriſt which he receiveth from man, and there is a glory of Chriſt which hee receiveth from God: That glory which hee receiveth from man, he hath received in greateſt part long before wee were born; for it is the Fathers pleaſure, That all men ſhould honour the Sonne, as they honour the Father, Joh. 5. 23. There is the Rule: here followeth the Example; Worthy is the Lambe that was killed to receive power, and riches, and wiſdome, and ſtrength, and honour, and glory, and praiſe. And all the creatures which are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the ſea, and all that are in them, heard I, ſaying, Praiſe, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that ſitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for evermore, Revel. 5. 12, 13.

As for the glory which he receives from his Father, that he hath already received above 1500. yeers agoe. I have overcome, and am ſate with my Father in his Throne, Revel. 3. If God be glorified in him, God ſhall alſo glorifie him in himſelfe, and ſhall ſtraight-way glorifie him, Joh. 13. 32. So that every way the glory of Chriſt, is afore ours, not after ours; for when the elect are once glorified, their glory ſhall continue for the time to come as long as Chriſts glory: but for the time paſt, certainely, Chriſts glory and his advancement, you here ſpeak of, (noting thereby what you meane by Chriſts glory in this place) was long before ours. Whereas you ſay, that Chriſt, as man, was first humbled, before hee was glorified; if we conſider the greateſt advancement of Chriſt, it is untrue; for his greateſt advancement was the aſſuming of his nature into an hypoſtaticall union with the Sonne of God, and this was afore his humiliation in the ſenſe you ſpeake of, to wit, in humbling himſelfe to the death, even to the death of the Croſſe: though I willingly confeſſe, the humiliation of the Godhead went joyntly along with the advancement of the manhood, even to this hypoſtaticall union. You ſay, His advancement was purpoſed before his humiliation. I deny it: You will ſay, that was the meanes tending to his advancement, as the end (for ſo I take your meaning to be, leaving the conſideration of the phraſe mentioned of making way; which if it be delivered in any other ſenſe then to ſignifie the meanes of his advancement, will make your cauſe worſe, and nothing better.) [Page] For now I deny that 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 [Page] 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[Page]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, and ſerve them. Now marke the reaſon whereupon the Lord dehorts them from this, which the Lord thy God hath diſtributed to all people under the whole heaven: as much as to ſay, God hath made them to doe you ſervice, therefore doe not you make them your gods: So Paſtours, and Apoſtles, and Angels, are made by God to doe us ſervice, therefore ſet not us make them our gods. Thus wee ſee plainly by All, in this place, not the world only, but the Church of God is ſignified; every one of them being made to doe ſervice unto the Church, that is, one unto another; For, are they not all members of one body, though ſome performe more honourable ſervice then others? like as in a naturall botly, ſome members are more honourable, and for more honourable uſes than others. Unleſſe wee thus underſtand it, wee ſhall exclude the Apoſtles out of the Church. And when it is ſaid, We are Christs, this ſeemeth [Page] not to admit the ſame ſenſe with the former; for, undoubtedly, Chriſt is as much for our good as any, nay more then all the world, the Apoſtles, and Angels, and all; for unto us hee was born, unto us hee was given, Eſa. 9. 6. given by the Father, Joh. 3. 16. given by himſelfe, and that for us, Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 2. 20. and that to dye for our ſinnes, and riſe againe for our juſtification, Rom. 4. and, to redeeme us from all iniquity, and to purge us a peculiar people unto himſelfe, zealous of good works, Tit. 2. 14. and that by his bloud, 1 Joh. 1. 7. Revel. 1. 5. Wee are therefore his, not ſo much in reſpect of any good wee bring to him, but in reſpect that hee hath bought us; And ſo we are Gods too, as, Who ſent his Son to redeem us unto God his Father, Revel. 5. 9. Yee are bought with a price, therefore glorifie God in your bodies, and in your ſpirits, for yee are Gods, 1 Cor. 6. 20. And Chriſt is Gods in ſpeciall manner; as touching his Godhead, the naturall Sonne of God; as touching his Manhood aſſamed into an hypoſtaticall union with his naturall Sonne: in both, the Chiefe Servant of God, for the work of mediation and redemption, for Gods elect, given by the Father unto him, that he might beſtow eternall life upon them, Joh. 17. 2. according to the good pleaſure of his Father, Mar. 10. 40. Thus I have been bold to deliver my judgement touching the Interpretation of this place, without conſulting any Interpreter; onely the native genius of the Text it ſelfe ſeemed to afford ſufficient light, and evidence, to diſcerne the meaning thereof; which I willingly ſubmit to the judgement of any.

It is no part of my meaning to diſpute, much leſſe to determine, whether Chriſt ſhould have been incarnate, if Adam had never Anſw. fallen: I conceive it a queſtion no leſſe frivolous, then curious. The purpoſe of glorifying Christ, though it preſuppoſe not the creation or fall of man, as making way for ſuch an intention in God, yet doth it enforce the creation and fall of Adam, as making way for this purpoſe.

Nothing, uſually, doth cauſe more perturbation and hinderance in the inquiſition of truth, than incommodious expreſſions: The Exam. purpoſe of glorifying Christ (ſay you) preſuppoſeth not the creation and fall. No marvell, for the creation and fall are things temporall; but Gods purpoſes are eternall. Again, ſuch a purpoſe (you ſay) doth not make way to any ſuch intention: This phraſe, ſuch intention, is ſpoken in reference to the creation and fall; as if they [Page] were intentions, which indeed they are not; but rather executions of intentions: it ſhould run thus, As making way for the intentions of ſuch things in God. Purpoſe and Intention ſignifying the ſame, it is good to keep our ſelves in one ſentence to the uſe of one of them, leſt wee expoſe our Readers to diſtraction, poſſibly ſuſpecting they may have different ſignifications. Your meaning, queſtionleſſe, is this, Gods intention of glorifying Christ doth not preſuppoſe the intention of creation or fall of Adam: And I am of your mind in this. But your meaning containes two things more, whereof the firſt is this, Gods intention of the creation and fall, doth preſuppoſe his intention of glorifying Christ: The ſecond is this, Gods intention of glorifying Christ, doth inferre the intention of creation and fall of Adam. As in both theſe I differ from you, ſo I will endeavour to diſprove your opinion in both. And firſt, I prove that the intention of glorifying Chriſt, was not before the intention of creation, and permiſſion of Adams fall. For although this may ſeeme plauſible, for as much as thus the glorifying of Chriſt, as it is firſt in intention, ſo alſo ſhall it be moſt congruouſly laſt in execution; yet according to this very rule, the iſſue will fall more foule then you are aware of; For, to begin with the Creation; if the glorifying of Chriſt were before creation, then alſo was it much more before the generation of all mankind: but this will appeare to be moſt untrue, by the ſame rule; for, if in compariſon of the glorifying of Chriſt, with the generation of all mankind, the glorifying of Chriſt was firſt in intention, then accordingly it ſhould bee laſt in execution, which is moſt untrue; for that of the Apoſtle, Heb. 9. 2. Wee ſee Jeſus crowned with glory and honour, was delivered above 1500. years agoe, and yet the generation of all mankind is not in execution. Again, if the glorifying of Chriſt were firſt in intention, then was it the end, and the generation of all mankind ſhould be as the meanes tending to the furthering of that end; but what, I pray, doth the generation of a little child of mine tend to the furtherance of the glory of Chriſt, wherewith hee was crowned above 1500. years agoe? Come we to the permiſſion of Adams fall: I ſay, the glorifying of Chriſt was not in intention before this, though it ſeems never ſo plauſible in reſpect of congruity in execution; for, by reaſon of incongruity, in the very ſame kind, I diſprove it thus; If the glorifying of Chriſt were in Gods intention before the permiſſion of Adams fall, then [Page] much more was it before the permiſſion of other mens ſinnes in Gods intention; but this is moſt untrue, upon the very ſame ground: For, if in compariſon between the glorifying of Chriſt, and the permiſſion of all mens ſinnes to the end of the world, the glorifying of Chriſt were firſt in Gods intention, then ſhould it be laſt in execution; which is moſt untrue: for the glorifying of Chriſt was accompliſhed above 1500. years agoe, as hath been ſhewed; but the permiſſion of all mens ſinnes, to the end of the world, is not yet in execution. Again, if the glorifying of Chriſt were firſt in intention, then ſhould it have rationem finis, and the permiſſion of all mens ſinnes, to the end of the world, ſhould be a congruous meanes to that end: but to averre this were moſt unreaſonable; for what furtherance doth my ſinnes this day and houre afford to the glorifying of the Sonne of God, which was accompliſhed 1500. years agoe? If it be replyed, that this glorifying of Chriſt is ſpoken in reference to a glory of Chriſt which is yet to come, to wit, the kingdome of Chriſt which wee look for, 2 Tim. 4. 1. I anſwer, there is no reaſon why it ſhould have any particular reference unto that; for as much as that glory ſhall have an end: For that kingdome ſhall continue but for a while; Hee must raigne till hee hath put all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. 25. And, When all things ſhall be ſubdued unto him, then ſhall the Sonne himſelfe bee ſubject to him that did ſubdue all things under him, that God may be all in all, Verſe 28. Againe, if the glorifying of Chriſt were in Gods intention before the permiſſion of Adams fall, then were it before the permiſſion of reprobates to fall in Adam, as well as of Gods elect, and conſequently before the permiſſion of all ſinnes of the reprobates, unto the end of the world, and before their generations; and all theſe ſhould be firſt in execution, as means tending to the furthering and promotion of the glory of Chriſt Secondly, I deny that the intention of glorifying Chriſt doth inferre either the creation of Adam or his fall; yet, by the way, I am glad to ſee you acknowledge, that the intention of the end doth inferre the intention of congruous meanes: But ſeeing, by that I have already ſhewed, it muſt inferre as well the generation of all mankind, to the end of the world; therefore, I pray, what colour of reaſon can bee deviſed, why it ſhould inferre the generation of ſuch a number of men as ſhall be, preciſely, rather then more or leſſe? So in reſpect of permiſſion of Adams fall, I have already [Page] proved, that the glorifying of Chriſt muſt be before the permiſſion of mens ſins, to the end of the world, as well as of Adams fall, and conſequently inferre that as well as the other: And what colour of reaſon can be given, why it ſhould preciſely inferre the permiſſion of juſt ſo many mens ſinnes, and juſt ſo many ſinnes of ſuch men as ſhall bee to the end of the world, neither more nor leſſe? Againe, if the intention of glorifying Chriſt doth inferre Adams fall, then ſeeing by denying the Conſequents the Antecedent muſt bee as juſtly denyed, it followeth manifeſtly, that if Adam had not ſinned, Chriſt had not been glorified, and conſequently, had not been advanced to an hypoſtaticall union with the ſecond perſon in Trinity: And yet to make queſtion thereof, you profeſſe to bee no leſſe frivolous than curious. I confeſſe, it is rather frivolous than curious to draw that into queſtion, the negative whereof doth evidently follow upon that which is poſitively received. Againe, others, of the ſame opinion with you, are driven to take notice of this Queſtion, for to derive this opinion of yours from a more ancient originall than Mr. Baynes upon the [...]p [...]ſtle to the Epheſians, Petrus Alphonſus Mendoza, a Spaniard, maintaines the ſame; A Doctor of the Chaire in the Univerſity of Salamanca, not of Moſes Chaire, nor of Pauls Chaire, no nor Auſtins Chaire, nor of Aquinas Chaire, but of Scotus Chaire; whoſe opinion is to be ſeen in his firſt Theologicall Controverſie, printed 42. years agoe; and what his opinion was, appears by theſe concluſions:

1. Omnium quae Deus ab aeterno in mente ſua facere excogitavit, primum fuit, unio hypoſtatica verbi divini: Secundum, praedeſtinatio omnium electorum: Tertium, naturae rerum conditio. Ac proinde priora ſunt ſupernaturalia quam naturalia, & ordo naturae praeſupponit ordinem gratiae.

2. Nullius futuri praeſcientia praeſupponitur in mente Dei ad praedeſtinationem, ſed omnia ex ipſa ſequuntur: atque adeò nihil prorſus ab aeterno decrevit Deus facere, vel in tempore facit, nihil permittit, ſive intendit, ſive naturale, ſive ſupernaturale, ſive res ſit magni ponderis, ſive minimi & fere nullius, quod non inde perveniat, ſitque effectus & medium praedeſtinationis electorum & Chriſti. Atque adeò omnia cadunt ſub ordine divinae praedestinationis, tanquam media ad Christi & ſanctorum gloriam ordinata.

[Page] 3. Non est aliqua alia providentia in Deo antecedens praedeſtinationem, ex qua, ſcil. providentia, proveniant res naturales & quidam alij effectus ſupernaturales; ſed unica est duntaxat providentia, ipſaque est praedestinatio, ex qua omnia in univerſum nullo prorſus excepto, habent ſequi. Atque adeò juxta hanc concluſionem totum univerſum ut complectitur, naturalia & ſupernaturalia, bora & mala, ſubſtantias & accidentia, & omnes in univerſum modos eſſendi & operandi, non ſolùm in generall, ſed in ſpecie & individuo, ſunt conſideranda, tanquam unicam objectum total divinae praedestinationis, ita ut nihil omnino ſit quod ſubterfugiat illius objecti latitudinem, & quod non cadat ſub actu illo praedestinationis.

4. Si electorum praedestinatio futura non eſſet, nihil eſſet omnino in rerum natura. Itaque ſtatuo tanquam certum, quod niſi Christus futurus eſſet in mundo, nulla fuiſſet à Deo facta electorum praedestinatio, non existente autem praedestinatione, ex cujus vi ſecuta ſunt omnia, non eſſet coelum, non terra, non reliqua elementa, non viventia, non homines, non Angeli, non peccata, non daemones, non reprobi, & demùm, ut uno totum verbo abſolvam, ſolus Deus eſſet, & nihil aliud eſſet à Deo, neque naturale neque ſupernaturale, neque bonum neque malum; loquimur ſecundum communem rerum legem & ordinem, & juxta eos ſines quos probabiliter ſuſpicamur Deum habuiſſe in creaturarum conditione. Nam nequaquam intendimus divinae potentiae majestatem ſic noſtrae imbecillitatis captui alligare, ut negemus potuiſſe Deum quae ſua est abſoluta potentia, naturam rerum independenter à gratia & gloria, & gratiam independenter à Christo Domino facere & ordinare.

Then hee proceeds to ſhew, how many, ſeeming to favour this opinion of his, yet take quite contrary courſes in the maintenance thereof, ſuch as tend rather to the deſtruction of it; and they are in number five.

Hence hee proceeds to the juſtification of his owne Tenet: and his firſt confirmation is derived from that of Paul, 1 Cor. 3. 13. All are yours, and yee are Christs, and Christ is Gods. Ecce ubi (ſaith hee) qua ratione Chriſtus dicitur eſſe Dei, & praedeſtinati dicuntur eſſe ipſius Chriſti; eadem ratione omnia naturalia, ſive praeſentia, ſive futura, ſive vita, ſive mors, dicuntur eſſe praedeſtinatorum: Sed ſic eſt, quod ideò dicitur Chriſtus eſſe Dei, &[Page]electi dicuntur eſſe Chriſti, quia Deus eſt finis Chriſti, & Chriſtus electorum, id eſt, quia Chriſtus ordinatur in Deum tanquam in finem, & electi in Chriſtum tanquam in finem: & niſi eſſet ille primus finis, id eſt, Deus, vel manifeſtatio gloriae Dei, non eſſet Chriſtus; & niſi eſſet Chriſtus, non eſſent electi: ergo omnino eadem ratione creature ideò dicuntur eſſe electorum, quia ſunt propter electos, & electi ſunt fines earum; & ſic niſi eſſent futuri electi, non eſſent naturae creaturarum, &c.

His ſecond proofe is taken from that Epheſ. 1. 4. Elegit nos in ipſo ante mundi conſtitutionem. Loquitur vero de Chriſto homine, viz. de Chriſto capite, ut expreſſe ibi dicit Hieronymus, & ex contextu apertiſſimè liquet. Certè, aut ego fallor, aut D. Paulus non id tantum intendit, quod, viz. nos Deus in Chriſto elegerit ante veram & realem mundi conſtitutionem, quae fuit abhinc ſex mille annis in tempore facta. Quod enim nos in Chriſto elegiſſet ante illam temporariam rerum creationem, non erit quid magnum & tanto calamo dignum; Sic enim etiam boves & lapides elegit: i. Decrevit & praevidit ante temporariam rerum creationem, quand [...]quid [...]m priuſquam in tempore quidquam faceret, jam illud ante mundi conſtitutionem & ab aeterno excogitaverat ac decreverat ut faceret; aliquid ergo altius & divinius Paulus intendit, nempe, quod in ſua Deus aeternitate cum excogitavit de conſtituendo mundo, jam prius ordine rationis excogitaverat de electione electorum, jam (inquam) Chriſtum intenderat & praeviderat, & in ipſo praedeſtinatos elegerat.

Other places hee drawes to the ſame purpoſe, and concludes with the Argument of Scot, which in his judgement is ratio efficaciſſima; Omnis ordinatè volens prius vult finem, & ex mediis ea prius quae ſunt fini propinquiora: Sed Chriſtus & praedeſtinati, ac proinde omnia ſupernaturalia ſunt fini, id eſt, manifeſtationi divinae bonitatis, propinquiora quam omnia naturalia, ergo prius quam naturalia volita ſunt à Deo ſupernaturalia, & his prius manifeſtatio ipſa divinae bonitatis, quam confideramus ut horum omnium finem, &c.

And withall, hee ſhewes that himſelfe is not alone in this opinion, but that the ſame is maintained by Jacobus Naclantus, upon the 1. Ch. of Eph. in a digreſſion, Quo ordine & ratione de rebus definitum fuerit apud Deum. Albertus Pigh. lib. 8. de lib. Arb. cap. 3. & lib. 1. in initio. Ambroſius Catarinus lib. 1. de eximia [Page]Praedeſt. Chriſti. Petrus Galatinus lib. 7. de Arcanis Cathol. veritatis, à cap. 3. ad 9.

But withall, hee obſerves a doubt, the ſolution whereof muſt not bee pretermitted; that is, whether this opinion can be maintained according to the doctrine of Aquinas; for, ſaith he, pag. 16. S. Thomas exiſtimat, minimè Chriſti praedeſtinationem futuram ſi homo non reccaſſet. Ex quo fieri videtur conſequens, prius viſum à Deo fuiſſe peccatum, & volitam ejus permiſſionem, quam volita fuiſſet incarnatio Verbi: atque adeò non apparet quomodo in via Thomiſtarum ſtare poſſit, quod primum omnium decretorum Dei fuerit incarnatio ſeu praedeſtinatio Verbi, ſi jam praeceſſit peccati viſio atque permiſſio. Si verò priuſquam peccatum videretur fuit Chriſtus praedeſtinatus, jam ergo etiam non exiſtente peccato, Chriſtus, qui ante viſum peccatum praedestinatus fuerat, veniret: Quod directè pugnat cum doctrina S. Thomae.

By the way, I obſerve a vaine ſuppoſition to bee the ground of all this perturbation, and conflictation of contrary opinions, in this Argument: And the preſuppoſition is this, That the decree of Chriſts incarnation and of our predeſtination, as alſo of creation, and of the permiſſion of ſinne, cannot bee coordinate and ſimultanea, but muſt needs bee ſubordinate and one before another. And ſo hee carrieth himſelfe in the confirmation of the priority of thoſe decrees which hee fancieth to be before the other, as chiefly to oppoſe the priority of the others. And this I account a very vain ſuppoſition, (though, I confeſſe, for many years I was carried away with the common error, and therewithall ſtill found my ſelfe in a brake or labyrinth, without hope of extricating my ſelfe) as I have here proved in part, but elſewhere more at large. But as for the ſolution of the doubt propoſed, his anſwer is this, Prius Deum voluiſſe unionem hypostaticam & incarnationem Verbi, quam vellet permittere peccatum, & quam vellet condere naturam hominis & totius univerſi. But I have already demonſtrated the falſity of this. But hee proceeds, Quia tamen non est volita incarnatio ſine peccato, imo dependenter est volita à permiſſione peccati, & à natura rerum tanquam à mediis; idcirco non ſequitur, futurum eſſe Christum ſi peccatum non eſſet, aut ſi univerſum non eſſet. Two things he conſtitutes media tendentia ad incarnationem Chriſti; and indeed, if the incarnation of Chriſt were firſt in intention, as the end, all other things intended after, muſt bee intended as [Page] meanes: But I have already ſhewed how abſurdly the creation of mankind is conſtituted as a meanes of Chriſts incarnation: and is it not ſtrange, that the making of every worme, or a gnat, ſhould be a meanes tending to the incarnation of Chriſt? In like ſort, I have ſhewed the abſurdity of conceiving the permiſſion of ſinne to be a meanes of Chriſts glorification, much more of his incarnation.

Hee proceeds to remove ſome other rubs out of the way, but in ſuch a vaine manner, that it were the waſting of time to make relation thereof; neither can I well give account for proceeding ſo fatre as I have done, onely I deſired to ſhew the Authours of this opinion, which here I confute: And I have entertained ſometimes a thought of taking occaſion to diſcuſſe this whole diſſertation of Alphonſus; but more neceſſary buſineſſes have hitherunto taken up my meditations.

And I hope that which I have here delivered may ſuffice to the cutting off of the very ſinewes of that diſcourſe: if not, I ſhall not be averſe from taking further paines, as I ſhall ſee cauſe, and opportunity, and God ſhall inable me.

Much leſſe is it my meaning to diſparage, or under-value the Anſw. love of God toward the elect, in that I ſet forth Christ as not first thought upon by God for the elect ſake; for though I doe not preferre his love to us before the love of Christ, yet is the love of God to us unſpeakable and glorious; not only in preferring us before the world of other men, and the rest of the creatures, but alſo in thinking upon us in Christ, upon whom Christ ſhould ſhew forth the riches of his gracious love and tender mercy. 1 Tim. 1. 16. Exam.

I confeſſe, there is no colour of diſparaging Gods love to us by giving the precedency of 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 [Page] 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 Anſw. 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 Exam. 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.

[Page]

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, Anſw. 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 Examin. 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 rele [...]ted to the letting of Iſrael goe, then when hee detained them. So likewiſe, when God hardened him to follow after them, to [Page] 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 Anſw. 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 Examin. 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 Anſw. for to manifeſt his glory? God himſelfe declared it to Moſes, who deſired him to ſhew him his glory; The Lord, ſaith hee, mercifull, and gracious, and that will by no meanes cleare the guilty, viſiting iniquity: Exod. 34. 6, 7. Where God declareth, and proclaimeth his chiefe glory to ſtand partly of attributes, and the work of grace in the one hand and of juſtice in the other; for God in like ſort declareth wherein hee delighteth chiefly to glorifie himſelfe, viz. in the exerciſe of loving kindneſſe, and righteouſneſſe, and judgement, Jer. 9. 24.

I ſhould think whatſoever is in God is equally glorious, even his ſtrength as well as his mercy, wherewith the Lord begins, in Examin. [Page] the Exod. 34 6. place alledged, though here pretermitted: Neither doth it follow, that becauſe theſe only are here mentioned therefore the glory of God doth principally conſiſt in theſe. And beſides, there is the glory of his ſoveraignty expreſſed, even then when the promiſe of this revelation (here mentioned) was made to Moſes; to wit, in ſhewing mercy, and having compaſſion on whom hee will. I beſeech thee, ſhew mee thy glory: And hee anſwered, I will make Exod. 31. 28, 29. all my good goe before thee, and I will proclaime the Name of the Lord before thee; for I will ſhew mercy to whom I will ſhew mercy, and I will have compaſſion on whom I will have compaſſion. And this is it the Apoſtle doth moſt inſiſt upon, Rom. 9. yet I make no queſtion but [...], the various wiſdome of God, is as glorious as any of the reſt; and this appeareth in the incarnation of the Sonne of God, and in the complete execution of his office, as in nothing more. But, I conceive, that glory of God repreſented to Moſes, Exod. 34. 6, 7. was expreſſed to a ſpeciall end unto his people, namely, to compoſe them to a greater reverence of his Majeſty; which reverence is a quality conſiſting of a mixture of love and feare, a morall geſture. Not to ſpeak how the execution of mercy and juſtice are competent unto the creatue, nor to mention that wherein Vaſquez and Suarez concutre, otherwiſe much different, about their conceptions of Gods juſtice, namely, that there is no juſtice in God toward the creature which is not grounded upon the determination of his will; and ſo, undoubtedly, is the execution of his mercy alſo; onely with this difference, God hath revealed unto us rules, according to which hee will proceed in the execution of his juſtice; no ſuch rules hath hee revealed to us, or preſcribed to himſelfe, according to which he wil proceed in the execution of his mercy.

It is well obſerved by others, that thoſe vertues which grace the Will, are more honourable than thoſe which grace the Underſtanding, Anſw. or other parts: It is a greater honour to a Prince to be gratious and juſt, then to bee wiſe and powerfull; power and wiſedome may bee found in a vitious Prince, not grace and juſtice: If then grace and juſtice doe more ſet forth the glory of their ſoveraignty, ſurely God (who aimeth at his higheſt glory) in the higheſt and firſt place, he aimed chiefly at the manifeſtation of his grace and juſtice, above the manifeſtation of his power and dominion.

[Page] 1. Firſt concerning the inſtance it ſelfe, I anſwer 1. It is not to be expected, I confeſſe, that vertue ſhould be found in a vitious Examin. perſon; but yet Princes commonly make more accompt of their abſoluteneſſe, then of their vertue. 2. And the moſt capitall crime againſt them, conſiſts rather in the derogation to their power, then to their vertue. 3. And vertue is common to all; and if all were as they ought to be, what glory were it to a King to be vertuous? 2. But as for the accomodation of it, though all were granted, yet it concludes nothing. To be vertuous is honourable to a man, becauſe he is indifferent to execute his power, in the way of vice, as well as in the way of vertue: But there is no ſuch indifferency found in God. Gods gratious diſpoſition tyes him to doe good to none, but to whom he will. Had he never made the world, nor purpoſed to produce any creature, he had beene notwithſtanding the ſame he now is; yea the very execution of juſtice in God, doth preſuppoſe the determination of his owne will: whereupon it is that Bradwardine diſtinguiſheth betweene meritum aptitudinale, & meritum actuale. Aptitudinale meritū is the merit of ſuch good, as God can beſtow in the way of reward, if he will; or ſuch evill as God can inflict in the way of puniſhment, if he will. Actuale meritum is the merit of ſuch good or evill, as God hath determined to beſtow, or inflict; Anſwerable hereunto Gerſon profeſſeth, that when a ſinne is committed, it is meerely at the pleaſure of God to inflict what puniſhment he will. And withall he profeſſeth, that God doth actually remunerate every good worke ultra condignum, and puniſh every evill worke citra condignum; all which I hold to be Orthodox, and ſound. And let me intreat and prevaile with you, in this, that you will not thinke any thing in the nature of God to be leſſe glorious then another, howſoever, to our apprehenſion, ſome attributes, may ſeem more glorious then others.

Conſider what you finde laſt in the execution of Gods decree, and from thence gather, what was firſt in his intention. Now at Anſw. the laſt judgement, as likewiſe in the courſe of his providence in this world, God doth chiefly manifeſt the glory of his grace to the elect, and the glory of his juſtice upon the world. When God in his wayes towards the elect, bleſſeth them with all ſpirituall bleſſings in Chriſt, what doth he rather aime at, then the praiſe of the glory of his grace? When God deſtroyeth the wicked in their flouriſhing [Page]eſtate, and cauſeth the righteous to flouriſh, in their weake and decayed age; what doth be rather aime at, then to ſhew that the Lord is upright, and there is noe unrighteouſneſſe with him? When Chriſt ſhall come to judgement at the laſt day, what will he rather ſhew forth, then the righteous judgement of God upon the world of the ungodly, and the admirable glory of his grace to the Saints? Since then, all the wayes of God doe finally worke to this iſſue, the ſetting forth of his grace, and juſtice; ſurely we are ſo to conceive it, as his primary aime and intent to be, to glorifie rather his grace and juſtice, then his power and ſoveraignty.

1. That God doth manifeſt the glory of his grace to the elect, and the glory of his juſtice upon the world, both in this life, and Examin. at the day of judgement, I grant; But that he doth chiefly manifeſt this, is not proved: ſave only there is a propenſion in the phraſe, to ſignifie as much, as properly, and then it is true indeed. His grace properly on the one, his juſtice properly on the other; whereas the glory of his power, and ſoveraignty, and wiſdome, is promiſeuouſly ſhewed on both, yet there is not taken ſo diſtinct a conſideration of juſtice, as ſeems fit: For whereas juſtice is as well remunerative, as vindicative; as this hath place only on the wicked, ſo the other on the good; I meane thoſe, that departed the world after they came to yeares of diſcretion: yet conſider, I pray you, what thinke you of them that periſh in no other ſinne but originall, derived unto them by the fall of Adam, which Adam we beleeve to be ſaved? In the condemnation of theſe what glory of God doth appeare more, either of his juſtice, or of his ſoveraignty?

2. But be it granted, that theſe glories doe appeare chiefly at ſuch times; yet if other glories doe appeare alſo in the ſame laſt execution, how will you deduce herehence, that only thoſe glories you mention were firſt in intention? Will it not rather follow, that ſeeing other glories, as well as theſe, did appeare in execution though not chiefly, therefore other glories, as well as theſe, were firſt in intention, though not chiefly?

3. When God bleſſeth his elect, with all ſpirituall bleſſings in Chriſt, we need not ſay, he aimes rather at ſomewhat elſe then the praiſe of the glory of his grace: when out of meere grace he made his glorious ſelfe known unto us, he made not only his grace known unto us, but all his attributes more or leſſe, which to [Page] our underſtanding are equally glorious in themſelves, though we take more comfort in the ſpeculation of his grace; which yet is more wonderfull, when we conſider his ſoveraignty over us his creatures, and that it was indifferent to him to make us veſſells of wrath, as well as veſſells of mercy: and in this very conſideration, the very damnation of reprobates ſhall improve our glorious joyes in the apprehenſion of Gods free love to us at the day of judgement, according to that of the Apoſtle, Rom. 9. 22. You are to looke to it, how you make your Tenent good, who maintaine that God doth rather aime at the one, then at the other.

4. As for the wicked, the righteouſneſſe of Gods judgement upon them, we can in ſome meaſure conceive at this preſent: But as for the power of God in executing ſuch judgements, maintaining the creature, in the ſuffering of eternall ſorrows, wee are not able to conceive, and therefore the glory hereof is farre more admirable then the other. So likewiſe, what ſhall be the fruits of the grace of God towards us at that day and after, neither eye hath ſeene, nor eare hath heard, &c. nor that glory contained in ſeeing the face of God. If God ſhould but reveale unto us the wiſdome whereby he hath managed his providence towards us before he called us, and ſince the calling of us, immediatly by himſelfe, mediatly by the miniſtry of good Angels, contending with, and croſſing the counſells and practiſes of wicked Angels; what a body of glory would appeare unto us, and how ſhould we be raviſhed with the contemplation of it? How much more with the contemplation of his providence thoroughout, both in managing the whole courſe of nature, and the whole courſe of grace?

QUESTION [...].

How and by what demonſtrative reaſons, may it appeare that there is a neceſſity of a departing from the doctrine delivered in our Church.

The reaſons, which moved me a little, and but a little to depart Anſw. from the forme of words uſually received in delivering the doctrine of Reprobation, are ſuch as to me ſeeme, if not demonstrative, yet convincing. And though I have learned to ſuſpect mine owne judgement where I differ never ſo little from my godly and[Page]reverend loarned Brethren; yet I conſider, we are taught to trie all things likewiſe, and to hold fast that which is good; and as wee believe, ſo to ſpeake, ſubmitting our ſelves to the feare of God. But before I come to the ground, wherupon I have beene led to believe, and ſpeake ſomewhat otherwiſe of this point, then is commonly received; let me firſt ſhew you how farre I conſent with the received opinon, even in all uſefull truthes; and how little it is then wherin I diſſent. In the doctrine of election, I conſent wholly with Auguſtine, Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Zanehy, Perkins, Paraeus, and others, who have taught us, by plaine evidence, and that from ſcripture:

1. That, before the world was, God out of his free will hath choſen the elect by name, by an unchangeable decree, unto grace and glory in Chriſt Jeſus, to the ſhewing forth of the riches of the glory of his grace.

2. That to reſtore them, who were loſ [...] in Adam, he ſent forth the Lord Jeſus, to be obedient to the death for them, and by his death, to redeeme them as effectually, as if they themſelves had ſuffered in their owne perſons.

3. That in the fulneſſe of time, he calleth each one of them, by an effectuall and invincible drawing, even by ſuch an almighty worke of his quickning ſpirit, as he did put forth in raiſing Chriſt from the dead.

4. That thoſe, whom he ſo calleth, he preſerveth by ſome powerfull worke of his ſpirit to himſelfe in Chriſt, ſo as they never fall from him totally, or finally: Only herein take it not amiſſe, if I place the ſubject of Election in Perſons conſidered in Chriſt, before the world, or themſelves were, and not in maſſa corrupta, with the late venerable Synod. For though herein they follow Auguſtine, and Zanchy, and ſome others; yet have they diſſented from the chiefe inſtruments, of the reformation of our Religion. And, with reverence I ſpeake it, as I am led to conceive, that it need not trouble any, if, taking Chriſt to be the head of the elect, I conceive him to be firſt thought upon, and choſen, and we in him. Mr. Baynes, followeth the ſchoole in ſo expreſſing it; and the reaſons delivered above in the firſt point, have carryed me with them: and the difference lyeth in opening the purpoſe of Reprobation. But ſee here how farre I goe with the ſtream [...], and, [...]hen I goe aſide, how little, and upon what ground.

[Page] How convincing, or demonſtrative, the reaſons are, I addreſſe my ſelfe to conſider: It is good to make progreſſe in the inveſtigation Examin. of truth. Auſtin profeſſeth himſelfe to be of the number of thoſe qui proficiendo ſcribunt, & ſcribendo proficiunt: only our care muſt be, that we goe not backward, and make things worſe then wee found them; which comes to paſſe (eſpecially with good men) many times, not ſo much by falling into error, as by confuſion of method; for hereby it comes to paſſe, that the paſſages opening the way to the inveſtigation of truth, are ſtopt up, and we find our ſelves in a brake, and ſee no way out. To prevent them, I am perſwaded, it is a profitable conſideration, to thinke with our ſelves, that different opinions, eſpecially amongſt godly Divines, may be no other then the dividing of the truth betweene them.

About the object of predeſtination there hath bin a triple difference in opinion: ſome ſtanding for maſſa nondum condita; others for maſſa pura, that is condita but nondum corrupta; others for maſſa corrupta: yet both Junius did endeavour: but very obſcurely; and Piſcator hath endeavoured very perſpicuouſly to reduce them into one. If he failed therein, eſpecially in ſome one particular, his failing, rightly obſerved and diſcerned, may open a way for the diſcovery of the entire truth. But let the iſſue therof commend it ſelfe. Your phraſe of uſefull truths I do not like; amongſt Arminians, I often meet with ſuch a courſe of arguing truth, by the uſefulneſſe of it; which is like the giving of the larger coat to him that is bigger, becauſe it is fitter for him, when in the mean time he had no right unto it.

And though we can judge aright of a coats fitneſſe to a body; yet it is a dangerous courſe for us, to preſume ſo farre of our judgements in the uſefulneſſe of opinions, as thereupon to conclude what are true, and what are falſe.

1. To chooſe before the world, is to chooſe before the creation, or Adams fall, according to your owne expoſition, formerly mentioned: but in this ſenſe, your ſelfe confeſſeth in the 4. place, that Auſtin and Zanchy doe not concurre with others in this; was there no more in Gods intention, when he elected ſome, then the manifeſtation of the riches of his glorious grace? Did not God purpoſe to manifeſt alſo the glory of his remunerative juſtice? Is it not undeniable, that God will beſtow ſalvation upon all his [Page] elect (of ripe yeares, before their departure out of this world) by way of reward, and crowne of righteouſneſſe, which God the righteous Judge ſhall give at that day to all that love his Sonnes 2 Tim 4. appearing? It being a righteous thing with God, as to recompence tribulation to them that trouble his Children; ſo to his Children that are troubled, reſt with his Apoſtles: when the Lord Jeſus ſhall ſhew himſelfe from Heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming 2 Theſſa. 1. fire, rendring vengance &c. When he ſhall come to be glorifyed in his Saints, and be made marvellous, in all them that beleeve &c. It is great pity this is not conſidered (as uſually it is not) eſpecially for the momentous conſequence thereof, in my judgement, ſufficient (if I miſtake not) to have ſtifled this opinion following, touching Reprobation, in the firſt conception of it.

2. Touching the Second, I have nothing to ſay; for if you have any opinion concerning ſome benefit that redounds to the Reprobate by the death of Chriſt, it is more then hitherunto you do diſcover.

3. Touching the Third, it were to be deſired you did expreſſe, whether no leſſe powerfull motion, would ſerve to the drawing of them to faith and repentance.

4. Likewiſe touching the Fourth, whether this powerfull worke being denyed to any, it is poſſible for ſuch a one to beleeve, and repent unto ſalvation. Concerning the order here mentioned, though my opinion be, that the object of predeſtination is maſſa nondum condita, yet in no moment of nature, or reaſon, was the decree of God concerning Chriſts incarnation, and our ſalvation by him, before the decree of creation, and of permiſſion of Adams fall, and conſequently Election unto Salvation had the conſideration of maſſa corrupta concomitant with it, though not precedent; only the conſideration of maſſa nondum condita being antecedentall to all theſe decrees. Likewiſe, in my opinion, they doe miſtake, who take the Synod of Dort to maintaine the conſideration of maſſa corrupta, as precedent to Election, though they beginne with ſignifying what God purpoſed to bring to paſſe, upon the fall of mankind, in Adam. And Galvin in his anſwere to Pighius confeſſeth, that the ſafeſt courſe is to treate of predeſtination, upon the conſideration of the corrupt maſſe in Adam. As touching what you have delivered, touching Election in Chriſt our head, in the firſt place, that I have already examined.

Our Divines commonly conceive, a double act of Reprobation, Anſw. [Page]as Bellarmine, and others of the Papiſts doe.

1. Negative, as they call it, a non-election, or Reprobation, unto which ſome adde a purpoſe of forſaking the creature, excluding it from glory, and from ſufficient meanes of grace in Chriſt.

2. Poſitive, ordaining it to condemnation.

The former, they conceive to be abſolute, as being an act of Gods ſoveraigne Lordſhip over the creature, without all reſpect to ſinne.

The latter they conceive, as being an act of vindicative juſtice, to preſuppoſe originall ſinne at the leaſt, and ſome of them (as Bellarmine) actuall ſinne alſo, whom Paraus in this point ſeemeth to give way unto.

1. To the firſt of theſe acts I wholly aſſent ſo farre as it reſteth in a non-election, or preterition of the creature, according to the libertie of Gods abſolute ſoveraignety. That which is added to it, of a purpoſe of forſaking the creature, and to exclude it, from glory, and from ſufficient meanes of grace in Chriſt, before all reſpect of ſinne, I want warrant from ſcripture to condeſcend unto. But this Negative act, I would rather expreſſe in ſuch words as the holy Ghoſt hath uſed before me, and ſo diſtinguiſh it into two branches.

That before all reſpect of good or evill in the creature:

1 God did not ſo love the world, (I meane the world of mankind diſtinguiſhed from the elect:) this is plaine from the Apoſtles compariſon, of Jacob and Eſau. Rom. 9. 11. 12, 13.

2. God did not give the world to Chriſt, by him of grace to be brought to ſalvation, as he did the elect, for they are not ſaid to be written in the Lambs book of life, from the beginning of the world. Revel. 13. 8, 17, 18. And indeed all who were given to Chriſt, doe, in fulneſſe of time, come unto him. Joh. 6. 37. Gods hatred of Eſau, before he had done good or evill, reacheth to this act alſo. Rom. 9. 13.

2. Touching the poſitive act, which they conceive, I wholly agree with them, that God ordaineth none to condemnation, but upon ſinne preſuppoſed. Annihilate the creature God may without preſuppoſall of ſinne; for annihilation is an act of Soveraignetie, ſuteable to creation; but condemne it he may not, without preſuppoſall of ſinne. For condemnation is an act of justice, and preſuppoſeth a rule of juſtice tranſgreſſed, and thereby wrath, or just revenge[Page]provoked: onely this poſitive act of Gods counſell about the world of mankind ſevered from the elect, upon ſerious conſideration of ſundry paſſages of Scripture, I would rather diſtinguiſh into a double act.

1. Whereby, without all reſpect of good or evill in the men of this world, God ordained them unto judgment, according to their works. Ezech. 33. 20. to judgment, I ſay, not of condemnation, which preſuppoſeth ſinne in the creature to be condemned; but judgment (I meane) of juſt retribution, whereby God is willing to deale with them, according to their works in juſtice; juſtice I ſay, aſwell diſtributive, to reward them with life, if they continue in obedience; as vindicative, to puniſh them to death, if they provoke him by careleſſe and wilfull diſobedience.

Hitherto, even to this act, the hatred of God to Eſau reached.

2. Whereby, upon the preſuppoſall of the careleſſe or wilfull diſobedience of the world, either in refuſing the meanes of grace in Chriſt, or abuſing other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature, God rejecteth, or reprobateth them from all hope of life, and purpoſeth to condemne them for their ſinnes, to the glorifying of his power, juſtice and wrath.

Non-election, abſolute is an act of ſoveraignitie, you grant; which alſo you call preterition. Let us ſpeake diſtinctly, that the Examin fairer way may bee opened, to the diſcovery of truth and error. Preterition may be in time; as when, in giving grace to ſome, God paſſeth by others: or it may have place as well in not purpoſing to give grace to ſome, when he doth purpoſe to give grace to others, which purpoſe of his was from everlaſting; and preterition in this ſenſe, is all one with non-election. Now this non-election is either a negation of election unto grace, or a negation of election unto glory; It is here propoſed indefinitely, and I conceive it is underſtood of both. Now it is true, that John Scot, and Francis Mayro after him, did ſometimes ſhape the order of Gods decrees in this manner: In the firſt inſtant of nature, Peter and Judas being offered to the divine conſideration, Deus volebat Petro gloriam, nihil volebat Judae; in the ſecond inſtant, Deus volebat Petro gratiam, nihil volebat Judae; In the third inſtant, Deus volebat utrū que exiſtere in maſſa corrupta; wherehence it followeth in the laſt place, (ſayeth hee) that the one ſhall infallibly be ſaved, the other damned. This ſometimes ſeemed plauſible to me, and I did preferre [Page] it, and ſtill doe, before the perverſe orders of Gods decrees, deviſed by many: For, est quiddam prodire tenus: we have the ſhorter way to our jorneys end. But in what inſtant ſhall God velle Judae damnationem? not till after all this? If it be laſt in intention, ſhall it not be firſt in execution, according to your owne rules, ſo much inſiſted on in the firſt place? The Dominicans and particularly Alvarez profeſſeth in oppoſition to theſe negative decrees of Scotus, that the decree of reprobation is poſitive; and one reaſon amongſt others is this, becauſe if reprobation were meerly negative, then all men and Angels poſſible, though never exiſtent, might be juſtly ſaid to be reprobate as well as the reprobate men and Angels that are or ſhall be exiſtent. For it is moſt true, that they are non electi, in as much as one of contradictions is verified de omni ente, & non ente; therefore certainly there goes more to reprobation then a meere negation of election. And, in my judgment, this reaſon of his is a weighty reaſon. Therefore they profeſſe plainly, that God did not only not purpoſe to give Judas glory, but he did purpoſe to deny him glory, that is, ordaine that he ſhould be without glory: Secondly, that he did not only not purpoſe to give him grace, but alſo did purpoſe to deny him grace, or ordaine, that he ſhould be without grace, at leaſt without ſuch grace as ſhould bring him to ſalvation. And indeed if God doth purpoſe that Judas ſhall exiſt in the corrupt maſſe, and withall doth not purpoſe to give him grace and glory, doth it not manifeſtly follow, that he ſhall exiſt without grace and glory? for how ſhall he come by glory or grace, if not from God? Or how ſhall God deny him one or other, but according to the Counſell of his will, ſeeing he workes all things according to the counſell of his will? Therefore God did not only not purpoſe that he ſhould have grace and glory, but did poſitively purpoſe that he ſhould be without both: and it is Bradwardins opinion, that no pure negative act can be attributed unto God, but ſuch as is aequivalently reſolved into an act poſitive, thus, If Deus non volebat gloriam Judae, then Deus volebat illi non glorium; that is, that he ſhould not have glory, ſo of grace, ſo of exiſtencie; if God did not will the exiſtency of more Angels then are, it followes that God did will that more Angels then are ſhould not exiſt; and that this poſitive act doth better become the nature of God, then the former negative, by reaſon of his moſt perfect actuality. And as [Page] for the purpoſe of forſaking the creature, and excluding it from glory; that is no other then Gods purpoſe not to give certaine creatures any ſuch grace, as whereby they ſhall be brought to glory: And ſeeing this is acknowledged by you, I ſee no cauſe why you ſhould ſtick in acknowledging a purpoſe of God to forſake ſome creatures, and exclude them from glory. It is pity, that the prejudice of phraſes, whereby it is expreſſed, ſhould ſtrangle any doctrine, when there lyes no juſt exception againſt it, as untrue in the ſubſtance thereof. When you confeſſe, that God did not ſo love the world, as the elect (which is no more, then to acknowledge a non-election of ſome) if you expound it in reference unto his purpoſe of not giving grace and glory unto them, as to the elect; Aquinas himſelfe acknowledgeth, that odiſſe in Scripture phraſe is no other then non velle alicui gratiam & gloriam. And it is well knowne that Mr. Moulin doth as eagerly oppoſe this abſolute reprobation negative, as abſolute reprobation poſitive: For he manifeſtly perceives, that damnation follows as infallibly, and unavoidably upon that doctrine of reprobation negative, as upon this of reprobation poſitive.

If you conceive, that God did give the world to Chriſt, by him of grace to be bought to ſome kind of grace, though not to ſalvation, as he did the elect; I doubt you are not able to bring any ſufficient reaſon to juſtifie this; wherehence it will follow, that Chriſts death was meritorius unto them, but not ſatisfactorie; or if ſatisfactorie, yet onely for ſome ſinnes of theirs, but not for all.

As touching the act poſitive of reprobation, I truſt, when all things are rightly ſtated, there will appeare to be as litle reaſon, why there ſhould be any difference between us in this act, as in the former. For what, I pray, is the meaning of this, God ordaines none to condemnation, but upon ſinne preſuppoſed? Is there any other meaning of the words then this; God hath ordained that no man ſhall be condemned, but for ſinne? who ever denyed this? What one of our Divines, or Papiſts, or of any Sect, ever called this into queſtion? But herehence it only followes, that ſinne is the cauſe of condemnation, and that by the ordination of God: it follows not, that ſin is the cauſe of Gods ordination; although I confeſſe the confuſion of theſe is moſt frequent amongſt our Divines, amongſt Papiſts, though otherwiſe very learned, and chiefly among the Arminians, for the advantage of their cauſe; [Page] yet ſee not a farre greater advantage to their cauſe then any yet hath been taken hold of by any one of them: And this confuſion alone is that which ſets our Divines together by the eares, not conſidering the dangerous conſequence here-hence, utterly overthrowing the Orthodox doctrine of our Churches, in the very point of Election, and bringing in Arminianiſme entire and whole; not in Reprobation only, as Maſter Moulin doth, and you ſeeme to doe; but in Election it ſelfe unavoidably, though hitherto, I confeſſe, the Arminians have not been ſo happy as to diſcerne it. I doubt not but your meaning is, in that Propoſition, That ſinne is not only the cauſe of damnation, but of Gods decree alſo of ordaining thereunto. But to affirme this, ſeemed ſo foule to Aquinas, (namely, that there ſhould be conceived a cauſe of Gods will, or Gods decree) that hee profeſſeth, never any man was ſo madde as to affirme it. But becauſe the ſaying of Aquinas moves you little; why ſhould it, ſeeing it little hindered not onely Valentianus the Jeſuite from ſaying as you doe, but Alvarez alſo the Thomist, and a great Thomist? therefore I will proceed further: What ſhould move you to affirme, That, to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative juſtice? Condemnation, I grant, is an act of vindicative juſtice, like as remuneration is an act of juſtice remunerative; but will it follow here-hence, that to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative juſtice? I will not preſſe you with the authority of Maſter Baynes, who denyes Reprobation to be an act of juſtice; but thus I diſpute: If Gods purpoſe to condemne to death, be an act of juſtice vindicative; then alſo Gods purpoſe to remunerate with eternall life, is an act of juſtice remunerative: And if Gods purpoſe of condemnation preſuppoſe ſinne, it followes, that Gods purpoſe of remunerating with eternall life muſt alſo preſuppoſe obedience; even obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; for all theſe God doth remunerate with eternall life. Here appeareth the foule tayle of Arminianiſme, in the doctrine of Election, which this plauſible doctrine of yours and of Maſter Moulins, in the point of Reprobation, drawes after it. The conſequence is manifeſt, though few or none conſider it, even of them that are both Orthodox in Election, and moſt verſed in the examining and diſcerning of juſt conſequences. Now becauſe this conſequence, I preſume, is unexpected, I imagine men may bee moved to caſt about, and conſider how they may wind themſelves [Page] out of this dangerous inconvenience. And perhaps it may come to their mindes to affirme, that they doe not conceive Election under this forme; namely, to bee the decree of God to remunerate with everlaſting life. And I verily believe they doe not; for if they did, it were not poſſible they ſhould continue Orthodox in the point of Election; but miſerably betray their cauſe, by giving way to a doctrine (plainly contradictory) in the point of Reprobation. But why then doe they not conſider Election as they ought? Is it not generally confeſſed, that Election and Reprobation are contrary? why then ſhould they not be ſhapen under contrarient formes? and what act, I pray you, is contrary to the act of juſtice vindicative, but the act of juſtice remunerative? But perhaps you may ſay, Though this bee true, yet there is no place for ſuch an oppoſition here; for as much as though a man may merit damnation by ſinne, yet hee cannot merit ſalvation by obedience. I anſwer therefore, that this onely ſhewes there can be no oppoſition between them in a ſpeciall kind of retribution, to wit, in the way of retribution according to deſert on both ſides; yet this hinders not, but that there may be, and indeed is, an oppoſition in the generall of retribution: For it is well knowne, that God will reward every one according to his works; and that he means to beſtow ſalvation upon every one of ripe yeares by way of reward, and, tanquam coronam juſtitiae, as the Arminians urge; and juſtly, though with no juſt advantage to their cauſe, but according to their ſhallow and unlearned conceits; as if therefore God ſhould firſt fore-ſee their obedience, before hee ſhould ordaine them to a reward: which yet will follow, if on the other ſide wee grant them, that God firſt fore-ſeeth mans finall impenitency, and thereupon ordaines them to condemnation. Perhaps you may ſay, Is not the contrariety between Election and Reprobation ſufficiently maintained, by ſaying, the one is Gods purpoſe ordaining to ſalvation; the other Gods purpoſe ordaining to condemnation? I confeſſe, it ſeemes ſo, and is generally reputed to be ſo: and this I take to bee the principall cauſe of this error; one confuſion drawing on more and more after it. But, I ſay, there is no congruous oppoſition between ſalvation and damnation; for, to damne is either finally to puniſh, or to adjudge to puniſhment. Now, as the Negative oppoſition hereunto is onely not to puniſh, or to adjudge to puniſhment; ſo the contrary oppoſition hereunto [Page] is to reward, or to adjudge to a reward: So that Election, as it is Gods purpoſe ordaining to ſalvation, by way of reward, is onely oppoſite contrarily to Reprobation, as it ſignifies Gods purpoſe ordaining to condemnation. More fairly, and voyd of all equivocation, thus: Like as Reprobation is Gods purpoſe to puniſh with everlaſting death; ſo Election is Gods purpoſe to remunerate with everlaſting life. And thus the contrariety of theſe acts being rightly ſtated, it followes as evidently, that Election muſt preſuppoſe, not obedience, but the fore-ſight of obedience; as Reprobation preſuppoſeth not ſinne, but the fore-ſight of ſin. And thus are wee tumbled into the very gulfe of Arminianiſme, over head and eares, before wee are aware. But it may bee this diſcourſe of mine may raiſe ſuch a Spirit as will not eaſily bee laid; and hereupon ſome may the more profuſely bee carryed to embrace Arminianiſme, in the very point of Election alſo; becauſe, as Reprobation ſeemes to bee an act of juſtice vindicative; ſo Election alſo, as here it is ſtated, ſeemes to bee an act of juſtice remunerative. And I willingly confeſſe, I never found any Arminian that diſcernes the advantage which our Divines doe afford them, by ſhaping the doctrine of Reprobation as they doe: Therefore I will endeavour to quiet this Spirit that I have raiſed, firſt, by diſcovering the Sophiſtry that bleares our eyes in this; and ſecondly, by cleare demonſtration I will prove, that no fore-ſight of ſinne and obedience can precede the purpoſe of God ordaining to ſalvation and damnation. As for the diſcovering of the Sophiſtry which hath place herein, conſider; firſt, It is agreed between Vaſquez and Suarez (though otherwiſe much at odds about the nature of juſtice in God) that there is no juſtice in God towards his creature, but upon the preſuppoſition of his will: whence it followeth manifeſtly, that the purpoſes of God, being the very acts of his will, are no acts of juſtice, but onely the executions of theſe purpoſes may bee acts of juſtice; to wit, upon the preſuppoſition of ſome act or purpoſe of his will. And the reaſon hereof (not to inſiſt wholly upon any humane authority) is manifeſt, for as much as in remunerating it is cleare, that God is not bound to remunerate any creature, but upon preſuppoſition of his will; for hee may convert him into nothing, if it pleaſe him: But if hee hath determined to reward them according to their obedience, it muſt needs bee ſo; for as much as the Divine nature is without variableneſſe [Page] or ſhadow of change. So likewiſe, neither is God bound to puniſh any ſinner; for hee may pardon him, if it pleaſe him; but upon ſuppoſition that hee hath determined not to leave a ſinner unpuniſhed: in this caſe onely is hee bound to puniſh. Further, I will ſhew, that in ſuch acts, the condition whereof doth not depend upon the will of God, the act may be of one condition, and yet nevertheleſſe the purpoſe of God to performe ſuch an act is of another condition: As for example; the act of creation is an act of Gods almighty power; but Gods purpoſe to create the world is no act of power, but of will rather. So likewiſe, Gods act of ordering all things unto their end, in wonderfull manner, is an act of infinite wiſedome; but his purpoſe to order all things, in ſo admirable manner, is no act of his wiſedome, but of his free-will. Now I will demonſtrate, that the fore-ſight of ſinne cannot be the cauſe of Gods purpoſe to condemne: For if it be the cauſe of Gods purpoſe; then either by neceſſity of nature, or by the free conſtitution of God: not by neceſſity of nature; for hee is naturally more prone (as Piſcator confeſſeth upon Exod. 24. 6.) to remunerate obedience, than to puniſh for ſinne: but no man will ſay, that hee doth remunerate by neceſſity of nature; therefore neither doth hee puniſh ſinne by neceſſity of nature: therefore it muſt be onely through the voluntary conſtitution of God, that ſinne is the cauſe of ordination unto condemnation. But marke, I pray, the foule abſurdity hereof; for here-hence it followes, that God did purpoſe that upon the fore-ſight of ſinne hee would purpoſe that men ſhould be damned. So that the purpoſe of God is made the object of his purpoſe; and that upon a certaine condition: whereas nothing can be the object of Gods purpoſe, but ſome temporall thing or other; and conſequently, one purpoſe of God ſhall be in time precedaneous to another purpoſe of God; which is impoſſible: firſt, becauſe no purpoſe of God begins in time: ſecondly, there is no priority between the purpoſes of God, but priority of nature and reaſon; and that onely in ſuch a caſe as when one is of the end, and the other of the meanes tending to that end; which hath no place in this matter wee now treat of. By the way, when you ſay, God cannot condemne the creature without ſinne, though hee may annihilate him; what doe you meane by condemnation? doe you take it for puniſhment? If ſo, then the formality of it, expreſſed at full, is this; Affliction for ſinne. Now [Page] conſider, is it a ſober ſpeech to ſay, God cannot afflict for ſin, without the preſuppoſall of ſin? I doubt not but you deliver your mind, of what God cannot do, in the way of juſtice: But it is utterly impoſſible that any man ſhould bee afflicted for ſinne without the preſuppoſall of ſin: I preſume your meaning is only this, (though incommodiouſly expreſſed) God cannot excruciate or afflict a creature without the preſuppoſall of ſinne. But in whom? I doubt not but your meaning is, in the perſon afflicted. But what thinke you then of the Sonne of God, how was hee afflicted, and without any preſuppoſall of ſinne in him? And I pray you tell mee, hath not God as much power over us as over him? Againe, conſider I pray, what power doth God give unto man over inferiour creatures? But let this paſſe: Can God annihilate us without any reſpect to ſinne, and can hee not afflict us? Alas! what affliction would moſt men bee content to endure rather then to dye, much more rather then to bee turned to the gulfe of nothing, from whence wee came? If it be ſaid, that God may afflict in ſome degree, but not in the higheſt; or for a time, but not for ever; ſuch as wee conceive that torment to bee which wee ſignifie by the word Condemnation: I pray remember, wee are made after the image of God, and endued with the light of reaſon, and let us not caſt our ſelves in a brutiſh manner upon conceits without all evidence of reaſon. Now tell mee, what reaſon can bee deviſed why God ſhould bee able, without all prejudice of his juſtice, to inflict paine in one degree, in two degrees, in three or foure degrees, in five, ſix, and ſeven degrees, without all reſpect to ſinne onely, if in the eight degree hee ſhould inflict it in this manner, he ſhould bee unjuſt? Againe, if without injuſtice hee may inflict paine on an innocent creature for a thouſand yeares, or ten thouſand yeares, or ten times ten thouſand, what reaſon why hee cannot afflict a creature for ever, without injuſtice? yet if no finite time can be ſet which hee cannot exceed, why not for ever? Nay, if a creature ſhould be put to his choyce, whether he would chooſe to bee annihilated, or to bee in eternall torment, yet preſerved without ſinne, which of theſe two would an holy creature make choyce of? ſhould he not preferre his being without ſinne (though in eternall torment) before annihilation?

But let us conſider the double act of God here deviſed about the world of mankind ſevered from the elect: God, you ſay, did [Page] ordain to judge them according to their workes. I pray conſider, who denyeth this? even they that maintaine Reprobation as abſolute as Election, doe notwithſtanding maintaine, that God doth judge them no otherwiſe then according to their works; for they doe not avouch that God doth ordaine to damne them for ought elſe then for ſinne; yea and that for ſinne actuall, as many as doe dye in actuall ſin unrepented of; and for originall ſinne, as many as doe dye only in originall ſinne. Againe, will you deny the ſame forme of decree to have his courſe concerning the elect, as well as concerning the Reprobate? Doth not God reward them according to their workes? I meane, as many as live unto ripeneſſe of age; for otherwiſe it cannot be veriſied of the Reprobates. And if God doth reward the righteous according to their workes, did hee not alſo ordaine from everlaſting ſo to reward them? Neither is Election, rightly ſtated and in congruous oppoſition unto Reprobation, any other then Gods decree to reward men with everlaſting life for their obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; like as Reprobation is Gods decree to puniſh them with everlaſting death, for their continuance in ſinne, without repentance, unto death; albeit, neither of theſe is Gods complete decree, on either ſide: but the decree of Election, is, Praeparatio gratiae & gloriae, as Auſtin ſaith; that is, a decree to give both the grace of obedience, both in the way of faith, repentance, and good works, and to crowne them with everlaſting life for it. And ſo on the other ſide, Reprobatio, as Aquinas ſpeaketh, includit voluntatem permittendi peccatum, & damnationem inferendi pro peccato: It is the purpoſe of God both to deny the grace of obedience, as afore-ſaid; or, which is all one, to permit them to perſevere in ſinne and finall impenitency, and to inflict damnation for their ſinne. And unleſſe Election on the one ſide, and Reprobation on the other, doe include the parts before mentioned, wee ſhall fall into the Arminians definition of Election and Reprobation, who make them meerly conditionate, either in formall terms, or though they avoid the formality of ſuch expreſſions, yet meerly in effect: as by ſaying, that, Election is Gods purpoſe to ſave them that beleeve and repent; Reprobation Gods purpoſe to damne them that doe not beleeve and repent: as if there were no other purpoſe of God, revealed in Gods word, then theſe; no decree of ſhewing mercy to whom hee will, by giving faith and repentance; no [Page] decree of hardening whom hee will, by denying it. Againe, when I ſay, God doth purpoſe to reward every man according to his workes, let us underſtand it aright; for indeed there neither is, nor can bee any ſuch formall decree of God, and of an indefinite nature: as if God in priority of nature or reaſon did make ſuch a decree, not knowing as yet what would bee the workes of each man in particular: for of ſuch a decree there can be no correſpondent execution, diſtinct from the execution of particular and definite decrees, concerning all men in particular, as I have already ſhewed in ranſacking the abſurd order of Gods decrees deviſed by Arminians, to no other end but to catch the ſimple; there being Vindiciae gratiae 'Dei. lib 3. dig. 2. no common ſenſe nor ſobriety in them throughout. Beſides this, if when God is conceived to make ſuch a decree God did know particularly the workes of all, then there is no reaſon to conceive that hee made any ſuch indefinite decree; but rather that the decree to ſave or damne every one in particular according to his workes, well knowne to him in that very inſtant, not of duration onely, but of nature and reaſon. But God did in the ſame moment foreknow all the particular workes of every man, as already I have made manifeſt, in ranſacking the Arminian order of Gods decrees. But the denomination of ſuch an indefinite decree, as to reward every man according to his workes, ariſeth from the conſideration of other definite decrees in God: As for example, God did decree to have mercy on Peter, in giving him faith and repentance, and accordingly to ſave him; and ſo of every one of Gods Elect, of ripe yeares: On the contrary, God did decree to deny to Judas the grace of faith and repentance; which is as much as to ſay, that God decreed to permit him to continue finally in ſinne, and accordingly to damne him; and ſo every one of the Reprobates: Whence it followeth, that it is true to affirme, that God decreed to reward every one of ripe yeares according to their workes; not that there ever was any ſuch particular decree conceived by God, diſtinct from the former, as the Arminians feigne; but that from the former particular decrees reſulteth the denomination of ſuch a decree as this; as if you ſhould ſay, If God did decree to ſave Peter and Paul, it followeth, that God did decree to ſave ſome: not that God did firſt indefinitely decree to ſave ſome, and then decree that Peter and Paul ſhould be two of them. And to reward men according to their workes, is no more a worke of [Page] hatred then of love; but as it is indefinite, ſo it is indifferent to prove in the iſſue either a worke of hatred or of love; as that God, Who worketh in us every thing that is pleaſing in his ſight through Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. 13. 21. ſhall worke in ſome that which is pleaſing in his ſight through Jeſus Chriſt, and not in others.

Neither will it follow here-hence, that God rejecteth and reprobateth ſome upon preſuppoſall of diſobedience, more then that hee electeth and predeſtinateth others upon preſuppoſall of their obedience; for undoubtedly God purpoſed as well to reward the godly according to their workes, as the ungodly according to theirs; though, I confeſſe, there is a great difference betweene the condition of evill workes and good workes; evill workes being meritorious of puniſhment, good workes no way meritorious of reward: but this nothing hinders the courſe of remuneration in generall: And againe, what is wanting of merit on the part of Gods Elect, is abundantly ſupplyed by the merit and ſatisfaction of Chriſt. It followeth, I confeſſe, that upon diſobedience on the one ſide (provided it be finall, not otherwiſe; for, undoubtedly, abuſe both of means of grace in Chriſt, and other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature, is found alſo in the Elect, though not finall; for, Novimus, ſaith Auſtin, that God hath converted non modo averſas à vera fide, ſed & adverſas verae fidei voluntates) God damneth ſome for diſobedience; and it is no leſſe true, that upon obedience on the other ſide, God ſaves the others. But this opinion, I confeſſe, was heretofore ſhaped by Doctor Overall, and perhaps taken from Caterinus, but with a little variation, and, if I be not deceived, firſt deviſed by the Author of the two bookes, De vocatione Gentium; all which notwithſtanding are orthodox in the point of Election throughout, excepting Caterinus, whoſe orthodoxy therein is onely in part. But, in few words, I will diſprove this latter poſition of yours, by your owne rules: For thus I diſpute, If God did firſt fore-ſee mans diſobedience, and then ordaine them to condemnation, then God did firſt decree to permit this diſobedience, before hee did decree to damne them for it. Whence it followeth, that the permiſſion of this ſinne was firſt in intention, and conſequently, laſt in execution: that is, God muſt firſt damne them, and afterwards permit their diſobedience, whereby they deſerve damnation. Yet, [Page] I pray, conceive not hereupon that I maintaine, that God doth firſt purpoſe to damne men, and ſecondly purpoſe to permit their diſobedience; both orders, in my opinion, are very diſſolute; though I confeſſe it is commonly ſo received, that by denying the one wee muſt neceſſarily fall upon the other.

Herein two things are granted by common conſent of our Divines: Anſw.

1. That the end of Gods purpoſe in his poſitive Reprobation of the world, is to glorifie his juſtice, power, and wrath in their juſt overthrow and condemnation.

2. That hee doth not purpoſe to condemne them but for ſinne.

But two other things you ſee there bee, wherein, I confeſſe, I diſſent from them; but with ſubmiſſion of my ſpirit to the guidance of the word, and the ſpirit of my brethren.

1. In the firſt act of poſitive Reprobation, that I doe not acknowledge any unwillingneſſe at all in God to reward the men of this world with life, upon any condition whatſoever.

2. In the ſecond act of poſitive Reprobation, that I doe conceive the decree of Reprobation to be converſant about the world, not as conſidered in maſſa primitus corrupta, as in the firſt fall of Adam; but as afterwards voluntarily falling from the meanes, either of grace in the ſecond Adam, or of the knowledge of God in nature, by ſome acts of careleſſe or wilfull diſobedience.

Theſe two things above mentioned are granted not onely by Examin. the common conſent of our Divines, but by the common conſent alſo of all Chriſtians, as I conceive, whether Papiſts or Arminians: yet obſerve, I pray, as touching the ſecond, that ſinne is apparently made the cauſe onely of condemnation, but not of Gods purpoſe; whereas hitherto you have carryed the matter ſo, as if ſinne were the cauſe not onely of condemnation, but alſo of Reprobation; as much as to ſay, of Gods purpoſe to condemne. But to ſay, that God for ſinne did purpoſe to condemne for ſin, is ſo harſh an expreſſion, that in all my reading I never found any adventure thereupon. Come wee to your proper opinion: You doe not acknowledge any unwillingneſſe in God to reward the men of this world with life, upon any condition whatſoever. I know no reaſon why you ſhould conceive any of our Divines to differ from you in this, although you had ſpoken out your meaning never ſo plainly and fully: not onely denying unwillingneſſe, but [Page] acknowledging a willingneſſe, as afterwards you doe; not a willingneſſe onely which may have place though joyned with a will to the contrary, as in all mixt actions, which yet are not incident to God, though they are to a creature, as who ſometimes doth ſome thing volens nolens: for certainly, God will ſave any man upon condition hee beleeves and repents: And on the other ſide, neither is there any unwillingneſſe in God, but a willingneſſe rather, yea and that a reſolute will to damne any man in caſe hee dyeth in infidelity and impenitency. For we have the cleare word of God to juſtifie us herein, profeſſing moſt evidently, that, Whoſoever beleeveth ſhall be ſaved; whoſoever beleeveth not ſhall be damned. So that I wonder not a little whereto theſe expreſſions tend, ſave that commonly, ſuch is the iſſue of imperfect conceptions, all preparations to the juſtifying of them fall miſerably ſhort of that whereunto they aime.

2. As touching the ſecond act, either you muſt profeſſe that no Infants periſh in originall ſinne; or you muſt, according to your Tenet, conſider them onely in maſſa primitus corrupta; for as much as they, dying before they came to the uſe of reaſon, were never guilty of any voluntary falling off from the meanes, either of grace in the ſecond Adam, or of the knowledge of God in nature, by ſome acts of careleſſe or wilfull diſobedience. As for their opinion, who thinke the conſideration of all men in maſſa Adae ſufficient to juſtifie God in decreeing the condemnation of all, I take it to be a very rude and undigeſted conceit; for undoubtedly, if the conſideration of ſinne be at all prerequired to the decree of condemnation, it muſt bee the conſideration rather of that ſinne for which they are chiefly damned: For, ſhall the conſideration of that ſinne onely, which deſerves the leaſt degree of damnation, juſtifie God in the decreeing the greateſt degree of condemnation? what colour of juſtice is found in this? Shall the conſideration of telling an officious lye, juſtifie a Magiſtrate in decreeing to inflict ſuch a puniſhment as is due onely to high treaſon? I ſay rather, that God conſiders none in maſſa Adae, before they are in maſſa Adae; for thus to conſider, is not conſiderare, but errare, or fingere; which wee cannot decently attribute to God: but God conſidered all men tanquam in maſſa Adae futuros; and as many as ſhould dye in infancy, God conſidered them in no other ſtate of ſinne, tanquam futuros, but in [Page] that. As for as many as ſhould ſurvive to the uſe of reaſon, God conſidered them, tanquam futuros, not onely in maſſa Adae, but guilty of their owne perſonall tranſgreſſions; and whom hee ſo conſidered, and withall as finally perſevering therein, all them hee decreed to damne. So likewiſe whom hee conſidered tanquam fideles futuros, & reſipiſcentiam acturos, & in fide & reſipiſcentia perſeveraturos, hee decreed to ſave. But take heed that herehence you inferre not, Therefore fore-ſight of perſeverance in ſin was the cauſe or prerequiſite of Reprobation; leſt you be driven by juſt proportion to confeſſe, that fore-ſight of faith alſo and perſeverance therein was the cauſe, or prerequiſite at leaſt, of Election. Yet doe not hereupon fall into the contrary extreme, as to thinke that then the decree of Salvation and Damnation precedes the foreſight of faith on the one ſide, or of finall impenitency on the other; though ſuch deluſions have had their courſe, and paſſed in the world a long time; and all for want of a little Logick, in diſcerning the right order in intention of the meanes tending to a certaine end: For, both creation and permiſſion of ſinne in Adam, and finall perſeverance in ſinne, and damnation for ſinne, are but joynt meanes tending to one end; to wit, the glory of God, in the way of juſtice vindicative: and conſequently the intention of all thoſe meanes is at once, neither before nor after other, howſoever they are not at once in execution, (which perhaps is the rock of offence whereat many ſtumble ere they are aware:) As for example, To the curing of a diſeaſe a Phyſician diſcerneth that many operations are neceſſarily requiſite, theſe are at once intended, the nature of the diſeaſe beſpeaking them all; but they are not, nor cannot be executed at once: The like may bee ſaid of all other proceedings, according to the order of media and finis. So on the other ſide, creation, permiſſion of ſin, deliverance from ſinne by the grace of faith and repentance, and finally ſalvation, are all but joynt meanes tending to one and the ſame end; to wit, the glory of God in the way of mercy mixt with juſtice; and conſequently, all at once in intention, though not all at once in execution. But to diſprove that which here you affirme, as if ſome wilfull diſobedience, in Gods fore-ſight, was before the decree of condemnation, I diſpute thus, according to your owne rules; If the fore-ſight of diſobedience did precede the decree of condemnation, then God did firſt decree to permit [Page] this diſobedience, before hee did decree to damne any man for it: which is as much as to ſay, Mans diſobedience was firſt in Gods intention; and conſequently, it muſt be laſt in execution: that is, men muſt firſt be damned for their diſobedience, before God permits them to become diſobedient. But let us conſider your grounds, in the next place.

That God hath ſome willingneſſe to glorifie his diſtributive Anſw. juſtice, as well as vindicative, in rewarding the world with life upon condition of obedience and repentance, as well as with death upon condition of diſobedience and impenitency, appeareth from Gods Oath; As I live (ſaith the Lord) I have no pleaſure in the wicked mans death; but rather that hee ſhould turne from his wickedneſſe and live. The uſuall anſwer made to this place ſeems to once to ſtraine the word beyond his native ſimplicity.

1. Some ſay that God ſpeakes not of all the wicked, but of ſome of the elect onely, who in time are brought on to repentance: but the truth is, hee ſpeaketh of ſuch wicked men, whereof ſome dye in their ſinnes, as is evident by the parallel place.

2. Others ſay, that God ſpeaketh of his antecedent will, going before all cauſes in the creature, not of his conſequent will, following the creature in ſinne: but plaine it is, hee ſpeaketh of men now wicked, defiled with originall and actuall ſin.

3. Others ſay againe, God ſpeakes not of the ſecret will of his good pleaſure, but of his revealed will: but though I know there be ſundry parts of Gods ſecret will which are not revealed, yet I know no part of his will by oath, doctrine, or hiſtoricall narration, that is diſcrepant from his ſecret will as all.

Object. If you ſay, Yes: Gods revealed will is that all ſhould repent.

Reſp. 1. I anſwer: It is not a part of Gods will revealed by hath, doctrine, or hiſtoricall narration; but by a word of command.

2. I ſay, it is a part of his ſecret will too; I meane, of his good pleaſure, that all men ſhould repent: and it is his diſpleaſure if they repent not.

3. But there is another part of his good will alſo, that if they repent they ſhall not periſh; and this alſo revealed in his word: And thus the will of God revealed in a diſt [...] axiome is alwayes conſonant to his ſecret will, and never fruſtrated.

[Page] 4. Finally, others ſay, that God delights not in the death of a ſinner, as it is the deſtruction of the creature, but as it is a meanes of the manifeſtation of his juſtice. I anſwer, It is true; but the manifeſtation of his juſtice ſtands, as hee expreſſeth himſelfe, in the removall of the cauſe of their deſtruction from his owne will to their will: As I live (ſaith the Lord) I deſire not the death of a ſinner: Turne yee, turne yee; why will yee dye, O houſe of Iſrael?

Firſt, here is ſome Philoſophicall error in diſtinguiſhing betweene Examin. juſtice diſtributive and juſtice vindicative; which are no more to be diſtinguiſhed than a genus is to be diſtinguiſhed from his ſpecies: Juſtice commutative is only oppoſite to juſtice diſtributive; but juſtice diſtributive comprehends under it as well juſtice vindicative as juſtice remunerative.

2. Here wee have an anxious diſcourſe to prove that which no man denyes, as before hath been ſhewed: And on the other ſide, it is equally as true, that God hath a willingneſſe to glorifie his vindicative juſtice, as well as remunerative; to puniſh with death any one of his Elect, upon condition of finall diſobedience and impenitency, as well as to reward with life, upon condition of obedience and repentance.

3. But it appeares by the Proofe, that ſome further Point is intended then is yet manifeſted; and ſuch a one as you ſeeme rather to inſinuate then expreſſe. For whereas hitherto you have propoſed a will of God onely conditionate, the place of Scripture alledged mentions no ſuch conditionate will, which is indifferent to paſſe either upon the life or death of a man accordingly as hee ſhall be found to repent or not to repent; but rather intimates a will of God inclining to affect rather the life of man then his death: as it is manifeſted in theſe words, I have no pleaſure in the wicked mans death, but rather that hee repent and live. Now this is nothing congruous to a conditionate will; as before premiſed; Firſt, becauſe a conditionate will, at the beſt, is but indifferent, to paſſe either upon life or death according to the condition propoſed. Secondly, if the condition of life be ſuch as whereunto man is not ſo well diſpoſed, and the condition of death ſuch as whereunto man is moſt prone; it will follow here-hence, that ſuch a conditionate will is more propenſe to affect a mans death than life. Thirdly, moſt of all, in caſe it be ſuch as that the condition of [Page] life is never performed, and the condition of death alwayes performed; and the event hereof well knowne to God when hee made this conditionate decree.

4. But whereas you would (I gueſſe) inſinuate, that God doth will the life of the wicked (diſtinguiſhed from Gods Elect) rather then their death, the place alledged is nothing to this purpoſe; as not ſignifying what God doth rather will to come to paſſe, but what God doth take moſt pleaſure in, when it doth come to paſſe, whether it doth come to paſſe or no; for certainly, the life and repentance of the world doth never come to paſſe, according to your opinion.

5. Junius renders the place ſo, as that Gods delight is ſignified to be placed in the repentance of a ſinner; Ne vivam fi delector morte improbi; ſed delector cum revertitur improbus ut vivat. And indeed God is glorified by our obedience, as whereby hee is acknowledged to be our ſupreme Lord; not ſo by our diſobedience. And indeed, did God take pleaſure in the death of a ſinner, what ſhould move him to wait for his repentance, and uſe all perſwaſive meanes to bring him to repentance? And it is propoſed to take them off from a deſperate condition, propoſed in theſe words, Quia defectiones noſtrae & peccata noſtra incumbunt nobis, ideò ipſis nos tabeſcimus ecqui viveremus. To take them off from this, the Lord ſends his Prophet, charging him and ſaying, Dic eis, ne vivam ego, dictum Domini, ſi delector morte improbi, ſed cum revertitur improbus à via ſua ut vivat. Revertimini, revertimini à viis veſtris peſſimis; cur enim moreremini, domus Iſraelis?

6. Be it ſpoken in generall, both of Elect and Reprobate, (yet onely is it directed to them to whom the Prophets of God are ſent;) it followeth not, that God doth will or deſire the repentance of any Reprobate; (though to the confirmation hereof you chiefly tend:) certainly, whoſoever repents, God takes pleaſure in his repentance; and the Scripture ſaith no more: But that he doth not will it or deſire it, out of your owne mouth may bee convinced, ſeeing that God affords not any Reprobate ſuch an effectuall grace as hee fore-ſees will bring them to repentance; but reſerving that for the Elect alone, unto all others hee vouchſafeth onely ſuch a grace as hee knowes full well will never bring any of them unto repentance. And if God would bring any man [Page] unto repentance, who ſhould hinder him? ſhall the will of man? how doth it hinder him in working the repentance of his Elect? cannot hee omnipotenti facilitate convertere, (as Auſtin ſpeakes) whom he will, & ex nolentibus volentes facere? Againe, doth God continue to will their repentance after they are damned, or no? If no: then is hee changed if ever hee willed their repentance.

7. Certainly, he ſpeaks of men defiled with originall and actuall ſinne; for hee ſpeakes of ſuch whom he exhorts to repentance: yet this hinders not but that it may proceed of his antecedent will; for nothing but finall impenitency makes way for Gods conſequent will concerning damnation.

8. Saint Paul, of all his labours, tendred to the good of all ſorts, profeſſeth, that hee ſuffered them for Gods Elect: How [...], 10. much more in Gods intention was the Miniſtry of his Prophets for the Elect ſake? The queſtion is not ſo much about Gods delight in the death of the wicked, as about his delight concerning their repentance and life; and this hath no parallel, Ezech. 18. applying it to other then Gods Elect.

9. The third Anſwer, though it ſeemes to mee not congruous enough in reſpect of life; becauſe revealed will, in this diſtinction, is uſually taken onely for Gods commandement; and life is no precept: yet is it congruous enough in reſpect of repentance; for it is generally commanded; and conſequently, Gods will of life, if it be called his will revealed, may be reduced to congruity, as conſequent to repentance, which God commands to all; and conſequently, hee may be ſaid, by his revealed will, to will the ſalvation of all. The Anſwer to this is nothing to purpoſe, as ſticking upon the termes, ſecret and revealed, and not applied to the uſuall acceptions of this diſtinction, which is onely to ſignifie Gods will of commandement, which wee all know to be revealed; and Gods will of purpoſe, which moſtly is not revealed.

10. It is untrue, that it is Gods good pleaſure that all ſhould repent; for the will of Gods good pleaſure, in the acception of all that ever I read, is onely of that which God will have come to paſſe; and conſequently, of what ſhall come to paſſe; not of what ſhould come to paſſe, to wit, of mans duty; that is generally accounted voluntas ſigni, in diſtinction from voluntas beneplaciti; and in ſpeciall, wee may call it voluntas praecepti, and diſtinguiſh [Page] it from voluntas propoſiti; this is, What God will have to bee done; that is, what God will have to be our duty to doe: And thus farre it may be accounted the will of Gods good pleaſure (as you call it.) But then, Gods diſpleaſure following hath no congruous oppoſition hereunto; as when you ſay, It is his diſpleaſure if they repent not: the contrary whereunto is not as you ſhape it, It is his good pleaſure that all men ſhould repent; but rather thus, It is his good pleaſure if they doe repent. That diſtinction tends to meere confuſion. Neither yet doe I like this expreſſion, ſhaped never ſo congruouſly: rather it ſhould runne thus, God is well pleaſed when men doe repent, and moſt diſpleaſed when they doe not repent; which is moſt true, but leaſt to the preſent purpoſe, as touching the diſtinction ventilated betweene us, concerning voluntas ſigni, & voluntas beneplaciti.

Your ſecond inſtance, of voluntas beneplaciti, is no leſſe extravagant; as when you make the object thereof thus; If they repent, they ſhall not periſh: If they repent not, they ſhall periſh: for promiſes and rewards are but adjuncts to voluntas ſigni, and nothing ſecret, but plainly revealed. But to whom God will make his commandements, back'd with promiſes and threats, effectuall to the working of repentance, this is a ſecret; and this wee commonly account voluntas beneplaciti. When you adde, ſaying, Thus the will of God revealed in a diſtinct axiome, is alwayes conſonant to his revealed will, and never fruſtrated; You continue ſtill in a miſerable confuſion, worſe rather then better: as when you talke of a disjunct axiome, in reference to that which went before, when no disjunct axiome at all went before, but certaine conditionate axiomes; as theſe, If they repent, they ſhall not periſh: If they repent not, they ſhall periſh: whereas disjunct oppoſitions are ſuch as theſe; They ſhall repent or no: They ſhall periſh or no: And to ſay ſuch axiomes are conſonant to Gods ſecret will, is a wild expreſſion; whereas indeed they are neither conſonant nor diſſonant, ſave onely in enuntiating that in an indeterminate manner, which Gods will hath made determinate; and in that reſpect it is diſſonant enough.

Of the cauſe of the death of a ſinner there needeth not to be any queſtion; for undoubtedly, the ſinne of man is the cauſe thereof, in the way of a cauſe meritorious; but not in the way of a cauſe naturally efficient. And as undoubted it is, that Gods will is [Page] the cauſe thereof, as a Judge, in the way of a cauſe naturally efficient; but not in the way of a cauſe meritorious. And as cleare it is, that onely the meritorious cauſe is the chiefe cauſe in this kind; for as much as by the rendring thereof alone, ſatisfaction is made to him that demands the reaſon, why ſuch a one ſuffereth death. But I wonder what you meane to change the former Tranſlation of the Text, thus, I have no pleaſure in the wicked mans death, into another, thus, I will not the death of a ſinner; For, is it not God that inflicteth death? and doth hee not doe all things according to the counſell of his will? Epheſ. 1. 11. Yet if it were ſo to be rendred, it will nothing advantage you. And in no other ſenſe can it be ſaid, that hee doth not will it; then in that in which hee is ſaid, not to puniſh willingly, Lam. 3. according to the Latine phraſe, when hee doth not puniſh, Animi cauſa, but by reaſon of ſome provocation, the ſinne of man urging and moving him thereunto; as is fairely intimated in that, Hoſ. 11. 8. How ſhall I give thee up, Ephraim? how ſhall I deliver thee, Iſrael? And, Eſay 3. They provoke the eyes of his glory.

For a ſecond ground: In the Covenant of Workes you may ſee, as in a glaſſe, what the purpoſe of God is, in the manifeſting his Anſw. Juſtice upon the world of mankind; as in the Covenant of Grace you may ſee, as in a mirrour, what the purpoſe of God is, in manifeſting his mercy upon the Elect: For as it is in men renued after the Image of God; ſo likewiſe it is in God himſelfe: Such as his Covenant or Promiſe is, ſuch is his Purpoſe. God doth covenant and promiſe in the Covenant of Grace to give life to the Elect, out of his grace in Chriſt: So here doth God covenant and promiſe, in the Covenant of Workes, to give life to Adam and all his poſterity, if they continue in obedience of his Law; or if, breaking this Law, they return again to him by repentance; as it is deſcribed at large, Gen. 4. 7. Levit. 18. 5. Ezek. 18. 5. & 20. 11. & 40. 21. Gal. 3. 12. Surely then, the purpoſe of Gods juſt retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their obedience, or of their repentance after diſobedience. Say not, Surely God purpoſed nothing but death to the world of mankind (whom hee elected not,) becauſe hee offered them life upon ſuch condition which hee knew was impoſſible for them to keep: for, firſt, in Adam they were enabled to keep it; neither impotency in Adam, nor efficacy of Gods decree did put upon Adam any neceſſity of breaking[Page]it. Againe, in Chriſt they have ſo much knowledge and grace revealed to them, and offered, as is ſufficient to bring them on to ſee their impotency in themſelves, and to ſtirre them up to ſeeke for help, and ſtrength, and life, in him where it is to be found: which if they neglect or deſpiſe, as the Phariſees did, and all the reſt of impenitent ſinners doe, God and his Covenant are blameleſſe, in offering them life, and the meanes of it; their deſtruction is of themſelves.

That Propoſition of yours, As it is in men renued after the Image of God, ſo likewiſe it is in God himſelfe; had need of much Examin. limitation and qualification, leſt it prove as often falſe as true, or rather more. That which followes; Such as is his Covenant or Promiſe, ſuch is his Purpoſe: is likewiſe as often falſe as true. If the Promiſes of God are abſolute, ſuch are his Purpoſes; but if his Promiſes bee conditionall, ſuch are not his Purpoſes. Both Piſcator of late, by evidence of Scripture, and Bradwardine long before, by demonſtration of Reaſon, have proved, that no will in God is conditionate, quoad actum volentis; all the conditions are found, quoad res volitas. And indeed, though the Purpoſes of God are abſolute, yet his Promiſes are therefore conditionate, becauſe they are conformed to the manner of Gods operation with man: For, as God workes in all things agreeable to their natures; ſo in man hee uſeth to worke agreeable to his nature. And therefore, albeit his Purpoſe bee abſolute to bring them to grace and glory, to faith, repentance, and ſalvation; yet hee allures them to faith and repentance by promiſes and threatnings. When you ſay, that, God doth covenant and promiſe to give life to the Elect, out of his grace in Chriſt: You might as well have ſaid, that, God promiſeth to give life to them that beleeve and repent; and more congruouſly a great deale; ſeeing the conſcience of our faith and repentance brings us to the aſſurance of our Election; the conſcience of our Election, or of the aſſurance thereof, brings us not unto faith and repentance. But it ſeemes you deſire to ſhape the Promiſes of God in the Covenant of Grace, and in the Covenant of Workes, in ſo different a manner, that the one may ſeeme to bee abſolute, the other conditionall; whereas they are of the ſame nature in both: And as God doth withall intend to give the grace of obedience to the Elect; ſo doth hee as abſolutely intend to deny it to the other. And I wonder you make [Page] not mention of the Reprobate in the latter, as of the Elect in the former: Undoubtedly, the Covenant of Workes concernes all to whom it is preached; as well the Elect as the Reprobate. And the Covenant of Grace likewiſe concernes all to whom it is preached; as well the Reprobate as the Elect. To all it is preached, Whoſoever beleeveth ſhall be ſaved; as well to the Reprobate as to the Elect: To all it is preached indifferently, Whoſoever beleeveth not ſhall bee damned; as well to the Elect as to the Reprobate: onely, God ſhewes mercy on whom hee will, in giving the grace of faith; and hardens whom he will, in denying it. God doth covenant (you ſay) to give life to Adam and all his poſterity, if they continue in obedience to his Law. This then, undoubtedly, concernes the Elect as well as the Reprobate; For they are a part of Adams poſterity. But I wonder not a little at this language, ſpeaking in the Preſent Tenſe, that God doth covenant to give Adam life; whereas Adam many thouſand yeares agoe hath ceaſed to have any thing to doe with any ſuch Covenant. Therefore this is for ſome ſpeciall purpoſe, in joyning Adam and his poſterity together, as perſons covenanted with by God. And I imagine the reaſon of it to be this: Leſt otherwiſe there could bee no place for continuance in obedience required of all Adams poſterity; for that preſuppoſeth them to be in the eſtate of obedience: which was never verified of them all, but as they were in Adam, and that in his ſtate of Innocency. But why ſhould wee pleaſe our ſelves with ſuch confuſion? Let us conſider them apart; and ſay, that, God did covenant with Adam that if hee continued in obedience to his Law; or if breaking his Law hee did returne againe to him by repentance, hee ſhould have life. But what evidence, I pray, have you for this? namely, that God made any ſuch Covenant with Adam in the ſtate of Innocency? who ever was found to entertaine any ſuch conceit before you? why might not you as well deviſe the like Covenant to be made by God with the Angels? Nay, is not the contrary manifeſt? In the day thou ſinneſt thou ſhalt dye the death. How could this be verified, if God Gen. [...]. made any ſuch Covenant with Adam? For, if hee were under ſuch a Covenant, hee could not be ſaid to violate it by ſinning, but onely by refuſing to repent after hee had ſinned. And I verily beleeve you have no ſuch meaning, as if you conceived any ſuch Covenant to bee made with Adam before his fall; and therefore [Page] you clapt Adam and his poſterity together; to the end, that if that which you delivered might not hold of the one, it might of the other. And though it hold of Adams poſterity, as touching this part, of turning unto God by repentance after ſinne committed; yet of them it holds not, as touching the other part of the condition, to wit, of continuance in obedience; for the poſterity of Adam, through his fall, are quite out of the eſtate of obedience, till God reſtores them. Nay, God in this life never reſtores any to the eſtate of obedience, which was found in Adam before his fall. Out of this confuſion you inferre, that, Surely the purpoſe of Gods juſt retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their obedience, or of their repentance. As before wee were troubled with confuſion, ſo here wee are againe troubled with an unhappy diſtinction: For, what doe you meane to diſtinguiſh Obedience from Repentance, as if Repentance were not Obedience? Doth not God ſay as well unto us, Repent, and beleeve the Goſpel; as, If you conſent and obey, you ſhall eat the Eſa. 1. good things of the land? Is it fit to diſtinguiſh the Genus from the Species, ſo as to ſet one in oppoſition to the other? Though the contentions of Brethren are as the barrs of a Palace; yet, as Brethren, they are all the Children of the ſame Father, or Mother, or both. But take wee your meaning; and that by Obedience is to be underſtood, ſuch a ſtate or condition of obedience as is without all ſinne; then let your Poſition runne plainly thus, Surely, the purpoſe of Gods juſt retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their being without ſinne, or of their repentance after obedience. To this I anſwer, That, there never was any ſuch Covenant of God with man; I meane, in ſuch ſort conditionate: and conſequently, there never was any purpoſe in God to make any ſuch Covenant with man; at leaſt for the time paſt: As for the times to come, let them ſpeake for themſelves, by their owne experience, when they come. But that never any ſuch Covenant had place hitherto, between God and man, it is manifeſt: For, ſince the Fall of Adam all being borne in ſinne, there is no place for ſuch a Covenant, as touching the firſt part of the condition, which is, of being without ſinne. And before the Fall of Adam there was no place for this Covenant, as touching the latter part of the condition; as I preſume you will not deny: onely the confuſion of theſe two ſtates, before the Fall and after [Page] the Fall, hath brought forth this wild conceit of ſuch a Covenant. By that which followeth, it ſeemes that all theſe conceptions tend to no worſe end, then to juſtifie Gods diſpoſition towards the Reprobate. And it is great pity that ſo good an end, as the juſtifying of God, ſhould bee brought about by no more congruous courſes then theſe. But I would faine know, what blemiſh ſhould redound to the nature of God, if hee ſhould intend nothing but death to the world of mankind? yet your ſelfe will acknowledge, that hee might have intended nothing but annihilation: And is not annihilation as bad as death? But your meaning is, by death to underſtand ſorrow. And is there not juſt cauſe to preferre ſorrow before death? Yea, but your meaning is, of ſorrow in the higheſt degree, and that everlaſting. Why, but if it be no blemiſh to God to intend nothing but ſorrow in ſeven degrees to the world of mankind, why ſhould it be any blemiſh to him to intend nothing but ſorrow in a degree more? And if it be no blemiſh to God to intend nothing but ſorrow to the world of mankind for millions of yeares, why ſhould it be any blemiſh to his reputation, to intend to the world of mankind nothing but everlaſting ſorrow? Yet whom doe you oppoſe in this? Who ever ſaid, that God did intend nothing but death to the world of mankind? thoſe on whom you obtrude this conceit, doe not affirme this of the world of mankind, but onely of the Reprobates; if they doe affirme any ſuch thing. And why, I pray, ſhould the Reprobates be taken for the world of mankind, rather than the Elect? Neither doth any man ſay, that God did intend nothing but death to the Reprobates: Hee did intend to them all life as well as death; but withall, that all the poſterity of Adam ſhould be borne, or at leaſt conceived, in ſinne; and alſo that many thouſands ſhould periſh in that ſinne wherein they were conceived and borne. And I preſume you dare not deny this: which yet is the harſheſt proceeding of God, above all others, except his dealing with his owne Sonne. As for others, he intended to expoſe them to actuall ſinnes of infidelity and impenitency, by denying to them that grace which alone would preſerve them from ſuch ſinnes; as your ſelfe ſpare not to profeſſe: and yet for all this you would obtrude upon us a ſtrange conceit, and that as very reaſonable; namely, That God did not intend their death onely, but their life alſo: whereas God is nothing at all advantaged [Page] hereby in his reputation, but onely in words, which is no reall reliefe to his honour, but the adding of another injury (if that bee an injury unto him, as you conceive;) namely, to mock him alſo. And if wee ſhall nothing pleaſure him by a lye, lying for God, as man doth for man, to gratifie him; ſurely wee ſhall doe him no pleaſure by thus mocking him. I would you had tried your ſtrength in oppugning their opinion to the uttermoſt, who maintaine God to carry himſelfe as abſolutely in the way of Reprobation, as in the way of Election: I would gladly have conſidered it. But let us conſider your preſent diſcourſe: Firſt, you ſay, They were in Adam enabled to keep the condition; therefore ſay not, God intended nothing but death to them. I pray transferre the caſe to the Angels; were not they alſo enabled to keep the condition of life, as well as their fellowes? yet, did not God grant his Elect Angels ſuch a grace as whereby hee knew they would ſtand; denying ſuch a grace unto the others; and that as abſolutely as hee granted it unto the other? And could hee not as abſolutely have granted this grace unto them [...] and denyed it to them that ſtood? And what would have [...] the iſſue, but quite contrary? & verſis luxiſſet curia fatis.

Now let any man, that is not poſſeſſed with a prejudicate conceit, conſider, whether God did not as abſolutely will the damnation of the one, as the ſalvation of the other; making the one amplius adjutos (as Auſtin ſpeakes) then the other? For the abſoluteneſſe of Gods Election of Angels, is ſeene by the abſoluteneſſe of his giving them ſuch a grace as to keep them from ſinne. And if hee doth as abſolutely deny others the ſame grace, as hee muſt needs; (for before the firſt ſinne of Angels there could bee no cauſe moving God to deny them grace;) it will follow, that their Reprobation was as abſolute as the others Election. Yet what a poore relieving of Gods reputation is this, to ſay, that Judas had power in Adam to keep the condition of life propoſed to him; though ſince his Fall hee hath not: yet wee beleeve that Adam is ſaved, who bereaved Judas of his ability; and Judas damned, for not keeping that whereunto hee had no ability; and that through the Fall of Adam. Further, obſerve I pray you the miſerable conſequents of this your Argument, as it runnes thus, in few words; In Adam we were enabled to keep the Condition; Therefore ſay not, that God intended nothing but death to the Reprobate. [Page] By the ſame reaſon I may diſpute thus: In Adam they were enabled to breake the condition of life; therefore, Say not that God intended nothing but life to his Elect. But as hee intended ſalvation, and not damnation onely, to the Reprobates; In like ſort hee intended damnation, and not ſalvation onely, to the Elect: Eſpecially conſidering, that not in Adam onely, but in themſelves alſo, they are able enough to breake it; and the beſt of them have that in them that deſerves damnation, nothing that deſerves ſalvation. As for the Reprobates, there neither was nor is any thing in them that ſits them for ſalvation. It is ſtrange that theſe incongruities ſhould not bee diſcerned; or being diſcerned, men ſhould be ſo little moved with them. But theſe are dayes of vengeance; and when a good man erres, and that in weighty matters, I conſider not any judgement of God upon him, but upon the world rather; that hereby are ſo much the more countenanced in their erroneous wayes, which are advantageous to fleſh and bloud; and therefore they delight in them, and thereby become the more worthy to be given over to illuſions, to beleeve lyes. Let mee touch upon that alſo, as where you ſay, It was not the efficacy of Gods decree that did put upon Adam any neceſſity of breaking it. This, I confeſſe, is a plauſible ſpeech now adayes, and apt to bee taken up; eſpecially coming from good mens mouthes, to choake others withall, who feare not to give God the glory of his power, with as much truth, and with a greater diſtinction and plainneſſe; wee ſay with Aquinas, that, Gods will is ſo efficacious, as to cauſe all things to come to paſſe after ſuch a manner as they doe come to paſſe; to wit, neceſſary things neceſſarily, and contingent things contingently, or freely, whether in good or evill. And if you ſpare to ſpeake with the Holy Ghoſt, yet wee will not; but profeſſe, that, Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Iſrael, were gathered together to doe that which Gods hand and Gods counſell determined before to be done. And with Auſtin, Non aliquid fit, niſi Omnipotens fieri velit, vel ſinendo ut fiat, vel ipſe faciendo.

So that even thoſe things which God ſinit ſieri, vult ſieri: Enchirid. cap. 95. Good things he will have come to paſſe, by his working of them; evill things hee will have come to paſſe, by his ſuffering of them. Nay, otherwiſe it were impoſſible hee ſhould foreknow them; for unleſſe they are future, they are not knowable to be future. [Page] But how can it be, that things contingent, and in their owne nature indifferent, as well to be not future as future; how, I ſay, is it poſſible that they ſhould paſſe out of this indifferent condition into a condition determinate; and things meerely poſſible in their owne nature, become future without a cauſe? And what cauſe can be deviſed of this tranſition, but the will of God? For, from everlaſting, nothing was extant to cauſe them of things poſſible to become future, but God himſelfe: and in God himſelfe, nothing can be imagined to be the cauſe hereof, but the will of God. This is the inſoluble demonſtration that cuts the throat of Scientia media, whereupon the Jeſuites and Arminians, and all that oppoſe the abſoluteneſſe of Gods proceedings, doe, and muſt relye; either wittingly or unwittingly, and whether they will or no; unleſſe they will directly turne Atheiſts, and with Cicero deny that God fore-knowes things that are to come. So that upon ſuppoſition of Gods will to permit Adam to fall, it was neceſſary that Adam ſhould fall; neceſſary, I ſay, that hee ſhould fall: But how? Not neceſſarily, but contingently, and freely: and no other neceſſity is at this day found in man for the performing of any particular ſinfull act, but ſuch as is joyned with liberty; and that in ſuch ſort, as that the neceſſity is only Secundum quid; the liberty is Simpliciter: ſo called, I ſay, in reſpect of any particular act. But, I confeſſe, there is an abſolute neceſſity of ſinning, in generall, laid upon man by the Fall of Adam; whereby it comes to paſſe, that whether a man commits a ſinfull act, then queſtionleſſe hee ſinneth; or whether hee omit a ſinfull act, yet therein hee ſinneth alſo; in as much as hee doth not abſtaine from it in a gracious manner. I come to the ſecond Reaſon: Againe, you ſay, In Chriſt they have ſo much knowledge and grace revealed to them, and offered, as is ſufficient to bring them on to ſee their impotency in themſelves, and to ſtirre them up to ſeeke for help and ſtrength, and life in him, where it is to bee found; which if they neglect and deſpiſe, as the Phariſees did, and all impenitent ſinners doe, God and his Covenant are blameleſſe, in offering them life, and the meanes of it; their deſtruction is of themſelves. I have read ſuch manner of diſcourſe as this often in Carvinus, that buſie Arminian; I am ſorry to read it in the writings of good men; eſpecially when I find it not one jot mended in them. Yet all this I ſee ſtill tends to a gracious end, even to [Page] the juſtifying of God; as when you ſay, Their deſtruction is of themſelves. But ſo doe Arminians alſo pretend; to wit, the juſtifying of God in the way of Reprobation: but the iſſue is, to juſtifie themſelves, and glorifie themſelves in the way of Election. But, I pray you, what thinke you of Infants that periſh in Originall ſinne; how is their deſtruction of themſelves? Is it of themſelves that they are borne in ſinne? Yet I preſume you will not ſay, with Arminians, that all Infants that dye in their infancy, whether they be the Children of Turkes and Saracens, yet are ſaved, as well as the children of beleeving Parents. Againe, was not Pharaohs deſtruction of himſelfe alſo, for not letting Iſrael goe? yet, will you deny that God hardned his heart, that hee ſhould not let Iſrael goe? Sihon King of Heſhbon, was not his deſtruction of himſelfe, in that hee would not ſuffer Iſrael to paſſe by him, though they promiſed to goe by the high-way, and to turne neither to the right hand nor to the left, and to pay for all that they received of them, both meat and drinke? nevertheleſſe it is ſaid, that, The Lord hardned his ſpirit, and made his heart obſtinate, becauſe hee would deliver him into the hands of the Iſraelites. The deſtruction of Abimelech and of the Shechemites, was it not of themſelves? yet ſurely, God it was that ſent an evill ſpirit betweene Abimelech and the men of Shechem, that the cruelty againſt the ſeventy ſonnes of Jerubbaal, and their bloud, might Judg. 9. come and be laid upon Abimelech their brother, which had ſlaine them; and upon the men of Shechem which had aided him to kill his brethren. But to proceed: The face of your diſcourſe ſeemes to tend to the maintenance of a ſufficient grace in the Reprobates themſelves; whereof there is much queſtion: but yet you expreſſe onely a ſufficient grace without them, whereof there is no queſtion. For, undoubtedly, in Gods word (whereof even Reprobates are partakers as well as the Elect) there is grace ſufficient in the way of inſtruction and revelation; no man makes queſtion of this. Undoubtedly, therein is contained all things neceſſary both for faith and manners, and ſo to bring them to ſalvation, if they will obey it. But all the queſtion is, whether they have any ſufficiency of grace to enable them to obey it? I preſume your ſelfe will not avouch this. And the Pelagians of old acknowledged a ſufficiency of grace in the way of doctrine and inſtruction. Onely you ſay, There is ſufficient grace given them to bring [Page]them to ſee their impotency. But how doe you prove this? The naturall man commonly is too preiant of his ability; Dicere ſolet humana ſuperbia (ſaith Auſtin) ſi ſciſſem, feciſſem. What was Pauls meaning when hee ſaid of himſelfe, Rom. 7. 9. I once was alive without the Law? I ſhould think this impotency cannot be diſcerned without the life of grace. For, like as a dead man naturally is not ſenſible of his death; ſo hee that is dead in ſinne, is nothing ſenſible of this his ſinfull condition. But howſoever, ſurely grace revealed onely hath no congruity to ſuch a worke, as to bring a man to ſee his impotency; for what greater grace in the kind of revelation then the word of God? let this word teſtifie, that a man is ſhaped in wickedneſſe, and in ſinne conceived; and that hee is dead in ſinne. Is this ſufficient to make him ſee his impotency? Is the hearing of Gods word ſufficient to make him beleeve it? why then is it not ſufficient to take away mens blindneſſe? and why then doth not every one that hears it, ceaſe to be blind; and conſequently, ceaſe to bee lame, and deafe; yea, and ceaſe to be dead alſo? Nay, which is more, ſuppoſe a Phyſician diſcovers a man to be in a dangerous eſtate, when hee dreames of nothing leſſe, and ſuppoſe the party beleeves it upon his word; yet here-hence it followeth not, that hee ſeeth the dangerous eſtate wherein hee is, untill hee hath ſome feeling of it. So likewiſe, if hee ſhould beleeve the word, telling him that hee is unable to doe any thing that is good; yet hee ſhall not be ſaid to ſee it, till hee hath ſome feeling of it: and whence can this feeling proceed, but from ſome principle of life that muſt be ſhed into his ſoule, that hee may have a feeling of that miſerable eſtate wherein hee is by nature; otherwiſe though upon ſuppoſition hee ſhould beleeve it in Gods word, yet hee ſhould not ſee it in himſelfe. Further, you ſay, It is ſufficient to ſtirre him up to ſeek for help, and ſtrength, and life, in him where it is to bee found. A ſtrange conceit, that a man ſhould ſeek for life, whereas if hee hath not life hee is dead; and was it ever known that a dead man ſought for life? well Martha might ſeeke for the reſtoring of life to her dead brother Lazarus, but ſurely Lazarus himſelfe, being dead, neither did, nor could ſeeke for life. A man that hath life, may be ſaid to labour for life; that is, to hold it, when hee is in danger of loſing life: but for a dead man to ſeeke for life is more then miraculous; for it is utterly impoſſible. When the Angell came downe into the [Page] Poole of Betheſda, the poore Creple had never a whit the more ſufficiency to enter in, had his heart beene as lame to deſire as his body to goe, notwithſtanding that he ſaw ſo good an opportunity, hee ſhould make no more haſte to deſire the benefit, then his body could to enjoy it. Againe, no man ſeekes for that hee deſires not; neither can hee deſire ought, unleſſe hee know it, and loves it. And is it poſſible that a man ſhould know the precious nature of the life of grace, and be in love with it, and yet without the life of grace? Is the knowledge of the precious nature of the ſtate of grace, and the love thereof, a fruit of the fleſh thinke you? But, by that which followes, it ſeemes this is not your meaning; but you ſuppoſe, that notwithſtanding all the operation of grace mentioned, they may deſpiſe it: In which caſe, they neither love it, nor underſtand the precious nature of it; for no man deſpiſeth that which hee loves, and accounts precious: Therefore this ſtirring up ſeemes to bee nothing but perſwaſion and exhortation. Now this, as Auſtin long agoe delivered, Doctrinae generalitate comprehenditur; and we willingly grant, that the word preached doth equally exhort all that heare it, to faith, to repentance, to prayer, in ſome of which, or in all which, conſiſts the ſeeking of life. And no man makes queſtion, but the word of God ſufficiently performes its part, in exhortation to faith, to repentance, to prayer: but the Phariſees deſpiſed this, and ſo doe moſt; and God is blameleſſe. But of any power that they have to beleeve, repent, and pray, upon the doing whereof they ſhould obtaine life, your ſelfe are content to ſay nothing at all; but keep your ſelfe unto generall phraſes, which are very apt to deceive us; and this is the courſe not onely of them that are in love with their owne errors; but with good men alſo, when out of a deſire to juſtifie God, and not content with that ſimplicity of ſatisfaction which is laid forth unto us in holy Scripture, and ſeemes harſh to fleſh and bloud, making them cry out, Durus eſt hic ſermo, they ſhape unto themſelves other courſes, more convenient (as they thinke) to give ſatisfaction; yet not ſo much unto themſelves, as unto others: but all in vaine; for fleſh and bloud will receive no ſatisfaction in the plaine truth of God.

A third Reaſon then to prove that God purpoſed life to the Anſw. world, upon condition of their obedience and repentance, is taken from the end God aimed at: As hee declares himſelfe, to offer [Page]meanes of ſalvation unto the world: which is not in the first place to harden, and to leave without excuſe; but to bring them to the knowledge of God and of themſelves, to repentance, to the ſeeking after God, to the purging of themſelves from ſinne, and to peace. To the Gentiles God gave the workes of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts; to reveale the knowledge of God to them, to teach them to doe the things of the Law, to judge of them that doe amiſſe, and thereby be brought to condemne themſelves doing the ſame things; to lead them to repentance, to move them to ſeek after the Lord. And thus much light Chriſt enlighteneth every man withall that cometh into this world. From whence alſo it was, that God vouchſafed heavenly dreames and viſions even to the Gentiles, That hee might withdraw them from their ſinnes, and hide their pride, and ſave their ſoules from the pit. But becauſe this light alone did not prevaile with the Gentiles, as to bring them to the knowledge of God in Chriſt, therefore it pleaſed God in the fulneſſe of time to ſend the preaching of the Goſpel amongst them; and in the meane time, not to iudge them nor condemne them for their not beleeving in Chriſt, of whom they had not heard; nor for tranſgreſſing the Law of workes, which they had not received; but onely for ſinning againſt the law of nature, which was written in their hearts, and expounded to them daily by the workes of Creation and Providence, and ſealed up to them by particular amplification, partly by their Conſciences accuſing or excuſing, Rom. 2. 15. partly by dreames and viſions, Job 33. 15, 16.

To the Jewes God revealed his Covenant clearly and fully; ſent his Prophets among them early and late; gave them deliverances; chaſtened them with many wholeſome afflictions; yea, ſent his holy Spirit among them: And all this, in the firſt place, not to harden, no not carnall Iſrael; nor to leave them without excuſe; but to purge them, to humble them, and to prove them, and to doe them good in the latter end. And when theſe ends were not attained, hee complaines hee had uſed theſe meanes in vaine: which plainly argueth his firſt and chiefeſt intent was to heale, and not to harden. In fulneſſe of time God ſent his Sonne into the world, not to condemne it, or any thing in it; but that the world might bee ſaved through him: implying, that even that part of the world which is condemned for refuſing of Chriſt, it was not[Page]Gods chieſe intent to ſend Chriſt to procure their condemnation, but their ſalvation rather. If they ſhould plead their condemnation to bee unjuſt, for unbeleeſe; becauſe they were not able to beleeve, Ver. 18. our Saviour anſwers, by a reaſonable prevention, Ver. 19. This is their condemnation, viz. the juſt cauſe of their condemnation, that when light came into the world, men loved darkneſſe rather then light: men choſe rather to cleave to their ſinfull eſtates and wayes of darkneſſe, than to follow the light of the meanes of grace, which might have brought them on forward to beleeve in Chriſt. Again, when Chriſt lived here in the world, and was the Miniſter of Circumciſion, and ſo might ſpeake and doe ſome thing as man; yet as man he went not to doe his owne will, but the will of his Father who ſent him: and yet, how willing and earneſt was hee to gather Jeruſalem under his wings; even his wings in which lay healing and ſalvation? A ſigne it was the will of God to have healed and ſaved that part of Jeruſalem which would not. And when our Saviour with tears tells Jeruſalem, Oh that thou hadſt known, at leaſt in this thy day, the things that doe belong unto thy peace! doth hee not intimate, that God had even to that day carried thoughts of peace unto them; and accordingly to ſend them meanes of peace, even thoſe that ſhould never from that day forward enjoy the like means of peace?

Finally, God ſent his Spirit into the world, to convince it of ſin; becauſe they beleeved not in Chriſt: Which argueth, that the Spirit did not onely perſwade them to beleeve in Chriſt; but did convince them alſo that it was their ſin, that they did not attaine to beleeve on him. Now, the Spirit of God moveth to nothing, but what hee knoweth to bee according to the will of God: And therefore the Spirit beares witneſſe, the will of God is, the world of unbeleevers ſhall not bee ſhut out from Chriſt, if they ſhut not out themſelves through unbeleefe.

Still you proceed to prove that which no man denyes: namely, Examin. that God purpoſed life to the world, upon condition of obedience and repentance: provided, that you underſtand it aright: namely, that obedience and repentance is ordained of God, as a condition of life; not of Gods purpoſe. Otherwiſe it were a very wild expreſſion to ſay, that, God ordained that obedience and repentance ſhould be the condition of Gods ordination: Or, that God purpoſed that obedience and repentance ſhould be the condition [Page] of Gods purpoſe. Yet, by the way, I deſire to know whether you exclude faith? If you doe, what ground have you to prove that God ever purpoſed that any of Adams poſterity, coming to ripeneſſe of age, ſhould be ſaved upon the condition of obedience and repentance without faith? Laſt of all, on the other ſide, it is as undoubtedly true, that God ordained, that whoſoever, coming to ripe yeares, ſhould not beleeve and repent, ſhould be damned; the very elect not excepted: Not that any ſuch conditionate decrees are agreeable unto God; but upon ſuch decrees as were abſolute in God, ſuch Propoſitions as theſe are naturally inferred; Whoſoever beleeveth and repenteth, ſhall be ſaved; Whoſoever beleeveth not and repenteth not, ſhall be damned. One thing I had almoſt forgotten: In the former Section you ſpake of a Purpoſe of God to ſave the world upon condition of obedience or repentance, in a disjunctive manner: now you are come off from that, and turne your former disjunctive into a copulative, ſaying, that God purpoſed to ſave the world upon condition of their obedience and repentance: This argueth that you are not well grounded in your owne opinion. Howſoever, your third reaſon is drawn from the end which God aimed at in offering meanes of ſalvation to the world, which is not (ſay you) in the firſt place to harden, or leave them without excuſe; but to bring them to the knowledge of God and of themſelves, to repentance, to the ſeeking after God, to the purging of themſelves from ſinne, and to peace. I am content, firſt, to conſider what you ſay; ſecondly, how you prove, who ever ſaid, that God offered meanes of ſalvation to any to this end, that hee might harden them? Meanes of grace were never (that I know of) called meanes of obduration. Hardening followeth hereupon by accident; but meanes of grace harden not. But when meanes of grace are offered, the corruption of mans heart, uncorrected by the ſpirit of regeneration, is apt to ſuggeſt carnall conſiderations, ſuch as are apt to make a man obſtinately ſtand out againſt them. The motion that Iſrael made to Sihon, to paſſe through his Country, hardened him not; but the feare of inconveniencies and dangers, more than enough, upon the paſſage of ſo great an Army through his Country, in all likelihood, was it that hardened him; and God is ſaid to harden him, in not correcting that feare, but moving him according to that projecting diſpoſition wherein hee found him. And mark how Cajetan commenteth [Page] upon theſe words, Utramque hominis partem (ſpiritum & cor, hoc eſt, ſuperiorem & inferiorem) malè diſpoſitum à Deo, intellige negative penes dona gratuita, poſitivè autem quoad judicum inclinationem & proſecutionem boni ſenſibilis. It à quod Deus ſpiritum regis durum (hoc eſt, non cedentem petitionibus) reddidit, & non dando ci gratiam acquieſcends, & cooperanda cidem ad affectum ſecuritatis & boni proprii. When Moſes came to Pharaoh, to require him, in the name of the Lord, to let Iſrael goe; this was not that that hardened him; but his owne pride, ſuperſtition, and covetouſneſſe: Neither did Gods judgements harden him; for it is divers times ſignified, that when hee found himſelfe eaſed, then hee hardned his heart: and in other places, in the way of an adverſative, when 'tis ſaid, that yet Pharaoh hardened his heart; and the like. This alſo doth remove the cauſe of hardening his heart from Gods judgements; yet, notwithſtanding, it cannot bee denyed, but that when God offers the meanes of grace to many, hee doth it with a purpoſe to harden their hearts; if ſo be hee entertaines any ſuch purpoſe at all, as your ſelfe grants hee doth; for Gods purpoſes are eternall and immutable. As for your qualification of it, by ſaying, Hee doth not offer meanes of grace, in the firſt place, to harden; It is a ſtrange expreſſion, whereof, I am perſwaded, you are not able to give any account; but, hand over head, caſt out ſuch a phraſe as ſeemes agreeable to your Tenet. For, conſider I pray, this firſt place you ſpeake of, is it in intention, or in execution? It cannot be in intention; for, in intention there is no order in things, but in reſpect of end and meanes: but, neither obduration is a ſit meanes to ſalvation, nor ſalvation a ſit meanes to obduration. Neither can it be in execution; for, in execution ſalvation is not found at all, but onely obduration, in the men of the world you ſpeake of. Therefore, your meaning muſt not be of primacy in place or order, but in principality; as much as to ſay, Not chiefly to harden, but chiefly to bring to repentance. But none of your Proofes come neare the making of this good, as wee ſhall ſee in due place. In the meane time, I diſprove it thus; No wiſe man doth chiefly intend that which hee meanes not to bring to paſſe at all: Now, God doth purpoſe to harden them, as your ſelfe confeſſe, though not chiefly: but God doth not purpoſe to ſave them; for, if hee did, who could hinder him? This is the foule blemiſh of your opinion; plainly [Page] denying Gods omnipotency, as Auſtin long agoe diſcourſed: and yet you ſwallow this with facility, though a bit as great as a Camel. I know full well Arminius his ſhifts to eaſe himſelfe of this imputation; I would gladly bee acquainted with any other mans inventions alſo. As for the other end, impugned by you, to wit, to leave them without excuſe; that, indeed, wee grant may more commodiouſly be accounted an end intended by God than the former: neither doe you deny it to be intended by God, onely you ſay, it is not chiefly intended by him; yet this is ſuch a thing as God brings to paſſe, to wit, their unexcuſableneſſe; but their repentance hee never brings to paſſe: and is it fit to ſay, that God chiefly intends that which ſhall never come to paſſe, as hee well knowes, rather than that which infallibly ſhall come to paſſe, and that by his procurement, as himſelfe well knowes? Thus I have conſidered what you ſay: Now I come to conſider how well you prove what you have ſaid. To the Gentiles (you ſay) God gave the workes of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts, to reveale the knowledge of God to them, to teach them to doe the things of the Law, to judge them that doe amiſſe, and thereby to be brought to condemne themſelves doing the ſame things; to lead them to repentance, to move them to ſeeke after the Lord. Like as it were not fit to ſay, that God giveth us his word to this end, that hee might reveale himſelfe unto us, (for ſo I had rather ſay, than to ſay hee reveales the knowledge of himſelfe unto us; becauſe, the very giving of his word is the revealing of himſelfe unto us:) In like ſort, it is not fit to ſay, that, To the Gentiles God gave the workes of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts, to reveale himſelf unto them; for, like as the word in its kind, ſo the workes of God in their kind, and the Law written in our hearts, are the revelation of God unto the world: God, in ancient times, teaching the world, [...], as afterwards hee did, [...], as Chryſoſtome hath obſerved long agoe. But ſuppoſe all this were granted you, yet is it nothing to purpoſe; for here is not the leaſt intimation of any compariſon between the objects of Gods intention, to ſignifie what God did intend in the firſt place, or chiefly; and what in the next, or not chiefly. Againe, all this, as touching his not revealing himſelfe unto the world, is rather ſubſervient to the end, impugned by you, to wit, the leaving them without excuſe, [Page] then oppoſite thereunto; for, had not God in ſome ſort revealed himſelfe unto them, they had not been left without excuſe; neither had there been any place for hardning them to reſiſt Gods truth, if the truth of God had not been ſome way or other manifeſted to them. That of aiming to bring them to repentance, and the reſt of the ſame nature, is moſt for your purpoſe, if you were able to make it good: But when wee are not wel-grounded in the way that wee take, no marvell if wee multiply expreſſions, that when ſome faile us, wee may take hold of other. Sure I am, it is apt to confound the judgement of him that, in the ſearch of truth, ſhall addreſſe himſelfe to examine it. Now, that God did not at all intend their repentance, I have already proved; for had hee intended it, it ſhould come to paſſe, hee would have given it them, ſeeing it cannot be had without Gods gift, as the Scripture teſtifies, 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Acts 5. 31. & 11. 18. and as Auſtin long agoe hath expreſſed it, contra Julian. lib. 3. cap. 4. Quantam libet praebuerit pationtiam, niſi Deus dederit, quis aget poenitentiam? But wee are apt to be deceived by phraſes of ſpeech, which, carrying many times an ambiguous ſignification, and being plauſible to procure credence one way, is, hand over head, ſo carryed, as if it were nothing leſſe true the other way alſo: As for example, To intend repentance, is a plauſible attribute to be given unto God; but it hath a double ſignification, the one that hee intends it ſhall be mans duty to repent; and in this ſenſe it is not more plauſible than true: the other is, that God doth intend they ſhall repent; and this is no more true than plauſible; for as much as God intends to give repentance to none but to his Elect: like as, de facto, hee brings none to repentance but his Elect, according to that of Auſtin, contra Jul. Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Iſtorum neminem (ſaith hee, ſpeaking of the Reprobate) adducit ad ſalubrem ſpiritualemque poenitentiam, quà homo reconciliatur Deo in Chriſto, ſive illis ampliorem patientiam, ſive non imparem praebeat. As for that of Gods leading to repentance, Rom. 2. 4. I anſwer, firſt, I had thought that had been delivered rather of the Jewes than of the Gentiles; and Acts 17. 20. the Apoſtle doth clearly ſignifie, that the admonition of Gentiles to come to repentance, was reſerved for the time of the Goſpel; The time of this ignorance God regarded not, but now hee admoniſheth all men every where to repent. And in reaſon, faith and repentance [Page] are inſeparable; and therefore, where there was no admonition unto faith, how could there be admonition unto repentance? And who would not rather incline to think, that the Gentiles (taking them in ſeparation from the Church of God) had the knowledge or God and of his Law given them, not to bring them to repentance that they might be ſaved, (for I acknowledge no ſufficiency of inſtruction granted them hereunto) but rather for the ordering of their lives in morall converſation, and for the politique government of the world, leſt otherwiſe all things ſhould run to diſorder and confuſion? And, as Auſtin ſaith, that the meanes of grace are granted to ſome, ut proficiant thereby, ad exteriorem vitae emendationem, quo mitiùs puniantur.

Secondly, Gods leading to repentance, in that place, is attributed to the goodneſſe of God, which is ſhewed in his patience and long-ſuffering; as if it ſignified no more than giving way unto repentance.

Thirdly, take it as rigorouſly as you will, it cannot ſignifie more than God performes by his word, and preaching of the Goſpel: For, can you imagine that God performes more by his workes in leading men unto repentance, than by his word? Now, Gods leading to repentance by his word, is but his admoniſhing them to repent; Acts 17. 30. Now he admoniſheth all men every where to repent. And here-hence it followes not, that God doth will their repentance any otherwiſe then voluntate praecepti, not voluntate propoſiti, or bene-placiti; for if hee did, then muſt hee needs give them the grace of repentance. Yet, I confeſſe, in this voluntas praecepti is included voluntas propoſiti, in ſome ſenſe; which yet nothing ſerves your turne, though ſome equivocation makes it ſeeme plauſible, taking it hand over head in the generall; for it ſignifies withall, that it is the will of Gods good pleaſure that they ought to repent, and it is their duty to repent: But there is much difference between theſe two Propoſitions, Its my good pleaſure that it ſhall be your duty to repent; and, It is my good pleaſure that you ſhall repent, and therefore I will give you the grace of repentance. As for the ſecond place of importance, drawn out of Job 33. verſ. 15, 16, 17. of Gods providence in vouchſafing heavenly dreames and viſions unto the Gentiles, that hee might withdraw them from their ſinnes, and hide their pride, and ſave their ſoules from the pit: This likewiſe, in two reſpects, is nothing [Page] for the purpoſe: For, firſt, this is ſpoken of ſuch a time as wherein there was no partition-wall, as afterwards was erected, between the Jewes and Gentiles; and therefore you doe not well to apply this unto the Gentiles, in diſtinction from the Church of God: for, was not Job, and ſuch like, in thoſe dayes, of the Church of God? doth not God ſend his friends unto him, that hee might ſacrifice for them, God himſelfe promiſing to accept it? Secondly, you are to prove, that God doth intend the repentance of thoſe in whom hee doth not effect repentance: But Elihu, in Job, ſpeaks of God intending the repentance in thoſe in whom hee doth effect repentance; as it appeares, Verſ. 16, & 23, 24, 25. and yet I deny not but God may intend a kind of repentance even in the wicked; to wit, exteriorem vitae emendationem, as Auſtin ſpeaks; and ſo deliver them from judgement temporall, and make alſo their damnation more tolerable. Here you paſſe over from Gods naturall providence to a more gracious providence, but not with a right foot; as when you ſay, that becauſe this light alone did not ſo farre prevaile with the Gentiles, as to bring them to the knowledge of God in Chriſt; Therefore it pleaſed God, in the fulneſſe of time, to ſend the preaching of the Goſpel amongst them: You ſhould have ſaid rather, Becauſe this light alone could not prevaile: but ſo, perhaps, you had much prejudiced your owne Tenet. I ſay, you ſhould have rather ſaid ſo; ſeeing you undertake to give the cauſe of this enterchange of the providence of God: For, to ſay onely, It did not prevaile; is not to alledge any tolerable cauſe thereof; eſpecially, conſidering that you make the blame hereof wholly to lie upon mans wilfulneſſe: for by the ſame reaſon you might introduce a further courſe of Gods more gracious providence to bring men unto repentance, than any hee hath undertaken yet; for even the preaching of the Goſpel, thereby admoniſhing men to repent, doth not prevaile with moſt. There is another incongruity, as when you ſay, This light of nature alone did not prevaile; as if you would imply, that the light of grace alone doth prevaile: which, I preſume, you will confeſſe, is notoriouſly untrue; and that not onely illumination of the mind, but the affection of the heart by the finger of God is neceſſarily required to bring men unto repentance. As for that which followeth therein, I doe moſt willingly and freely concurre with you, acknowledging that God condemnes none [Page] for not beleeving in Chriſt, of whom they had not heard; nor for tranſgreſſing the Law of Moſes, which they had not received; but onely for ſinning againſt the Law of nature, which was written in their hearts: For I verily beleeve, that where there is no Law, there is no tranſgreſſion. But, I preſume, you deliver this onely in reference to men of ripe yeares, and doe not concurre with Arminians, in maintaining that all infants dying in their infancy are ſaved. Thus, from Gods providence concerning the Gentiles, I come unto his providence concerning the Jewes.

2. Of the ſufficiency of outward meanes of grace granted unto the Jewes, to bring them unto repentance, no man makes queſtion: yet ſeeing that among them, all were not precious, but many were found vile enough, and reprobate ſilver, according to that, Rom. 9. 6. All are not Iſrael which are of Iſrael; and that of the Prophet, Eſay 10. 22. Though the number of the children of Iſrael were as the ſand of the ſea, yet but a remnant ſhall be ſaved: and how few were thoſe repreſented by the basket of good figs, Jer. 24. 2. in compariſon to thoſe other naughty figs, which could not be eaten they were ſo evill? That God did intend the ſalvation and repentance of thoſe to whom hee never gave repentance and ſalvation, I hold it as impoſſible for you or any man to prove, as to pull God down from the throne of his omnipotency, or diſrobe him of his immutable perfection: For, unleſſe God continues to intend their repentance and ſalvation, even when they are damned, hee muſt be mutable; and if hee did will and deſire their ſalvation, the reaſon why they failed of ſalvation muſt needs be, becauſe God was not able to procure it. I never met yet with any other then vile ſhifts, to avoyd theſe conſequences, both in Arminius, and others that follow him. But conſider wee your proofes: nay, what proofe doe you bring to prove the point you undertake, namely, that God doth not onely intend their repentance, but that in the firſt place; and yet you cannot deny but that this, which you ſay God intends in the firſt place, never comes to paſſe: whereas the other, which God intends (you confeſſe) though in a latter place, doth come to paſſe. But becauſe I think it were abſurd to conceive, that God intends their repentance whom hee purpoſeth to harden, leſt they ſhould convert, and God ſhould heale them; therefore I am willing to conſider what you bring to the contrary. Your firſt place is out of Deut. 8. 16. Who [Page]fed thee in the wilderneſſe with manna, which thy fathers knew not, to humble thee, and to prove thee, and that hee might doe thee good in thy latter end. That of humbling thee, Junius and Piſcator reads thus, ut affligeret te; belike, partly in reference to that which followeth, and to prove thee; (for as much as temporall humiltation hath more congruity to the proving of them, than ſpirituall; as whereby they humble themſelves, and which followeth the proving of them, rather than goeth before it;) partly in reference to the third Verſe, going before, where it is ſaid more at full, Therefore hee humbled thee, and made thee hungry, and fed thee with manna, which thou kneweſt not, neither did thy fathers know it; that he might teach thee, that man liveth not by bread onely. By which words wee may gather a faire interpretation of that you alledge: If it be ſpoken of humiliation ſpirituall, thus, Hee fed thee with manna to humble thee; that is, to teach thee to humble thy ſelfe: and ſo indeed his providence, providing alike to them all, did equally teach them all to humble themſelves. But did God intend that every one ſhould, de facto, humble himſelfe? why then did hee not give them eyes to ſee, and eares to heare, and an heart to perceive, as Deut. 29. 4. Moſes tells them plainly, ſaying, Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to ſee, and eares to heare, unto this day. I deny not but God did manifeſt, by the courſe of his providence towards them, what hee did require and deſerve at their hands, namely, that they ſhould humble themſelves to walke with the Lord their God; and the phraſe, to humble thee, applyed even to the moſt carnall, may have a faire conſtruction, that thou ſhouldſt be humbled, or, humble thy ſelfe, underſtanding it ex officio; for hereby hee did manifeſt that this was their duty, anſwerable to Gods proceedings with them: and yet futher, conſidering that hee repreſenteth his owne gracious proceedings with them, by the proceedings of an earthly father with his children, Verſe 5. Know therefore in thine heart, that as a man nurtureth his ſonne, ſo the Lord thy God nurtureth thee; no marvell if he expreſſeth his affections and deſires towards them, ſuteable to the deſires and affections of an earthly father, who being not able effectually to procure their amendment, yet deſires it. And this is Gods uſuall courſe, to expreſſe himſelfe in ſuch language, per [...]. But, ſhall wee hereupon take liberty to build doctrines, as touching [Page] the nature of God, as if that which is figuratively uttered were properly delivered? Hee proved them all, I confeſſe, and upon the probation ſome proved good ſilver, and others no better than droſſe; and thereupon hee did good to the one in their latter end, and not unto the other: Neither did hee ever purpoſe, that good in their latter end ſhould redound unto any, but as they ſhould be humbled: wherein, humiliation is made the condition of doing them good, not of Gods purpoſe or intention: And withall, God gave unto thoſe that were truly mortified, that is, truly humbled, hearts to perceive, eyes to ſee, and eares to heare; but hee gave not the like grace unto all. And looke what is ſaid of Gods intention to humble them, the ſame may be ſaid of Gods intention to purge them, according to that Ezek. 24. 13. Becauſe I would have purged thee, and thou waſt not purged, thou ſhalt not bee purged from thy filthineſſe, till I have cauſed my wrath to light upon thee: I would have purged thee, voluntate praecepti, repreſented by the meanes uſed in his word; which failing, hee reſolveth to take another courſe, even by judgements in his works, meaning to goe on in avenging the quarrell of his Covenant, Levit. 26. 25. untill their uncircumciſed hearts were humbled, Levit. 26. 41. purpoſing ſo at length to effect it; as hee profeſſeth, Ezek. 22. 15. ſaying, I will ſcatter thee among the heathen, and diſperſe thee in the countries, and will cauſe thy filthineſſe to ceaſe from thee. Yet this is not ſo much by the power of afflictions, as by the power of his Spirit, Eſay 57. 17. For his wicked covetouſneſſe I was angry with him, and have ſmitten him: I hid me, and was angry; yet hee went away and turned after the way of his heart: I have ſeen his wayes, and I will heal them. But, when theſe ends are not attained, God complaines (you ſay) He had uſed theſe meanes in vaine. Indeed, Jer. 2. 20. hee ſaith, Of old have I broken thy yoke, and burſt thy bonds, and thou ſaidſt, I will no more tranſgreſſe; but, like an harlot, thou runneſt on all high hills, and under every green tree. But this is rather a conviction of their unfaithfulneſſe, in not keeping Covenant with him, than a complaint: But be it a complaint, as ſuch complaints are attributed unto God, like as men complaine when they cannot help; but take heed wee doe not here-hence inferre, that God is like man, not able to prevent croſſe events contrary to his expectation. Neither doth hee there ſay, Hee had uſed theſe [Page]meanes in vaine; for, before hee uſed them, he knew at leaſt (you will not deny it) what would be the iſſue; and no wiſe man, I think, will ſet himſelfe to doe that which hee knowes will prove vaine, in reſpect of the end intended by him. But Jer. 10. 30. the Lord ſaith thus, I have ſmitten your children in vaine, they have received no correction; and this plainly argueth (as you ſay) his firſt and chiefeſt intent was to heale, and not to harden. It is true, upon a ſuperficiall ſcanning of the place, it ſeemeth that God intended to heale them; but of any compariſon made between two ends intended, the one chiefly, the other ſecondarily, not the leaſt glympſe of evidence. But I deny that hee intended healing at all in this caſe; for, if hee did, that being his owne worke, why did hee not heale them? Will you ſay, Becauſe they would not receive inſtruction, but went after the way of their own hearts ſtill? This is a vaine anſwer; for this is no impediment unto God; as I prove firſt by cleare evidence of Scripture, Eſay 57. 17. I have ſmitten him, and yet hee went after the way of his heart; nevertheleſſe mark what followes, I have ſeen his wayes, and I will heal them. Secondly, by cleare demonſtration of reaſon; to heale them, is to bring them to repentance: Now, will you ſay that God is ready to performe this, provided that they doe repent? If they repent already, what need is there of Gods grace to bring them to repentance? and what is it to prerequire repentance on mans part, to this end that God may give them repentance? as if man muſt firſt repent, and then God will give him repentance. But ſome will ſay, What then is the meaning of the Lord, ſaying, I have ſmitten your children in vaine, they have received no correction? I anſwer, we are to conceive Gods corrections to tend to this, according to that of Peter, knowing that the long-ſuffering of the Lord is ſalvation: or, God ſpeakes this, [...], after the manner of earthly parents, ſeeking their childrens amendment by correction, but not obtaining it. And this being an end of correction in Gods children; in the wicked this end is not obtained. And what difference is there between meanes naturall and meanes morall, but this, meanes naturall have power to effect their ends, meanes morall are to admoniſh morall agents of their duty to doe this or that? and ſo the ends of Gods puniſhment is, that by them wee ſhould learne to amend our lives; as is ſignified in the Collects of our Church. In a word, naturall means tend [Page] to ends that ſhall be thereupon; morall means tend to ends that ſhould be; and each are uſually ſaid to be in vaine, when the end, according to each kind, is not obtained. God ſent his Sonne into the world, not that hee ſhould condemne the world, but that the world ſhould be ſaved by him. Moſt true; for hee ſent his Son into the world, to dye for the world; and to dye for them is to ſave them, and not to condemne them. But, for whom did hee ſend his Sonne into the world, to dye? Surely, for the world of Elect; even for thoſe whom God the Father had given him: Thou haſt given him power over all fleſh, that hee ſhould give eternall life to all them that thou haſt given him, Joh. 17. 2. And if wee conſider the world, in diſtinction from thoſe whom God hath given him, hee plainly profeſſeth, that as hee did not pray for them, Joh. 17. 9. ſo hee did not ſanctifie himſelfe for them, Verſe 19. that is, offer himſelfe up upon the Croſſe; as Maldonate acknowledgeth to be the joynt interpretation of all the Fathers whom hee had read: And your ſelfe have but earſt confeſſed, that God did not (Joh. 3. 17.) give the world unto Chriſt, by him of grace to be bought (or brought) unto ſalvation. Undoubtedly, hee ſent not Chriſt into the world at all to procure any mans condemnation: neither doth Chriſt procure any mans condemnation; although infidelity and diſobedience to the word of Chriſt procures the condemnation of many. And I wonder what moved you ſo to ſpeake, as to imply it was Gods intent (though not chiefe intent) to ſend Chriſt into the world to procure the condemnation of any. At length wee are come to the [...] of the point controverted between us, in the words following; If they ſhould plead their condemnation to be unjuſt, for unbeleefe, becauſe they were not able to beleeve, Ver. 18. our Saviour anſwers by a reaſonable prevention, ver. 19. This is their condemnation, viz. the juſt cauſe of their condemnation, that when light came into the world, men loved darkneſſe rather than light; men choſe rather to cleave to their ſinfull eſtates, and wayes of darkneſſe, than to follow the light of the means of grace, which might have brought them on to beleeve in Chriſt. Firſt, let us conſider the Text it ſelfe, then your interpretation and accommodation thereof. Our Saviour doth plainly derive the cauſe of their unbeleefe, or diſapprobation of the Goſpel, ſignified in theſe words, They loved darkneſſe rather than light; I ſay, the [Page] cauſe of this our Saviour referres to their workes of darkneſſe, expreſſed in theſe words, Becauſe their deeds were evill. The full meaning whereof, I take to be this; The workes wherein they delight are evill; that is, workes of darkneſſe; and therefore no marvell if they hate the light, and preferre darkneſſe before it:

—Pulchra Lavernae, Da mihi fallere, da juſtum ſanctum (que) videri.

Noctem peccatis, & fraudibus objice nubem.

But give mee leave to make an honeſt motion: As it becomes us to take notice of this cauſe mentioned here, ſo it becomes us nothing leſſe to take notice of other cauſes mentioned in other places. Now, another cauſe of unbeleefe is mentioned Joh. 5. 44. and that of the ſame generall nature with this, but expreſſed in more ſpeciall manner by our Saviour, thus, How can yee beleeve, which receive honour one of another, and ſeeke not the honour that cometh from God onely? Yet this is not all the cauſe of unbeleefe which the Scripture commends unto us; for the Apoſtle alſo takes notice of Sathans illuſions, in this worke of unbeleefe, 2 Cor. 4. 3, 4. If our Goſpel be hid, it is hid to them that are loſt: Whoſe eyes the God of this world hath blinded, &c. And becauſe it is in the power of God to correct this delight wee take in evill workes, and to deliver us from the illuſions of Sathan, if it pleaſe him to ſhew ſuch mercy towards us; and when he doth not, he is ſaid to harden us; The hand of God in this our Saviour takes, notice of, as the cauſe of unbeleefe in man, Joh. 12. 39, 40. Therefore they could not beleeve, becauſe Eſaias ſaith againe, Hee hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they ſhould not ſee with their eyes, and underſtand with their heart, and be converted, and I ſhould heale them. Like as Moſes of old told the Jewes, ſaying, Deut. 29. 2, 3. Yee have ſeen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his ſervants, and unto all his land: The great temptations which thine eyes have ſeen, the ſignes, and thoſe great miracles: Ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to ſee, and eares to heare, unto this day. And this hee doth even then when his purpoſe was to reprove them for their naturall incorrigibleneſſe; for men ſinne never the leſſe obſtinately, becauſe God denyes them grace, but rather ſo much the more obſtinately; becauſe (as Auſtin well ſaith) Libertas ſine gratia non eſt libertas, ſed contumacia: and, conſequently, they are never a whit the leſſe faulty, [Page] though it be not in their power to correct that corruption of their hearts, whence this faultineſſe proceeds. And hereupon the Apoſtle gives way to the ſame objection, in effect, which you propoſe; for, having concluded that God hath mercy on whom hee will, and whom hee will hee hardeneth, hee gives place to ſuch an objection; Thou wilt ſay then, Why doth hee yet complaine? for who hath reſiſted his will? and anſwers it not as our Saviour doth; for our Saviour propoſed no ſuch objection to be anſwered, as you feigne, the Apoſtle doth plainly, and in expreſſe termes. Our Saviour diſcovers the immediate cauſe of unbeleefe, to wit, becauſe their hearts were ſet on evill; as it was ſometimes with the Coloſſians, Col. 1. 21. yet becauſe it was not in their power to change their hearts, but God alone; who will change them, through mercy, in whom hee will; and will not change them in others, but harden them. Hereupon the Apoſtle gives way to an objection, in a matter more ſublime than yours, as before mentioned, and anſwers it in this manner, O man, who art thou that diſputeſt with God? Shall the thing formed ſay to him that formed it, Why haſt thou made mee thus? Hath not the Potter power, &c. which is an anſwer to ſuch a queſtion as this, Why doth God complaine of us for that which proceeds from the hardneſſe of our hearts, which God alone can cure, but will not; but rather, by denying us mercy, continues to harden us?

But now, let us conſider the interpretation and accommodation of this place, to the plea deviſed by you: The reaſon, you ſay, why men loved darkneſſe rather than light, is, becauſe men choſe rather to cleave to their ſinfull eſtates, and wayes of darkneſſe, than to follow the light of the meanes of grace, which might have brought them on to beleeve in Chriſt. It is great pity that by our owne phraſiologies wee ſhould raiſe unto our ſelves a miſt, whereby wee ſhould be the more unable to diſcerne the truth of God. Suppoſe the Paraphraſe were both ſound in it ſelfe, and congruous to the Text; yet give way, I pray, to ſuch a queſtion in the ſecond place, What was the reaſon that they choſe rather to cleave to their ſinfull eſtates, and wayes of darkneſſe, than to follow the light of the meanes of grace? If you anſwer any thing but that of our Saviour, Joh. 12. 39. Therefore they could not beleeve, becauſe Eſaias ſaith againe, Hee hath blinded their eyes, and hardned their heart, that they ſhould not ſee with their eyes, nor underſtand[Page]with their heart, and ſhould be converted, and I ſhould heal them; I will not ceaſe to purſue you, untill you come to this; and withall, put you to give a reaſon, why you ſhould not take hold of this anſwer of our Saviour Joh. 12. 39. as of that Joh. 3. 19. eſpecially, conſidering that if a queſtion were moved, Why ſome choſe rather to follow the light of the meanes of grace, than to cleave to their ſinfull eſtates, and wayes of darkneſſe? I doubt not but you would forth with anſwer, Becauſe God had mercy on them, and gave them hearts to know Chriſt, and to beleeve in him, 1 Joh. 5. 20. Phil. 1. 29. And ſeeing God doth not ſhew the like favour to others, to ſhew them the like mercy, which is, in Scripture phraſe, to harden, Rom. 9. 18. and Rom. 11. 7. or, not to give hearts to perceive, and eyes to ſee, and eares to heare, Deut. 29. 4. why ſhould wee not ſay plainly, that whereas the one takes a right way, it is becauſe God ſhewes mercy towards them, to give them ſo much grace; and whereas the other takes not the right, but the wrong way, it is becauſe God hardens them, in denying the like mercy and grace to them? like as our Saviour expreſly ſignifieth alſo, Joh. 8. 47. Hee that is of God heareth Gods words; yee therefore heare them not, becauſe yee are not of God. But if any man ſhall inquire, What then moved our Saviour to give this reaſon why men loved darkneſſe rather than light, to wit, this, becauſe their deeds were evill? I anſwer, hee gives the immediate cauſe why they loved not the light; that is, they had no mind to heare the doctrine of our Saviour: and that was, in reſpect of the convincing nature of it, and therein, like unto light, which makes every thing to appeare and be manifeſt, according to its proper hiew; whereas in darkneſſe all things are confounded; according to that Epheſ. 5. 13.

Now they who brought ill conſciences along with them, no marvell if they were quickly weary of our Saviours company: A pregnant example whereof wee have Joh. 8. 7. For when our Saviour ſaid unto them who brought unto him a woman taken in adultery, Let him that is among you without ſinne caſt the firſt ſtone at her. Ver. 9. When they heard this, being accuſed by their owne conſcience, they went out one by one, beginning at the eldeſt, even to the laſt. So that, indeed, the reaſon given by our Saviour Joh. 3. 19. is not ſo much a reaſon why they beleeved not, as why they liked not to heare him. Many did endure the hearing of him, [Page] yet were not brought to beleeve in him. Auſtin ſometimes propoſed ſuch a queſtion as this; Why doe not men doe this or that? As for example, Why doe they not facere quod juſtum eſt? and hee anſwers, Quia nolunt. But if you aske mee, Quare nolunt? Imus in longum, ſaith Auſtin. Yet, ſine prejudicio diligentioris inquiſitionis, hee takes upon him to anſwer it thus, Vel quia latet, vel quia non delectat. But marke what hee brings in upon the back of this; Sed ut innoteſcat quod latebat, & ſuave fiat quod minime delectabat, gratia Dei eſt quae hominum adjuvat voluntates. But the face of your diſcourſe tends to this, as if you were of opinion, that every naturall man hath ſo ſufficient grace, as to chooſe to follow the light of the meanes of grace, rather than to cleave to his ſinfull eſtate, and wayes of darkneſſe: and that not onely if hee will, for if hee will, the greateſt part of the worke is done already; but that his will is indifferently of it ſelf inclinable to the one as well as to the other: which is ſo dangerous an opinion, and ſo oppoſite to the doctrine of Gods word, repreſenting the miſerable corruption of mans heart, and the peculiar power of Gods regenerating grace, that you are loath to breake out in plaine termes to profeſſe as much. Laſtly, whereas you ſay, The light of the meanes of grace, had it been followed, might have brought them to beleeve in Chriſt; You will not ſay, upon the following hereof they had been brought, but they might have beene brought to beleeve. By following the light of the meanes of grace, I underſtand a continuing to heare the word of God: Now, it is well knowne that many, nay moſt, in all probability, though they continue all their dayes to be hearers; yet, as the Apoſtle ſpeakes of ſome, ſo may wee ſay of them, They are ever learning, and never come to the knowledge, at leaſt to any ſaving knowledge, of the truth. On the contrary, Saul perſecuting the Church of God, even in the way, marching furiouſly, Jehu like, againſt the Profeſſors of the Goſpel, it pleaſed God to call him, and convert him. Wee know, ſaith Auſtin, that God hath converted the wills of men, not onely averſas à verae ſide, ſed & adverſas verae ſidei. So that even oppoſition to grace God can cure, if it pleaſe him; and regenerate a man to bring him to faith and repentance, if it pleaſe him; and if hee doth not, certainly the reaſons can be no other, then becauſe hee will not; and that to his owne glorious ends, which is reaſon enough for the [Page] Creator to doe what hee will; his wiſedome in referring all to congruous ends, being his juſtice; as Aquinas acknowledgeth. Chriſt was willing and earneſt to gather Jeruſalem under his wings; and no marvell, hee was bound to doe all hee could, as the Miniſter of Circumciſion, to ſave his brethren; for hee was made under the Law, and was bound to love not onely his brethren, but his enemies alſo, as well as wee are bound to ſhew the like love to all: But to inferre here-hence, that therefore it was the will of God to have healed and ſaved that part of Jeruſalem that would not, is a liberty which affection to a cauſe may take, but no reaſon doth juſtifie it. Like as our Saviour in his miniſtery, ſo the Prophets in theirs, deſired to doe as much good as they could to all: but here-hence it followeth not, that it was the will of God to convert all whom the Prophets deſired to convert. And as our Saviour by his teares, ſo the Prophets by their teares, did manifeſt their deſire to bring them to repentance, Jer. 13. 17. to doe the uttermoſt of their power to bring them hereunto: but will you inferre here-hence, that God alſo did deſire to bring them to repentance? As for the phraſe of carrying thoughts of peace towards them, that is generall, and therefore ambiguous; and to what ſpecialty you doe referre it, I know not: Yet, according to the Scripture ſenſe thereof, it is nothing correſpondent to your opinion. For Gods thoughts of peace, in Scripture phraſe, towards his people, conſiſt not onely in affording meanes, but in making them effectuall alſo to the procuring of ſuch a gracious diſpoſition in his people, as to make them fit for the mercies which God hath reſolved to conferre upon them; as Jer. 29. 10. But thus ſaith the Lord, That after ſeventy years be accompliſhed at Babel, I will viſit you, and performe my good promiſe towards you, and cauſe you to returne to this place. Verſe 11. For I know the thoughts that I have thought towards you, ſaith the Lord, even the thoughts of peace, and not of trouble, to give you an end, and your hope. Verſe 12. Then ſhall yee cry unto mee, and yee ſhall goe and pray unto me, and I will heare you. Ver. 13. And yee ſhall ſeek me, and find me, becauſe yee ſhall ſeek me with all your heart. Ver. 14. And I will be found of you, ſaith the Lord, and I will turne your captivity. And as for the former phraſe, in ſaying, It was the will of God to have healed them: In proportion to the place now alledged out of Jeremy, it may be [Page] granted, that God would have healed them; to wit, in caſe they would have converted unto God with all their heart, and with all their ſoule; as our Saviour ſignifies, Joh. 12. 40. and that out of Eſay 6. and like as God himſelfe expreſly profeſſeth, Deut. 4. 29. If from thence thou ſhalt ſeek the Lord thy God, thou ſhalt find him, if thou ſeek him with all thine heart, and with all thy ſoule. But is it, thinke you, in any unregenerate mans power to ſeek God with all their heart, and with all their ſoule? I thinke this is no more in the power of a man unregenerate, than it is in his power to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his ſoule: Now this is expreſly attributed to the circumciſion of the heart wrought by God, Deut. 30. 6. When you adde, that the will of God is, the world of unbeleevers ſhall not be ſhut out from Chriſt, if they ſhut not out themſelves through unbeleefe: This aſſertion of yours is ſuch as no man, that I know, denyes: And it is as true of the Elect as of the Reprobate; namely, that they ſhould be utterly ſhut out of Chriſt, if they ſhould ſhut out themſelves by ſmall unbeleefe; for, undoubtedly, the word of God is true, that ſaith, Whoſoever beleeveth, ſhall be ſaved; whoſoever beleeveth not, ſhall be damned. But leſt we ſhould ſeeme to be pleaſed with our owne errors, let us ſpeake diſtinctly, and keep our ſelves from confuſion: To be ſhut out of Chriſt, is, to be ſhut off from ſome benefit that is to be obtained by Chriſt. Now, if wee ſpeake of the benefit of forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, and of ſalvation; the truth is plaine and diſtinct, that no man is bereaved of ſalvation and forgiveneſs of ſinnes by Chriſt, but through unbeleefe; and whoſoever beleeveth not, is excluded from pardon and ſalvation by Chriſt. But is there no other benefit wee obtaine by Chriſt, beſides forgiveneſſe of ſinnes and ſalvation? What thinke you of the gift of faith and repentance? are not thoſe ſpirituall bleſſings which wee obtaine in Chriſt, and for Chriſts ſake? Epheſ. 1. 3. If it be ſo, I pray conſider, Is it handſome to ſay, that none is ſhut off from the gift of faith, but through unbeleefe? Certainly, unbeleefe is no tolerable cauſe why God ſhould deny them the gift of faith, ſeeing all are in anbeleefe till God beſtowes upon them the gift of faith; neither can it be expected a man ſhould beleeve, till God gives him the gift of faith, if ſo be faith be indeed the gift of God, and not the work of mans free-will without any gift of God. As for your diſcourſe, though [Page] it tends to a concluſion, which, rightly underſtood, no man denyes in one ſenſe; nor will any wiſe man affirme in another ſenſe: I thinke fit to conſider that alſo. The Spirit, you ſay, convinceth the world of ſinne, becauſe they beleeved not in Chriſt; but the Spirit of God moveth to nothing, but what hee knoweth to be according to the will of God. Let all this be granted; yet nothing followeth here-hence but that it was the will of God that the world ſhould be convinced of ſinne, in not beleeving in Chriſt; which no intelligent man will deny. But yet, by your leave, it is no good conſequence to inferre here-hence, that, therefore it is the will of God that the world of unbeleevers ſhall not be ſhut out from Chriſt, if they ſhut not out themſelves by unbeleefe. Therefore, we grant both the antecedent and the conſequent: yet, by the way, as touching that which you affirme, that God ſent his Spirit to convince the world of ſinne, becauſe they beleeve not in Chriſt; this is a truth, wee confeſſe; but, perhaps, wee may be to ſeeke of the right accommodation hereof: for, where is the world convinced of ſinne, in not beleeving in Chriſt? or, to whom? I grant, to all beleevers the world of unbeleevers is by the Spirit of God convinced of ſinne, in not beleeving in Chriſt; but are they convinced hereof to themſelves, and in their owne conſciences? I grant this alſo, as often as it pleaſeth God to convert them by the power of his Spirit; then they are convicted of the ſinfull nature of their owne unbeleefe: Yet be it granted, that an unbeleever continuing in unbeleefe may be, and is, ſometimes convicted of the ſinfull nature of his unbeleefe; becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith of an heretique, that hee is [...] ▪ yet, that is not till after one and another admonition: nevertheleſſe, this makes nothing for you, unleſſe you maintain that Gods Spirit convicts them alſo of this, that it is in their power to beleeve; which power of beleeving you ſeeme to attribute to a man unregenerate, though you are loath to ſpeake plainly, in expreſſing ſo much. And you ſeem to intimate ſuch an Argument as this; They ſinne in not beleeving; therefore it is in their power to beleeve: But you may as well inferre, that wee ſinne in not keeping Gods Law; therefore it is in our power to keep it. Or, if you diſpute thus, The world is convicted of ſinne in not beleeving; therefore they have power to beleeve: You may as well diſpute thus; The regenerate are convicted that they ſinne, in that their fleſh luſteth [Page] againſt the Spirit; therefore it is in their power to keep the fleſh from luſting againſt the Spirit.

Beſides, when men quench the motions of the Spirit, and perſecute Anſw. the Miniſters of the word, how can they be ſaid, in ſo doing, to reſiſt the Holy Ghoſt, if the Holy Ghoſt went not about ſuch a worke, as to bring them to Chriſt, and to life by him? Could they be ſaid to reſiſt the Holy Ghoſt, if the workes of the Holy Ghoſt had never ſtriven with them to worke this worke in them? Thus then you ſee, thoſe three that beare witneſſe in heaven, the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghoſt, they all from heaven beare witneſſe of this point in hand, concerning the truth hereof: The Father, by the end of the creation of his workes and providence; the Sonne, by his end of enlightening the world, and of his coming into it to dye for it; the Holy Ghoſt, by his inward wreſtling in the hearts of men, doe all of them really proclaime, that it is the will and good pleaſure of God, as to ſave the Elect, not according to their owne workes, but his grace; ſo likewiſe to ſave the world of mankind, if their workes hinder not his good will towards them. Thus you ſee alſo a ſweet harmony between the Purpoſe, and the Covenant or Promiſe, and the Providence of God: This Purpoſe willeth life unto the world, upon the condition of their obedience and repentance: the Promiſe, in the Covenant of Workes, offereth life unto them likewiſe upon the ſame condition: the Providence of God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghoſt, provideth and applieth ſeverall meanes of life unto the world, upon the ſame tearmes. And there is in every godly man, renewed after the Image of God, a juſt concord betwixt his Purpoſe, his Covenant or Promiſe, and his Performance: So is there here the like in God. You may read what Gods purpoſe is toward the world, by his Covenant made with the world; and you may ſee both what his Covenant with them, and purpoſe of them is, by his performance and axecution of them both, in his actuall providence, in the fulneſſe of time. If you ask how God may be ſaid to purpoſe any thing that is not effectually accompliſhed? I anſwer, the act of Gods will, which hee is pleaſed to put forth, is alwayes accompliſhed: There is no good thing poſſible to be, though it never come to paſſe, (as that all men ſhould in all things obey the word of God) but God paſſeth upon it ſome act of his will; hee at leaſt approveth it to be good, and good it is, though it never come to paſſe: This act is not diſappointed; for[Page]as hee will prove it, ſo likewiſe doth hee approve it. Doth God command this or that good duty to be done, which is not done? Yet that act of his will which hee puts forth is done: as hee willed to command it, ſo hee did command it. Doth God purpoſe to give life to the world upon condition of obedience, and accordingly give means to help them to the performance of this obedience, ſo farre as it is meet for them to doe? Surely God performeth it on his part, although men performe it not on their part: their ſalvation is indeed diſappointed, but not Gods will; who never willed to give ſalvation to them, but upon that condition.

The motions of the Spirit which are quenched, are godly motions, in the way of admonition, perſwaſion, exhortation; and they Examin. are quenched not onely in the men of the world, but too often in the children of God; the fleſh too often prevailing in their luſtings againſt the ſpirit, whereby are quenched for a time the motions of the Spirit; that is, the regenerate part luſting againſt the fleſh; and conſequently, the motions alſo of the Spirit of God admoniſhing and inviting unto good, either by the hearing of the word, or by the obſervation of Gods works. This worke of morall motion and invitation is wrought ſometimes with a purpoſe to worke obedience conformable thereunto; ſometimes with no ſuch purpoſe; as often as God doth not make them effectuall to the working of obedience, whether in the unregenerate or regenerate, for even theſe ſometimes (yea, too oft) erre from Gods wayes, and have their hearts hardened againſt his feare: for, if God had a purpoſe to make them effectuall, who ſhould hinder him? Who hath reſiſted his will? cui nullum humanum reſiſt it arbitrium (ſaith Auſtin;) for, ex nolentibus volentes facit. Undoubtedly, morall invitations, if they be not yeelded unto, are juſtly ſaid to be reſiſted, to what end ſoever they be made, whether to convert them, or to leave them without excuſe; even ſuch an excuſe as Auſtin ſpeaks of, when hee ſaith, Dicere ſolet humana ſuporbia, Si ſciſſem, feciſſem. I ſee no reaſon why you ſhould deny the Elect to be ſaved according to their workes; our Saviour doth manifeſt, Mat. 25. that they are ſo: Come yee bleſſed of my Father, inherit the Kingdome prepared for you, &c. For I was an hungred, and you fed mee, &c. and can it be denyed, but that God rewardeth every man according to his workes? I have fought a good fight, I have finiſhed my courſe, I have kept the 2 Tim. 4. [Page]faith, ſaith Paul; Henceforth there is laid up for mee a crown of righteouſneſſe. God is not unrighteous, to forget the labour of 1 Theſ. 1. your love, &c. Looke to your ſelves, ſaith John, that wee may not loſe the things that wee have done, but wee may receive a full reward. Piſcator, a preciſe Divine, ſpareth not to profeſſe, that fides is cauſa ſalutis: They are not, I confeſſe, cauſa meritoria, as ſinne is cauſa damnationis; but they are cauſae diſpoſitivae, according to the Apoſtles phraſe, God hath made us meet partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. Neither doe I ſee any reaſon why you ſhould oppoſe grace and good workes, in the point of ſalvation, howſoever they are oppoſed in the point of juſtification: The place you point unto for proofe, treats not of the ſalvation of glory, but of the ſalvation of grace, conſiſting in effectuall 2 Tim. 1 9. calling; as the Text it ſelfe manifeſteth. Had you ſpoken plainly, as you might, and as 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 ſay, There is no good thing poſſible to be, though it never come to paſſe, (as that all men in all things ſhould obey the word of God) but that God paſſeth upon it ſome act of his will; This, I ſay, is nothing to the purpoſe; and that for two reaſons: Firſt, becauſe it proceeds of morall good; whereas the object [...] riſing from the conſideration of God willing ſalvation to the world, upon their obedience and repentance, had not its courſe of good morall, which is mans duty; but of ſome good naturall, which he ſhould receive by way of reward. Secondly, accompliſhment of a thing willed, conſiſts not in the approving of it, but in bringing of it to paſſe; as all men know, by common notion. When as you ſay, as touching Bonum, that God as hee will prove it, ſo hee doth approve it; as if approving of it were for the preſent, and proving of it were for the time to come, is ſo wilde an expreſſion, that I cannot comprehend it. Wee uſe by proving a thing, to approve it as good; and not firſt approve it, and then prove it. As little to the purpoſe is that which followeth, as when you ſay, When God commands a duty, his will of command is accompliſhed: But, whereas God is ſaid to will the thing that hee commands, here ariſeth a queſtion, how that can be ſaid to be willed by God, which moſt commonly is not accompliſhed? For, albeit the will of command is accompliſhed, by the commanding of this or that, yet Gods will of the thing commanded ſeemes not to be accompliſhed, unleſſe the thing willed by God be ſometimes brought to paſſe. The truth is, your opinion ſeemes to be, That God not onely willeth the ſalvation of the world, upon the condition of their repentance, (for that is no more to will their ſalvation, than their damnation) but that God willeth and deſireth their ſalvation abſolutely, in as much as hee willeth and deſireth their repentance. I confeſſe you doe not in expreſſe termes profeſſe as much; namely, that God willeth and deſireth the repentance of Reprobates; yet hitherto you ſeeme to tend, in this diſcourſe of yours, though concerning [Page] this you ſay no more than this, That God gives meanes to help them to the performance of this obedience, ſo farre as is meet for him: which while you profeſſe, I doubt you underſtand not your owne meaning; and therefore no marvell if others doe not underſtand it: For, how farre he doth help them, you expreſſe in a very uncertaine manner; which is rather to conceale, than to diſcover and expreſſe your meaning. But I will endeavour to bolt it out. Theſe meanes you ſpeake of are either morall onely, conſiſting in inſtructing them wherein this obedience doth conſiſt, and urging them by perſwaſion thereunto; or, in affording, beſides this, ſome efficacious operation of Gods Spirit, to worke them to this obedience. Now, this latter cannot be your meaning; for if this were afforded them, their obedience, certainly, would be wrought: but the world, of whom you ſpeake, doe never perform this obedience. Now, in granting the other, there is not ſo much evidence of Gods will that they ſhall performe this obedience, as by the denying of this wee have evidence, that his will is not that they ſhall performe this obedience. Againe, in reſpect of meanes morall, can any be ſaved without the meanes of true faith and true repentance? I thinke you will not ſay they can: Then conſider, have all men ſufficient inſtruction unto the performance of true faith and true repentance? How will you be able to make this good? Hand over head, you ſay, God gives meanes to help them to the performance of this obedience, ſo farre as is meet for him to doe: yet, I am perſwaded, you are not able to make this good, taking it according to the confuſe generality wherein you expreſſe it. For, is it not meet for God to afford any Nation or particular perſons his word and Goſpel, as well as it is meet for him to afford it us? Nay, is it not as meet for God to afford any other perſon both the outward meanes, and the inward efficacious operation of his holy Spirit, to worke them unto faith and true repentance, as well as by theſe meanes hee hath been pleaſed to worke us hereunto? This meetneſſe, what is it but that which Schoolmen call, Juſtitia condecentiae, and which they profeſſe doth accompany every action of God? So that had God afforded the ſame grace to others which hee hath afforded unto us, hee had carried himſelfe therein meetly, that is, juſtly, juſtitia condecentiae. Againe, had hee denyed the ſame grace to us which hee hath denyed unto others, he had herein alſo carried himſelfe meetly, or [Page] decently, that is, juſtly, juſtitia condecentiae. I am ſorry to obſerve from ſuch good mens pens ſuch illuſions to have their courſe, to the obſcuring of the grace of God, and his ſoveraignty of diſpenſing it to whom hee will. This very ayre I find breathed forth in the writings of others, and it ſeemes to mee very probable, that they have derived it from hence.

Beſides, to cleare this point more fully, the will of God towards Anſw. the world is put forth in a disjunct axiome; viz. either to give life unto the world, upon the condition of their obedience; or to inflict death, upon the condition of their diſobedience. Now, as in a disjunct axiome the whole proportion is true, if either part be true; ſo the will put forth in a disjunct axiome is alwayes accompliſhed, if either act be accompliſhed.

But if it be objected, how may it appeare this will of God to give life to the world, upon condition of their obedience, is ſerious and not pretended; ſince if hee would hee is able to give them ſuch hearts as would cauſe them to obey him?

I anſwer; That God willeth it ſeriouſly, appeares manifeſtly by the declaration of his will already mentioned; viz. his Oath, his Covenant, yea, and the workes of each Perſon in the Trinity, tending to this end, to give life to the world: all which it were blaſphemy to thinke they were not done ſeriouſly. Doth the living God ſweare, and not ſweare in earneſt? God forbid. Doth God enter into Covenant with his creature, and intend no performance of promiſe according to his Covenant? farre be it from the juſt and holy God to doe it, and from us to imagine it. Shall we think each Perſon in the Trinity ſlighteth the worke of the ſalvation of mankind, becauſe mankind ſlighteth to worke out their ſalvation with the Trinity?

But, beſides the declaration of Gods will, thus ſeriouſly expreſſed, I produce the teares of our Saviour over Jeruſalem, lamenting their careleſſe neglect of the day of their peace: which argued, not onely in Christ as man, a ſerious compaſſion of their affected ignorance and miſery; but alſo, as God, a tender conſideration of their peace, and of providing the meanes for it. Moreover, what ſhall wee thinke of thoſe paſſionate exclamations? Oh, that there were in this people an heart to feare mee, and to keep my commandements alwayes, that it may goe well with them, and with their children for ever! Oh, that they were wiſe, that they [Page] underſtood this, that they would conſider their latter end! Oh, that my people had hearkened unto mee, and that Iſrael had walked in my wayes! I ſhould ſoon have ſubdued their enemies, and turned my hand againſt their adverſaries. Do not all theſe ſpeeches expreſſe an earneſt and ſerious affection in God, as concerning the converſion and ſalvation of this people, whereof ſundry died in their ſinnes? It is true, God might have given them ſuch hearts as to have feared and obeyed him; which though hee did not, yet his will that they had ſuch hearts was ſerious ſtill. To cleare it by a compariſon: The father of the family hath both his ſon and ſervant dangerouſly ſick of the ſtone; to heale them both, the father uſeth ſundry medicines, even all that art preſcribeth, except cutting: when hee ſeeth no other remedy, he perſwades them both to ſuffer cutting, to ſave their lives: they both refuſe it; yet his ſonne hee taketh, and bindeth him hand and foot, and cauſeth him to endure it, and ſo ſaveth his life. His ſervant alſo hee urgeth with many vehement inducements, to ſubmit himſelfe to the ſame remedy; but if a ſervant obſtinately refuſe, hee will not alwayes ſtrive with him, nor enforce him to ſuch breaking and renting of his body. But yet, did not his Maſter ſeriouſly deſire his healing and life, though hee did not proceed to the cutting aſunder of his fleſh, which hee ſaw his ſervant would not abide to heare of? So in this caſe, both the elect and men of this world are dangerouſly ſicke of a ſtony heart; to heale both ſorts the Lord uſeth ſundry meanes; promiſes, judgements, threatnings, and mercies: when all faile, hee perſwades them to breake their hearts and the ſtone thereof, with cutting and wounding of their conſciences: when they refuſe, hee draweth them both; the one with his almighty power, the other with the cords of man, (viz. ſuch as are reſiſtible) to this cutting and wounding, that their ſoules might live: and the elect are brought to yeeld; and the men of this world break all cords aſunder, and caſt away ſuch bonds from them. Shall we now ſay, God did not ſeriouſly deſire the healing of ſuch mens hearts, becauſe hee procured not to bind them with ſtrong cords, to breake them with ſuch woundings as they will not abide to heare of? Thus having laid downe the grounds of my judgement touching the firſt Point, That there is a will and purpoſe in God for to reward the world as well with life, upon condition of obedience; as[Page]with death, upon condition of diſobedience; I come now to the grounds of the ſecond Point.

You proceed in clearing a difficulty deviſed and ſhaped without Examin. all ground; as if any ſober man would find it ſtrange, that a conditionate will of God ſhould not be accompliſhed as often as the condition failes. And to this purpoſe you make uſe of the nature of a disjunct axiome. All-along I ſavour others that have graſed here, yet have not reſted themſelves contented with this, but proceeded further to more erroneous opinions.

A ſecond objection you propoſe, in the ſecond place, the ſolution whereof you ſeeme to travell with, much more than of the former: and yet the objection is altogether as cauſeleſſe, and without all juſt ground, as the former. I have now been ſomething more than ordinarily converſant in theſe Controverſies, for the ſpace of ſeventeen yeares; I never yet met with any of our Divines, or any other, that made any queſtion whether Gods will, being granted to paſſe on any object, were ſerious yea or no: I ſhould thinke, there is no intelligent man living that makes any doubt of this; but puts it rather out of all queſtion, that whatſoever God wills, hee wills it ſeriouſly. I confeſſe, the Arminians doe uſually obtrude ſome ſuch things on our Divines, yet not altogether ſuch; for they doe not obtrude upon us, as if wee ſaid, God doth not will ſeriouſly that which hee willeth; but rather, that hee doth not ſeriouſly exhort and admoniſh all thoſe whom hee doth admoniſh to beleeve and repent: as if hee made ſhew onely of deſiring their obedience and ſalvation, when indeed hee doth not. Yet, you ſeeme to ſweat not a little in debellating this man of ſtraw. Upon theſe termes I might eaſily diſpatch my ſelfe of all further trouble, in examining your elaborate Anſwer to ſo cauſeleſſe an Objection: but I will not; for it may be you inſperſe ſomething by the way of oppoſition to that which you doe profeſſe; which is this, That God doth not at all will the obedience and repentance of any but thoſe who are his Elect. And I would not pretermit any evidence you bring to countenance your cauſe, in oppoſition to our Tenent, unanſwered. That Gods Oath, or Covenant, or the workes of any Perſon in the Trinity tends to the end by you mentioned, namely, to give life to the world; is utterly untrue. Likewiſe, it is utterly untrue, that you [Page] have hitherunto proved any ſuch thing; For, that which you here deliver as Gods end in giving life, is propoſed ſimply and abſolutely; but that which hitherunto you have endeavoured to prove, is onely this, that Gods will was to give the world life conditionally: to wit, upon their obedience and repentance: and that, as, in the laſt place coming to the point, you have expreſſed it in a disjunct axiome, thus, To give life to the creature, upon his obedieace; or to inflict death upon his diſobedience: Now let any ſober man judge, whether in this caſe the will of God be more to give life, than to inflict death; more paſſing upon the ſalvation of the creature, than upon his eternall condemnation? Could you prove, that God doth will at all the ſalvation of any other ſave his Elect, I would forthwith grant hee wills it ſeriouſly: I ſhould thinke it no leſſe than blaſphemy to thinke, that God doth either will, or ſweare, or covenant, or doe that which hee doth, not ſeriouſly; as blaſphemy conſiſts in attributing that to God which doth not become him. I nothing doubt but that if all and every one ſhould beleeve and repent, all and every one ſhould be ſaved: and none other thing hitherto have you ſo much as adventured to prove, in this particular whereupon now we are. But then, it behoves you to look unto it, on the other ſide, how you cleare your ſelfe from blaſphemy in the ſame kind, while you maintain that God doth will the ſalvation of thoſe which ſhall never be ſaved: which not in my judgement only, but in the judgement of Auſtin, of old, doth mainly trench upon Gods omnipotency; for, if hee would ſave them, but doth not, hee is hindered and reſiſted by ſomewhat; and, conſequently, his will is not omnipotent, nor irreſiſtible. And more than this, here-hence it will follow, that either God continues ſtill to will their ſalvation, even after they are damned, or elſe God is changed. And if theſe be not blaſphemies, and foule ones too, I know not what is blaſphemy. I know not what you meane by, ſlighting the ſalvation of mankind; but, ſure I am, it is your own opinion, that in caſe man ſlights the working out of his ſalvation, God is ſo farre from willing his ſalvation, that hee hath unretractably decreed his everlaſting condemnation. As for the ſalvation of mankind, this being an indefinite ſpeech, wee are ready with your ſelfe to maintaine, that God hath peremptorily decreed (to wit) the ſalvation of his Elect; and it is not faire to make uſe of indefinite ſpeeches, the truth whereof [Page] is confeſſed on all hands, by prejudice of an indefinite truth to draw your Readers to the embracing of your definite Tenet, which is void of truth. And can it be denyed by you, that God from everlaſting hath decreed the condemnation of them, whoſe ſalvation you would not have us thinke he ſlighteth?

Our Saviours teares not onely argued in him a ſerious compaſſion, as man, but a ſerious deſire alſo of their ſalvation; and whom hee wept over, out of that love hee owed unto them (being made under the Law) hee was bound to deſire their ſalvation, as wee are bound to deſire the ſalvation of all thoſe to whom we are ſent; though this deſire on all hands ought to have courſe (and that by the very Law of God) with ſubmiſſion to his will: But, that it argued in him, as God, a will or deſire to ſave them, your modeſty would not permit you to expreſſe; although the face of your Tenet is as manifeſtly ſet towards this marke, as ever our Saviours face was ſet towards Jeruſalem. As for the conſideration of their peace, which you attribute unto him, were it extant, it were impoſſible but as God hee ſhould conſider it; were it to come to paſſe, it were no leſſe impoſſible but hee ſhould purpoſe it and effect it: but ſeeing it was never to come to paſſe, hee could no otherwiſe conſider it then as a thing poſſible, but ſuch as ſhould never come to paſſe; and it was equally impoſſible, as the former, that hee ſhould not ſo conſider it. But I doe eaſily imagine what you meane, though you are very loath to ſpeake it out; (which, to deale plainly with you, is nothing faire) ſave that I am verily perſwaded it proceeds not out of any ill mind in you, but partly out of feare (by ſpeaking plainly) to give offence to good men; and partly out of ſome conſcientiouſneſſe of your inability to juſtifie it: namely, that Chriſt, as God, did conſider it as a thing poſſible, with a tender affection deſiring it. And indeed, otherwiſe the word tender added to conſideration, attributed to God, comes in very incongruouſly; for, in proper ſpeech, to conſider a thing tenderly, is to conſider a thing paſſionately; which is incident to man, but not to God. As for the other object which you make of Gods conſideration, namely, the providing of means for their peace; this is brought in too too unſeaſonably; for the time thereof was at this time out of ſeaſon, as our Saviour himſelfe ſignifieth when hee ſaith, But now they are hid from thine eyes: And were it never ſo ſeaſonable, yet were it little or nothing [Page] to the purpoſe; for what outward meanes ſoever he affords them, yet if hee afford them not the efficacious operation of his holy ſpirit, it is a manifeſt document, that his purpoſe is to glorifie himſelfe in their everlaſting condemnation, rather than in their ſalvation. But whereas hitherto you have but prevaricuted, pleading for that which no man denyes, namely, that Gods purpoſe towards them is but in a disjunct manner, either for ſalvation if they obey, or for condemnation in caſe they diſobey; or, onely in a conditionate manner willing life unto them, and that, upon ſuch a condition as hee well knowes will never be performed by them; all-along concealing your opinion, and ſparing to deale plainly, in an open profeſſion thereof: Now, at length, you are come to broach it; and that is, not onely that God wills either their ſalvation or condemnation, according as they ſhall be found to repent or not repent; or, that hee wills life unto them, upon condition of their obedience and repentance; giving hitherto not the leaſt inckling of your meaning to be this, that hee wills alſo and deſires their obedience and repentance. Now you take heart to open this myſtery of your meaning alſo, namely, that there is in God an earneſt and ſerious affection, as concerning the converſion and ſalvation of the world, which never are, nor ſhall be ſaved: Yet here alſo you give cauſe to complain, that you walk not with a right foot, ſparing to expreſſe your meaning home; for you apply it onely to the people of Iſrael, which is an indefinite terme, and may be applied to the Elect; concerning whom, there is no queſtion of Gods earneſt and ſerious affection concerning their ſalvation: All are not Iſrael, that are of Iſrael (ſaith the Apoſtle;) So that Iſrael are Gods choſen, in the Apoſtles phraſe: And there is an univerſitas electorum, yea, and mundus electorum too; as the Author of the bookes De vocatione Gentium obſerveth. Againe, that which, in the places alledged by you, is applied to Iſrael onely, you, by your Tenet, doe, and muſt extend to all that are not elect, to the very Turks and Saracens of theſe dayes, though you have no ſuch exclamations to ſerve your turne withall, to prove Gods earneſt and ſerious affection concerning their ſalvation, though this be the moſt colourable Argument which you have to ſtand you in ſtead, in this particular. But, why ſhould a ſlight and colourable interpretation of holy Scripture caſt you, or any ſober man, upon ſuch an opinion, the abſurdity whereof [Page] is evident by the light of nature? For, doth not God know full well that, notwithſtanding all the meanes which hee uſeth to bring them to obedience, they will ſtill continue in the hardneſſe of their heart? Doth hee not alſo know full well, that hee could give them ſuch a grace as ſhould break the hardneſſe of their heart, and make them humble and obedient, with upright hearts? And withall, hath hee not reſolved to deny them this grace, which he knew full well would prove effectuall to their converſion, and to grant them only ſuch a grace as hee knew would prove ineffectuall? Now, in this caſe, let every ſober Reader judge, whether God hath any affection to all (much leſſe earneſt) unto their ſalvation; and whether hee meaneth not rather to gloriſie himſelfe in their utter condemnation? To pretermit here my former Arguments, as namely, That this ſerious and earneſt affection, concerning their ſalvation, muſt ſtill continue, even after they are damned, or elſe God is mutable. And, that if God doth earneſtly deſire their obedience and repentance, that they might be ſaved; in caſe they doe not obey and repent, it followeth, that God is not able to effect it. But nevertheleſſe I am willing to conſider the ſtrength of your Argument: it is grounded upon a certaine Scripture phraſe, Oh that there were in this people an heart to fear me! Oh that they were wiſe! Oh that my people had hearkened unto mee! &c. Is it not great pity that good men, and good Divines, ſhould be carried away into odde opinions, upon the ſlight conſideration of a phraſe? The Hebrew phraſe runnes thus, Quis dubis ut cor eorum ſit hujuſmodi (i. e. ità diſpoſitum) illis, ut timeant me omnibus diebus vitae ſuae? This is, Quis praeſtabit? Who ſhall give, or effect, that ſuch an heart were in them, that they might feare mee all their dayes? Now, I pray, conſider; if this were ſpoken properly, might wee not anſwer God according to his owne language, and ſay, O Lord, doeſt thou aske who ſhall give or make good unto them ſuch an heart? why who ſhould doe ſuch a worke as this but thy ſelfe? for thou haſt made the heart, and thou alone canſt change it; we cannot change an haire of our head, much leſſe our heart: and thou in thy Covenant of grace haſt undertaken this, even to be our Lord and God, to ſanctifie us; and to this purpoſe thou haſt given us thy Sabbath, as a figne that thou the Lord doeſt ſanctifie us: to this and thou haſt given us thy word, which is that truth of thine, [Page] according unto godlineſſe, which alone can ſanctifie us: and thou haſt promiſed to circumciſe our hearts, and the hearts of our children, that they ſhall love the Lord our God with all our hearts; and as to love thee, ſo to feare thee alſo; and that, all our dayes: and to this purpoſe, to put thy feare in our hearts, that wee ſhall never depart from thee; yea, and to put thy ſpirit within us, and to cauſe us to walke in thy ſtatutes, and in thy judgements, and to doe them. And, ſurely, if God deſires ſuch an heart to be in us, hee will not falſe to give us ſuch an heart; ſeeing hee alone is able to worke ſuch an heart in us. Therefore I conclude, this is not to be underſtood properly, but figuratively: And you may as well inferre out of that of the Pſalmiſt, The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his eares are open unto their prayers, that God hath eyes and eares, in proper ſpeech; as out of ſuch places as theſe to conclude, that humane ineffectuall deſires and wiſhes and velleities are found in God. If God transferre upon himſelfe the members of our bodies, in a figure of ſpeech called [...], why may hee not as well transferre upon himſelfe, by the ſame figure of ſpeech, the deſires and affections of our minds? eſpecially, conſidering that God hath made us apt to be moved and wrought upon by ſuch paſſionate expreſſions; and it is Gods uſuall courſe to worke in all things agreeably to their natures. And I make no queſtion but ſuch expreſſions are uſually prevalent with true Iſraelites, with Gods owne people; not ſo much by the force of a paſſionate expreſſion, which is accommodated to the condition of mans nature, as chiefly by the operation of Gods Spirit, whoſe ſword the Word of God is.

I doubt not but Gods will is ſerious, what way or courſe ſoever it takes; but you are very adventurous upon your Readers credulity, in endeavouring to perſwade him, that God willeth ſuch a gracious heart in them, in whom hee means not to worke; conſidering, as I preſume your ſelfe beleeve (although this diſcourſe of yours makes mee not a little to ſtagger in this mine apprehenſion) that God alone is able to worke ſuch an heart in any: yet you labour to expedite a facile way unto our faith, or credulity rather, to take hold of your Propoſition by a familiar compariſon; A father (you ſay) perſwades both his ſonne and his ſervant to be cut, both being dangerouſly ſicke of the ſtone; but when perſwaſions will not ſerve with his ſonne, hee taketh him and bindeth him[Page]hand and foot, and cauſeth him to endure it: The ſervant hee continueth to perſwade to endure the like courſe of cure, but proceedeth no further. In this caſe, you ſay, the Maſter doth ſeriouſly deſire the healing and life of his ſervant, though he did not proceed to the cutting aſunder of his fleſh: I grant all this; but I wonder not a little that your ſelfe doe not obſerve the incongruity in this compariſon, which on no ſide is ſutable; for the ſonne, in this caſe, is made to be cut againſt his will, that hee may be healed; but God forceth no man to converſion and repentance againſt his will, that hee may be healed; for, indeed, voluntas non poteſt cogi, at leaſt in reſpect of actus eliciti, wherein conſiſts repentance and converſion. On the other ſide, the ſervant is no more willing to be cut than the ſon, for it is not in the power of man to change the will either of ſervant or of ſonne; but this is in Gods power, and with an omnipotent facility, as Auſtin ſpeakes, Omnipotenti facilitate convertit, & ex nolentibus volentes facit: Now, put the caſe that the Maſter ſhould know, that of all the meanes hee could uſe to make his ſervant willing to endure the cutting, none but one would prevaile with him, and that one would prevaile with him to make him willing; ſhould the Maſter uſe all other meanes, which hee well knew would prove ineffectuall, and purpoſely forbeare the other, which hee well knew would prove prevalent? In this caſe, ſpeake freely, I pray, whether this man did ſeriouſly and earneſtly deſire the cutting and healing of his ſervant, and not rather the contrary? To put the caſe home unto you; you know what admonition David upon his death-bed gave to Solomon concerning Shimei, Thou ſhalt not count him innocent, for thou art a wiſe man, and knoweſt what thou oughteſt to doe unto him; and thou ſhalt cauſe his hoare head to goe downe to the grave with bloud: yet withall, Solomon muſt have a care of David his fathers oath; for when Shimei came to meet David at Jordan, David ſware unto him by the Lord, ſaying, I will not ſlay thee with the ſword: Now while Solomon meditated on ſome courſe to take with Shimei, ſuppoſe God ſhould reveale unto him, ſaying, If thou propoſeſt ſuch a condition unto him, to wit, of building him an houſe in Jeruſalem, and to ſtay there, and not paſſe over the brook Kidron, hee will tranſgreſſe; but if thou propoſeſt any other like condition, hee will obſerve it: and hereupon Solomon ſhould be moved to propoſe this conditon, which hee [Page] knew Shimei would tranſgreſſe; judge, I pray, whether this courſe propoſed to Shimei were an evidence of Solomons earneſt and ſerious affection, concerning the ſaving of Shimei's life; and not rather concerning his deſtruction? In like ſort, when God perſwades many by his Miniſters to make them new hearts and new ſpirits, and himſelfe alone, by the power of his Spirit, is able to take the ſtony heart out of their bowels, and give them an heart of fleſh; when he reſolves to afford this grace unto ſome, but not unto others; let every one judge hereby, whether God can be ſaid earneſtly to deſire the changing of their hearts, when hee reſolves to forbeare that courſe which alone can change them? No, no, this diſcourſe favoureth ſtrongly of a conceit, that it is in the power of an unregenerate man to change his owne heart, and of an heart of ſtone to change it into an heart of fleſh: And in this caſe, I confeſſe, it were very probable that God ſhould earneſtly deſire it; provided that any ineffectuall and changeable deſires were incident unto God.

That when God putteth forth the ſecond act of poſitive retribution, Anſw. viz. the rejection of the world, or decree of their condemnation, God doth behold and conſider the world, eſpecially men of riper yeares, not in maſſa primitus corrupta, nor as newly fallen in Adam; but as voluntarily falling off, by ſome act of careleſſe and wilfull diſobedience. To prove this, I need not produce other reaſons then what I have formerly alledged in the fone-going Point; for when God did expreſſe, by his oath, his will and good pleaſure to be, not for the death, but life and converſion of ſinners, was it not after the fall of Adam, and all his poſterity in him? then, notwithſtanding the preſuppoſall of the fall, God had not yet rejected the creature; but, as hee there declareth himſelfe, ſtill retaineth and reſerveth thoughts of peace towards them, even a deſire of their converſion unto life.

Againe, with whom did the Lord enter into a Covenant of life and death, upon condition of obedience and diſobedience? was it not with Adam onely, and his poſterity in his loynes, in the ſtate of innocency, by the law written in their heart? Was it not alſo after Adams fall renewed to all his poſterity, both Jewes and Gentiles? Then, yet God had not caſt them away in the fall, though the fall had juſtly deſerved it; but expecteth yet further to ſee how they will yet keep this renewed Covenant with him, before hee[Page]caſt them off as Reprobates: Even Cain himſelfe, the eldeſt ſonne of Reprobation, is after the fall offered acceptance of Gods hand if hee doe well. Moreover, is it not after the fall that the Father, by his workes of creation and providence, judgements and mercies, &c. the Sonne by his enlightening the world, by his death and miniſtery of his ſervants; and the Holy Ghoſt by his calling and knocking at the hearts of the wicked, doe all ſtrive with men, even to this very end, to turne them to the Lord, that iniquity may not be their deſtruction? If therefore all the Perſons in the Trinity doe provide ſeverall helpfull meanes for the converſion and ſalvation of the world; of the world, I ſay, now after the fall lying in wickedneſſe, ſurely God did not then upon the fall reprobate the world unto eternall condemnation and perdition. If you ſay, God might well reprobate the world unto condemnation upon the fall, and yet ſtill after the fall uſ [...] meanes for their converſion and ſalvation; becauſe thoſe meanes doe but further aggravate their condemnation: I anſwer, theſe doe indeed further aggravate their condemnation, but it is but by accident onely, by their neglect and abuſe of them; but the proper end which God himſelfe, of himſelfe, aimes at in the uſe of theſe meanes, himſelfe plainly expreſſeth it to be, not the aggravation or procurement of their condemnation, but the reſtoring of them to ſalvation and life; as hath been before declared. So then, to draw all to an head, the ſumme of this firſt reaſon is, If God after the fall doe retaine a will and purpoſe to reſtore life to the world upon an equall condition, then hee did not upon the fall, or upon the onely conſideration of the fall, reject the world of the ungodly unto their utter perdition. But, you ſee, God retaineth after the fall an holy will and purpoſe of reſtoring life unto the world upon an equall condition, as appeareth by his Oath, by his Covenant, and by his Workes; therefore the concluſion, which is the point in hand, is evident.

I marvell what you meane to call Gods decree of condemnation his act of retribution; retribution being an act temporall and Examin. tranſient, the decree of God is an act immanent and eternall: And therefore it is not ſo handſomely ſaid to be the putting forth of an act, for ſo much as it is immanent and not tranſient. 'Tis manifeſt, I confeſſe, that ſin is alwayes precedent to the retribution of puniſhment; as it is without controverſie, that ſinne neither is nor can be antecedent to Gods decree, ſinne being temporall, [Page] but all Gods decrees eternall. And I have found it by experience to be an uſuall courſe with our Adverſaries, to confound condemnation with the decree of condemnation. And Junius himſelfe, very incongruouſly, in my judgement, calls this decree, Praedamnatio; to make the fairer place, as I gueſſe, for ſins praecedencie thereunto, at leaſt in conſideration: But no neceſſity urgeth us to any ſuch courſe; and wee may well maintaine, that God in this decree of condemnation hath alwayes the conſideration of that ſinne for which hee purpoſeth to damne them; for, undoubtedly, hee decrees to condemne no man but for ſinne. It is impoſſible it ſhould be otherwiſe; condemnation, in the notion thereof, formally including ſinne. But I like not your expreſſions in the diſtinction you make, ſaying, God conſiders men in this ſinne, not as newly fallen in Adam, but as voluntarily falling off (you mean long after) by ſome act of careleſſe and wilfull diſobedience. When God made this decree, they were not newly (that is, a little before) fallen in Adam; for that fall in Adam was temporall, but the decrees of God are eternall: And to conſider as newly fallen, when as yet they were not, much leſſe were they fallen, is not ſo much to conſider, as to erre or feigne. But like as God decreed to ſuffer all to fall in Adam, and many alſo to continue both therein, and in bringing forth the bitter fruits thereof even untill death; ſo he purpoſed to condemne them for thoſe ſinnes: but take heed you doe not make an order of prius and poſterius between theſe decrees; leſt either you make the decree of condemnation precedent to the decree of permiſſion of thoſe ſinnes for which they ſhall be condemned, which will be directly contradictory to your Tenet here; or, making Gods decree of permitting ſuch ſinnes for which they ſhall be condemned precedent to his decree of condemnation, (whereunto you doe encline unawares) which will caſt you upon miſerable inconveniences, and that by your owne rule already delivered; for if the decree of permitting ſinne be firſt in intention, then, by the rules received by you, it ſhould be laſt in execution; that is, men ſhould be condemned for ſinne, before they be permitted to ſinne: But the conjunction of theſe decrees into one, as in the ſame 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 all; as it is free for God to give grace to whom he will, and ſo to bring them to ſalvation, the purpoſe whereof is called Gods election; ſo is it enough for God to deny grace to whom he will, and thereby to expoſe them to condemnation: the purpoſe whereof in God, is that which wee call Reprobation; which, as Aquinas ſaith, Includit voluntatem permittendi peccatum, & damnationem inferendi pro peccato. Now of this generall impotency of doing good, which cleaves unto all ſince the fall of Adam, you take no notice at all, though herein conſiſts the very [...] of theſe controverſies but carry your ſelfe throughout in ſuch manner, as if, notwithſtanding that ſhipwracke of grace, which all humane ſoules made in Adam, it were ſtill as much in mans power to obey God, as it was before; or as [Page] much in mans power to riſe by repentance now after he is fallen, as it was in his power to ſtand in his integrity, and in obedience unto God before he was fallen. Put the caſe all were true that you deliver in the next place, namely, that God the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghoſt proceed in the way of admonition and exhortation to turne themſelves to the Lord, that iniquitie might not be their ruine; yet this hinders not but that the decree of condemnation might be precedent to Gods decree of taking ſuch a courſe, and permitting them to reſiſt it. For, upon a purpoſe to condemne them for ſuch a ſinne, he might thereupon reſolve to expoſe them to ſuch a ſinne: And if God ſhould firſt decree to permit ſuch a ſinne, and then decree to condemne them for it, the permiſſion of this ſinne being firſt in intention, ſhould by your owne rule be laſt in execution; that is, firſt men ſhould be condemned for ſuch a ſin, and afterwards they ſhould be ſuffered to commit it: Not that I maintaine any ſuch order, but onely to repreſent the weakneſſe of your diſcourſe, approaching ſhrewdly to ſuch a diſorderly conſtitution of Gods decrees, and nothing at all preventing the moſt harſh tenet that can be deviſed. Againe, this that here you deliver, were it granted you, yet doth it nothing hinder the corrupt maſſe in Adam, to be the object of Gods decree of condemnation. For, albeit God the Father, and God the Sonne faile not of performing all this you ſpeak of, yet if by reaſon of the generall impotency which is come on all, they are nothing able to obey theſe motions of Gods ſpirit, and withall God purpoſeth to deny them a further grace to make them to obey; ſhall not this be ſufficient to expoſe them to condemnation, even for this ſinne of reſiſting the motions of Gods ſpirit? But now let us conſider your diſcourſe it ſelfe, and what weight it carrieth, which onely makes a ſhew of much, but comes to nothing in the end. Firſt you pleaſe your ſelfe in deviſing diſtinct workes, applyed to the diſtinct perſons in the Trinitie, without all ground in my judgement: Wee commonly ſay, Opera Trinitatis ad extra ſunt indiviſibilia. Were not the Sonne and the Holy Ghoſt as active in the creation, and are ſtill in the workes of providence, as the Father? How Chriſt enlightned the world by his death is a myſtery to me; his doctrine I confeſſe did, and much more the doctrine of his Apoſtles: But in this miniſterie of Chriſts ſervants, were not the Father and the Holy Ghoſt as operative as the Sonne? As for the [Page] knocking of the ſpirit at mens hearts, you nothing diſtinguiſh it, for ought I found hitherto, from the miniſterie of Chriſts ſervants in admoniſhing and exhorting; which worke is yet the Fathers and the Sonnes aſwell as the Spirits. But whereas you ſay, all this is done for this very end, To turne them to the Lord, that iniquitie might not be their deſtruction; I pray you obſerve your owne words well: all the operations you ſpecifie are drawn from theſe two heads, Inſtruction and Admonition to turn to the Lord; and the end of all this, you ſay, is to turne to the Lord. Put theſe together, that you may behold the ſobrietie of this diſcourſe. God exhorts them to turne to the Lord, to this end, to turne them to the Lord: As much as to ſay, God exhorts them to turne to the Lord, to this end, that in caſe they obey his voice, and turne to the Lord which is their part, then God will performe his part alſo, and turne them to the Lord. But what need, I pray, of Gods worke in turning them to the Lord, after they have performed their part ſo well as to turne themſelves to the Lord? Againe, if God hath a purpoſe to turne them to the Lord, why doth he not? Is it becauſe they refuſe to performe ſome act, upon the performance whereof God would turne them to himſelf? Now I would gladly know what act that is, which God expects to be performed, that ſo he might turne them to the Lord. I am verily perſwaded your ſelfe are not willing to be put to deſigne this: Is it the very act of turning to the Lord, or leſſe, or more? If the very act of turning to the Lord, you fall upon a manifeſt abſurditie before ſpecified: if leſſe then turning to the Lord, then 'tis leſſe than a good act; and ſhall God reward that which is leſſe then a good act with converſion unto him? What is it to conferre grace according to the workes of nature, if this be not? Yet I would faine know what this act is? Leaſt of all will you ſay, 'tis more than turning to the Lord, for that ſhould ſuppoſe converſion unto the Lord already wrought; and conſequently, no need that God ſhould turne them to the Lord, which ſuppoſeth that they were not before turned to the Lord at all. The providing of ſeverall helpfull meanes for the ſalvation of the world after the fall, doth nothing hinder Gods reprobating of the world upon the fall unto eternall condemnation and perdition. For if hee purpoſe to deny them grace to obey theſe meanes, this ſhall bee ſufficient to expoſe them to condemnation, even for the deſpiſing [Page] of thoſe meanes of grace which God purpoſeth to provide for them; and accordingly the objection here propoſed is ſound. And whereas you anſwere, that theſe meanes doe aggravate their condemnation by accident onely; to wit, through their neglect and abuſe of them: I anſwere, that this their neglect and abuſe doth by neceſſary conſequence follow upon Gods purpoſe to deny them effectuall grace for the uſing of thoſe meanes aright: like as upon Gods purpoſe to harden Pharaohs heart, that hee ſhould not let Iſrael goe, it followed by neceſſary conſequence, that Pharaoh, through the hardneſſe of his heart, would not let Iſrael goe. But that Gods end is (as you ſay) the reſtoring of men to ſalvation and life; as if God did will and purpoſe any ſuch thing, is utterly untrue, and nothing proved by you hitherto, but rather flatly contradictorie to that you have moſt an end delivered; partly in making Gods will of their ſalvation to be onely in a disjunct [...], and partly of a conditionate [...], which is no more to will their ſalvation, than their damnation, in caſe they were indifferent to performe either condition. But in caſe they be found unable to performe the condition of life, and moſt prone to performe the condition of death, God meaning not to give them ſuch a grace as alone can relieve them, it is (manifeſtly) an evidence, that God wills their condemnation, and nothing at all their ſalvation. Not to mention any other arguments againſt this conceit; the one drawn from Gods omnipotency, the other from his immutab litie.

In the recapitulation of this reaſon, you help your ſelfe with a phraſe, and onely with a phraſe: God retaines a will and purpoſe to reſtore life to the world upon an equall condition. Obedience is due to God, though man be not able to performe it. And therefore God, in requiring that which is due unto him, carrieth himſelfe in an equall (I had rather ſay, in a juſt) courſe, though man becoming banckrupt, be not able to performe it. But in this caſe, namely, if God will not reſtore life, but upon performance of ſuch a condition which he is utterly unable to performe, and withall purpoſeth to deny him that grace, which ſhould inable him to performe it; is not this a manifeſt document, that God hath no purpoſe to reſtore life unto him? Yet I confeſſe, the phraſe uſed is advantageous unto you; for, at the hearing of an equall condition, moſt are apt to conceive the condition to be ſuch as lyeth [Page] in a mans power to performe. But you have not hitherunto manifeſted any ſuch opinion of mans abilitie: If you have entertained any ſuch (as whereunto paſtorall Divines, dealing much upon exhortation, are ſometimes over-prone, though I ſee ſmall cauſe why the opinion of mans impotency unto good ſhould any whit rebate the edge of their exhortation) you ſhould doe well to convince your adverſaries by argument, and not circumvent them.

From the condition of thoſe men, upon whom the ſcriptures pronounce reprobation, or rejection; I no where read of reprobation, Anſw. 2. but of ſuch men to whom the meanes of grace, or at leaſt, of the knowledge of God in ſome meaſure or other have been offered in vaine. In the Old Teſtament God pronounceth the houſe of Judah reprobate ſilver, rejected by him: But when? Not till they were all become revolters, and corrupters, and till the meanes hee had uſed to purge and cleanſe them had been attempted in vaine. The bellows (ſaith hee) are burnt, the lead is conſumed in the fire, the founder melteth in vaine, and reprobate ſilver ſhall men call them, becauſe the Lord hath rejected them. When did God reject all further care of purging the people from their filthineſſe any more? Not till after hee had uſed meanes to purge them, and they were not purged. When doth the Sonne of God, under the name of wiſdome, reject the wicked? Not till after he had called upon them earneſtly to return, & ſtretched out his hands unto them, & offered to poure out his ſpirit upon them; and they after all this, had ſet at nought his counſell, and deſpiſed the meanes of their owne reformation. Prov. 1.

In the New Teſtament, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of reprobates, in caſe ſo powerfull a miniſtery as his was, ſo long a time diſpenſed unto them, and had notwithſtanding been vainly received by them, and that as yet they knew not themſelves to be in Chriſt. Yea, the Gentiles themſelves, when did God give them up to a reprobate minde? Was it not after they had diſregarded the acknowledging and glorifying of God, according to the meanes they had received? In a word, when doth God ſhut up the Sonnes of Adam, either Jewes or Gentiles, under enmitie againſt Chriſt, and ſet forth Chriſt in enmitie againſt them, thereby excluding them from attonement with him, or by him with God? Is it not after they are become the ſeed of the Serpent? Now, by the ſeed of the Serpent cannot be meant, all men fallen and corrupted in Adam by originall [Page]ſin (though that fall was wrought by the ſuggeſtion and practice of the Serpent) for then all the ſeed of Adam had been ſhut up in enmitie againſt Chriſt, and cut off from all fellowſhip with him their head. But by the ſeed of the Serpent I underſtand, all ſuch men of the world, as have the image of the old Serpent ſtamped upon them, which is a will ſet to doe the luſts of the devill. Saith our Saviour to the Jewes, Yee are of your father the devill, and the luſts of your John. 8. John. 3. father ye will doe: or, which is all one, an hatred of the light when it cometh amongſt them; and which is a character of the devill, a lover of darkneſſe rather then light. Upon which point it is our Saviour ſhutteth up the men of this world under condemnation. viz. When by the hatred of the light they have drunke in the venome, and received the image of the old Serpent; till which time, men are counted the ſeed of Adam: Or, if they be borne in the Church the ſeed of Abraham, rather then the ſeed of the Serpent. For our Divines doe wiſely and juſtly maintaine againſt the Anabaptiſts, that the ſeed of Abraham, as pertaining to the Covenant, are not only his ſpirituall ſeed, partakers of his faith, but alſo his children after the fleſh, till by their careleſſe and willfull diſobedience they have excluded themſelves from the Covenant of Abraham: From whence it is, that all the ſeed of Abraham, even the carnall ſeed, are ſcaled up by Circumciſion or Baptiſme under the Covenant of Abraham. Neither are they excluded from hope of benefit by the Covenant and the ſeales and ordinances of it, till that, with prophane Eſau, they diſpiſe this their birth-right, and ſell the pledges of their inheritance for ſome baſe and ſenſuall luſt. Now if all ſuch are to be accounted the ſeed of Abraham, till, by deſpiſing the Covenant, they have broken off themſelves from partaking with him in the ſatneſſe of the olive; then ſurely, even the carnall ſeed of Abraham are not the ſeed of the Serpent from their originall pollution, but doe become afterwards by their actuall voluntary rebellion.

As there is an election eternall, and election temporall, ſo Examin. in both ſenſes the word is taken in holy ſcripture. Of election eternall we read, Epheſ. 1. 4. where God is ſaid to have choſen us in Chriſt, that wee ſhould be holy, before the foundation of the world. Of election temporall wee read, 1 Cor. 1. 26. Brothren, you ſee your calling, how that not many wiſemen after the fleſh, &c. But God hath choſen the fooliſh things, &c. Where Election [Page] is taken as all one with vocation, in proportion whereunto wee muſt diſtinguiſh of reprobation. And like as Election temporall is all one with effectuall vocation, as when men find mercy at the hands of God to obey their callings: So reprobation temporall is all one with obduration, as when men are not, through the mercy of God and power of his grace, brought about to obey their calling, but through the hardneſſe of their hearts, uncorrected by the ſpirit of God, they ſtand out, and refuſe to obey when they are called. Now like as it followeth not, that becauſe men are not elect, in reſpect of Election temporall, untill they obey their calling, therefore God did conſider them as obedient to their calling before hee elected them unto life: In like ſort it followeth not, that becauſe men are not reprobate in reſpect of reprobation temporall, untill they are found to diſobey their calling; Ergo, God did conſider them as diſobedient to their calling before he reprobated them unto death: albeit there is a vaſt difference between Election and Reprobation. For if once men be found truly to obey their calling, hereby as they are effectually called, ſo they may be aſſured of their eternall Election unto grace, and conſequently unto glory alſo. But although men for a while are found to diſobey their calling, though hereby they are obdurated, yet no evidence ariſeth here-hence of their non-election unto grace, and conſequently of their reprobation from grace, and as from grace ſo from glory alſo. The reaſon is, becauſe nothing but ſmall obduration and continuance in ſinne is an evidence of Preprobation eternall; though in this caſe they may be accounted reprobate two wayes: Firſt in a negative oppoſition to Election temporall; for certainly in this caſe they are not as yet effectually called, that is, converted unto God. Secondly, they may be called reprobate as it hath the ſignification of an adjective, and not of a participle; like as [...] is ſometimes uſed in holy ſcripture, 1 Pet. 2. 9. Revel. 17. 14. 2 Joh. 1. 14. And the word Reprobate in thoſe places you take advantage of, is rather an adjective then a participle. As for Reprobation in oppoſition to Election eternall, that is expreſſed in holy Scripture by the not writing mens names in the book of life: which ſignifies Gods purpoſe to deny them both grace and glory; and they are commonly ſtiled [...] rendred, ſuch as periſh; 1 Cor. 1. 18. and 2 Cor. 4. 3. And on the contrary, the Elect are called [...], 1 Cor. 1. 18. But unto [Page]us which are ſaved, it is the power of God. And Act. 2. laſt v. God added daily to the Church, [...]. But then, whereas by conſequent followeth their continuance in ſinne and condemnation, there is alſo in ſcripture a decree of God called Ordination unto wrath, 1 Theſ. 5. 9. And as there is a preparing [ [...]] unto deſtruction, and a creating unto an evill day; ſo there muſt conſequently be acknowledged in God a purpoſe to prepare to deſtruction, and to create againſt the day of evill. But let us come to the particular ſcanning of your diſcourſe.

I willingly acknowledge that (as you ſay) wee no where read in ſcripture of Reprobation, but of ſuch men to whom the meanes of grace, or at leaſt of the knowledge of God in ſome meaſure or other hath been offered in vaine. This qualification is brought in to prevent an exception out of Rom. 1. Where the Gentiles are ſaid to be given over into a reprobate minde; who yet had not the meanes of grace: But they had (you will ſay) the knowledge of God in ſome meaſure; you meane, the meanes of the knowledge of God, and theſe meanes are the world, wherein they are brought forth; for the world containes the workes of God, and by them are manifeſted the inviſible things of God, even his eternall power and Godhead. And indeed theſe meanes of the knowledge of God, all enjoy in equall meaſure, according to the proportion of the time of their lives. But, to diſcover unto you the looſneſſe of this your diſcourſe, I pray you conſider, the ſinne of the Gentiles here taxed, is the transforming of the glory of the incorruptible God, into the ſimilitude of corruptible things; contrary unto that knowledge which they did or might attaine unto by Gods workes. Their judgement was their giving over into a reprobate minde, to doe things inconvenient, as there it followeth. And doe you thinke indeed, that all ſuch Idolaters were given over into a reprobate minde to doe ſuch abominable things, as after are mentioned? Were there not found many morall men among the Heathens, which yet were reprobates as well as the moſt prophane amongſt them? Nay, what thinke you of them, amongſt whom this ſinne of transforming the glory of the incorruptible God, into the ſimilitude of corruptible things, was not found; as Varro writes of the Romans, that for, above an hundred yeares they had no Images, and that in thoſe dayes the Gods were worſhipped more chaſtely; and that they who brought in [Page] Images were to blame in two reſpects: Firſt, becauſe errorem auxerunt. The Second, becauſe timorem ademerunt: and were not they, thinke you, given over into a reprobate minde? Laſtly, be it ſo they were given over, are you indeed perſwaded that none of theſe were the elect of God? Doth not the contrary apeare manifeſtly in the Corinthians? For, were not they, as well as others, in former time carried away after dumbe Idols, as they were led? 1 Cor. 12. 2. Were not they alſo given over into a reprobate minde? Were not they fornicatours, idolaters, adulterers, wantons, buggerers, &c? 1 Cor. 6. 9, 11. Yet they were ſanctified in due time; notwithſtanding all this, they were juſtified in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the ſpirit of our God. Therefore I conclude, it is one thing to be a reprobate in that ſenſe wee here ſpeak of reprobates; for wee ſpeak of reprobates in oppoſition to Gods elect. But undoubtedly the very elect of God may be for a time, and that for a long time, given over into a reprobate minde. Againe, is Reprobation onely of thoſe to whom the meanes of grace have been offered in vaine? and is Reprobation pronounced on none but ſuch? Then, belike, Reprobation is not eternall, but temporall; and conſequently, nothing pertinent to our preſent purpoſe: And I could wiſh you had expreſſed wherin this Reprobation temporall, which is pronounc't upon men after the meanes of grace have been offered unto them in vaine, doth conſiſt. For, to uſe words ſignifying wee know not what, maketh all our diſputation as much in vaine, as to draw water with a bucket that hath no bottome. Sure I am, noe receiving of the meanes of grace in vaine is an evidence of that Reprobation wee ſpeak of, unleſſe it be finall, though well it may be of giving over into a reprobate minde for the preſent. But deviſe what you will to be the act of Reprobation temporall you ſpeak of, will it therefore follow that the conſideration of this contumacie in ſtanding out againſt the meanes of grace, was with God before his purpoſe thus to reprobate? As for example, becauſe finall impenitency and infidelity go before condemnation, will you herence inferr, that the conſideration of finall impenitencie and infidelitie did precede Gods purpoſe of condemnation? By the ſame courſe you may conclude, that becauſe faith, and repentance, and good works, and perſeverance in all this, goes before a mans ſalvation, therefore the conſideration of all theſe was precedent to Gods purpoſe of [Page] ſalvation. And indeed it cannot be avoided, but that this doctrine of yours in the point of Reprobation, muſt neceſſarily overthrow your owne doctrine concerning Gods election; though this is litle conſidered uſually. And how can God know mans finall impenitency, unleſſe he purpoſe to permit it? And if the permiſſion of finall impenitency be in Gods intention before condemnation, then, by your owne rules, it muſt be after it in execution; and ſo men ſhall be condemned for their impenitency before they have committed it. It is true, the Jewes are pronounced reprobate ſilver, Jerem. 6. 30. after the Prophets labour was found in vaine; but you do not well to extend this unto Reprobation in that ſenſe wee ſpeake of it: For, in your owne opinion, nothing but finall obſtinacie doth make men reprobate; but ſuch was not as yet the obſtinacie of thoſe Jewes, who are there called reprobate ſilver. And how uncharitable a thing were it for you, or any man, to thinke that none of thoſe obſtinate Jewes were afterwards converted unto God by the miniſterie of the Prophet Jeremiah. Yet, admit it were finall, ſuch I confeſſe precedes condemnation which is temporall: But will you herence inferre it precedes alſo Reprobation, or the decree of condemnation, which is eternall? But there is no tolerable good conſequence in this; and you might as well inferre, that good workes are precedent to election, as I have already ſhewed. And withall, hereby you ſhould conſtitute a very wild order of things in execution: Yet, I grant, every obſtinacie, ſo long as men continue in it, making a ſhew of godlineſſe, is ſufficient to conſtitute them reprobate ſilver, and ſuch as are given over into a reprobate minde. Were it ſo, that after God hath uſed meanes to purge the people, and they would not be purged, then hee rejects all further care of purging them from their filthineſſe any more: will you inferre therence, that the conſideration of this contempt of the meanes of grace goes before Reprobation, as it ſignifies the decree of condemnation? And conſider you not, that thus the permiſſion of this obſtinacie in Gods intention, muſt goe before condemnation, and conſequently muſt follow after it in execution? That is, men ſhall firſt be condemned, and afterwards ſuffered to deſpiſe the meanes of grace. Againe, doth not faith, and repentance, and good workes, in like manner precede ſalvation? And muſt not the conſideration of all theſe by like reaſon goe before Election? Beſides all this, it is an untruth which you [Page] deliver; that after men have refuſed to be purged when God would have purged them, forthwith hee gives off all further care of purging them from their ſilthineſſe. How many thouſands are there in this Kingdome, who are guiltie, and for many yeares have been guiltie, of refuſing to be purged when God would have purged them: yet doth not God give over all further care of purging them from their ſilthineſſe? and who dares ſay, that none of them ſhall be converted unto God ere they die? Doth not Paul warne Timothie to carry himſelfe gently towards them that are without, waiting [...], if at length God will give them repentance, &c? And why ſhould wee deſpaire of any, ſo long as God ſuffers them to live, and injoy the meanes of grace? Neither doth the Prophet Ezech. 24. 13. expreſſe or ſignifie, that God in this caſe gives over all further care of purging their ſilthineſſe, onely profeſſeth that hee will not ſpare them any longer: They ſhould not be purged, till he had cauſed his wrath to light upon them. But might not the lighting of Gods wrath upon them be a meanes of this? Nay, is not this Gods ordinarie courſe, when his word is received in vaine, to exerciſe his people with affliction, and that to this end, even to purge away their droſſe till it be pure, and take away all their tinne? Iſai, 1. And did not the Lord promiſe as much by the mouth of Ezechiel alſo, and that in reference to the very ſame wrath of God, as a meanes of their reformation? What elſe meaneth that, I will ſcatter thee among the heathen, and diſperſe thee in the Countries, and will conſume thy filthineſſe out of thee? Ezek. 22. 15. Your ſecond queſtion is of the very ſame nature, and admits in every particular the very ſame anſwer.

From the old Teſtament you come unto the new: That of the Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 13. 5. you ſtraine miſerablie to make it ſerve your turne. For firſt you ſerve your turne at pleaſure in the word [...], which is meerly the privation of [...]. yet you inforce it to ſignifie a deſperate condition, which is utterly repugnant to the genius of the Apoſtles text: who admoniſheth them to prove themſelves, whether they were in the faith, to humble them if they found themſelves otherwiſe; not to preach deſperation unto them. Nother doth the Apoſtle inferre the condition of reprobates (ſuch as there hee ſpeakes of) from the receiving of the grace of God by a powerfull miniſterie (ſuch as Pauls was) offered unto [Page] them in vaine; but from the not having Chriſt in them. In this caſe, whatſoever their miniſter was, and how litle time ſoever, as well as how long they had injoyed the Goſpel, hee pronounced them reprobates: As, indeed, till men are effectually called, there is noe neceſſitie that there ſhould be any difference between the Elect and Reprobates conſidered in themſelves: Albeit in reſpect of the different purpoſes of God towards them, there is a very great difference. That out of the 1. to the Rom. as concerning the Gentiles given up to a reprobate minde, I have already ſpoken ſufficient. I like Piſcators interpretation of [...] better then yours: Hee renders it thus, in mentem omnis judicii expertem. And I pray tell me, doe you not thinke they were given over [...]; [...], before their transforming of the glory of the incorruptible God, into the ſimilitude of corruptible things? Were it not ſo, how could they have been guiltie of ſo foule a transformation? It is true, hee gave them up alſo to a reprobate minde, to doe things uncomely, and to corrupt their lives alſo with horrible uncleanneſſe. Yet, I have ſhewed out of 1 Cor. 6. that ſome of thoſe were afterwards ſanctified, and conſequently ab origine the elect of God, and not reprobates in ſuch a ſenſe as we entreat of it in this controverſie.

Be it ſo, that men are not ſhut up in enmitie againſt Chriſt till they have the light: For, how could it be otherwiſe, ſeeing to be an enemie to the light, and to hate the light, are but one thing, though expreſſed under different phraſes. What is this to the purpoſe? Say they are not condemned till then; I ſay nor then neither; 1. Unleſſe they continue finally therein: for were not the very Elect ſometimes ſtrangers and enemies? Rom. 5-10. Col. 1. 12. Be it ſo, hatred of the light goeth before condemnation, therfore the conſideration of this hatred goes before Gods purpoſe to condemne them. If this Logick likes you, like this alſo: Faith, repentance, and good workes, goe before ſalvation; therefore they are before Gods purpoſe to ſave them whom he ſaves. But, wheras you ſeeme to denote, that after a certaine continuance in hatred of the light, a mans caſe is deſperate, which you ſeeme to ſignifie by a phraſe of ſhutting up; beſides that it is nothing at all to the preſent purpoſe, but matter of another queſtion, I ſhall beleeve it, when I finde your ſelfe, or any man elſe, to prove it: In the meane time I continue as I am, and reſt contented with the [Page] reaſons formerly mentioned for the diſproving of it. Undoubtedly, by the ſeed of the ſerpent, cannot be meant all men fallen and corrupted in Adam by originall ſinne, for they are expreſly propoſed in oppoſition to the ſeed of the woman: Gen. 3. 15. Herein I concurre with you, but I concurre not with you in the deſcription of the ſeed of the ſerpent; for that agrees to all, even to the Elect, as well as to the Reprobate: before the time comes, that God hath appointed for their effectuall calling; for till then, they have the Image of the old ſerpent (as you call it) ſtamped upon them: for they are in blindneſſe of minde and hardneſſe of heart, which undoubtedly are the chiefe workes of the devill, which Chriſt came into the world to looſe. Their will is to doe the luſts of the devill, for the devill workes in them, and being taken in his ſnare, they are led captive by him to doe his will; yea Paul himſelfe had an hatred of the light, and loved darkneſſe above it. But aſſure your ſelfe, no hatred of the light, except it be finall, is the cauſe why our Saviour ſhuts any man under condemnation. I verily thought with my ſelfe (ſaith St. Paul) that I ought to doe Act. 26. 9. many contrary things againſt the name of Jeſus of Nazareth. 10. Which things I alſo did in Jeruſalem; for many of the Saints did I ſhut up in priſon, having received authoritie from the chiefe Prieſts, and when they were put to death, I gave my voice againſt them. 11. And I puniſhed them oft in every ſynagogue, and compelled them to blaſpheme; and being excedingly mad againſt them, I perſecuted them even unto ſtrange Cities. I ſee no reaſon why the prophaneneſs of Eſau ſhould ſtand in greater oppoſition unto grace, then the zeale of Paul while he was a perſecuter. Eſau intreated Jacob kindly in his returne from Meſopotamia, but Eſau continued finally in his prophaneneſſe. Paul continued not in the courſe of his blind perſecuting zeale; and this puts the true difference between them. Though with God there was a difference put between them from everlaſting in his counſels, to make the one a veſſell of mercy, the other a veſſell of wrath. And I ſee no reaſon why the reprobates ſhould not be accounted the ſeed of the ſerpent from their firſt conception; not becauſe of their originall pollution (for that is common to them with Gods Elect) but becauſe God doth not purpoſe to cure it in them, as hee will cure it in the Elect; though this naturall corruption cannot break forth into actuall hatred of the truth, till they were brought, acquainted [Page] with it: and the like actuall hatred breakes forth alſo in Gods Elect, as it did in Paul, untill the time comes which God hath appointed for the curing of it: But hee will never cure it in the Reprobate.

Againſt the point I know nothing of worth, beſides that in the Anſw. Rom. interpreted and opened in the anſwere to the fourth Doubt following; ſave onely that place in Jude, where it is ſaid of the falſe teachers (as it is commonly tranſlated) that they were ordained of old to condemnation. The words in the originall are; [...]. The ſenſe whereof is given to be, that theſe falſe teachers were of old ordained to judgement. viz. As they take it from eternitie, and ſo before themſelves were, or had given any former cauſe of ſuch condemnation: and according to this ſenſe, the ſubject whereabouts the decree of reprobation is converſant, is not the world as fallen in Adam, much leſſe as fallen from Chriſt: but as conſidered in maſſa pura, before they had done good or evil, yea, before they were. To cleare this objection I am to crave leave to depart from the uſuall tranſlation and interpretation of this place. For firſt, [...] doth not in the firſt place ſignifie condemnation, but, as you well know, judgement rather. And ſo if I ſhould give the ſenſe, they were of old ordained to judgement, viz. according to their workes; this would not at all touch the ſecond act of poſitive Reprobation, the point now in hand; but only confirme the firſt point touching the former act of poſitive Retribution, ſpoken of before; viz. before the world was, God then ordained the men of this world to judgment according to their works. And ſurely I ſhould have reſted in this ſenſe, but that I ſee the Apoſtle Jude interpoſing the Pronounc [...] [...], doth thereby point at ſome ſpirituall kind of [...], or judgement ſpoken of by him in the wordes before. v. 3. Hee thought it needfull to exhort them to contend earneſtly for the faith once given to the Saints. In the v. 4. Hee rendreth a juſt reaſon hereof from the antagoniſts which were crept in amongſt them; and whom God himſelfe, as the chiefe [...], had deſigned and ſent amongſt them, to put them to this contention and tryall. For ſo the coherence requires this word [...] to be here tranſlated; for [...] coming of [...], which ſignifies decerno, dimico, to contend in law or warre; and then judico, and laſt of all condemno; doth firſt ſignifie [Page] lis or certamen, contention or tryall; and then judgement, and at the laſt hand condemnation. Thus, Paul takes this word in the firſt ſenſe with Jude here, [...] for ſuits or tryalls, or contentions. There is utterly (ſaith hee) a fault amongſt you, [...], in that you have contentions, or ſuits, or tryalls, one with another. If you take the primitive ſenſe of the word [...], and alſo conſider the coherence of the Apoſtles words in this place, this will appeare to bee his native and true meaning; [...], who were of old deſigned to this contention: Yet for a little further clearing of the text, let me adde a word touching the ſenſe of the other two words; [...]. In the word [...] the Apoſtle alludeth to the common courſe of Judges, and ſuites in the law; or of wreſtlings in the Olympian, or of captaines in the war, who were wont conſcribere, to deſigne afore-hand, or ſet downe in writing the names of ſuch adverſaries as were to have their cauſes or tryalls tryed before them. And as for [...], which ſignifies of old, I dare not ſtretch it ſo farre, as to reach it to eternitie; neither doth the place require it, nor any other in ſcripture to my remembrance. Yea, God himſelfe, in Jeremy, plainly diſtinguiſheth time of old, from eternitie; as the leſſer from the greater. If you then aske what is that old time Jude here ſpeakes of, wherein God wrought afore-hand, and as it were deſigned; viz. theſe falſe teachers to the tryall of his Church, and contention with him: I anſwere, About 4040. yeares before Jude wrote this Epiſtle, when God pronounced in 'Paradiſe that ancient curſe upon the ſerpent and his ſeed, I will put enmitie (ſaith he) between thee and the woman, and between thy ſeed and her ſeed, then was that of old, when God did aſſigne and appoint theſe falſe teachers under theſe generall words, the ſeed of the ſerpent, to this enmitie, and contention with the Church, concerning the faith once given to the Saints. And indeed the deſcription which Jude gives of theſe falſe teachers, thus ſet out by God unto this contention, doth plainly decipher them as the ſeed of the ſerpent; [...], ungodly men, turning the grace of God into wantonneſſe, denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

Thus have I declared how farre, or rather how little I have departed, and upon what grounds, not ſo much from the received doctrine of our Church, as the received manner of the explication[Page]of it. In all which I humbly ſubmit my ſpirit, not only to the judgment of the reformed Churches, whether of England, or of foreigne countries (if ever they come to take notice hereof) but alſo of every learned godly brother, into whoſe hands this diſcourſe may fall.

As for that place of Jude, [...], Examin. the ſenſe hereof (you ſay) is given to be, that theſe falſe teachers were of old ordained to judgement: viz. As they take it from eternitie, and ſo before themſelves were, and had given any former cauſe of ſuch condemnation. This you make the interpretation of the place given by others, and their doctrine accordingly: And the conſequent thereof you make to be this; namely, That according to this ſenſe the ſubject whereabout the decree of Reprobation is converſant, is not the world as fallen in Adam, much leſſe as fallen from Chriſt, but as conſidered in maſſa pura, before they had done good or evill, yea, before they were. Now I have diverſe things to object againſt you in this. Firſt, were I of your opinion in the point of Reprobation, I ſhould utterly deny that there is any ſuch conſequent, that may be lawfully inferred from the former interpretation and doctrine: For, albeit men are from eternitie ordained to condemnation, and conſequently before themſelves were, or had given any former cauſe of ſuch condemnation: yet, if when God did ordaine them hereunto, he did foreſee, not only their fall in Adam, but their finall infidelitie and impenitency alſo, and thereupon did proceed to ordaine them to condemnation, as it is acknowledged on all hands at this day; both Papiſts, Arminians, and orthodox Proteſtants, your ſelfe onely (that I know) excepted: then ſurely herehence it will not follow, that maſſapura ſhould be the object of Reprobation, but maſſa corrupta; and that not in Adam onely, but with actuall ſinnes, and that throughout the whole courſe of their lives all along, even untill death. And I perſwade my ſelfe, you alſo will be of the ſame opinion, if you give your ſelfe to a due and ſerious conſideration of it; which might have ſaved you all this paines in ſtraining a poore text to ſerve your turne in a miſerable manner, and that moſt cauſeleſly: For, certainely you feare in this place, where there is no cauſe of feare at all on your part. Secondly, why ſhould you ſtraine courteſie to acknowledge Gods ordination (which is no other then Gods decree) of men unto condemnation, to have been [Page] from all eternitie? For, what Papiſt, Arminian, Lutheran, or orthodox Proteſtant (provided that he be learned withall) is found to deny this? Was it not one of the prodigious doctrines of Vorſtius, to maintaine that Gods decrees are not eternall? Whence it ſhould manifeſtly follow, that God is changeable. For, if God ſhould now begin to will that, which formerly hee willed not; this would introduce a change in God, as well as if hee ſhould ceaſe to will that which formerly hee willed. Can it be denyed, but that God did everlaſtingly foreſee whatſoever ſhould come to paſſe? If hee did, then he did from everlaſting foreſee the finall infidelitie and impenitency of every one that in ſuch a condition departs out of the world. And why then ſhould it not become God from everlaſting to ordaine all ſuch unto condemnation? Thirdly, who are they that interpret St. Jude in ſuch a manner as you obtrude upon them? I cannot beleeve any is found ſo abſurd. What? that [...] ſhould ſignifie no more then ordaine to judgement! What ſhall become of [...] then? a word in this place moſt ſignificant? I perſwade my ſelfe you cannot name one, the Author of ſo looſe an interpretation. But let us conſider how you carry your ſelfe in the clearing of it as you ſpeak, which indeed is to raiſe a miſt rather in the clear. [...] you ſay, in the firſt place ſignifies judgement; and, I ſay, neither doe they render it otherwiſe whom you undertake to confute. Yet, holding the tranſlation here (as it were at bay without ſpecification) it cannot ſtand with your interpretation; to wit, of Gods ordaining men to judgement (in generall) according to their workes: a judgement of mercy, in caſe their workes prove good; or of wrath, in caſe they prove evill, whatſoever you pretend to the contrary, but moſt improvidently. For, albeit the word judgement be generall, and indifferently appliable to either kind, yet, the Apoſtles phraſe here, this judgement, [...], cannot be underſtood, and maintained in any ſuch generalitie and indifferencie. And therefore you could not reſt in this ſenſe without much overſight as your ſelfe obſerve, and forthwith confeſſe. Therefore you proceed further to obſerve, that the Apoſtle v. 3. thought it needfull to exhort them, to contend earneſtly for the faith once given to the Saints. That is true, In the v. 4. hee addes the reaſon hereof; that alſo is true in theſe words: For there are certaine men crept in, of old ordained [...]. And theſe [Page] men you call Antagoniſts, hawking thereby after ſome congruitie to your interpretation following. And thirdly, you obſerve, that God deſigned them to ſomewhat: and the better to hold up the congruitie of your interpretation, you call God the chiefe [...]. And the thing whereunto God deſigned them, was (you ſay) to put the Chriſtians, to whom the Apoſtle writes, to this contention and tryall: Where you leave the Greek, as no longer able to ſerve your turne; for it is not [...], but [...], whereunto God ordained them. But yet (which is enough) you poſitively avouch that the coherence requires this word [...] to bee ſo tranſlated. This, I ſay, were enough if you could as ſubſtantially prove it, as you doe confidently avouch it. And yet I preſume, you well know your ſelfe to have been the firſt that hath diſcovered any ſuch pregnancie of the text; to goe as it were with child with any ſuch ſenſe and meaning. And therefore it behooves you to bring good cardes for the proofe of this your interpretation, Now before I come to examine your proofe, I ſay, that this interpretation of yours is farre more [...] than that is which you impugne, by how much it is farre more [...] (as Arminius urgeth againſt Mr. 'Perkins according unto truth) to ſay, that God from eternitie ordaines a man unto ſinne, then, that from eternitie hee ordaines men unto condemnation: And Piſcator concurreth with you in the iſſue, though he takes a different way. Ad hoc judicium, [...], i. e. (ſaith hee) ad hanc impietatem, qua impietate commerentur, ſibi (que) accerſunt judicium Dei, i. e. eternam condemnationem: As much as to ſay, to this impietie, which is their condemnation; according to that of our Saviour, Joh. 3. 16. This is the condemnation of the world, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkneſſe rather then light, becauſe their deeds were evill; ſtill holding the word [...] to his uſuall ſignification of judgement or condemnation. Now wee come to the conſideration of your proofe: [...] wee know, comes from [...], which ſignifies, you ſay, firſt decerno, then judico, and laſt of all condemno. Be it ſo, hence you inferre, that [...] doth firſt ſignifie lis or certamen, and then judgement, and at the laſt, condemnation; and thus Jude takes it here. If this were granted you, then Judes meaning muſt be this, who were of old ordained to this contention: But you render it in much different manner, thus; Who were of old ordained to put them (good Chriſtians) to this [Page]contention. Something you plead for the libertie you take in tempering the word, but you doe not ſo much as endeavour to juſtifie the libertie you take in interpreting Pauls phraſe, when you ſay, that to ordaine men to this contention, is, to ordaine them to put Chriſtians to this contention. If you ſhould diſwade men from impatience, and, giving a reaſon hereof, ſhould ſay, For many wicked men there are of old ordained to this impatience; would any of your Auditors underſtand you? But give we you leave to enjoy your interpretation of the phraſe, let us ſee how you can juſtifie your interpretation of the word. The firſt reaſon is, ab origine nominis; as if the verbe [...], did firſt ſignifie to contend, and thence you inferre that [...] ſignifies contention in the firſt place. But you bring no Greeke Grammarian or Dictionarie to juſtifie either the one or the other; neither doe I thinke any world of words (as Dictionaries are ſometimes called) doth juſtifie any ſuch interpretation of [...] or [...]. A matter may be determined by deeds (as by dint of ſword) as well as by words, and legall debatings; ſo that judicare and decernere, as comprehended under [...], ſhall be ſtill of the ſame moment, and nothing different in the effect, though res prove to be judicata different wayes. Secondly you ſay, that St. Paul takes the word [...], for contentions: I finde by my Concordance that the word [...] is found 28 times in the new Teſtament. Out of all theſe you have pickt out one to ſerve your turne, if that doth ſerve your turne; 1 Cor. 6. 7. There is utterly (ſaith he) a fault among you, [...], that is, ſay you, in that you have contentions and ſuits or tryalls one with another. Calvin renders it thus, I am quidem omnino delictum in vobis eſt, quòd judicia habetis inter vos; keeping the word to his uſuall ſignification: you will have it to ſignifie contention, as if by ſpeciall providence it were here ſo uſed. For the better clearing of St. Jude, our Engliſh, both the laſt, and Geneva, thus: Now there is verily a fault among you, that you goe to law one with another. Now to goe to law, what is it but to ſeeke to civill courts for judgement or juſtice. Yet I am content to take your owne tranſlation, whereby it is apparent, that by this word, is not ſo much ſignified contentions in generall, as ſuites and tryalls in ſpeciall; like as Piſcator renders [...] in this place, controverſias forenſes, to wit, by a Metonymie of the effect for the cauſe; for, where there are judgements forenſecall, [Page] there muſt needs proceed controverſies forinſecall. And as for contentions in generall, I doubt not but you well know, that in the new Teſtament they are uſually denoted under the words [...] or [...]. Now compare wee this with that of Jude, when the Apoſtle exhorts them, v. 3. to contend (under the word [...]) for the faith once given to the Saints, and that againſt thoſe ſeducers and corrupters, the devills factors no doubt, who goeth about like a roaring Lion, ſeeking whom he may devoure: he doth nothing at all exhort them to ſuch contentions as you call ſuits or tryalls, but rather unto a contention of reſiſtance unto the practice of ſuch who would corrupt them; of the ſame nature with the exhortation of Peter, 1 Pet. 8. 5. Having told them of the devils going about like a roaring lion, &c. Whom reſiſt (ſaith he) ſtedfaſt in the faith: And anſwerable to that of Paul, Epheſ. 6. 12. Wee wraſtle not againſt fleſh and bloud, but againſt principalities, and againſt powers, and againſt worldly governours, &c. For this cauſe take unto you the whole armour of God, that yee may be able to reſiſt in the evill day; and having finiſhed all things, to ſtand. So that throughout, there is nothing at all that ſerves your turne for the countenancing of ſo ſtrained an expoſition, which yet (as before I ſhewed) is moſt cauſeleſly undertaken. You proceed to a little further clearing of the text, or rather to the raiſing of more miſts, eſpecially in the interpretation of the word [...]. As for the alluſion you finde in the word [...] to the common courſe of Judges and ſuits in the law, or of wraſtling in the Olympians, or of Captaines in the warre, who (as you ſay, but without any proofe) were wont conſcribere, to deſigne aforehand, or ſet downe in writing the names of ſuch adverſaries as were to have their cauſes or tryalls tryed before them. I have no great edge to oppoſe it. But Calvin goes no further then ſcripture, to diſcover unto us this alluſion: Porro (ſaith he) haec metaphora inde ſumpta eſt quod aeternum Dei conſilium, quo ordinati ſunt fideles ad ſalutem liber vocatur. And Revel. 20. wee read of another booke beſides the booke of life, wherein the deeds of wicked men are written, and is not there written (thinke wee) their condemnation alſo? As for the word [...] of old, I confeſſe there is no native force therein to extend it to the ſignification of eternitie: Nay, Mar. 15. 44. it is applyed to a very little time before; for Pilate demands of Joſeph of Airmathea, that [Page] came unto him boldly to aske the body of Jeſus, whether he were dead [...] already; yet it is applyable even to eternitie, neither doth it ſignifie any deſinite time riſing upwards. And, although this phraſe of old be diſtinguiſhed from eternitie, Jer. 31. 3. yet it is not Habac. 1. 12. And as the words are different in the hebrew, ſo neither of them is rendred by [...] in the greeke: but wee extend not the ſignification of it to eternitie by any force of the word, but from the matter whereof he treates, which is the ordination and decree of God, which every intelligent and orthodox Divine acknowledgeth to be eternall; and I finde it wondrous ſtrange ſo worthy a Divine as your ſelfe ſhould be of any other opinion. And, I pray, why might not this deſignation be from eternitie, as well as 4040. yeares before, ſuch ungodly men were crept in amongſt the people of God? Belike not till then was the divell aſſigned to be an enemie to the woman; for it is expreſly ſaid, God would put enmitie betweene the woman and the ſerpent, betweene the ſeed of the woman and the ſeed of the ſerpent. Surely, that place onely ſignifies what Gods eternall purpoſe was in this particular, then breaking out and manifeſting it ſelfe; not that then the Lord did begin to ordaine it: For, nothing in the nature of God is temporall. And, certainely the enmitie of the ſerpent againſt mankinde had broken out before this.

Amongſt others, I am one into whoſe hand this diſcourſe of yours is fallen at length, having heard ſome inckling of it in the generall before; and truly by accident I lighted upon it, without any enquiring of mine, without any others offering it unto me; and I am ſorry to ſee the ſcandall and offence that is given thereby unto Gods people in the way of truth: and that as I ſeeme to have juſt cauſe to ſuſpect, ſome have been hardned and confirmed in their errour; and ſome, I heare, doe boaſt of this diſcourſe of yours, as no ſmall credit and reputation to their cauſe: yet, I am perſwaded, this is no judgement of God upon you, who are far from any hereticall animoſitie: onely we all know but in part, and the beſt are obnoxious unto errour; but the judgements of God that have their courſe in theſe dayes doe aſtoniſh me, in giving men over to illuſions to believe lies, by what meanes, and after what manner he thinks good; and all becauſe we doe not embrace the truth, the precious truth of God with love, thereby making our ſelves moſt unworthy of it. For, when in vouchſafing unto us his holy truth, [Page] he doth as it were cramme us againſt our appetite, is it not high time for him to make us faſt?

And amongſt them of our ſelves, onely this let me adde; becauſe, Anſw. verum & bonum convertuntur, every divine truth is rich in profitable uſe: I have been confirmed in this truth, by the holy uſefulneſſe thereof to all ſorts.

1 To the Elect it maintaineth and cheriſheth the freeneſſe and Uſe 1. largeneſſe of the riches of the grace of God to them, whoſe ſalvation he carrieth along in all the wayes of it, not according to their works, but according to his purpoſe and grace given them in Chriſt before the world was; under whom alſo are ſpread the everlaſting armes of Gods almightie power and eternall love to guide and preſerve them to his heavenly kingdome; which grace to us is ſo much the more magnified, when wee behold the ſeveritie, and yet equitie, of his juſtice towards the world of mankinde; who though hee love them as his creatures, yet he dealeth with them according to their workes, which in the end windeth up in their woefull and juſt deſtruction.

2 To the carnall Chriſtian, that ſinneth of ignorance or humane 2. frailitie, and not of prophane and wilfull contempt of the meanes and wayes of grace, this doctrine offereth a ſerious exhortation to them to ſeeke after Chriſt whilſt hee may be found, and earneſtly preſſeth on him thoſe lively and quickning expoſtulations of the Prophets, Why will you die, O houſe of Iſrael? What could I have done more for my vineyard, that I have not done? Turne yee, turne yee, that iniquitie may not be your deſtruction.

3 To the prophance and malignant dog and ſwine, that walloweth 3. in ſenſuall and worldly luſts, and ſnarleth againſt the meanes and wayes of his owne peace, and trampleth the precious ordinances of God under foote; to ſuch this doctrine teſtiſieth to their faoes, that God is juſt in all that cometh on them, and his way equall: They loved the curſed wayes of ſinne, and are fallen into them; they loved not the wayes of bleſſing, and therefore are they farre from them.

4 To the Lutheran and Arminian, who refuſe the excellent and 4. heavenly benefit of the ſound and comfortable doctrine of Election, by reaſon of ſome hard ſaying which they obſerved in the uſuall manner of handling the oppoſite decree of Reprobation; to them this doctrine removeth ſuch ſtumbling blocks out of the way,[Page]as have hitherto turned them out of the way of truth and peace.

5 To the cavilling froward ſpirit, this doctrine cutteth off all 5. occaſions of reviling and ſlandering the orthodox truth of God, and againſt them cleareth the equitie of the wayes of God.

6 To all ſorts of men, yea, to men and Angels, it miniſtreth 6. much matter of admiring and adoring the wonderfull riches of Gods grace to Chriſt the head of the Church, and in him to all the elect his members, the abſolute power of his ſoveraigntie in dealing farre otherwiſe with the world, the unſearchable depth of his wiſdome in the order and end of all his wayes, the unſearchable depth of his patience, bountie and long-ſuffering towards all men, and manifeſt equitie of his juſtice, even to thoſe who abuſe his patience and bountie to their owne perdition.

I confeſſe this courſe of juſtifying, a tenet, by the uſefulneſſe of Examin. 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] to reſtore ſight or hearing unto him; unleſſe firſt dead, it were utterly impoſſible to revive him.

Come wee now to ſalvation and damnation; you ſeeme to ſay that God of his free grace doth ſave a man. In my judgement it is an improvident ſpeech. For, conſider, whom doth God ſave of ripe yeares? Doth hee ſave any other but thoſe that die in the Lord? That is, ſuch as die in the ſtate of grace, in the ſtate of faith and repentance? Now judge, I pray, Is it fit to ſay, It is free and indifferent with God, either to ſave or damne them who die in the Lord, in the ſtate of grace, in the ſtate of repentance? For, hath not God made as well ſuch a law, that, whoſoever beleeves and repents, he ſhall be ſaved? As ſuch a law, Whoſoever beleeves not, nor repents, ſhall be damned? And, in reſpect of the former law, is not God as much obliged to ſave them that beleeve and repent, as in reſpect of the latter law, hee is obliged to damne them that beleeve not, that repent not? So that the compariſon is miſerably to blame, made between the freeneſſe of Gods grace in ſaving the one, and his ſeveritie and juſtice in condemning others: And the confounding of effectuall vocation and ſalvation on the one ſide, and obduration with damnation on the other, hath expoſed you to this incongruitie ere you are aware. So that, whereas I thought to have leaſt to doe about this uſe, a greater buſineſſe is made unto me in clearing the truth of God herein then I could imagine: and yet I am not come to an end. This may ſuffice to diſcover the unſoundneſſe of the maine body of your compariſon. But there are ſome other things to be conſidered on the by: Firſt, by way of amplifying the largeneſſe of the riches of the grace of God. You tell us how the Lord carrieth the ſalvation of his Elect in all the wayes of it, &c. And forthwith by way of addition you ſay, that under them alſo are ſpread the everlaſtig armes of Gods power and eternall love, to guide them to his eternall kingdome: Which is no different thing, but meerely the ſame with the former, of carrying their ſalvation along in all the wayes of it. Theſe expreſſions, I confeſſe, are momentuous, to ſtir up gracious affections in the apprehenſion of the freeneſſe and power of Gods grace. But, if hereby our judgement (in the meane time) is not a little diſturbed [Page] in diſcerning Gods truth, ſo that wee embrace errour in ſtead thereof, wee ſhall buy good affections at too deare a rate, as is the loſſe of truth. And hereby as I have ſhewed, the freeneſſe of Gods grace is miſerably weakned: For, if God be not acknowledged freely and of the meere pleaſure of his will to deny grace unto ſome, I cannot ſee how well it can be maintained that hee doth freely and according to the meere pleaſure of his owne will beſtow it upon others. Againe, that phraſe of yours, the equitic of Gods juſtice toward them that are damned, ſeemes ſomewhat incongruous. For, equitie ſignifies the moderation of juſtice in ſuch ſort, that the ſtrictneſſe thereof may not hinder mans good: But what good the damned reap by this equitie you ſpeak of, you have not declared. Laſtly, you ſay, God loves the damned as they are his creatures. And it is a phraſe, I confeſſe, that hath 'its courſe with many hand over head. In the very ſtate of damnation in hell fire, they are and ſtill continue to be his creatures; what, I pray, is that love of God that paſſeth upon them in that ſtate? Undoubtedly, whatſoever it be, it muſt conſiſt with hatred in the higheſt degree. I would willingly know whether it be Amor complacentiae, or Amor beneficentiae. If it bee complacentiae, what is it that God likes in them, unleſſe it be his own worke, the nature of men? Or what good is it that God doth unto them in the ſtate of damnation? Can it be any other then the continuance of their being? Yet, moſt thinke that is nothing good to them in the ſtate of damnation. Whatſoever your meaning be, if you did expreſſe it, it may be you would fly from your owne caution in this place, as Moſes did from his rod when it was turned into a Serpent. I am perſwaded, the apparent incongruitie thereof would little pleaſe you. I come to the Conſideration of the ſecond Uſe.

2 That the doctrine of our Church, from which you ſwerve, doth not offer, as well as yours, to carnall Chriſtians a ſerious exhortation to ſeeke after Chriſt whilſt he may be found: Or that it doth not, as earneſtly as yours, preſſe upon them thoſe heartie and quickning expoſtulations of the Prophets: Why will yee die, O houſe of Iſrael? Or, What could I have done more for my vineyard that I have not done? Turne yee, turne yee, [Page]that iniquitie may not be your deſtruction, you doe not ſo much as goe about to prove. But I have ſomething more to except againſt this uſe of yours. The deſcription here given by you of a carnall Chriſtian; to wit, That hee ſinnes of ignorance and humane frailtie, and not of prophane and wilfull contempt of the meanes of grace; I had thought it had been proper to the regenerate, and not at all belonging to the carnall Chriſtians, whom, I thinke, you make no better than naturall men, to whom the things of God are fooliſhneſſe; and in whom [...] is enmitie unto God, in ſuch ſort, that they are not ſubject unto the law of God, nor can be. But, I preſume, you ſpeak this of civill and morall Chriſtians, conforming to the meanes of grace, and not giving any outward evidence of contemning them. But, herehence it followeth not, that God who ſeeth their hearts, finds not prophaneneſſe in them, or vile eſtimation of the meanes of grace. But howſoever, whether they are prophane or formall, wee exhort all, wee preſſe the ſame expoſtulations upon all: and dare you ſay, that never any prophane or wilfull contemner of the meanes of grace is converted? Though that theſe expoſtulations doe quicken any, it is meerely of the ſpirit of God, who bloweth where hee liſteth. But, whereas you ſeeme to imply (though you are not willing to deale plainly, and expreſſe ſo much) that a carnall Chriſtian, ſuch as here you have ſhaped him, hath power to yeeld to theſe exhortations, and quickning expoſtulations; a point that we dare not take hold of, without much explication: For, to yeeld unto them in a gracious manner, I conceive, to be utterly out of the ſphere of a naturall man, or a carnall Chriſtians activitie: And, I preſume, you will affirme as much; but to yeeld unto them, either hypocritically, either according to the courſe of groſſe hypocriſie, or of that hypocriſie which is ſecret to him that is poſſeſſed with it, or, ad exteriorem vitae emendationem; wee deny not ſuch a power unto a carnall Chriſtian as you deſcribe him, nor unto any prophane perſon whatſoever. And, I am perſwaded, it is onely a conſideration of things in generall, and in a confuſaneous manner, holds you on to imply ſuch a power in carnall [Page] Chriſtians: Whereas if things were diſtinguiſhed aright, it would more eaſily appeare what is within the region of nature, and what beyond it, as meerely imputable to the ſpeciall grace of God, and operation of his ſpirit.

3 As for dogs and ſwine, wee are forbidden to give our holy things, or to caſt our pearles before them at all. And therefore are wee not to trouble our ſelves, in conſidering to what end this doctrine is to be preached unto them. And yet, as for the teſtifications propoſed as proper unto them, it is nothing ſo; for not to them only, but to carnall Chriſtians alſo doe ſuch belong, yea, to the very Children of God alſo; to wit, That God is juſt in all that cometh on them, and his wayes equall. As when after Davids foule ſinnes in the matter of Uriah, the ſword purſued his houſe, and Abſolon defiled his fathers concubines, and hee was driven to flie from Jeruſalem, and Shimei meeting him on the way curſed him, &c. And, I pray you, what unregenerate man throughout the world doth not love the curſed wayes of ſin, in ſome kind or other, though not in all kinds? And no marvell, for vice is like a pike in a pond, it devoures both vertue and leſſer vices: One vice is oppoſite to another, and not onely unto vertue: And therefore, no mervaile if no man be found vicious in all kinds.

4 As for the Lutheran and Arminian, you profeſſe, that this Tenet of yours removes ſuch ſtumbling blocks out of their way, as have hitherto turned them out of the way of truth and peace. But what theſe ſtumbling blocks are, which you have removed, I know not. It ſeemes this hath been a chiefe inducement unto you, to decline from that which you confeſſe to be the moſt received opinion of our Church, and to ſhape unto your ſelfe a new forme of opinion different from that which is received, (if not to remove ſome ſtumbling blocks out of your owne way.) Now, if it be ſo, the faireſt courſe had been to have expreſſed what theſe offences are; Secondly, how our moſt received Tenet doth either caſt them in tho way of others, or at leaſt doth not remove them; and thirdly, to ſhew how by this opinion of yours they are removed: But none of theſe have been performed by you. [Page] Againe, Mr. Moulin, being very orthodox in the point of Election, as you are, varieth from us, as you doe, in the point of Reprobation; maintaining, Reprobation to be inſtituted upon the foreſight of mans finall impenitency, in his Anatome Arminianiſmi. Corvinus an Arminan, hath taken him to taske in a worke of his, and is never a whit the more forward to concurre with us in the point of Election, becauſe Moulin concurres with them in the point of Reprobation. Nay, what doe Papiſts ſay about Durham, by occaſion of our complying with them, but this, They need not comply with us, for wee come faſt enough forwards to comply with them. And more then this, I have already ſhewed, that this tempering (or corrupting rather) of the doctrine of Reprobation, maketh a faire way for the utter overthrowing of that which you call the ſound and comfortable doctrine of Election. Foraſmuch, as looke by what reaſon you maintaine the foreſight of ſmall impenitencie and infidelitie to goe before Reprobation, as it ſignifies the puniſhing with everlaſting death; by the ſame reaſon it will appeare, that the foreſight of finall perſeverance in faith, repentance, and good workes, muſt neceſſarily goe before Election, as it ſignifies Gods decree of rewarding with everlaſting life. In which notion alone, election or the decree of ſalvation, is contrarily oppoſite to reprobation, or the decree of condemnation. For, in maintaining that Reprobation, as a purpoſe of God to condemne for ſin, doth preſuppoſe the foreſight of ſinne, you doe thereby imply that Election, as a purpoſe of God to reward for righteouſneſſe of faith and repentance, doth preſuppoſe the foreſight of faith and repentance. But, if your meaning be no other than this, that God hath ordained no man unto damnation but for ſinne, what offence or ſcandall doe you remove hereby, which wee doe not remove alſo, who concurre with you herein. And, which is more, wee are ready not onely to affirme, but to make good alſo, that in no moment of nature doth the purpoſe of Condemnation goe before the foreſight of ſinne, even of that ſinne for which men ſhall be damned: Whereas you, in maintaining that the foreſight of ſinne is precedent to the purpoſe of condemnation, are not [Page] able to make it good; but muſt neceſſarily fall foule upon a manifeſt contradiction to your owne rules: For, if the foreſight of ſinne be precedent to the decree of condemnation, then God did firſt decree to permit ſinne, before hee did decree to damne for it: And herehence it followeth that permiſſion of ſinne in Gods intention, was before condemnation: and if it were firſt in intention, then, by your owne rules, it muſt be laſt in execution; that is, men ſhall be condemned for ſinne, before ever they be permitted to ſinne. Nay, I appeale to your owne conſcience, whether wee doe not open a fairer way for compoſition in the point of election, then you doe in the point of Reprobation. Conſidering that like as in Reprobation, Gods decree to condemne, is in no moment of nature precedent to Gods foreſight of ſinne; ſo in Election, I am bold to affirme, that Gods purpoſe to ſave is in no moment of nature before his foreſight of faith, repentance, and good workes, and finall perſeverance in them all. Will not you thinke, that you have cauſe to feare hereupon, that I am more diſſolute in the point of Election, than rigid in the point of Reprobation? Yet if you will confeſſe, that herein is a faire way opened for compoſition in the point of Election; I dare undertake to perſwade you, that this ſhall be maintained without any prejudice either to the freeneſſe of Gods grace, or to the abſolutneſſe of his power. The truth is, our Divines have a long time erred in making different decrees of thoſe which are but one (I mean formall) decree, to wit, of the meanes, though materially different, which is nothing ſtrange: For, why ſhould it ſeeme ſtrange that many meanes ſhould be required to the ſame end? Wee commonly ſay, that Gods decree to give ſalvation is the decree of the end; and his decree to give faith and repentance is the decree of the meanes: yet they dare not ſay commonly, that Gods decree to inflict damnation is the decree of the end; and Gods decree to deny grace is the decree of the meanes: And ſo they are driven to overthrow all Analogie between Election and Reprobation. I ſay that Gods decree of giving faith and ſalvation unto ſinners, are but one formall decree of God concerning the meanes; the end whereof is, the manifeſtation [Page] of Gods glory in the way of mercie mixt with juſtice. And, indeed, nothing can be the end of Gods actions but his owne glory; for hee made all things for himſelfe, and as all things are from him, ſo all things muſt be for him; for the ſupreame efficient muſt be the ſupreame end. Now if God at once, and in one moment of nature, decreeth to give ſalvation by way of reward of faith, judge you, or let any indifferent Reader judge, whether this decree of ſalvation be not neceſſarily conjunct with the foreſight of ſaith.

5 As for the occaſions of ſlandering and reviling the orthodox truth of God, which as you conceive, this doctrine of yours cutteth of to the cavilling and froward ſpirit; you have not ſo much as expreſſed what they are, much leſſe juſtified them, to be ſuch occaſions as you ſpeak of, or ſhewed how they are removed by your doctrine, and not by ours. In like ſort, what is that equitie of the wayes of God, the credit of the clearing whereof, you attribute to your owne doctrine, and derogate from ours, you take no paines to explicate. If your meaning be, that you maintaine, that God condemnes no man but for ſinne voluntarily and freely committed by him, and withall doe obtrude upon us the contrary, you doe us the greater wrong, provided you ſpeak of men of ripe yeares. As for the damnation of infants, I doubt you feare ſo much to offend men, that you come too neere the Pelagian and Arminian tenet hereabouts. And if you thinke there is any active power in a naturall man to believe and repent, wee will not feare offence to reſiſt you, or any man in this, the ſcripture having ſo plainely expreſſed the contradictorie to this; 1 Cor. 2. 14. and Rom. 8. 8. Or, if your opinion be, that God doth not harden whom he will, as well as hee ſhewes mercie on whom hee will; (where the good pleaſure of God is as evidently ſignified to be the cauſe of the one, as of the other) wee ſhall not forbeare by Gods grace, through feare of offence, to reſiſt you in this alſo. And if Pharaoh ſhall hereupon object and ſay, Why doth God complaine of my not letting Iſrael goe, when he himſelfe hardens, my heart, that I may not let Iſrael goe; wee [Page] thinke it fit to take the Apoſtles courſe to ſtop ſuch a ones mouth; and ſay, O man who art thou that diſputeſt with God, ſhall the thing formed ſay to him that formed it, why haſt thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power, &c. And let men take heed, they doe not take upon them to be wiſer then the Holy Ghoſt, and thinke to ſatisfie men by deviſes of their owne, when the word of God doth not ſatisfie them. Yet, in all this, the Apoſtle doth not impeach the libertie of their wils, nor Auſtin neither, but rather juſtifieth it throughout; yet is hee bold to pronounce, that libertas ſine gratia, non eſt libertas ſed contumacia. As much as to ſay, a man without grace hath will too much to that which is evill, and averſe from that which is good, as being wilfully bent to the one, and oppoſite to the other. And, the providence of God in the efficacie of working all things to his owne ends, compared with the libertie of the creature, hath ever been accounted of a ſecret nature; whereas now a dayes, nothing will ſatisfie the Patrons of free will, unleſſe this ſecret and miſterious providence of God, as it was wont to be accounted, come to be utterly overthrowen, and libertie of the creature (if not chance) be brought to domineere in the place thereof. When you ſpeak of the orthodox truth of God, I preſume, you doe not diſtinguiſh of the truth of God as if ſome were orthodox, and ſome not. Yet, I confeſſe, Epithites have another uſe beſides the uſe of diſtinction; yet, in this caſe alſo, the Epithite is not congruous, for orthodox is as much in effect as true.

6 As touching the laſt, I preſume, you will not deny, but that the riches of Gods grace to Chriſt, and in him to all the Elect, are by our Tenet acknowledged to be as wonderfull as by yours. As for the abſolute power of his ſoveraigntie in dealing farre otherwiſe with the world, I preſume, your opinion is, that wee doe exceed rather then come ſhort of you in the acknowledging thereof: For, wee maintaine God to be as abſolute and free, in the denying of grace to ſome, as in giving it to others. And by denying of grace, wee underſtand the hardning of men, at leaſt as touching the chiefe part wherein it conſiſts. Yet, this you will have to proceed not [Page] ſo much according to Gods abſolutneſſe, as according to his juſtice in puniſhing men with obduration: yet, I grant, there is an obduration which is properly enough a puniſhment of ſinne, and when men are thereby proſtituted unto danger, and expoſed unto deſtruction. Yet, I dare appeale to the judgment of any intelligent Arminian, whether, in caſe you doe maintaine as you ſpeak, the abſolute power of Gods ſoveraigntie in dealing farre otherwiſe with the world, then with the elect, any ſcandall is removed out of their way by your tenet which is caſt in their way by ours. As for the unſearchable depth of his wiſdome in the order and end of all his wayes, as alſo of his patience towards all men; I preſume, you will not ſay it is more maintained by your tenet then by ours. But by the way, I hope, you will not except againſt that of Auſtin; Quantam libet praebuerit patientiam niſi Deus dederit, quis aget poenitentiam, cont. Jul. liber 5. Cap. 4. And againe in the ſame place, Iſtorum neminem (to wit, non praedeſtinatorum) adduoit Deus ad ſalubrem ſpiritualemque poenitentiam, quâ homo reconoiliatur Deo in Chriſto, ſive ampliorem illis patientiam, ſive non imparem praebeat. And againe, adducit ad poenitentiam, ſed praedeſtinatum adducit, and none other in his opinion. As for the juſtice of God to obſtinate ſinners, I hope you will not ſay, the common tenet of our Divines doth any way infringe it; wee generally maintaine him to be righteous in all his workes, and holy in all his wayes: For, hee puniſheth none but for ſin; none of ripe yeares, but for ſinne voluntarily and freely committed by them, and that in ſuch ſort as they might avoide it; ſpeaking of any outward tranſgreſion; Onely it is not in their power to change their hearts, and to love God with all their hearts, and feare him, and depend upon him: Whence it cometh to paſſe, that albeit there is no particular, materiall, tranſgreſion, which they could not avoide, yet it is not in the power of a naturall man to avoid it in a gracious manner; and all for want of that love of God, before ſpoken of, which cannot be wrought in a man, but by the ſpirit of regeneration. If any man ſhould further object (as I wiſh you had objected, to the uttermoſt, againſt our Tenet) ſuppoſing [Page] a naturall man to performe what good lieth in his power to performe, but not in a gracious manner; and likewiſe to omit what lyeth in his power to omit, but not in a gracious manner, which alone is not in his power to performe; and ſay, what juſtice is there in the damnation of ſuch a man? I anſwer, as much as in the damnation of an infant for originall ſinne, conſidering that by reaſon of originall ſin it is, that a naturall man cannot performe any thing in a gracious manner, to wit, for want of the love of God: Originall ſinne being an habituall averſion from God, and converſion unto the creature, or more breifly an inordinate converſing with the creature, either in enjoying it, whereas hee ſhould onely uſe it, God alone being to be enjoyed; or in uſing it, but not in a gracious manner, that is, not for Gods ſake; to wit, through want of the love of God, which is brought upon us by the ſinne of Adam; as whereby our natures were bereaved of the ſpirit of God. Thus in proſecuting mine anſwer unto a deviſed argument, I have made bold to open my minde concerning originall ſinne: A point that hath ſeemed unto me of ſuch difficultie, that I have been wont to range it amongſt thoſe three, whereabouts I could not expect to be ſatisfied whilſt I lived. Another was the very point wee have in hand.

To the fourth Doubt.

[Page]

HOw may it appeare that Gods hatred of Eſau, is of a leſſe 4 Doubt. Queſt. 4. degree of love, ſince the making of him who by birth is ſuperiour, to be a ſervant to his underling, argueth no good will at all, but:

Firſt, rather a purpoſe to paſſe him by, in reſpect of communicating grace and glory.

Secondly, ſince the raiſing of Pharaoh, which was to this intent, to ſhew his power in his overthrow argueth the like.

Thirdly, ſince hardning is an effect of hatred, and depends on the will of God, as the firſt cauſe thereof, even as Mercy doth.

Fourthly, ſince there is no cauſe of that objection, why complaines hee? Who hath reſiſted his will? or at leaſt of that anſwer, Rom. 9. 20, 21, 22.

I Anſwer, as Jacob preferring Ephraim the younger brother to greater eſtate then his elder brother Manaſſes did not thereby Anſwer. declare a poſitive hatred of Manaſſes, but a leſſe degree of love to him in compariſon of his brother:

So Gods preferring Jacob to bee a ſuperiour and Lord to his elder brother Eſau, doth not argue that in him there is no good will at all to Eſau, but a leſſe degree of love.

To ſubject Eſau, as a ſervant to Jacob, doth not reprobate Eſau, but puts him into the condition of the world of mankind: who together with the reſt of the Creatures are made to bee ſervants to the Church of the elect, and to the members of it.

But grant Gods hatred of Eſau, and making him a ſervant to his underling, argueth no leſſe then a purpoſe to paſſe him by, in reſpect of communicating glory unto him out of grace. And for my part thus farre I yeeld, that it may well argue a purpoſe of God to paſſe by him, in reſpect of communicating glory to him out of grace, that grace I mean, whereby hee hath made us accepted in his beloved: for this grace or free love, is made Jacobs preheminence, and is denyed to Eſau, and though it put him into the eſtate of a ſervant to his elect brother, and ſo [Page] into the condition of the world of mankind, yet it doth not reprobate him, or argue a purpoſe to paſſe him by in reſpect of communicating life or glory at all unto him, but implyeth only a purpoſe to deale with him in juſtice, viz. to give him life or death according to his works, as I have already ſhewed in the anſwer to the former doubt, and ſhall have occaſion more fully to declare it, in the end of this.

Surely Jacob in doing that which hee did to Manaſſes and Exam. Ephraim, did neither preferre one to a greater eſtate then the other, or love one leſſe then the other. But in the ſpirit of prophecy fore-ſignifyed, what would bee the condition of each in their race and poſterity. But ſuppoſe a father in that which lyeth in his power, preferres one ſon before another, and accordingly in that way of Amor beneficentiae, bee ſaid to love one leſſe then another, will any ſober man ſay, that hee loves the one, and hates the other? is this a decent expreſſion of leſſe love? Wee know full well, that a leſſe love in the way of beneficence, may bee joyned with a greater love in the way of complacency: As for example, an earthly Father, though hee ſuffer his eldeſt ſon to goe away with the Land, yet hee may bear greater affection to a younger ſonne, though hee aſſigne unto him a farre leſſe portion then to his elder brother. And if it were decent to ſay, hee hates him, whom hee loves leſſe in reſpect of beneficence; then hee ſhould bee ſaid to hate him whom hee loves beſt.

Laſtly, if the hating of Eſau bee interpreted leſſe loving, why may not the loving of Jacob, by the ſame liberty bee interpreted the leſſe hating of him.

Amongſt Gods elect ſome are more beloved of God, and ſome leſſe, according as hee ordaines one to greater grace and glory then another, and is it fit to attribute that to Eſau, which wee attribute to Gods elect?

I grant that to ſubject Eſau to Jacob as a ſervant, is not to reprobate him, for this ſubjection is made in time; But reprobation, as wee take it in oppoſition to election Epheſ. 1. 4. was made before all times. It is your own phraſe, to diſtinguiſh the world of mankinde from the elect, as if the elect were none of the world of mankinde. For the very elect themſelves are ſubjected as ſervants to the elect, every one unto others: [Page] though as great as Paul and Apollo, as appeares by the very place, your ſelf have now in a contrary ſenſe alledged more then once. And who doubts that wee muſt all ſerve one another through love, ſince Chriſt himſelf was content to waſh his Diſciples feete? Laſtly, the yoke of Eſau unto Jacob was at length ſhaken off, as appeares by Iſaacs propheſie it ſhould bee; but the yoke of ſubjection of all things unto the Church, ſhall never bee ſhaken off.

But you perceive well enough that the diſcourſe which you anſwer, conſidered this temporall preferment (which yet had courſe onely in their ſeed) onely in a typicall manner, as that which under temporall things prefigured ſpirituall, and accordingly you proceed to ſhape your anſwer thereunto in that reſpect alſo. The ſame is this, Though God had no purpoſe to deale with Eſau, as hee dealt with Jacob: that is, to communicate glory unto him out of grace, yet hee had a purpoſe of communicating glory unto him ſome other way, and what can that bee, but of communicating glory unto him, not out of grace? A very ſtrange aſſertion, and therefore no marvell, you ſpared to ſet it down in ſo many words. Onely you ſay, that the putting him into the ſtate of a ſervant, did not reprobate him, or argue a purpoſe to paſſe him by in reſpect of communicating life and glory unto him. Which to my judgement doth manifeſtly intimate that you acknowledge in God a purpoſe to communicate life and glory to Eſau, ſome way or other.

And if you did acknowledge a purpoſe in God not to communicate life and glory at all unto him, this Aquinas confeſſeth, and wee joyntly with Aquinas, confeſſe that it is nothing leſſe then to hate him. For if God will have a man to bee, and will not have him to bee ſaved, ſurely hee will have him in the end to bee damned. For in the end there will bee found no middle ſtate, equally remote from ſalvation and damnation. But you doe in plain termes acknowledge a purpoſe in God to deale in juſtice with Eſau, and to give him life or death according to his works. I preſume you will not avouch this of all them that you account the world of mankinde. For I doubt not but you will except Infants. As for men of ripe years, is it not as true of the elect, as of thoſe you call the men of the world, that they ſhall bee dealt withall according [Page] to their workes? I doe not ſay according to their deſerts, but according to their works, keeping my ſelf to your own phraſe. Hath not the Apoſtle profeſſed, 2 Cor. 5. 10. That wee muſt all appeare before the judgement ſeate of Chriſt, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that hee hath done, whether it be good or evill? But theſe works I confeſſe are different, for either they conſiſt in obedience or diſobedience; either to the Covenant of the Law, or to the Covenant of Grace; either to the Law of works, or to a Law of Faith. Now as for thoſe whom you call the world of mankinde, and concerning whom you profeſſe, God hath a purpoſe to judge them according to their works. I demand whether your meaning is, God wil judge them according to their works, in reference to the Covenant of the Law, or in reference to the Covenant of Grace. If in reference to the Covenant of the Law, then the meaning muſt bee this, God hath a purpoſe to ſave them, in caſe they perform exact obedience to his Law: But in caſe they continue not in every thing that is writen in the book of the Law to doe it, Gods purpoſe is to condemn them to everlaſting death. Now I appeale to every ſober Chriſtians judgement, whether if God hath no purpoſe to ſave them, but upon condition of ſuch obedience, and withall hath a purpoſe to damne them upon condition of ſuch diſobedience, whether, all things conſidered, it may not bee more truely avouched, that God hath a purpoſe to damne them, but no purpoſe at all to ſave them. If it bee ſpoken in reference to the Covenant of Grace, I diſpute againſt it, firſt in the ſame manner. The conditions of the Covenant of Grace on mans part being Faith and Repentance, if God will not ſave them, but upon condition of faith and repentance, and will damne them in caſe of infidelity and impenitency; then ſurely if it ſhall bee found, that the men of this world are far more prone to infidelity and impenitency then unto faith and repentance, it followeth that God purpoſeth rather to damne them then to ſave them; But in caſe they are naturally carryed to infidelity and impenitency, and have no power to beleeve in Chriſt, and to break off their ſinnes by true repentance; then it followeth as well in reſpect of this Covenant of grace (according whereunto God will deale with them) as in reſpect of the former Covenant of the Law, that [Page] God hath no purpoſe to ſave them, but hath a purpoſe to damne them unto everlaſting fire. But ſo it is of all thoſe whom you call the world of mankind, namely, that they have no power to believe in Chriſt, or to break off their ſinnes by repentance, but are naturally carryed on unto infidelity and impenitency, as I prove thus. They that cannot diſcern the things of God, but account them fooliſhneſſe, they cannot beleeve in Chriſt: But ſuch are all they whom you call the world of mankind, for 1 Cor. 2. 14. they are not regenerate, and conſequently they are meere naturals. Now the naturall man, as the Apoſtle ſpeakes, perceives Rom. 8. not the things of God, for they are fooliſhneſſe unto him. Again, all ſuch perſons are ſtill in the fleſh. Now the affection of the fleſh is enmity againſt God, is not ſubject to the Law of God, neither indeed can bee. Secondly, I prove that God cannot deale with them whom you call the world of mankinde, according to the Covenant of Grace: For if hee ſhould, hee ſhould ſave them all; as I prove thus. If whatſoever God requires by this covenant on mans part, God undertakes to perform on his part, then it is impoſſible but that all muſt bee ſaved with whom hee meanes to deale according to this covenant. But whatſoever by this covenant God requires on mans part, God himſelf undertakes to perform on his part, as I prove thus. Firſt, in generall, God undertakes in this covenant, to bee our Lord and our God, to ſanctifie us. Therefore, hee undertakes to give us faith and repentance. Secondly, in ſpeciall, and firſt, doth God require at our hands, that wee ſhould love him with all our hearts, and with all our ſoules? God undertakes to perform this. Note: Dent. 30. 6.

I will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of thy children, that thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy ſoule. Doth God require at our hands that wee feare him? And God alſo undertakes on his part to work us unto this. Jer. 32. 40. And I will put my feare into their hearts, that they ſhall never depart away from mee. Doth God require Faith? this alſo on his part hee performes, Act. 2. ult. God added to the Church dayly ſuch as ſhould bee ſaved: And Philip. 1. 29. To you it is given to beleeve in him, and to ſuffer for him. Doth God require Repentance? Even to this end God ſent his Sonne, to give repentance unto Iſrael, and forgiveneſſe of ſins. In a word, it is God that [Page]makes us perfect unto every good work to do his will, working in us that which is pleaſing in his ſight, through Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. 13. 21.

Anſw. But in the ſecond place it may bee argued, that Gods raiſing up of Pharaoh, to this intent to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow, argueth the like hatred of Eſau as of Pharaoh: viz. a purpoſe of paſſing both by, without communicating grace, or glory unto them.

To which I anſwer, a difference there is between Eſau and Pharaoh; though not in their finall condition, nor in [...] purpoſe concerning them: Yet in the degree of their preſent eſtate, whereunto they were ſeverally come, when God gave out his ſeverall Oracles concerning them both: for hee ſaith not of Pharaoh, God raiſed him up to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow, before hee had done good or evill, as hee ſaid of Eſau, that hee ſhould ſerve Jacob, before hee had done good or evill. The Hebrew and Greek word ſignifie neither to create, nor bring into the world, but to preſerve, or to cauſe to ſtand, to ſtirre up, or to advance; which preſuppoſeth Pharaoh already born, yea, and of ſuch a Spirit; that if God preſerve him and ſtirre him up, hee was become a fit ſubject upon whom God might ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow. Otherwiſe God might as well bee ſaid to condemn Pharaoh out of his abſolute will, without all reſpect to ſin, as to ſhew his power in hardning of him without all reſpect to ſin.

Hardning, when it falls upon the creature, is both the height of his ſin, and depth of his miſery, and therefore is it as prejudiciall to Gods juſtice to inflict it without reſpect of ſin going before, and to the creature as dangerous to undergoe it, as condemnation to hell it ſelf. Hell hath no greater torment then an heart deſperately hardned under the wrath, curſe, and judgement of God, which was Pharaohs caſe.

But conſider Pharaoh, not in the eſtate of Eſau, as having done neither good nor evill; but in the ſtate wherein he ſtood, when God gave out his Oracle concerning him, that for this cauſe hee ſtirred him up, to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow; and then may I eaſily grant more then is required. viz. When God purpoſed to paſſe by him, not only in communicating grace and glory unto him, but alſo to fall upon [Page] him in his utmoſt wrath, as well in outward ſtrange calamity, as eſpecially in ſpirituall judgements, hardneſſe of heart, and blindneſſe of minde to his utter perdition.

In the former part you declined a direct anſwer to the queſtion propoſed; for whereas the queſtion propoſed was touching Exam. the communicating of grace and glory, you not adventuring to maintaine a purpoſe of God to communicate grace and glory to them whom you call the world of mankinde, onely maintain a purpoſe in God (at leaſt you ſeem ſo to doe) of communicating life and glory ſome other way then out of grace. But with what advantage to your cauſe that hath been carryed, I have already conſidered. Now you ſeem to anſwer the queſtion, looking it directly in the face. For though you acknowledge ſuch a purpoſe in God concerning Pharaoh, to wit, of paſſing him by in communicating grace and glory, yet the cauſe (you ſay) is not alike of Eſau, when Gods Oracle was given out concerning him, (hee being not then born) as of Pharaoh, when the Oracle, here ſpoken of, was given out concerning him, hee being then a fit ſubject, upon whom God might ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow. Yet here againe you decline the queſtion: For the queſtion was not, whether Pharaoh at that time when God ſaid, For this cauſe I have raiſed thee up, &c. were a fitter ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow; then Eſau was, while yet hee was in his mothers wombe. But whether God had not a purpoſe to paſſe by Eſau as touching the communicating of grace and glory, even before hee was born, which hee had concerning Pharaoh at that time before ſpoken of; which that hee had, I prove thus. It was ſaid of Eſau before hee was born, that God hated him. What more could bee ſaid of Pharaoh, to expreſſe his alienation from him?

Secondly, look how you qualifie the hatred of God to Eſau, in the ſame manner may it bee qualifyed towards Pharaoh, even at this time you ſpeak of. For Gods hatred towards Eſau, you qualifie thus. God had a purpoſe to deale with him according to his works: But ſay I, even then when God profeſſed of Pharaoh ſaying, For this cauſe have I raiſed thee up, &c. God had a purpoſe to deale with him according to his works.

[Page] Thirdly, if therefore God had no ſuch purpoſe towards Eſau, (namely, to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow) becauſe Eſau was not yet born; then belike God had no ſuch purpoſe towards Pharaoh himſelf, while Pharaoh was not yet born. But this is utterly untrue, for as much as Gods purpoſes are eternall, and not temporall.

And in like manner, it may bee proved, that if ever God had the like purpoſe towards Eſau, to wit, after his preferring a meſſe of pottage before his birthright, or at any other time, it followeth that God had the ſame purpoſe towards Eſau, even before hee was born, for Gods purpoſes are not temporall, but eternall.

Laſtly, as for the difference you put between them, (beſides the queſtion) one being a more fit ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow then the other, I grant it to bee true in part, as touching the hardning of them. For obduration preſuppoſeth a man of ſuch ripeneſſe of years, as to have the uſe of reaſon: But this hinders not, but that God might at the ſame time have a purpoſe to harden him in his time, as Pharaoh in his time; And yet, why I pray was not Pharaoh as fit a ſubject for God to ſhew his power in changing his heart, as well as Saul was in the middeſt of his bloody perſecutions of the Church of God? And what naturall man (ſuch as I preſume are all thoſe whom you call the world of mankinde) is not a fit ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow, though hee bee never ſo morall, yea as morall as Trajan, who raiſed one perſecution, or Marcus Antoninus Philoſophus, who raiſed another, or as Aurelianus, who raiſed a third. It is true, if God will move any man unto courſes contrary to his corrupt inclination, and not give him grace to maſter that corrupt inclination; that man whatſoever hee bee, ſhall bee a fit ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning, yea, and overthrow alſo, if it pleaſe him. But if God move any man never ſo contrariouſly to his corrupt inclination, and withall give him grace to maſter that corrupt inclination of his, hee ſhall bee a fit ſubject for God to ſhew the power of his grace in his converſion and ſalvation.

You ſpeak much of hardning, even according unto pleaſure, [Page] without giving your Reader any explication of the words, whereby hee might underſtand your meaning, wherein obduration conſiſts. Surely, obduration is either the denyall of grace, or whatſoever it bee, it is alwaies joyned with the denyall of grace, as I take it. But in very different manner I confeſſe, which you diſtinguiſh not. As for the deniall of grace, that was found to have courſe in the firſt ſin that was committed both in Angels and men. For I am of Auſtins minde concerning the Angels that ſtood, that they were Amplius adjuti then the other that fell, De Civit. Dei. lib. 12. cap. 9. As alſo concerning Adams fall; that in that caſe, Though God gave him poſſe ſi voluit, yet hee gave him not velle quod potuit, and theſe hee makes ſeverall adjutoria. The like may bee ſaid of every 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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.

[Page] 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 the younger to the participation of his free love, and to ſoveraignty over his Brother, and depreſſed the elder to the condition of a ſervant, and as a ſervant reſerved for him juſt dealing, but not fatherly love; might not this ſeeme an unequall partiality with God, to deale ſo unequally with perſons equall? To reſolve this doubt, the Apoſtle could not have cleered God from unrighteouſneſſe by pleading the ſin of Eſau, which deſerved that hee ſhould bee ſo dealt withall, for neither did Jacobs ſin deſerve better; and beſides the Apoſtle had ſaid before, God gave out theſe Oracles which pronounced his different reſpect of them without all conſideration of good or evill in either of them; viz. before they had done either good or evill. Therefore to ſatisfie the objection, and cleare Gods righteouſneſſe, the Apoſtle wiſely alledgeth teſtimonie of Scripture, to prove Gods abſolute power and ability, to ſhew mercy on whom hee will, and whom hee will to harden.

When you ſay this hardning of Pharaoh, though an effect Exam. of Gods hatred of Pharaoh, yet was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Eſau, before hee had done good or evill, but preſuppoſeth the ſin of Pharaoh, your meaning ſeems to bee this, that it is not at all an effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Eſau, before hee had done good or evill, yet it is no leſſe then the not writing of his name in the book of life, as touching the communicating of ſaving grace and glory, neither do wee acknowledge it to bee any more; (like as Aquinas doth not) now the conſequent of this kinde or meaſure of hatred in holy Scripture is no leſſe, then the worſhipping of the beaſt, Rev. 13. 8. nothing leſſe then the obduration [Page] of Pharaoh. The obduration of the children of Iſrael, was no greater then ſuch as was conſequent unto this, that God did not give them an heart to perceive, and eies to ſee, and ears to heare, Deut. 29. 4. And this of not giving hearts to perceive, &c. undoubtedly, is a conſequent even to that hatred which you are content to attribute unto God, concerning Eſau. But you helpe your ſelf with a complicate propoſition, and flie to an immediate effect, which alone you deny in this caſe, for as much as the hardning of Pharaoh (as you ſay) preſuppoſed ſin committed by him, but very improvidently: For if it bee not an immediate effect of the like hatred that God bare unto Eſau, then in accurate conſideration it is to bee acknowledged an effect thereof. Only there is ſome effect thereof more immediate then this, and what I pray was that? was it Pharaohs ſin? for of no other doe you make the leaſt intimation; the more improvident is your expreſſion, intimating thereby that Pharaohs ſin was a more immediate effect in Pharaoh of the like hatred God bare to Eſau then this obduration.

But how doe you prove that Pharaohs hardening was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which God bare to Eſau? to wit, becauſe it preſuppoſed ſin. But I deny this Argument, neither doe you (diſcourſing at large) give your ſelfe to the proving of it; but onely ſuppoſe it. By the ſame reaſon you might ſay, that ſalvation is not the immediate effect of election unto ſalvation; becauſe ſalvation in men of ripe years preſuppoſeth faith, repentance and good workes.

Nay, you may as well ſay, that Gods giving of grace, is not an immediate effect of Gods love to any man; becauſe in moſt men of ripe years it preſuppoſeth many good works. In Saul it preſuppoſed his zeale and his righteouſneſſe according to the Law, which was unblameable. If you ſay that Sauls righteouſneſſe, whatſoever it was before his calling was no fruit of his love: I may with more probability affirme, that Pharaohs ſin which preceded his obduration, was no effect of Gods hatred. If you ſay, that though ſuch righteouſneſſe in Saul was no moving cauſe to God to give him ſaving grace: In like manner I ſay, that no ſin in Pharaoh was a moving cauſe in God to deny him ſaving grace: For if it were, then either by neceſſity of nature, [Page] or by the conſtitution of God. Not by neceſſity of nature; for undoubtedly God could have pardoned this ſin of his, and changed his heart, as well as he pardoned the ſins of Manaſſes, the ſins of the Jews in crucifying the ſon of God, Act. 2. the ſins of Saul in perſecuting Gods Saints; and changed all their hearts. Nor by any conſtitution of God; for ſhew mee if you can any ſuch conſtitution of God. And if you would but explicate wherein the hardening of Pharaoh did conſiſt, I preſume it would clearely appeare, that the meere pleaſure of Gods will is the cauſe of it; like as it is the meere pleaſure of God that he doth not harden others in like manner: But when we carry our ſelves in the clouds of generallties, we are very apt to deceive not others onely, (if they will be deceived) but our ſelves alſo. Againe, you ſeem to ſpeake of Pharaohs hardening mentioned Exod. 9. 16. And indeed for this cauſe have I appointed thee, to ſhew my power in thee, &c. Whereas from the firſt time that Moſes was ſent unto him hee was hardened, and that by God, according as God had told Moſes before-hand, that hee would harden him. As for his ſin, before ever Moſes was ſent unto him, you doe not take any ſpeciall notice thereof at all; but whatſoever it were, as ſuppoſe the cruell edict of his in commanding the male children of the Hebrews to be caſt into the River; like as God anſwered him moſt congruouſly in his works; firſt cauſing the waters of Aegypt to bee turned into blood; and in the laſt place making the waters of the red Sea, the grave of Pharaoh and of his Hoſt: was this horrible ſin any leſſe then a conſequent to more then ordinary obduration [...] for even heathen men are ſeldom expoſed to ſuch unnatural courſes. So that if this obduration were an effect of Gods hatred, but not immediate; ſuppoſing ſin according to the manner of your Diſcourſe; then you muſt be put to deviſe ſome other ſin as precedent to this obduration. And whereas that ſin alſo cannot be denyed to be a conſequent to Gods denyall of effectuall grace to abſtaine from ſin, we ſhall never come to an end, till the cauſe of all theſe obdurations be at length reſolved into originall ſin; And what ſhare I pray you hath the world of mankind therein, which Gods elect have not? When you tel us the hardening is a puniſhment of ſin, it were very fit you ſhould deal plainly, & tel us in what operation of God this work of hardening doth conſiſt, [Page] which I make no doubt, would cleare all. All confeſſe that God is not the cauſe of hardneſſe of heart in any man, but man being borne in hardneſſe of heart, Ezek. 36. 3. 1. God is ſaid to harden, not infundendo malitiam, ſed non infundendo gratiam: By leaving him thereunto, whereby it comes 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.

[Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 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.

[Page] If it bee urged thereupon that God doth harden the creature Anſwer. 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 Rom. 11. 1. 8. 9 10. compared with Pſal. 69. 21, to 28. See alſo Rom 1. 26 27, 28 Pſal. 81. 11, 12. 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 [Page] 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 Exam. 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 Rom. 9. 18. 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 [Page] 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 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Exam. 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 [Page] 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 beart 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 [Page]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 [Page] 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; Jer. 32. 40. 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. [Page] 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, [Page] 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 Anſwer. 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 Exam. 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 [Page] 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 ſo qualifyed as to bee accounted a leſſe degree of love, and not a fruite of hatred: for conſider I beſeech you, is not this farre worſe then to miſchiefe a man by cutting off an arm or limb? So that albeit Scripture did plainely profeſſe that not to reprove a neighbour, but ſuffer him to ſin, were an act of hatred, [Page] yet it followeth not hence, that hatred in this caſe ſignifies onely a leſſe degree of love. For certainly, ſuch an act (to wit, in ſparing reproofe) is worſe by far then to give a man a box on the eare; yet I preſume you will not interpret that to bee hatred onely in ſuch a ſenſe, as ſignifying a leſſe degree of Love. For certainly the fruites of love are the communications of good, and not any contumelious inflicting of evill. But by your leave I doe not finde that this is the Scriptures meaning in the place you aime at; but rather in my judgement it ſeems to meet with a corrupt courſe of the world, prone to conceive none to bee their greater enemies, then ſuch as reprove them. To prevent this, the Lord forbids the one, to wit, the hating of our brother, and as expreſſely commands the other, to wit, to reprove our Neighbour, manifeſting thereby that reproofe may bee performed, without any juſt ſuſpition of hatred in him that reproveth. In fine, this interpretation of hatred which here you make, is imbraced by Voſſius in his Pelagion Story; but hee doth not betray that hee is beholding to Cornelius de Lapide the Jeſuite for it, in his Commentaries on the ninth to the Romans. And hee brings other manner of inſtances to prove it then you doe. And ſo doth Junius alſo in Gen. 29. 31. though hee were farre enough off from applying it in the ſame ſenſe to Eſau, as his ſon in law Voſſius doth, and the Jeſuite doth before Voſſius.

In few words your meaning is, God did ſo far hate Eſau, even before hee had done good or evill, that hee did not deſtinate unto him any ſaving grace as hee did unto Jacob. May you not as well ſay that hee did not deſtinate unto him glory, as hee did to Jacob? And even this in Aquinas his language is to hate, where hee interpreteth Gods hatred of Eſau before hee was born. Yet you might bee pleaſed to goe a little further, and to affirm that God did not onely not deſtinate unto him any ſaving grace, but alſo that God was purpoſed to deny him ſuch ſaving grace as hee granted unto Jacob, and conſequently hee purpoſed to deny him glory alſo; if you bee pleaſed to gratifie your ſelf in yeelding to this truth, wee will willingly gratifie you in acknowledging that notwithſtanding all this, God purpoſed to deale with Eſau according to his works.

[Page] As for that phraſe of yours of putting him into the eſtate of a ſervant; though it bee of little materiall conſideration in this place, yet I have ſufficiently diſcuſſed it, in examining your Anſwer to the firſt Doubt.

The Fifth Doubt.
Queſtion, 5.

HOw may it appeare that all have a ſufficiency of comming to Chriſt, ſince no man can come without drawing? Joh. 6. 44. 65. and hee who is drawn ſhall bee raiſed to life; or ſince no man can come except it bee given him of the Father. Which ſpeech is a reaſon why wee ought not to murmure or bee offended if ſome beleeve not, Rom. 11. 7. and ſince none but the Elect by the meanes of helpe and power, Revelat. 2. 15.

I no where ſay, nor ever thought that all men had a ſufficiency Anſw. of power to beleeve or to come to Chriſt. Far bee it from mee to avouch ſuch ungracious Pelagianiſme; But this I ſay, God giveth to the men of this world, this world, I ſay, as oppoſed to the elect, ſuch meanes and helps of ſeeking after the Lord, and finding mercy from him, that they are ſufficiently enabled by him to doe much more then they doe, that way, they are deprived of thoſe drawing and effectuall means without which none can come, and with which none ever failed to come to Faith and Repentance: Elſe how ſhall wee underſtand theſe and ſundry ſuch like places of Scripture, Act. 17. 25, 26, 27. Rom. 1. 19. to 25. Rom. 2. 4, 5. 14, 15. Luk. 16. 11, 12. Act. 1. 51, 52. Act. 13. 46. Matth. 22. 37, 38. Luk. 19. 41, 42. Ezek. 24. 13. Prov. 1. 20. to 30. 2 Chron. 36. 15, 16. Hoſe. 11. 4. Eſa. 5. 3, 4, 5. Job 33. 14. to 18. Joh. 16. 69? From all which places I gather foure Concluſions, pertinent to the point in hand.

Firſt, That God offereth to the men of this world, helps and means, either of the knowledge of God in Nature, or of grace in Chriſt: and that to this end, to lead them to Repentance and Salvation. Thus is God ſaid to manifeſt to the Gentiles, [Page] that which may bee known of him by his works, and by his Law writen in their hearts, and that to this end, to make them to ſeek after the Lord; to leade them to Repentance, to withdraw them from their courſes, to heale their pride and to ſave their ſoules from the pit. Thus God offered to the carnall Iſraelites means of grace to purge them, to turn them, Prov. 1. 13. to gather them, Mat. 23. 37. to convince them, Joh. 16. 8, 9. To draw them with cords of man and bands of love, Hoſ. 11. 4. To dreſſe them to bring forth good fruit, Eſa. 5. 4.

Secondly, That the meanes God uſeth for theſe good ends, are in ſome meaſure ſufficient (if they bee not hindered by men) to bring them to the attainment of theſe ends: for when God ſaith himſelf, hee uſeth theſe meanes for theſe ends; for us to ſay, theſe meanes are not ſufficient for theſe ends, ſeemeth to mee to derogate from the wiſdom and ſufficiency of God, whoſe works are all of them perfect, Deut. 32. 4. and ſo ſufficient for the ends for which hee wrought them. Yet God forbid I ſhould doubt of that which our Saviour telleth the Jews, No man can come to Chriſt, except the Father draw him, Joh. 6. 44. by the ſame Almighty power and authority, whereby hee ſent Chriſt into the world.

The whole tenour of your Anſwer in clearing the Fifth Exam. Doubt looks this way, as if you maintained a ſufficiency of power in thoſe whom wee account Reprobates to perform ſuch things, upon the performance whereof they ſhould bee ſaved. I confeſſe you doe not make any expreſſe mention of Faith, but of obedience in generall, and of repentance; which I preſume you will acknowledge, will bee inſeparable from Faith. And that you doe acknowledge a ſufficiency in them to perform Obedience and Repentance requifite to Salvation, I prove thus:

You maintain a true deſire in God, of their Salvation; and how can this ſtand with, the denyall of ſuch ſufficiency as is in his power to grant?

Againe, You expreſſely maintain, that there is in God, a ſerious and fervent affection, not concerning their Salvation only, but their Converſion alſo. Which how it can ſtand with a denyall of ſufficient power to turn unto God, I comprehend not.

[Page] Thirdly, You plainly affirm, that mankinde ſlights to work out with the Trinity, their ſalvation. Now no man can bee ſaid to ſlight the doing thereof, for the doing whereof hee hath no power. You maintain there is in a reprobate mans power to work out his ſalvation with the Trinity.

Fourthly, the compariſon you make to repreſent Gods different dealing with his Elect, and with the reprobate, doth intimate as much. The ſervant you ſay is only perſwaded to yeeld himſelf to bee cut, that hee may bee cured of the ſtone, yet earneſtly and forcibly perſwaded: The ſon over and above is taken by the Father and bound and cut, that hee may bee cured. Now as it is in the power of the ſervant to yeeld to bee cut, that hee may bee cured, ſo do you hereby intimate that it is in the power of a Reprobate to yeeld to bee converted, that God may heale him.

Fifthly, you doe acknowledge that Gods purpoſe to give life unto the world upon condition of obedience, doth imply that God ſhould accordingly give means to help them to the performance of this obedience; for you plainly ſignifie that God purpoſing to give life unto the world upon condition of obedience, doth accordingly give meanes to help them to the performance of this obedience. Now I ſay, Gods purpoſe to give life unto the world, upon condition of obedience, doth no more imply that God muſt accordingly give means to help them to the performance of this obedience, then that God muſt accordingly give ability by the help of ſuch means to perform obedience. And indeed, to what end tends the giving of means to help them to the performance of obedience, if they have not ability by the help of thoſe means to perform obedience? In this very Section you profeſſe the meanes which God affords are ſufficient to bring them to thoſe gracious ends, which God (you ſay) intends, if they bee not hindred by men. Which doth imply that in your opinion, the men of the world have power to give way unto them, and not hinder them. Yet I confeſſe you are very ſparing to confeſſe ſo much. But the more you are to blame by the face of your diſcourſe to beſpeak ſuch opinions in your Readers, and to draw unto them, the maintenance whereof you dare not undertake your ſelf. But let us conſider what you deliver hereupon. And [Page] Firſt, though you doe not attribute unto a naturall man ſufficiency, and power to beleeve: yet if you doe attribute unto him ſufficiency of power to perform ought, upon performance whereof grace ſhall bee given him, whereby hee ſhall bee enabled to beleeve and to come to Chriſt, you ſhall even in this bee guilty of that, which you call ungracious Pelagianiſme. Now as for your opinion of the power of a naturall-man, you here expreſſe it partly negatively, partly affirmatively. You conf [...], they are deprived of thoſe drawing and effectuall meanes, without which none can come, and with which, none ever failed to come to Faith and Repentance. Touching which I have ſomething to oppoſe concerning the phraſe, and ſomething concerning the aſſertion it ſelf.

The word meanes uſed by you, and which you call effectuall, wee commonly underſtand as things outward; ſuch as either the Word of God, and the Miniſtry thereof, or the Works of God and the manifeſtation of his providence therein. But you ſeem to goe further, and comprehend thereby the effectuall operation of Gods Spirit, which is very ambiguous, and being delivered in the generall, is the fitter to ſerve a mans turn, ſometimes in the one, ſometimes in the other ſignification. As touching the aſſertion it ſelf, it utterly overthrowes all that you have delivered in clearing the fifth Doubt. For with what ſobriety can God bee ſaid to entertain an earneſt and ſerious affection, concerning their converſion, (which is as much as to ſay concerning their repentance) being reſolved to deprive them of thoſe drawing and effectuall means, without which none can come to repentance?

Again, how can God bee ſaid to entertain an earneſt and ſerious affection concerning their Salvation, being reſolved to deprive them of thoſe drawing and effectuall meanes, without which none can come to Repentance, and conſequently without which none can bee ſaved? As for the affirmative part, you ſay the Reprobates are ſufficiently enabled by God, to do much more then they doe, in ſeeking after the Lord, and finding mercy from him, and that by certain means and helpes. Now in this place I conceive by means and helps you underſtand only outward things, as either the adminiſtration of Gods providence in his Works, or the miniſtry of his Word, and not [Page] the effectuall operation of Gods Spirit, beſtowing any power upon them, which naturally they had not, though this muſt needs bee your meaning in the negative part of the aſſertion. But as touching the aſſertion it ſelf, there is no queſtion but every naturall man, hath power to doe more then hee doth, in the way of actions naturall, but in the way of doing ought that is good, and pleaſing in the ſight of God, I know no power incident to a naturall man: for as much as the Apoſtle ſaith, They that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God. Yet I confeſſe according as the world accounts morality, every naturall man hath power to doe more good then hee doth, and to abſtain more from evill then hee doth, that is, hee may give more Almes then hee doth, hee may bee more temperate then hee is: but whether hee doth that, which for the ſubſtance of the action is accounted good; or abſtaines from ſome particular evill actions; yet neither the one nor the other is or can bee performed by him in a gracious, but rather in an ungracious manner; and whether this bee accounted, a ſeeking after the Lord, and that to finde mercy from him, I dare appeale to your own judgement; yet this is not all you maintain. For wheras the Lord may bee ſought after, as the God and governour of nature onely; you further ſay in the next page, that there is a ſufficiency of power in the means, to lead the men of this world, to come to the knowledge of God, and to grace in Chriſt.

But let us examine the places of Scripture, which you muſter up in great abundance. The firſt is out of Act. 17. 25, 26, 27. There wee read that God is not worſhipped with mens hands, as though hee needed any thing, ſeeing bee giveth to all, life and breath and all things. 26. And hath made of one blood all mankinde, to dwell upon all the face of the earth, and hath aſſigned the ſeaſons which were ordained before, and the bounds of their habitation. 27. [...], That they ſhould ſeek the Lord, if ſo hee they might have groped after him and found him, though doubtleſſe hee bee not farre from every one of us. 28. For in him wee live and move, &c. This ſeemes to bee the moſt principall place whereon you inſiſt, not only by ſetting it in the firſt place, but in as much as you deliver your opinion, in the phraſe of ſeeking the Lord, here alone expreſſed. But this doth nothing ſerve your turn.

[Page] For firſt, here is no mention at all of any ſufficiency and power, that naturall men either by this providence of God, or otherwiſe have attained unto for ſeeking of the Lord. For conſider I pray; the manifeſtation of Gods grace in his word, is farre more able to inable us to ſeek the Lord, then the manifeſtation of his providence in his works; yet by the manifeſtation of his grace in his word, it followeth not that as many as are partakers thereof, are indued with power of ſeeking the Lord in ſuch ſort as to finde mercy from him. I confeſſe that to ſeek the Lord is a phraſe of a very generall ſignification, not denoting any materiall action, but containing onely a certain denomination, which may paſſe upon many materiall actions; and this Diſcourſe of yours is throughout carryed in ſuch generalities, which are very apt to deceive. For in genere latent multae aequivocationes. And for a man to reſt on ſuch, is to bee in love with his own errours. But I am confident it is onely your zeale of juſtifying God in his waies againſt the imputation caſt upon him by fleſh and blood, that makes you take hold of, and content your ſelf with ſuch generall notions, I ſhould think that [...] to ſeek the Lord, in this place, in reference to Gods workes, is of the ſame ſignification in the generall with [...], to ſeek the Lord, in reference to his word; that is the thing, not whereunto we are hereby enabled, but the thing whereof wee are thereby admoniſhed. As Verſe 30. it is ſaid, Now hee admoniſheth every man, every where to repent; to wit, by the preaching of his Word: Hee doth not ſay, Hee doth enable every man, Pſal. 191. 1. every where to repent. So; The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament ſheweth his handy-worke: And that which Rom. 1. 20. may bee knowne of God, is made manifeſt by his workes. Rom. 1. And hee leaves not himſelfe without witneſſe, giving rain and Act. 14. 17. fruitfull ſeaſons, filling our hearts with food and gladneſſe. And ſo here, Hee hath aſſigned the ſeaſons which hee ordained before, and the bounds of their habitations [...], to ſeek the Lord, that is, as I conceive, to admoniſh them to ſeek the Lord: foraſmuch, as though the inviſible things of God, are ſaid to be manifeſted by his workes: yet it is in ſuch a manner, as it requires ſtudy and deep contemplation, to attaine to theſe inviſible things of God, in the moſt indifferent meaſure: [Page] But ſay, wee have power, and all men have power to ſeek the Lord, that is, to ſearch out thoſe inviſible things of God, which are made manifeſt by his Works, as many Naturaliſts have done; and to give inſtance: As Ariſtotle hath ſearched after an Ens primum, a firſt being; and hath found out immateriall ſubſtances, and amongſt them a firſt mover, in the contemplation of whom the felicity of all the reſt conſiſts; and hath delivered ſtrange concluſions concerning his Nature: Yet I deny that any man hath power naturall, ſo to ſeek after the Lord, as to finde mercy from him. To this purpoſe it is not enough to know him as the Authour of Nature, but wee muſt take forth, and know him as a Redeemer, and authour of Grace. For I preſume you wil not ſay that Ariſtotle after his moſt ſtudious inquiſitions after the Lord, did finde mercy from him.

Nay, this great ſearcher into the ſecrets of Nature, denyed his Omnipotency, for they could not bee drawn to beleeve that hee was able to produce any thing out of nothing, this was the generall opinion of them all in a manner. Thence hee proceeded to deny that the world had a beginning: and to maintain that God wrought all that hee wrought by neceſſity of nature, and not by freedom of will. Yet this eternall power and Godhead they did acknowledge, and that hee was to bee worſhipped for the dignity of his nature. But not either out of feare of puniſhment, or hope of reward. Such notions were rather popular then Scholaſticall, a manifeſt evidence that the world was brought to conceive more ſoberly of the nature of God, by inſtinct of Nature, then by diſcourſe of reaſon. For ſuch as followed diſcourſe of reaſon moſt, became moſt Atheiſticall as touching the providence of God; yet all agreed in this, that hee was incorruptible, which was ſufficient to convict them of impiety, in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God unto the ſimilitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of foure-footed beaſts, and creeping things. And did not they profit beſt in the Schoole of Nature, who by the obſervation of providence in the way of mercies and judgments, were driven to acknowledge an unknown God, and to erect Altars for his worſhip? And as for ſeeking of the Lord, ſo as to finde him in any comfortable manner, doth not the Apoſtle as good as confeſſe deſpaire of ſuch [Page] power in naturall men, when forthwith hee addeth, If ſo bee they might have groaped after him, and found him, though doubtleſſe hee bee not farre from every one of us, for in him wee live, move, Act 17. 26, 27. and have our being. And yet as for the Apoſtles finding of him in this place, I ſhould rather thinke that it is in reference to the apprehenſion of his nature (as the Creator of all) rather then of his goodneſſe (as a Redeemer) ſo to finde mercy from him though you ſeem to aime at this interpretation.

Your ſecond place is out of Rom. 1. 19. to 25. That which may bee known of God is manifeſt in them, for God hath ſhewed it unto them. Where? In his works, as it followeth. For the inviſible things of him, that is, his eternall power and God-head, are ſeen (not by, but) from the creation of the world, being conſidered in his works. If the Apoſtle had here added [...], to ſeek the Lord, and to finde mercy from him, it had beene more faire for your purpoſe. But the Apoſtle addes [...] to the intent that they ſhould bee without excuſe, viz. in a particular caſe, to wit, becauſe they did not glorifie God as God, but turned the glory of the incorruptible God into the ſimilitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beaſts, and of creeping things. Neither do wee deny but men have power to diſcern the nature of God, to bee incorruptible, and conſequently they are inexcuſable in the way of Idolatry. But whereas Idolatry is but the third kinde of blaſphemy, in attributing to the creature, that which belongs to God himſelf. And there are two ſorts of blaſphemy beſides this: One in attributing to God that which doth not become him. Another in denying unto God that which doth become 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 perſecute the Church, as Soul did, are nothing further off from ſeeking the Lord and finding mercy from him then the other. Theſe did manifeſt themſelves unworthy of eternall life; doe not all ſo, who ſtumble at the Word of God, and refuſe to hearken to it? For this is the condemnation of the world, Light is come into the world, and men loved darkneſſe rather then light, becauſe their deeds were evill, Joh. 3. 16. Will you therehence inferre, that all ſuch are inabled to obey it, which is as much to ſay, as that they are inabled to beleeve and repent?

The eighth is out of Mat. 23. 37, 38. How often would I have gathered thy children together, as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and yee would not? Behold your habitation is left unto you deſolate, &c. What I pray you, is to bee gathered under his wings? can it bee leſſe then to come unto him? nay, is it not to bee healed by him? ſince as your ſelfe obſerve, healing [Page] was under his wings: and if ſo, to come to Chriſt, is to bee healed by him: can it bee any thing leſſe, then to beleeve and repent? And will you herehence inferre that they had power thus to come under his wings, and conſequently to beleeve and repent?

And yet in this very place you profeſſe that as touching all others except the Elect, God deprives them of thoſe drawing and effectuall means, without which none can come to Faith and Repentance. Nay, whatſoever it bee, that lies in their power to perform beſides, by the performing of it, doe they come any whit neerer to the participation of Grace? I do not finde you adventure to profeſſe ſo much, for feare of falling into that which you call ungracious Pelagianiſme.

The ninth is Luk. 19. 41, 42. Which is of the ſame nature, and of no greater force then the former, Oh that thou hadſt even known at the leaſt in this thy day thoſe things which belong unto thy peace; but now are they hid from thine eyes. For the daies ſhall come upon thee when thy enemies ſhall cast a trench about thee, and make thee even with the ground, becauſe thou kneweſt not the ſeaſon of thy viſitation. To know, in Scripture phraſe is of a complicate notion and ſignifyeth knowledge joyned with congruous affections: and thus to know the things that belong unto our peace, is ſo to know, as therewithall to imbrace them; and to know the time of our viſitation, is ſo to know, as to accommodate our ſelves thereto in agreeable converſation, as Jer. 8. 7. The Stork in the aire is ſaid to know her appointed times, and the Turtle, and the Crane, and the Swallow (are ſaid) to obſerve the time of their comming. That is, ſo to know it, as accordingly to come: ſo to know the time of our viſitation, is ſo to know it, as accordingly to come unto God when hee viſites us, and according as his Viſitation requires of us. Now will you herehence inferre, that they were inabled to perform all this, and ſo to ſeek the Lord? I appeale to your own conſcience, whether it might not bee as juſtly ſaid of them, as Moſes ſaid of the children of Iſrael in the wilderneſſe, Deut. 29. 4. The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to ſee, and eares to heare, unto this day. Nay, doth not our Saviour himſelf ſay as much of theſe Jews, Joh. 12. 39. Therefore they could not beleeve, becauſe that Eſaias ſaith again. 40. Hee hath blinded their [Page]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. Neither will it follow hereupon that they are excuſable ſo much the more, although this is a very plauſible inference, for our Saviour profeſſeth (notwithſtanding this) that they had no cloak for their ſins, Joh. 15. 22. And indeed onely ſuch an inability doth excuſe, as hereby a man is unable to doe that which hee fain would do [...] As for the doing of that they did in reſiſting the Goſpel, they had rather too much will therein then too little, and that through the want of grace.

For as Auſtin wiſely obſerves: Libertas ſine gratia non est libertas, ſed contumacia. Liberty without grace, is not liberty, but wilfulneſſe.

The tenth is, Ezek. 24. 13. Becauſe I would have purged thee, and thou waſt not purged, thou ſhalt not bee purged from thy filthineſſe, till I have cauſed my wrath to light upon thee. I ſhould think this were ſpoken of Gods Elect, not ſo much by obſerving that phraſe, till I have cauſed my wrath to light upon thee, but chiefly by comparing it with Ezek. 22. 10. I will ſcatter thee among the heathen, and diſperſe thee in the Countries, and will cauſe thy filthineſſe to depart from thee. It may have place, not onely of the Elect, but of the regenerate alſo, for even them ſometimes God doth cauſe to erre from his wayes, and harden their hearts Eſa. 63. 17. againſt his feare. Which though they have power to repent, yet upon ſuppoſition of obduration, and ſo long as that continues, it may bee ſaid that they cannot repent. How much more may it bee verifyed of naturall men, in the ſtate of unregeneracy, that they cannot repent? And ſhall this any way hinder the courſe of Gods judgements againſt them for their ſins unrepented of, becauſe without grace it is not in their power to purge themſelves from their ſins by repentance? I deny not but they have power to performe feigned repentance, as Jer. 3. 10. And ſhall feigned repentance (think you) bee of force to keep off the judgments of God? or if Gods judgements ſhall have their courſe, except they bee prevented by unfeigned repentance, will it herehence follow that naturall men are inabled to perform unfeigned repentance?

The eleventh is Prov. 1. 20. to 30. Wiſdome cryeth, &c. 20 How [Page]long will yee love fooliſhneſſe? ver. 22. Turn you at my correction, ver. 23. Becauſe I have called and yee have refuſed, &c. ver. 24. I will alſo laugh at your deſtruction, ver. 28. Will you herehence infer that they were enabled to turn, to hearken to wiſdoms voyce, and think to put a difference betwixt your opinion, and that of the Pelagians of old, by ſaying that though naturall men have not power to beleeve and repent, yet they are inabled to doe more good then they doe, in the way of ſeeking the Lord and finding mercy from him? and pin upon every place you alledge, ſuch a diſtinction as this, which you no where manifeſt ſufficiently to underſtand your ſelfe, as touching the latter part of it; So loath you are to ſhew what are the particulars of ſeeking the Lord, they doe attain to, and to what particulars further they might attain, and of what particulars they muſt neceſſarily fall ſhort, for want of certain helps.

Might you not as well infer, that it is in the power of man to make him a new heart, becauſe God cals upon him to make him 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 [Page] 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 Deut. 29 4. 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 [Page]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 [Page]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 of ſin, becauſe they beleeved not in mee. It ſeems you inſiſt onely upon the latter, in as much as the allegation reacheth no further. The other parts being explicated in the Verſes following. Cannot Chriſt reprove the world of infidelity, for not beleeving in him, unleſſe thereby bee acknowledged a power in a carnall man to doe more good then hee doth, in the way of ſeeking the Lord? Surely, if any power in man hereto is to bee acknowledged, it muſt bee a power to beleeve in Chriſt; ſeeing infidelity is the ſin whereof the world ſhall bee reproved by Chriſt; and not the ſin of not doing the good they could in the way of ſeeking the Lord.

But your ſelf acknowledge in this ſection that God deprives them of thoſe drawing and effectuall means without which none can come to Faith and Repentance. Much leſſe doth it prove your preſent diſtinction, namely, that albeit God deprives them of ſuch means, without which none can come to Faith and Repentance; yet they are inabled to doe more good then they doe, in the way of ſeeking the Lord.

Means of the knowledge of God, wee confeſſe to bee partly the adminiſtration of his providence in his works, which is the book of his creatures; and there was a time when God did teach the world [...], by his Works, as Chryſoſtome obſerveth, and not [...], by his Writings, and partly by the revelation of his word in the Scriptures. And one of theſe meanes ever was and is afforded unto all. But whereas [Page] you ſay God affords them to this end to lead them to ſalvation and repentance. Here is firſt an incongruity, which you are content to ſwallow, to hold up your opinion. For in truth the adminiſtration of Gods Providence in his works, and the revelation of himſelf in his word, is the very leading of them to that whereunto hee leads them, to wit, by admonition. And as it is abſurd to ſay that God doth admoniſh men to the end hee may admoniſh them: ſo is it no leſſe abſurd to ſay, that hee doth lead them, to the end hee may lead them. As for the things whereof hee doth admoniſh them repentance and ſalvation are ill matched. And even ſuch an incongruity doth ſerve your turn, to blear both your own eyes and others alſo. If theſe were the things God leads men to by his works, and word, it were but in this manner, hee leads them to repentance that they may bee ſaved.

As for repentance it ſelf, admonition hereof the Apoſtle doth ſo manifeſtly attribute in ſuch ſort unto the miniſtry of his word as withall hee derogates it from the bare adminiſtration of his providence in his works, Act. 17. 30. And the time of this ignorance God regarded not, but now hee admoniſheth all men every where to repent; manifeſtly giving to underſtand that the Gentiles were not admoniſhed till now. In the time of extraordinary affliction, brought upon them by the adminiſtration of Gods providence in his works, men may bee ſtricken with feares that they have provoked a divine providence, and hereupon they may bee ſtirred up to take a courſe to pacifie the wrath of God according to that counſell. Non te nullius exercent numinis irae, &c. therefore faciles venerare Napaeas: namque dabunt veniam votis iraſque remittent.

But when they neither know God whom they have offended; nor the ſidne whereby they have provoked him, nor the right way to pacifie him; (as a Jew ſometimes being taken in a foule fact of colluſion, with the place where hee had been kindly intreated, and deſiring to make remonſtrance of his repentance, out of his familiarity with mee, came to mee privatly, and inquired of mee what it was to repent, for ſaith hee, I doe faſt and macerate my body.)

This manner of admonition deſerves not to bee called an admonition to repentance. In ſuch a caſe the Athenians were [Page] ſometimes brought about to erect an Altar to an unknown God; as much as to ſay, to pacifie they knew not whom, nor how, nor for what.

It is true, God is ſaid Rom. 1. 19. to manifeſt to the Gentiles that which may bee known of him, by his works. Yet not all that may bee known of him; for even the wiſdome of the world, after all their paines and ſtudious courſes, are ſaid not to have known God, no not in the wiſdome of God, 1 Cor. 1. 21. But his eternall power and God-head is generally made known to the world, ſufficiently to convict them of Idolatry: [...]nd the Apoſtle delivers no more in that place.

I hope wee Chriſtians by the help of Gods Word, are now adaies brought to ſuch a meaſure of underſtanding of God by his workes, that wee are able even by diſcourſe of reaſon to prove many a faire attribute of God, which the greateſt Philoſophers were ignorant of, though ſome things are found in them concerning the nature of God, which wee cannot read without admiration.

You adde alſo that God hath made manifeſt that which may bee known of him by his Law (alſo) writen in their hearts. Theſe you couple together, though little or nothing Homogeneall. The Law of God writen in our hearts, is concerning mans duty, no part whereof is contained in his Works.

His eternall power and God-head the Apoſtle tels us is made manifeſt by his works, no ſuch content doth hee make of the Law writen in our hearts, Rom. 2. 14. but when you ſay this is done to this end to move them to ſeek after the Lord, you fall upon the incongruity formerly ſpoken of. For the very adminiſtration of Gods providence, is the moving of them to ſeek after the Lord.

I ſay the adminiſtration of Gods providence in his works, moves men, as the Apoſtle ſignifies, to ſeek after the Lord. The Apoſtle no where refers this to the Law writen in mens hearts; but you put all together, and that for a ſpeciall purpoſe as it ſeems. ſerves. For the phraſe of ſeeking after the Lord, Act. 17. ſeemes onely to import the ſeeking after his nature, manifeſted by his works; but you deſire (as it ſeemes) to bend it to denote ſuch a ſeeking after the Lord, as whereby to pacifie [Page] him, and to finde mercy from him. In which ſenſe you ſay it was farre more accommodable to the Law of God writen in mans heart, then to the Adminiſtration of his providence in his works; and therefore you couple both theſe courſes together, and then aſſign the end of them both, to ſeek after the Lord; which through the ambiguous ſignification thereof, is applicable to both; though the Apoſtle utters it in ſuch a ſenſe onely, as whereby it is applyed to one courſe onely, namely to the adminiſtration of his providence in his works. Which yet I doe not conceive to proceed from any ill minde in you, but out of a deſire to hold our tenets up in that courſe of opinion which pleaſeth us, which is a common fault of all.

But with this difference; ſome affect thoſe opinions, which are moſt fit to humour fleſh and blood: but your aime (I am perſwaded) is onely to take a fit courſe to juſtifie God in his proceedings. Only you may bee pleaſed to remember, that it is nothing fit, wee ſhould lie for God, as man doth for man, to gratifie him.

As for the other end here ſpecified, of Leading to Repentance; this is neither appliable to that courſe of Gods providence, mentioned Act. 17. which is admoniſhing to ſeek the Lord, nor to that, Rom. 2. 14, 15. but to a courſe different from both, namely, the conſideration of Gods patience and long-ſuffering, which yet without Gods word to inform us better, is far more fit to harden mens hearts in their ſinfull courſes, then to bring them to repentance. Which is a good reaſon to perſwade, that in this ſecond Chapter to the Romans, the Apoſtle makes a tranſition from the Gentiles to the Jews, from them which were nurtured and diſciplined onely by Gods works, to them which were nurtured alſo by the Miniſtery of his word. That in Job 33. 17. 29. of with-drawing men from their courſes, healing their pride, and ſaving their ſoules from the pit; You doe not well to confound the courſes taken for this there mentioned, with the bare adminiſtration of Gods providence in his works, or the writing of his Law in mens hearts, after a naturall manner. For the courſes there mentioned by dreams and viſions, and by an interpreter, were in thoſe dayes the onely meanes of grace. And then Elihu ſpeaks of Gods effectuall [Page] working of theſe gracious operations: to wit, In withdrawing men from their ſinfull courſes, to heale their pride, and ſave their ſoules from the pit. And wee can willingly grant, that God did intend that which hee would effectually bring to paſſe. But to ſay that God doth intend and will, that ſuch a thing ſhould come to paſſe, which never comes to paſſe, this wee take to bee a moſt indecent aſſertion, and ſpoiles God of his omnipotency, and plainly contradictious to that which your ſelf here profeſſe, in ſaying that God deprives the men of this world, of thoſe drawing and effectuall means, without which none can come to Faith and Repentance. And with what ſobriety can it bee affirmed, that God wills their repentance and ſalvation, whom hee deprives of thoſe means, without which none can repent, that hee may bee ſaved? Yet for the making good of your aſſertion, I have often deviſed a commodious interpretation of your words, which you doe not, as namely thus; God uſeth ſuch or ſuch means to withdraw men from their courſe, to heal their pride, to ſave them from the pit. That is, to admoniſh them of their duty in turning from their wicked wayes, and humbling themſelves, that they may bee ſaved. And accordingly God may be ſaid to will it, with will of precept, not of purpoſe, Voluntate praecepti, non propoſiti; untill withall hee doth effect it, by giving thoſe drawing and effectuall meanes, without which none can repent.

Or laſtly, God may bee ſaid, by uſing ſuch courſes to intend, that they ſhould repent, and ſo bee ſaved, that is, that they ſhould (Ex officio, not de facto) repent, that they might bee ſaved. Thus to the Iſraelites hee did, and to his Church Ezek. 24. 13. hee doth even to reprobates amongſt them; offer meanes of grace to purge them. Now by the operations of outward means, (which I think you ſignifie) and if you thereby comprehend the inward operation of Gods Spirit alſo, you doe not well to confound things ſo different under the ſame termes, (ſuch ambiguitie is ſo apt to deceive us) conſiſts only in inſtruction, and admonition, and exhortation or correption. Now theſe whether made to turn us, Prov. 1. 23. or to gather us, Mat. 23 27. or to convince us, Joh. 16. 8, 9. are not of themſelves (as you know) effectuall to the converſion of any; though they are called in Scripture phraſe, the drawing of us with the [Page] cords of a man, and with the bonds of love, Hoſe. 11. 4. And the dreſſing of us, Eſa. 5. 4. And your ſelfe profeſſe, that unleſſe God uſe thoſe drawing and effectuall means, no man can convert, no man can beleeve and repent.

Secondly, when you ſay, that the means which God uſeth for theſe ends, are in ſome meaſure ſufficient (if they bee not hindred by men) to bring them to the attainment of theſe things. This is worſe then ought you have delivered hitherto; yet you are to bee commended for dealing ſo plainly as you doe in this place, and no where elſe for ought I have found. But the more plainly you deale, the more foule doth your opinion appeare. I ſhould with a diſtinction, willingly confeſſe that the means God uſeth are ſufficient, to wit, in the way of inſtruction and admonition, ſo farre forth as God will have them (towards whom they are uſed) to bee inſtructed and admoniſhed: But this kinde of ſufficiency doth not depend on man, as if hee could hinder it.

Whether they will receive any inſtruction or no, the means are never a whit leſſe or more ſufficient in the way of inſtruction.

And indeed outward means tend no further, then to ſuch like operations as thus, (to wit) inſtruction, admonition, correption.

But when you make the ſufficiency of the means to depend on mans will, ſo as to bee hindred thereby, this muſt needs bee delivered of ſufficiency in reſpect of converſion, of bringing men unto faith and repentance.

And withall this is further to imply, that it is in the power of man by theſe means to bee converted unto God to beleeve and repent: which is a more foule tenet, then any you have delivered yet, though little truth hitherto have I found in this Diſcourſe throughout, ſaving in things merely delivered to no purpoſe. And withall it is plainly contradictious to that which here you expreſſely profeſſe, namely, that no man can beleeve and repent without ſome drawing and effectuall means, which are far different from the means here ſpoken of. For the meanes here ſpoken of, are ſuch as hee affords to Reprobates: but thoſe drawing and effectuall means, which hee affords onely to his Elect, as your ſelfe doe acknowledge; [Page] wee are ſo farre from denying them to bee ſufficient to the ends whereto hee intends them, as that wee willingly profeſſe, they are all effectuall (in their kinde) unto the ends, whereto hee intends them.

As for example, if God intends them for the converting of ſome unto God, all ſuch ſhall certainly bee converted; if only to the taking away of excuſe from others, they ſhall bee effectuall to the removing of excuſe; if to the bringing of ſome ad exteriorem vitae emendationem, to an outward amendment of life and no further, they ſhall bee effectuall to that alſo and no further. And therefore wee doe nothing derogate from the wiſdome of God, but look you well unto it, that you doe not derogate from Gods omnipotency whileſt you maintain that ſome things are intended by God, which are never brought to paſſe, and that becauſe the will of man forſooth ſtands in 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.

[Page] 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 Exam. ſed ſpr [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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.

[Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 a caſe of performance which you eſteem poſſible, either the conſcience of a naturall man ſhall not convict him of nay ſin, or convicting him of ſin, ſhall not convict him, that hee ought to repent of it.

Or laſtly, it followeth, that hee hath power to repent. The two firſt are unreaſonable; to affirm the laſt, is to contradict your ſelf, having lately profeſſed, that God deprives all ſave his Elect of thoſe helps and means, without which none can repent. And truely it ſeems, in denying the power of repenting unto the world, you did not well conſider what you delivered; for the face of your Diſcourſe ſeems to lead to the contrary, namely, to the maintaining that it is in the power of a naturall man to repent though hee bee in the ſtate of unbeleefe.

Where again, in ſignifying that you ſpeak of a man in the ſtate of unbeleef, you confound, if not your ſelf (yet) I am ſure your Reader. For but erſt you diſcourſed how men of the world are inabled by Gods Word to the performance of ſuch duties in which their naturall conſcience would excuſe them. Now I ſhould think, they that injoy the Word of God, and are thereby ſo inabled as you ſpeak, are not to bee accounted in the ſtate of unbeleefe, which I ſhould think is a ſtate peculiar unto heathens, who have not ſo much as an outward profeſſion of Chriſtianity. In like ſort it is your courſe [Page] to confound the inward operation of Gods Spirit with the outward means, and comprehend them both under the terms of means and helps, which have no univocall notion common unto them. It is bad enough to hold ones ſelf to generals; conſidering, that may bee verifyed of one ſpecies which cannot bee verifyed of another, but it is too too bad to confound thoſe under generall termes, that have no more univocation between them then creation, and exhortation.

Another confuſion I finde abuſeth your fancy in this very Section, and that is ſpread all over it like a Leproſie. For whereas the objection ariſing naturally from the former diſcourſe, is grounded upon a ſeeming contradiction, in profeſſing a naturall man to bee impotent to perform faith and repentance; and yet giving power to a man to attaine thoſe ends, whereunto the means given tend, namely, to his converſion and ſalvation: inſtead of comparing the ſufficiency you give to man with the ſufficiency you deny to man, and there with all ſhewing how the one doth not contradict the other; I ſay inſtead of comparing theſe, you compare the ſufficiency of the means with the impotency of man, to convert and bee ſaved; which you expreſſe by comming to Chriſt. Varying your phraſes at every turn, which is good for nothing but to trouble diſputation. Whereas indeed there is no queſtion to bee made of the ſufficiency of the means, (if by means you underſtand the word of the Goſpel) in that kinde, wherin means are capable of ſufficiency, to wit, in the way of inſtruction, exhortation, reprehenſion, beyond which kinde of operations their ſufficiency doth not extend.

The queſtion is onely of the ſufficiency of man to perform what the means doe move us unto.

I confeſſe under means you comprehend, not only the book of grace, which is Gods word, but the book of Nature alſo, which is Gods works, the ſufficiency whereof to inform either, as touching the nature of God or duty of man, wee utterly deny, neither are you able to prove. And therefore you doe not ſo well to carry it in the general, ſeeing as touching the ſpecials, it is true of the one, not of the other. And in ſuch caſes the iſſue of generalls, is rather to circumvent a ſimple Reader then to inform him.

[Page] And yet as touching that undue compariſon by you made, and formerly mentioned; you doe not carry it ſo cleanly, but that by the way you ſupplant your ſelf; as when you ſpeak of the ſufficiency of the means, to the ends formerly mentioned, except they bee hindered by men. For it cannot bee underſtood of bringing a man paſſively to thoſe ends, to wit, unto repentance. For man neither is nor can bee meerely paſſive in repentance, but muſt bee active alſo. Nay, for ought I ſee, you make him paſſive therein, onely in reſpect of inſtruction, and exhortation, which nothing hinders, but that hee may bee altogether active in performing repentance, if hee will. Sith then repentance is the end whereto theſe means tend, and the means are ſufficient to bring any to repentance (as you avouch) except they bee hindred by men, it muſt neceſſarily follow, that man hath power by theſe means to attain to theſe ends whereto theſe means lead him, if hee will; and conſequently hath power to repent, and to obtain grace in Chriſt, if hee will; for the means lead hereunto, namely, to the knowledge of God and grace in Chriſt, as your ſelf have profeſſed in expreſſe terms.

And conſequently when you ſay to the contrary, that there is an impotency, yea, an impoſſibility in the men of this world to come to Chriſt, without greater and ſtronger means then theſe bee: you doe directly contradict your ſelf, neither will all the labour following, expreſſing your ſelfe in various phraſiologies, ſerve turn to free you from this contradiction, but leave men ſuſpitious that you affirm this contradiction onely in words, but the contrary potency, you maintain in deed. And becauſe that without all tergiverſation you profeſſe, that ſuch men have power to perform ſomething, upon the performance whereof they might the ſooner finde mercy; I beſeech you in the feare of God no longer to abuſe your ſelf and others in ſpeaking thus indefinitely, but tell us plainly and particularly, what that is which (you ſay) Reprobates have power to perform, and upon the performance whereof they ſhould finde mercy. To confeſſe my bold weakneſſe, ingenuouſly I am perſwaded you are not able to define any ſuch particular; if you ſhould, it will not ſatisfie to the full, unleſſe withall you explicate your ſelf, and ſhew whether that work you ſpeake [Page] of bee a worke of nature, or a work of grace; If a work of grace, then an unregenerate man is not ſo farredead in ſin, but hee is able to perform a work of grace, and if hee bee able to perform one work of grace, why not two, why not twenty? If a work of nature onely, then ſeeing hereupon you ſay hee ſhall finde mercy; you fall foule upon that which was cenſured in the Synod of Paleſtine, one thouſand two hundred years agoe, namely, that grace is given according unto works. If ſome may ſay on your behalf, that you doe not ſay they ſhall finde mercy in this caſe, but onely that they ſhall the ſooner finde mercy: or if this like not, if any ſhall otherwiſe plead in this manner: namely, that you doe not ſay that hee ſhall finde mercy in this caſe, but hee might finde mercy: I will bid him content himſelf, and expect while you warrant ſuch Apologies, and then I doubt not, but hee ſhall waite long enough, for I am confident you are farre off from maintaining ſuch foule colluſions.

By the way give mee leave to wonder that you expreſſe your ſelf in ſuch a manner. But alas, what ſhould wee look for when the cauſe is no better? and yet a gracious reſpect unto a gracious end, namely, the juſtifying of Gods proceedings, hath caſt a good man upon ſuch a courſe. So dangerous a thing it is when a man is to ſeek in ſome particulars, not to content himſelf with acknowledgment thereof, and to waite upon God for a time of revelation, but to cut out his own way in ſeeking ſatisfaction.

Thirdly, the men of this world doe not walk anſwerably to Anſw. the means they have received, neither doe they imploy or uſe theſe talents to ſuch advantage as they might. The Gentiles though they knew God, yet they glorified him not as God, but Rom. 1. 21. 28. became unthankfull and vain in their imaginations, they did not like to retaine God in their knowledge: but to detain the truth in unrighteouſneſſe.

The Jews reſiſted the Holy Ghoſt, deſpiſed the meſſengers and word of God, acknowledged not the day and meanes of Act. 7, 51. Luk. 19. 24. Mat. 27. 21, 22 Joh. 3. 43. their own peace; refuſing him and all his benefits, preferring a murtherer and falſe prophet before him, brought forth wilde grapes of injuſtice and oppreſſion inſtead of the ſweet grapes of righteouſneſſe and judgement. In this they abuſed the talents [Page] and meanes of Grace in a worſe manner then could bee excuſed, by any neceſſity or impotency of corrupt nature. Corrupt nature reſiſting not, but by theſe helps they might have avoided theſe ſinnes which they fell into, and might have reached to the performance of theſe duties; for the neglect of which they are here reproved for comming ſhort of [...] Yea, Pilate himſelfe would have brought forth better fruit, then ſome of theſe which the Jews yeelded, but that the Jews themſelves prevailed with him for worſe.

To ſpeake plainely, that phraſes doe not deceive us, it is Exam. true, that the men of the world doe not live according to their knowledge, nor abſtaine from foule ſinnes, from which they might abſtaine. But what if they did? ſhould they finde mercy the ſooner? for unleſſe you make this good, you ſay nothing to the purpoſe. Therefore to the maintenance of this you tended in the former Section, but all in vaine. For conſider; why then did not the Philoſophers find mercy, Plato, Socrates, Phocion, the moſt morall men of the world? Again, did any of theſe abſtaine from any foule finne in a gracious manner, or out of their love to God? Look to Iſocrates his incitements to morality, what are they other then the reward of praiſe and applauſe of the world? and why, I pray you, ſhould God regard them any whit the more for this? nay, did they not look for juſtification by this? all their goodneſſe did they not attribute to their own Free will? and why ſhould not God hate them the more for this? Doe not Publicans and Harlots (and did not our Saviour tell us as much?) enter into the kingdome of Heaven before Scribes and Phariſees? Bee it ſo, that the men of the world were Fornicators when they might have forborn it: were Idolaters, but might have abſtained from that: were Adulterers, Wantons, Buggerers, and might have kept themſelves pure from ſuch abominations: were theeves, when they might have abſtained from laying hands on their neighbours goods; were covetous, yet might have contemned the world as many did: were Drunkards, yet might have tempered themſelves from ſuch exceſſe: were Railers, yet might have ordered their tongnes: were Extortioners, yet might have been more mercifull then ſo. Now I pray you tell me, were not the elect of God ſuch alſo? See [Page] what the Apoſtle ſaith in reference to every one of theſe particulars, 1 Cor. 6. 11. And ſuch were ſome of you, but yee are waſhed, but yee are justifyed, but yee are ſanctifyed in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the ſpirit of our God. Nay, how many a naturall man was more morall then to be guilty of ſo foule pollutions, as many of Gods elect have been conſcious of, yet never found mercy at the hands of God. If otherwiſe, God ſhould call men not ſo much according to his purpoſe and grace, as according to workes; directly coutrary to Pauls text, 1 Tim. 1. 9. And what then ſhould become of that, Hee hath mercy on whom hee will, and whom hee will hee hardneth? Rom, 9 18.

As for the fault you mention of the Gentiles, was it not common to the Elect as well as to the Reprobates? What ſaith Paul to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 12. 2. Yee know yee were Gentiles, and were carryed away unto dumb Idols, even as ye were led. Yet the Romans for above a hundred years had no Images, as Varro teſtifies, ſaying, That then the Gods were worſhipped caſtius, more chaſtly, and that they who brought in Images, timorem ademerunt, errorem auxerunt, took away the feare of God, and increaſed the errour concerning the nature of God: Yet in theſe dayes of Image-worſhip, thouſands were from Idols turned to ſerve the living God, 1 Theſſ. 1. 8. in thoſe former daies not one that we read of.

Wee come to the Jews; bee it ſo, that they were worſe then Pilate, yet many of them in deſpight of their ſinnes were converted unto Chriſt; I ſay, of them that crucified him, and preferred a murtherer before him; Pilate was not: at leaſt wee have a record of the converſion of the one, Acts 2. none of the other. Yea Saul breathing nothing but wrath and fury againſt the Church of God, as Ferox ſcelerum—Quia prima provenerant; being heartned with the bloud of Stephen, as with a cup of ſweet Wine, was converted unto Chriſt, when many a morall, quiet, peaceable, and nothing factious Jew, had not the mercy ſhewed him that Saul had. They abuſed (you ſay) their talents and meanes of grace, in a worſe manner then could bee excuſed (yet who worſe then Saul or Manaſſes) by any neceſſity or impotency of corrupt nature. But who I pray, goes about to excuſe them this way? wee certainly excuſe them not, [Page] no, nor they themſelves neither; for it were moſt incongruous they ſhould, even as if Epicures ſhould complain of the ſweet morſels which they roule under their tongues, that they are ſo ſweet, that they cannot forbeare to bee in love with them. But will you deny God to have a hand in hardning them, to the committing of ſo foule exceſſe? what is the meaning of giving over to vile affections? to doe things inconvenient, and that in an abominable kind? and that to what end but this, that ſo they might receive the juſt recompence of their errour? yet that errour is well known to have been incident, as well to the very elect of God, as unto Reprobates. By the way you ſignifie, that by the neglect of the helpes and meanes afforded them, they fell ſhort of theſe duties, to the performance whereof they might have reached. Their ſin was in doing contrary to their knowledge and conſcience upon due information out of Gods Word; this is to neglect the meanes; And conſequently to uſe the meanes aright, was to doe accordingly as they were informed. And indeed, if they had done otherwiſe then they did, they had not done ſo bad as they did. I finde ſuch giddineſſe of diſcourſe uſually amongſt the Arminians; while they ſatisfie themſelves with phraſes, never examining particularly, the matter and ſubſtance of their own expreſſions.

Becauſe of the abuſe of theſe talents and meanes of grace, Anſw. God therefore doth deny to the men of this world ſuch powerfull and gracious helpes, as hee vouchſafeth freely to the Elect, to draw them on effectually to repentance and ſalvation.

The Gentiles abuſing the light of nature, God gave them Rom. 1. 29. up to vile affections, yea, even to a reprobate minde.

The Phariſees becauſe they employed the talent of their Luk. 16. 11, 12. wealth unfaithfully, God would not truſt them with the true riches.

The Jews becauſe they rejected Chriſt, and his Word, and Acts 16. 46. Lukc 19. 42. his Meſſengers, with ſcornfull and bitter malignity, and brought forth grapes of gall and wormwood; therefore God took his Word from them, and hid from them the things that did belong Mat. 21 41, 42. unto their peace; hee took the kingdome of God from them, and gave them as a prey to ſinne, and miſery, and deriſion, Pſal. 81. 11, 12. What if none of the world (as oppoſed [Page] to the Elect) ever came to Chriſt, or made ſuch uſe of the means and helpes offered in him unto them, as to obtaine ſalvation and regenerating grace by him; yet might they have made better uſe of the means then they did, which becauſe they did not, it was juſt with God to deny them greater means, who thus abuſed the leſſer.

In all this wee have as pure Arminianiſme tendred unto us, as could drop from the pen of Arminius himſelfe, or Corvinus. Exam. Yet God forbid wee ſhould co nomine, for that cauſe diſlike it. It truth, wee muſt embrace it, though it come out of the mouth of the Devill. If falſhood, wee ſhall by Gods grace diſclaim it, though it proceed out of the mouth of Angels of light, and not diſclaim it onely, but diſprove it alſo. You may as well ſay that God doth not draw the men of this world effectually to Repentance, becauſe they doe abuſe the talents and means of grace, but this I diſprove thus.

Firſt, if this bee the cauſe why God doth not draw them to repentance, then this is the cauſe why hee ſheweth not to them that mercy which hee doth to the Elect; but this is not the cauſe thereof, which I prove thus. The meer pleaſure of God is the cauſe; therefore that is not. The antecedent thus; God ſhews mercy on whom hee will, and hardens, (that is, denies mercy) to whom hee will. If to harden were not to deny mercy, it could not ſtand in oppoſition to ſhewing mercy. The conſequence I demonſtrate thus. If to deny mercy to whom hee will, doth not inferre that mercy is not denyed according unto works: then to ſhew mercy to whom hee will, doth not inferre, that mercy is not ſhewed according unto works.

Secondly, if mens evil works were the cauſe why God denies them mercy, then it could not bee ſaid, that God denies mercy, becauſe it is the pleaſure of his will to deny it. For if a reaſon bee demanded why a malefactor is hanged, it were very abſurd to anſwer, that the reaſon is, becauſe it was the pleaſure of the Magiſtrate to have him hanged.

Thirdly, if evill works bee the deſerving cauſe, why Gods mercy is denyed unto men, then either by neceſſity of nature, or by conſtitution of God. Not by neceſſity of nature, in oppoſition to the conſtitution of God; for then by neceſſity of [Page] nature God muſt bee compelled to deny mercy unto ſuch, what then ſhall become of Gods Elect? unleſſe you will ſay, that their workes before mercy ſhewed them, were not ſo bad as others, which were equally to contradict both experience and the Word of God; For in this caſe men ſhould have mercy ſhewed on them, according to their works, to wit, as they were found leſſe evill then the works of others. Nor by conſtitution of God.

For firſt, ſhew mee any ſuch conſtitution, that men in ſuch a condition of evill works ſhall bee denyed mercy.

Secondly, by the ſame conſtitution, mercy ſhould bee denyed to the Elect alſo. When you ſpeak of the Gentiles (in this caſe) abuſing the light of Nature, and given over to vile affections, you take your aime miſerably amiſſe: For the Gentiles are not the men of the world in oppoſition to the Elect. But God forbid, that the Gentiles, and the men of the world, ſhould bee terms convertible in this kinde, for then what ſhould become of us?

Certainly the number of Gods Elect is greater amongſt the Gentiles, then among the Jews; and even of thoſe that were given over to vile affections, ſome were Elect, as appears 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. And to ſay that the cauſe why God denies them mercy, was, becauſe they abuſed the light of nature; I have freſhly diſproved this, and that evidently, as I preſume the intelligent Reader will obſerve, though the contrary (I confeſſe) bee very plauſible at the firſt ſight, and before wee come to the diſcuſſing of it.

Thirdly, you take your aime amiſſe alſo (though not in ſo great meaſure as in the former) in the phraſes: For even of the Phariſees ſome were Elect, witneſſe holy Paul; Who abuſed his zeale of the Law more foully then hee? even to the perſecuring of Gods Church? yet was not the true treaſure denyed to him, and that in the higheſt meaſure. And as for Reprobates, if you think their unfaithfulneſſe in the uſe of their wealth, was the cauſe why mercy was denyed them: for the diſproofe hereof, I refer mee to my former arguments.

Fourthly, the very Elect of God, not onely rejected Chriſt for a time, but alſo crucifyed him. That which you urge of Gods taking his word and Kingdom (in plain terms the means [Page] of grace) from ſuch a Nation as contemns them, is nothing to the purpoſe. For wee treat of Gods ſhewing and denying mercy, not in the means, but as touching the grace it ſelf of Repentance. But this benefit you have confounded, by comprehending both under the name of meanes and helpes, for your advantage, to paſſe from the one to the other, as you ſee good. Here indeed it is as true, that becauſe men doe make precious account of the means of grace, therefore God continueth theſe means unto them: like as becauſe of mens perſeverance in Faith, and Repentance, and good works, God rewards them with everlaſting life; like as becauſe men die in their ſins, therefore God inflicts on them everlaſting death. Onely with this difference; Sin on the one ſide is the meritorious cauſe both of withdrawing the means of grace, and of damnation: but conſcionable walking before God in the uſe of the means, is only the diſpoſing cauſe both to the continuance of the means, and to eternall ſalvation. For God by grace makes us meet partakers of the inheritance of the Saints Col. [...]. in Light. Forthwith you return to the right ſtate of the queſtion, to wit, in the conceſſion or denegation of regenerating grace, but carry your ſelf in ſhew very prejudicially to the freeneſſe of Gods grace; as when you ſay, What if no Reprobate made ſuch uſe of the means and helps offered as to obtain regenerating grace? Dangerouſly implying that there is a certain uſe of the means, quo poſito, which being put, regenerating grace ſhould bee obtained. As if grace regenerating were to bee diſpenſed according to an unregenerate perſons works. Of the ſame leaven ſavour your words following, when you ſay, That becauſe they did not make better uſe of the means, it was juſt with God to deny them greater means, ſaving that here you may bee relieved by the ambiguity of the word means, by ſhifting from one ſenſe of it to another. For if means bee taken in the ſame kinde, to wit, of outward means, like [...] it is juſt with God to reward the right uſe of ſmaller meanes, with the beſtowing of greater, ſo it is juſt with God, for the abuſe of the ſmaller, not onely to deny greater, but to take away thoſe ſmaller.

But as touching the granting, or denying grace regenerative, herein God carryeth himſelf meerely according to the good [Page] pleaſure of his own will, according to that of the Apoſtle, Hee hath mercy on whom hee will, and whom hee will hee hardneth. Neither can it bee otherwiſe; For as much as mercy in regenerating any man, cannot bee ſhewed according unto good works, and conſequently the denying of mercy cannot proceed according to evill works, as I have already demonſtrated in the firſt place.

The Sixth Doubt.
Queſtion, 6.

HOw may it appeare, that the declaration of the equity and ſufficiency of Gods juſtice is reall, and not pretended; ſince all things are carryed and come to paſſe, by an abſolute and unconditionall decree, and providence: exempli gratia, that fact, Act. 4. 28. & 2. 23.

Anſwer. To ſay that God carryeth all things by an abſolute and unconditionall decree of providence, viz. oppoſing abſolute to all conditions preſuppoſed in the creature, in my judgment is neither agreeing to the Doctrine of Scripture, nor of our Divines; who doe both teach that as God in the fulneſſe of time doth adminiſter and diſpenſe the way of his providence, ſo hee decreed to diſpenſe them in the ſame manner from eternity. Now in diſpenſing the performance of the Covenant of works, the Lord puniſheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or diſobedience performed by it, as it is at large deſcribed, Levit. 26; Deut. 28. and therefore ſurely he decreed to carry ſuch works of his providence upon the ſame conditions.

The places that may bee alledged to the contrary, do ſpeak of Gods Decree in delivering Chriſt to death for us, which as it was a work of meere grace, you may ſafely conceive it was decreed by an abſolute and unconditionall decree of providence, as generally the works of free grace are. For either they depend on no condition in the creature, or at leaſt on none but ſuch as God is pleaſed to work in us, and for us. And yet I beleeve that in your own judgement you think not that [Page] God did decree the death of Chriſt, much leſſe deliver him to death, but upon condition of Adams fall. If you ſay, God did as well decree a ſinfull manner of the death of Chriſt by the hands of the wicked, as the death it ſelf, and that by an abſolute, an unconditionall decree.

I anſwer, if you mean an unconditionall decree, preſuppoſing no condition in thoſe creatures, which were the wicked inſtruments of his death, it is ſpoken without warrant either from thoſe places, or from any other. That God gave up Judas to betray him, it was the puniſhment of his covetouſneſſe and hypocriſie. That God gave up the high Prieſts and Phariſees to conſpire againſt him, to deliver him to Pilate, it was the puniſhment of their ambition and envy, and in ſome of them their ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt. That Pilate againſt his conſcience gave iudgement againſt him, it was the judgement of his carnall popularity and his worldly feare of Caeſar. That the common people and Souldiers cryed out againſt him, and laid violent hands on him, it was the puniſhment of their ignorance and infidelity. Now it is out of all controverſie that God doth not puniſh ſin with ſin, nor decree to puniſh, but upon condition of ſin preſuppoſed. It is true indeed, God worketh all things after the counſell of his will; but that proveth not that God carryeth all things with an abſolute and unconditionall decree of providence. For it is the counſell of his will, as to work the ſalvation of his Elect according to the Covenant of Grace, freely and abſolutely: ſo to diſpenſe rewards and puniſhments to the men of this world according to the condition of their obedience or diſobedience.

There is therefore no place left for ſuch a queſtion, viz. How it may appeare, that the declaration of the equity of Gods Juſtice was not pretended, but reall, ſince all things are carryed and come to paſſe by an abſolute and unconditionall decree of providence. For neither are all things (as it is evident) ſo carryed, and if they were, I had rather ſuch a queſtion ſhould come out of the mouth of an Arminian, then of any godly and judicious Brother.

The Arminians you know upon a ſeeming faire pretence, are wont to object againſt our Divines, that God calleth the Reprobates rather ſimulate then ſorio, in ſemblance rather then in [Page] truth, if hee hath before determined of them, by an abſolute and unconditionall decree. But the ſame anſwer your ſelfe would return to their objection, the ſame I return to your queſtion, with more probability, (yea, I may truly ſay) with more ſafety.

That no will of God is conditionall, we have the concurrent Exam. conſent both of our, and Popiſh Divines. For both Piſcator maintaines it againſt Uorſtius, and Bradwardine demonſtrates it: And this condition which you ſpeake of, can be no leſſe then ſome motive cauſe: & Aquinos hath profeſſed that never any was ſo made, as to affirm that there was any cauſe of Predeſtination, quoad actum praedeſtinantis, as touching the act of God predeſtinating; and that for no other reaſon then becauſe there can be no cauſe of the will of God, quoad actum volentis, as touching the act of God willing. Whence it followeth manifeſtly, that in like ſort there can bee no cauſe of reprobation neither quoad actum reprobantis, as touching the act of God reprobating: and conſequently no condition. As for the contrary allegations out of Scripture, and out of Divines, I ſhall be content to conſider them, whenſoever you ſhall produce them; but I am perſwaded you will not bee forwards to trouble your ſelfe there-about, after I ſhall preſent unto you how incongruous a courſe you take to the juſtifying of that which here you affirme. And not incongruous onely, but moſt dangerous, tending manifeſtly to the utter overthrow of the Freeneſſe of Gods grace in Predeſtination; which indeed very frequently you ſhake in this unhappy diſcourſe of yours. As God in fulneſſe of time doth adminiſter and diſpence the wayes of his providence, ſo (you ſay) bee decreed to diſpence them in the ſame manner from all eternity. Wee grant it willingly; but what of all this? you adde, that in diſpencing the performance of the Covenant of workes, the Lord puniſheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or diſobedience performed by it, or rather by the perſons under it: This alſo wee willingly grant. But what doe you inferre herehence? onely this; Therefore ſurely hee decreed to carry ſuch workes of his providence upon the ſame conditions. Now this concluſion we embrace as readily as your ſelfe; but this is farre from juſtifying the decree of God to bee conditionall. Nay, your ſelfe doe plainly expreſſe, that the carriage of [Page] ſuch workes of his providence is upon ſuch conditions: Not that Gods decree is upon ſuch conditions: which is as much as to ſay in plaine termes, that the execution of his decree proceeds upon condition, not the decree it ſelfe. Yet I confeſſe, in the ſame manner Arminius himſelfe and his followers diſcourſe; as if they would explicate themſelves in this manner of argumentation. Sinne alwayes goes before damnation; therefore a reſpect to ſinne goes before Gods decree of damnation: As if wee ſhould argue thus. Faith in men of ripe yeares alwayes goeth before ſalvation: therefore a reſpect unto faith alwayes goeth before Gods decree of ſalvation. Doe you not perceive by this the dangerous iſſue of your argumentation? yet this is the very thing they aime at: this is the Helena they are enamoured with. But I am confident you are farre from this, and would not a little grieve to underſtand, that the Orthodox faith of ſome in the very point of predeſtination, is not a little ſhaken by ſuch argumentations as theſe. And the rather, becauſe they have found ſuch an eminent man as your ſelfe, not onely to ſwallow them, but in a confidentiary manner to propoſe them as moſt ſound to give ſatisfaction unto others. Therefore Aquinas fairely diſtinguiſheth of the cauſe or condition of Gods will, either quoad actum volentis, as touching the act of God willing, or quoad res volitas, as touching the things willed; no cauſe or condition thereof, quoad actum volentis; there may be quoad res volitas. As for example, to give inſtance in predeſtination, no cauſe thereof at all, quod actum praedeſtinantis, as touching the act of God predeſtinating; there may be a cauſe thereof quoad res praedeſtinatione praeparatas, as touching the things prepared by predeſtination. As for example: Grace may bee, and is the cauſe of glory, and Chriſts merits may be, and are the cauſe of grace. So of Reprobation no cauſe thereof at all, quoad actum reprobantis, as touching the act of God reprobating, no more then of the will of God, quoad actum volentis, as touching the act of God willing: But there is a came thereof, quoad res reprobatione praeparatas, as touching the things prepared by Reprobation, as ſin is the cauſe of condemnation. And indeed many confound theſe, and thereupon profeſſe the will of God in ſome caſes to bee conditionall; the iſſue whereof is no more then this, That ſome [Page] things which God will have to come to paſſe, ſhall not come to paſſe but upon on condition. Thus Voſſius underſtands voluntas conditionata, a conditionate will, which hee attributeth unto God, not conſidering how handſomely he contradicts himſelf. And Doctor Jackson of Providence, diſcourſing of voluntas antecedens & conſequens, will antecedent and conſequent, premiſeth that the diſtinction is to be underſtood non quoad actum vokntis, not touching the act of God willing, but quoad ves volitas, as touching the things willed; though his diſcourſe hereupon bee nothing ſuitable. A manifeſt evidence that hee underſtood not the diſtinction any more then Uoſſius did.

You are willing to acknowledge that Gods decree of delivering Chriſt to death, was abſolute, as a work of meere grace. As for the condition of Adams fall to bee premiſed to this decree, ſure I am, that is not your Opinion: neither doth it become any to maintaine any decree of God to be both unconditionall and conditionall. And why that ſinne more then any other for which Chriſt ſatisfied ſhould be imagined to bee premiſed as a condition of this decree; I ſee no reaſon: and if every ſin muſt bee preſuppoſed, why not the ſin of crucifying Chriſt? This ſin ſtarted Arminius; and this is it, and this alone, which he thinkee good to except in this caſe. I doe nothing wonder that his learning and his honeſty were ſo well met both of a very temperate nature. But albeit the fall of Adam was not preconceived to this decree of delivering of Chriſt to death; yet I am not of your Opinion, who thinke hereupon, that the decree of ſending Chriſt into the world, was before the decree of permitting Adams fall: concerning which I have diſcourſed enough, while I examined how well you cleared the firſt doubt. But when you diſtinguiſh of Gods decree to deliver Chriſt to death, and to deliver him to a ſinfull death; you take a courſe to make mad work amongſt Gods decrees. As if God did firſt intend the generality of a thing, and not till after the foreſight of ſomewhat elſe intend the ſpecialty thereof. I will not tell you how undecent a courſe School-men conceive it to bee, to attribute decrees to God of things indefinite; I never found any Arminian take ſuch a courſe, Philoſophy hath taught us, duplicem ordinem naturae, a double order of nature; as namely, nature generantis, & naturae intendentis, in generation [Page] and intention. And albeit, ſecundùm naturam generantem, communia & generalia, are priora ſpecialibus, in generation, things common and generall are before their ſpecialls: According as a man in generation, prius vivit vitam plantae, firſt lives the life of a plant, then vitam animalis, the life of an Animal. Laſtly, vitam hominis, the life of a man; yet quoad naturam intendentem, as touching the intention the order is quite contrary, & that the more ſpecialls (as more perfect) are firſt in intention. And whereas intentio rerum gerendarum, the intention of things to be done, is for the production of things in exiſtence; and it is well known that generals can not exiſt but in ſpecials, nor ſpecials exiſt but in particulars; it is very ſtrange that God ſhould firſt intend to produce a Genius, and after intend the ſpecialty: ſeeing nothing can bee produced but in particular. You may as well ſay that God did firſt intend that Chriſt ſhould die, but whether a natural or violent death that was at firſt undetermined. Secondly, that God determined hee ſhould die a violent death, but whether by a judiciall proceeding, or extrajudiciall, that as yet was left undetermined. And ſee whether this might not bee extended further alſo. But let us examine it by your owne rules, the beſt courſe to preſent before your eyes the ſtrangeneſſe of theſe conceptions. Three things are to bee conſidered as ordered by you one after another. Firſt, Gods abſolute decree to deliver Chriſt to death. Secondly, the foreſight of mens corrupt diſpoſitions. Thirdly, Gods decree to deliver Chriſt to death by the ſins of men.

Now mens ſinfull diſpoſitions depending partly upon originall ſin derived unto all from the ſinne of Adam; partly upon mens former actuall converſations; as alſo upon Gods permiſſion of it to continue uncured and uncorrected; it followeth herehence, that the foreſight of theſe ſinfull diſpoſitions did preſupoſe both that God purpoſed to permit Adams fall, as alſo to bring theſe men forth into the world in originall ſinne, as alſo to permit their former actuall ſins, wherby they arrive to theſe vitious habits; together with his purpoſe to deny grace whereby theſe vitious habits ſhould bee corrected.

Before all theſe decrees, was the decree of delivering Chriſt to death by certain ſins of certain men, according to your Opinion in this place. Whence it followeth, that the delivering [Page] of Chriſt to death by the ſins of men, being laſt in intention, muſt bee firſt in execution, to wit, before Adam was ſuffered to fall, or they ſuffered by an evill converſation to ariſe to ſo corrupt diſpoſitions, or God denyed them grace to correct ſuch corrupt diſpoſitions. And though Chriſts ſuffering death in a ſpeciall manner, to wit, by the ſins of men, were to bee firſt in execution, yet Chriſts ſuffering death in generall and in an indefinite manner, was to bee laſt in execution. And this argumentation of mine throughout depends meerly upon your own rules delivered in clearing the firſt doubt. But paſſe wee over theſe ſcrupuloſities.

The courſe you take to explicate Gods providence in puniſhing ſin with ſin, is nothing congruous to the examples thereof ſet down in holy Scripture. For whereas Judas his betraying of Chriſt was a fruit of his covetouſneſſe, you make Gods giving him over to the committing of this ſin to bee the puniſhment of his covetouſneſſe. Likewiſe whereas the High Prieſts and Phariſees conſpiracy againſt Chriſt was a fruite of their envy; (for Pilate knew that for envy they had delivered him) and of their ambition, as appeareth Joh. 11. 48. you make Gods giving them over to the committing of this ſin, to bee the puniſhment of their ambition and envy. In like ſort that Pilate gave judgement againſt Chriſt being a fruit of his popularity and worldly feare of Caeſar, the giving of him over to the committing of this ſin, you make to bee the puniſhment of his popularity and worldly feare of Caeſar. So the Jews crying out againſt him being a fruite of their ignorance and infidelity, the giving them over unto this ſin, you make it to bee the puniſhment of their ignorance and infidelity.

Now ſhew mee any example throughout the book of God in puniſhing ſin with ſin, anſwerable unto this. As if God did puniſh mens ſinfull diſpoſitions by giving them over to bring forth the proper and congruous fruites of thoſe ſinfull diſpoſitions, Rom. 1. Wee read God gave the Gentiles over into a reprobate minde, to doe things inconvenient, to commit horrible uncleaneneſſe. But God hereby puniſhed not the unclean diſpoſition, the fruites whereof were brought forth by Gods giving them over into a reprobate minde, but hereby [Page] God puniſhed their Idolatry, 2 Theſſ. 2. 20. Wee read of Gods giving men over to illuſions to beleeve lies, hereby hee did not puniſh their infidelity, the fruite whereof was, the beleeving lies, but hereby hee puniſhed their want of love to Gods truth. So when God ſent an evill ſpirit between Abimelech and the men of Sechem, to ſet them together by the eares, hee did not hereby puniſh their mutuall hatred one againſt another, but rather their joynt conſpiracy againſt the ſons of Jerubbaal. I doe not deny but it may bee ſaid, as Auſtin ſaith, that God hath ordained, Ut omnis inordinatus animus paena ſit ſibi, That every inordinate minde ſhould bee a puniſhment to it ſelf; but in my judgement it is a ſtrange liberty of ſpeech, to ſay, that God doth puniſh a man for his covetouſneſſe, by not reſtraining it, but ſuffering it to have his courſe.

What you mean by giving Judas over to betray Chriſt, I know not. Gods providence operative in evill, is of an obſcure nature. You ſpeak of obduration and of giving over unto ſin, but wherein it conſiſts you explicate not. Yet by declining theſe phraſes, you forſake the point in queſtion: Which is not at this preſent, whether God gave Judas over to the betraying of Chriſt, but whether hee decreed hee ſhould betray him, and the Prieſts conſpire againſt him, and the people preferre Barabbas before him, and Pilate condemn him. Which becauſe you not directly deny, the Queſtion is tranſferred to the manner of this decree: as namely, whether it bee abſolute or conditionall. You will have it to bee conditionall, to wit, upon the preſuppoſall of Judas his covetouſneſſe. Yet this you doe not in plain terms expreſſe, as indeed you ſeldome ſet down your meaning plainly, giving your ſelf too much liberty in ſpeaking at large, which is no way conducing to the inveſtigation of truth, but a ſore impediment rather. Having ſaid that it is without warrant to ſay, that the ſinfull manner of Chriſts death was decreed by God by an unconditionall decree, preſuppoſing no condition in the creatures, which were the wicked inſtruments of his death. Whereas hereupon you ſhould ſhew upon preſuppoſall of what condition in Judas, in the Prieſts, in Pilate, God decreed that Judas ſhould betray him, the Prieſts deliver him to Pilate, and Pilate condemn him: you decline this, and in a new phraſe tell [Page] us, that it was the puniſhment of Judas his covetouſneſſe and hypocriſie, that God gave him up to betray Chriſt; and in like manner you ſpeak of the reſt. Leaving to your Reader to expiſcate your direct meaning, and to explicate that which you involve. It ſeems your meaning is, that upon the foreſight of Judas his covetouſneſſe and hypocriſie, God decreed hee ſhould betray him.

Now let us diſcuſſe this; If God did in this manner decree it, then certainly upon the covetouſneſſe of Judas hee brought this to paſſe. Now I demand by what courſe of providence God brought it to paſſe, that Judas betrayed him? you ſay it was by giving him over to betray him. Now what you mean by this I know not, neither doe you expreſſe: but I will indevour to explain it.

Firſt, I preſume your meaning is God did not reſtrain his covetouſneſſe, for this ſeems to bee the meaning of this phraſe, Pſal. 81. where it is ſaid, God gave them over to their own hearts luſts, and by way of explication it is added, And let them follow their own inventions. Now this courſe of providence was not ſufficient to bring it to paſſe, that Judas ſhould betray him. For this is onely to let him doe what hee will in the courſe of his covetouſneſſe. Now though Judas was left to doe what hee would in the way of ſatisfying his covetous courſe, yet it doth not follow hereupon that Judas ſhould betray Chriſt. Therefore Arminius to this decree of God, preſuppoſeth not Judas his covetouſneſſe onely, but his will to betray Chriſt, as much as to ſay, God foreſeeing hee would betray him, decreed hee ſhould betray him. To this conſtruction of Gods decree you come too neere, though you doe not deliver your ſelf thereof ſo plainly as hee doth, nor ſo plauſibly. But the miſchief is, it is now confeſſed on all hands; that the very act of willing is wrought by God, and conſequently was decreed by God. Now upon what condition preſuppoſed did God decree that Judas ſhould will the betraying of Chriſt? was it upon the foreſight of his will? If ſo, then alſo upon the preſuppoſition of Judas his will to doe this, God did work his will to do this; which is flat contradiction, in making Judas his will to doe this, to goe before his will to doe this. Beſides, what need was there for God to work his will to doe this, when his will to [Page] doe this is already preſuppoſed? Bellarmine goes another way to work, and confeſſing that God decreed that Chriſt ſhould bee betrayed and crucifyed, yet denies that hee decreed that any ſhould betray and crucifie him. Chriſts ſuffering was decreed and his patience therein, but not their ſin in putting him upon ſuffering. Your interpretation is leſſe plain then theirs, but equally with theirs removed from the truth. Puniſhment of ſin alway preſuppoſeth (I confeſſe) ſin; but I deny that the decree of puniſhing ſin preſuppoſeth ſin. If this argument were right; then it would follow, that becauſe to reward with everlaſting life, preſuppoſeth good works, Gods decree to reward with everlaſting life, preſuppoſeth good works; which is as much to ſay that election preſuppoſeth good works. For election is the decree of beſtowing everlaſting life by way of reward; yet here you bring in Gods puniſhing ſin with ſin, whereof there is no queſtion here, and forbeare to ſpeak of Gods decree, whereof alone is the preſent queſtion. I pray you what rewards doth God diſpenſe unto Reprobates in regard of their obedience? will you deny plain Text of Scripture expreſſely profeſſing, That wee muſt all appeare aſore the judgement ſeat of Chriſt, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that hee hath done, whether it bee good or evill? Onely here is the difference, Chriſt made ſatisfaction for Gods Elect, and not of Reprobates. And alſo merited that God ſhould inable his Elect, and not Reprobates to perform obedience acceptable to God, according to the Covenant of Grace, and that Salvation accordingly ſhall bee beſtowed upon them by way of reward.

Yet I confeſſe Gods equity and juſtice in diſpenſing rewards and puniſhments is no way prejudiced by the abſoluteneſſe of his decree. For hee hath abſolutely decreed to deale with men according to that, which they have done in their bodies whether it bee good or evill; though the good which is done is meerely of Gods grace, and his rewarding men accordingly, is no impediment to the courſe of his Covenant of Grace.

Gods calling of Reprobates wee conceive conſiſts in cauſing the Goſpel to bee Preached unto them, which in effect is this, Whoſoever beleeves ſhall bee ſaved, whoſoever beleeves not ſhall [Page] bee damned; judge you whether there bee not as much truth in Preaching this to Reprobates, as in Preaching it to the very Elect of God.

The Seventh Doubt.
Queſtion, 7.

THat if all bee tranſlated into Chriſts Dominion, then the Infants of Turks.

Firſt, how then ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7. 14.

Secondly, on all children dying before the guilt of actuall ſin, hee will ſhew the riches of his grace, becauſe their damnation cannot ſtand, with ſuch an equity of his juſtice as here is mentioned and made ſhew of.

To this I anſwer, that when I ſay, that all the creatures are Anſwer. Col. 1. 3. tranſlated into the Dominion of Chriſt, I meane not into his Kingdome of a grace, but into the dominion of his power; viz. to be diſpoſed of by him, the wicked to the praiſe of his juſtice, and both them and other creatures to the ſervice and exerciſe of his elect. Hence I conceive it to bee that it is ſaid, that Chriſt hath bought the dominion of ſuch as deny him. Hence Rom. 14. 9. John 3. 35. Mar. 28. 18. Phil 1. 8, 9, 10, 11. by his dying and riſing againe he is ſaid to be the Lord both of the quick and dead. Hence God is ſaid to have given all things into his hand, with all power both in heaven and earth. Neither am Lable to conceive how the whole body of the Creature, I mean all the world beſide Reprobates, can be ſaid to waite for the redemption, and reſtoring into the glorious liberty of the ſons of God, unleſſe as they loſt their liberty—by the firſt Adam, ſo they had recovered the ſame again by the redemption of the ſecond Adam. If then all the creatures be tranſlated into the dominion of Chriſt, thinke it not abſurd that the Infants of Turks themſelves be tranſlated into the ſame dominion. The place that may be alledged to the contrary, doth prove the Infants of Infidels not to bee tranſlated into the Kingdom of grace, or fellowſhip of his Church, but what is that to this point touching children that die in their infancy before the guilt of their actuall ſin? I would not haſtily determine any [Page] thing. Praeſtat dubitare de occultis, quàm ligitare de incertis. It is better to doubt of ſecret things, then wrangle about things uncertaine. They ſtand or fall to him, who hath ſaid of the Infants of ſuch parents, as commend them to the bleſſing of Chriſt, Of ſuch is the kingdome of God. But to my underſtanding Mark 10. 14. it is moſt agreeable to the analogy of faith to range little children under the convenant of Parents, it being Gods uſuall manner of dealing, to viſit the ſins of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him, and to ſhew mercy unto thouſands of them that love him, and keep his commandements.

That all creatures are under the dominion of Chriſt no [...]am. Chriſtian doubteth, for as God, hee made all things, Col. 1. John 1. and as the ſon of God, he is the heire of all things, Heb. 1. When God bringeth in his firſt begotten ſonne into the world, he ſaith of him, Let all the Angels of God worſhip him, Heb. 1. 6. & Joh. 5. God hath committed all judgement unto his Son, and Joh. 17. 2. Thou haſt given him power over all fleſh. But that hee hath bought this dominion, well it may paſſe for an Oracle of fleſh and blood, but I have not hitherto found it to bee an Oracle of God. Whatſoever is bought, is bought with a price. And ſo whatſoever Chriſt hath bought, hee hath bought with a price, 1 Cor. 6. 20. & 7. 23. And this price wherewith Chriſt hath bought that which hee hath bought, is his blood, Rev. 5. 9. 1 Pet. 1. 18. But blood is no ſit price wherewith to buy Dominion. His blood is propitiatory and ſatisfactory, and ſo fit onely to buy poore ſoules, and to ſave them from condemnation. And accordingly, the life that hee gave for many, was given by the way of ranſome, Matth. 20. 24. So that perſons thereby are ranſomed, rather then any generall dominion procured. And is it ſit to ſay, that Chriſt by his blood obtained dominion over the wicked to damn them for their ſins? Rather the power which hee obtained was to give eternall life to them, whom his Father had given him, Job. 17. 2. and that in deſpite of ſin.

Againe, is it fit to ſay that Chriſt by his blood bought dominion over brute and ſenſeleſſe creatures? Or, that by his blood hee obtained dominion over Angels and Devils? Whom Chriſt bought, hee bought unto God, Rev. 5. 9. And ſhall wee [Page] ſay that by his death hee bought unto God the dominion over Reprobates, whether Men or Angels, and over all other creatures?

Again, whom hee bought, hee bought from the earth, Rev. 14. 8. And from men, ver. 4. Can this bee verifyed of Angels of light, and of angels of darkneſſe, and of reprobate men, and of all Gods creatures?

Laſtly, whom hee bought by his blood, hee redeemed from their vain converſation, 1 Pet. 1. 18. So hee did not redeem either reprobate men, or reprobate angels: and as for the Elect Angels they ſtood not in need of any ſuch Redemption, much leſſe the brute creatures of God. Yet even of ſome that were no better then Reprobates, it is ſaid that hee redeemed them, 2 Pet. 2. 1. And hence Arminius inſerres that the moſt wicked are redeemed by Chriſt, and that in the ſame ſenſe that Gods Elect are redeemed by Chriſt. You ſay hee redeemed, even the Reprobates, but not in the ſame manner as hee redeemed the Elect, but onely that hee bought the dominion of them. But this ſeems a forced interpretation: For whom hee hath bought, they are his in ſpeciall manner. But to hee Chriſts, is peculiar to Gods Elect, 2 Cor. 3. ult. And hence the Apoſtle inferreth, Glorifie God in your bodies, 1 Cor. 6. ult. You will ſay, In what ſenſe doth the Apoſtle ſay of wicked men, that the Lord redeemed them?

I anſwer, it may bee ſaid in the ſame ſenſe wherein it is ſaid of the gods of Damaſcus that they plagued Ahaz: not that indeed they plagued him, or had any power to plague him, for An Idol is nothing, ſaith Paul, that is, hath no power to doe good or evill, but it was Ahaz his opinion that they plagued him, and ſo hee ſacrificed unto them.

Again, their former profeſſion was ſuch, that they were the redeemed of the Lord as well as any other. So Piſcator interpretech that place in Peter, as ſpoken, not [...], but [...], not as it were ſo indeed, but in their opinion onely, or in the common opinion of others. The creature likewiſe ſhall bee reſtored by him, Act. 3. For the Heavens muſt contain him, till the time come that God hath appointed, for the reſtoring of all things. But that redemption is not yet, neither hath hee purchaſed that redemption with his blood.

[Page] Wee deny not that all creatures are under the dominion of Chriſt, but that they ſhould bee tranſlated into his dominion by way of purchaſe by his blood, that ſeemes to mee a ſtrange conceit. Yet it ſufficeth us that you confeſſe, that Turks, together with their Infants, are not tranſlated into the kingdome of Grace. By Infants of Turks wee underſtand none other then ſuch as dye in their Infancy, and I wonder, you ſhould diſtinguiſh betwixt them; Why you ſhould reckon the condition of Infants deceaſing out of the Church, amongſt the number of the ſecret things of the Lord, I ſee no reaſon. Are they not born children of wrath? And if they continue ſo from the time of their conception unto their birth, why not as well from the time of their birth, to the time of their death dying in their Infancy? And can wee doubt what is the condition of thoſe who dye children of wrath? doth not God ſay of the Sodomites, that they ſuffer the vengeance of eternall fire, and were there (think you) no Infants at all amongſt them? As for thoſe who are commended to the bleſſing of Chriſt, I make no queſtion but that of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. For the Apoſtle teacheth us, that if but one parent bee a beleever, the children are holy, but if neither are, they are unclean.

But if they die in their uncleaneneſſe, unwaſhed, unſanctifyed, what ſhall become of them?

You doe well in mine opinion, to range little children under the covenant of their Parents: that I like well: but I like not ſo well the reaſon whereby you inforce it. For the ſins of the Father who is under one Covenant may bee viſited upon their children unto the third and fourth generation who are under another covenant. For the ſins committed in the dayes of Manaſſes, were in the captivity of Babylon, viſited upon the children in a fourth generation after, and that upon as gracious children as were thoſe that were repreſented by the basket of good figges, Jer. 24. And the Covenant between Jonathan and David, was only the preſervative for keeping gracious Mephiboſheth, from having viſited upon him the ſins of his Grandfather Saul, in ſlaying the Gibeonites. Neither yet have wee cauſe to complain as the heathen doth Delicta majorum immeritus lues Romane. For if I miſtake not, there is a great deale of difference between puniſhing the Son for the ſin of the Father, [Page] (which hath no place at all in Gods providence, excepting the caſe of puniſhing originall ſin, if ſo it hath place in that) and viſiting the ſin of the Father upon the Son. This being the puniſhment of the Father rather then of the Son; And God being able to ſanctifie any temporall affliction that falleth upon the ſon for the ſin of his Father, either while the Father liveth or after, and to make it fall amongſt the number of thoſe things which work together for his good.

The Eighth and loſt Doubt.
Queſtion 8.

HOw may it appeare, that this makes not three Covenants? The firſt of works, requiring perfect obedience.

The ſecond of grace, promiſing Chriſt and all his graces, even faith in him.

The third, partly of grace, providing a redemption, and promiſing ſufficient help; partly as requiring both what wee can doe of our ſelves, and Gods helpe proceeding with us accordingly.

Anſwer. This frame of Doctrine is ſo farre from making three Covenants, that the ſerious meditation of two Covenants The Examination muſt proceed according to this correction. was one of the principall reaſons that firſt turned the ſtream of my thoughts into this covenant. For when I ſaw that the Covenant of works did in juſtice reward according to works, as well with life upon condition of obedience, as with death in caſe of diſobedience; I began to conceive, that as the purpoſe of election was ſutable to the Covenant of grace; ſo ſutable unto a Covenant of works, muſt bee a purpoſe of retribution. For how ſhall God covenant to retribute or recompence with life or death according to works, if hee have no purpoſe at all of ſuch retribution? How ſhall the Covenant of works promiſe life upon condition of obedience, if the purpoſe of reprobation have abſolutely determined death upon all them within that Covenant, without all reſpect of good or evill, obedience or diſobedience in any of them? the grace of redemption offering the death of Chriſt, and reaching forth ſome [Page] fruites thereof unto all, as the promiſing and offering ſufficient help to bring them to the knowledge of God and means of grace: yea, and ſometime beſtowing on them the participation of ſome excellent and common graces, doth not make a third covenant, partly of grace, partly of works, but bindeth ſuch ſo much the more to keep the Covenants of works, by how much the more helps and means God vouchſafeth them to keep it. It is not the helps of grace offered or given, that includeth men with in any part of the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given.

Secondly, if God offer grace and give, though never ſo ſmall, even as a grain of Muſtard-ſeed, and promiſe to uphold it freely for Chriſt his ſake, and not according to our works, it is a Covenant of Grace. But if hee offer and give never ſo many gracious helps, and means, and gifts, and uphold them according to the works of the creature; it is ſtill a Covenant of works, as it was to the Angels that fell, and to Adam, though hee gave to both of them the whole Image of God, and beſides, heaven it ſelf to the one, a Paradiſe to the other, it is but the ſame covenant of works which God made with the world of mankinde after the fall, and with Adam before the fall: though Adam received greater means and helps to keep it, then his poſterity had after the fall.

Becauſe ſtill the condition of the Covenant was the ſame in both, to reward them both according to their works. So is it ſtill but the ſame Covenant of works which God makes with mankinde, when hee offereth them in Chriſt, greater grace and helps to keep it, then after the fall they could have attained unto without Chriſt, becauſe ſtill the condition of the Covenant runneth in the ſame tenour, to deal with them according to their works.

Neither doe I conceive any danger in the point, though by this means obedience to Chriſt, and walking worthy of him, ſhould bee commanded in the Law, which is a covenant of works. For if the infidelity and diſobedience of the men of this world to the Goſpel of Chriſt bee ſin, then are they alſo tranſgreſſors of the Law, and then the contrary vertues are commanded in the Law.

Thirdly, the Ceremonies of the Old Teſtament, which were [Page] figures of Chriſt, were commanded in the ſecond precept of the Law, was not Chriſt himſelf under thoſe figures commanded alſo? were they commanded to lay their hands on the ſacrifices, and not withall to lay their Faith on Chriſt? were they commanded to look on the Brazen Serpent, and not withall to behold Chriſt? were they commanded to obey Moſes, and not withall the Prophet like unto Moſes? What then? doe wee confound the Law and the Goſpel? God forbid; The Law indeed commandeth to obey God in whatſoever hee had of old, or in fulneſſe of time, ſhould afterwards reveale to bee his will: but it is one thing to command Chriſt to bee obeyed and revealed, (which after Chriſt is revealed, even the Law alſo doth to all that heare it) another thing it is to give Chriſt freely, and faith to receive him, and the ſpirit likewiſe to obey him, yea and perſeverance alſo notwithſtanding our unworthineſſe to continue in him, all which the Goſpel promiſeth to the Elect of God.

Glory bee to God in Chriſt, and peace upon Iſrael.

If the ſerious conſideration of two convenants did turn the Exam. ſtream of your thoughts into this Indeed it ſhould bee not Covenant, as my Copy had it, but current, as a friend ſhewed mee how to correct it. covenant, it ſhould ſeem you doe acknowledge a third covenant, diſtinct from the former two. Therefore I conceive there is an errour in the writing, and that whereunto the ſtream of your thoughts was turned, is not a different covenant from the former two, but rather an opinion concerning reprobation, different from that which is moſt generally received amongſt our Divines. And albeit hereupon you fell on this; yet herehence it followeth not, but that you might hereby fall upon laying a ground for three covenants ere you are aware. Yet do I not charge you with this. As in ſome reſpect you may ſeem to make three; ſo in another reſpect you may ſeem to make but one; if the covenant of retribution according unto works bee but one; For I ſee no reaſon but Gods purpoſe of election, may well paſſe for a purpoſe of retribution; and conſequently, if the purpoſe of election and reprobation bee reduced unto one, why may not the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, by your rules bee reduced into one? As election is Gods purpoſe to beſtow everlaſting life, ſeeing God doth not purpoſe to beſtow it, but by way of [Page] reward of obedience, of faith and repentance, and good works; it neceſſarily followeth that Gods election is his purpoſe of retribution. But there is beſides in election, a purpoſe to work a certain number of men unto faith, obedience, and good works, and unto a finall perſeverance in them all. So likewiſe between the covenant of the Law and the covenant of Grace, there is this principall difference: that God inables his elect to the performance of the one, not of the other; but as touching the reprobate, hee inableth them to the performance of neither condition. Subſervient to Gods election of ſome is each covenant. The covenant of works to humble them, not onely upon the conſideration of their ſins, whereby they have merited eternall death; but eſpecially upon conſideration how their naturall corruption is ſo farre from being maſtered and corrected by the Law, as that on the contrary it is irritated and exaſperated ſo much the more. Then the covenant of grace to comfort them, conſidering how the condition of life is adulced and tempered, being from exact and ſtrict obedience changed into faith and repentance; but chiefely upon conſideration that the word of this covenant is a word of power maſtering their corruption, and inabling to perform faith, repentance, and Evangelicall obedience in an acceptuble manner unto the Lord. Subſervient to the purpoſe of reprobation may bee the Law, only writen in mens hearts, which very obſcurely, intimateth (if at all) any covenant made of everlaſting life between God and man. Where the word is revealed, that in generall comprehending both Law and Goſpel, is ſubſervient thereunto in the way of inſtruction and exhortation, and the like, thereby taking away all excuſe.

Of any other end intended towards them I know not, except ſometimes, as Auſtin obſerveth, Ut proficiant ad exteriorem vitae emendationem quo mitius puniantur. And why I pray may not the covenant of workes promiſe life upon condition of obedience, notwithſtanding the purpoſe of reprobation hath abſolutely determined death, upon all them within the Covenant: as well as the Covenant of grace threatens death upon condition of diſobedience of faith and repentance: notwithſtanding that the purpoſe of election hath abſolutely determined life upon all them within that Covenant. And yet like [Page] as in election wee acknowledge a reſpect to obedience, conſequent thereunto, in as much as it includes a purpoſe to give grace to work them to obedience, though not any reſpect therto, as antecedent to the decree it ſelf; how much more may you eaſily conceive, that in reprobation wee deny not a reſpect to diſobedience conſequent, for as much as it includes a purpoſe to deny grace, which alone can prevent diſobedience, though not any reſpect to diſobedience as antecedent to the decree of reprobation? And to repeate by the way, that which formerly hath been delivered.

Reſpect to diſobedience as antecedent to the decree of damnation cannot bee imagined, unleſſe withall you imagine God did firſt decree to permit it, and thereupon for the foreſight thereof decree to damne for it: Whence it followeth that permiſſion of diſobedience muſt bee firſt in intention, in compariſon with condemnation, and conſequently it muſt bee laſt in execution by your own rules, formerly laid down as unqueſtionable foundations. Yet doe not I maintain that God in any moment of nature, doth firſt decree damnation, and then decree the permiſſion of ſin, for which hee damnes them; I make theſe decrees not ſubordinate as moſt doe, but co-ordinate and joynt decrees, being onely concerning meanes tending to the ſame end. And with Aquinas, I ſay that reprobation includes Voluntatem permittendi culpam, & condemnationem inferendi proculpa. The end whereof is the demonſtration of his glory in the way of juſtice. But withall I deſire that culpa in this deſcription of reprobation may bee underſtood aright, and not as Arminius doth, whoſe ſuperficiall conſideration of things is uſually for his advantage, making him thereby the more to abound in arguments for the impugning of his adverſaries opinions, according to his own ſhaping of them quite beſide their meaning. For culpa is not fin in generall in this definition, but onely ſuch a ſin, propter quod quis damnatur, for which a man is damned; that is, finall perſeverance in inſidelity or impenitency. When you ſay the grace of redemption offers the death of Chriſt, and reacheth forth ſome fruite thereof unto all, you walk according to your courſe in the clouds of your own myſteries.

What you mean by theſe fruites you ſpeak of, and by the [Page] reaching of them forth, I am utterly to ſeek; neither doth ought you have formerly delivered helpe mee in this. But in theſe particulars it ſeems you love to ſpeak darkly; and keep your ſelf to generall terms. I know no condition propoſed in the Goſpel, for receiving of any benefit from Chriſt, but faith and repentance. But you ſeem to bring in gracious helps for the obtaining of faith and repentance, to bee tendred unto us for Chriſts ſake upon other conditions, I know not what; neither have. I hitherto received any ground of aſſurance from this your diſcourſe, that your ſelf know what. In the next place you ſeem to ſpecifie what theſe fruites are, as when you ſay, that it promiſeth and offereth ſufficient helpe to bring them to the knowledge of God, and means of grace, ſtill keeping your ſelf in the generall, as if you feared to bee underſtood. And I wonder not a little that your ſelf being a man of ſuch reputation, and much exerciſed in giving ſatisfaction, addreſſing your ſelf to give ſatisfactivn in ſo tender and precious points of Divinity as theſe, ſhould deliver your ſelf in ſo ſtrange a language. But let us take the more paines in diſcuſſing the clouds of your Phraſiologies. When you ſay the grace of redemption promiſeth and offereth ſufficient helps; your meaning muſt bee that the Goſpel of Chriſt doth promiſe and offer this, for as much as wee are acquainted with no promiſes of Grace but in the Goſpel. Yet this phraſe of expreſſing, uſed by you, is enough to trouble a Reader, who when the matter wee treat of is difficult enough, might juſtly deſire that hee might not bee put to other trouble, as to interpret mens expreſſions. Yet it may bee you may think to have a ground for this out of Saint Paul, where hee ſaith, The grace of God which bringeth ſalvation hath appeared unto all, teaching us to deny ungodlineſſe; and by which grace hee ſeemes to meane the Goſpel. Bee it ſo, yet Saint Paul doth not call it the grace of redemption, as you doe. Redemption in Scripture phraſe ſignifies forgiveneſſe of ſins, Epheſ. 1. 7. and Col. 1. 14. If this bee your meaning, I finde no congruity in this your affirmation. For what? will you ſay the Goſpel preached, doth promiſe and offer to bring men to the knowledge of God, and means of grace? I had thought rather it had brought the knowledge of God and meanes of grace to them. Or rather is the very [Page] bringing of it, or to ſpeak more properly is the very means of grace it ſelf. All which conſidered, I am yet to ſeek of your meaning, I finde it ſo miſerably involved, and that in the very cloſe of all, enough to make any intelligent Reader deſpaire to receive ſatisfaction from you, when in the very laſt act hee ſhall finde himſelfe ſo farre from making any tolerable conſtruction of your words, thereby to pick out any ſober meaning.

Then againe, by offering helps, you ſeem to imply ſome termes or condition whereupon it is offered them, but no ſuch condition is expreſſed by you. If it had, perhaps thereby wee might have taken the altitude. I mean the depth of your meaning throughout. The ſame grace of redemption beſtows alſo (you ſay) ſometimes ſome excellent though common graces. I have heard (I confeſſe) you ſtand much upon common graces. But what they are, and to what end they tend, and whether abſolutely or conditionally imparted according to your opinion: when I ſhall bee ſufficiently informed, I will doe my beſt indevour to weigh them in the ballance of Chriſtian and Scholaſticall examination, and accordingly to give them that due reſpect which belongs unto them. It may bee about a third covenant, which they might ſeem to make, partly of grace and partly of works: I ſhould not bee much contentious. Yet it followeth not, that becauſe they doe binde the more to the keeping of the Covenant of works, as having more means and helps vouchſafed unto them; therefore it doth not make a third Covenant: You ſay it is not the helps of grace offered or given, that include men within any part of the covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given: that is, whereupon they are offered or given, to wit, the helps of grace.

Here new myſteries offer themſelves againe, I muſt bee driven Balaam-like to caſt about for divinations: and whether in the iſſue I ſhall finde that I ſeek for, I cannot aſſure my ſelf. You came but now from ſpeaking of common graces, and by the coherence, theſe helps of grace which here you ſpeak of, ſhould bee thoſe common graces, conſidered as helps of grace ſpeciall. Now had you given inſtance, and ſhewed what theſe common graces are, they might of themſelves have diſcovered [Page] the reference wherein they ſtand unto grace ſpeciall, which I gheſſe to bee faith and repentance. This you might eaſily have done, and ſaved us a great deale of irreſolution and paines alſo, partly in ſeeking after that which wee cannot eaſily finde, and partly in labouring to diſprove wee know not what. This confuſed courſe proceede in ſome from an ill minde, fearing leſt their oppoſites ſhould have too much liberty by their plaine dealing to impugne them, but in good men it proceeds from the weakneſſe of their cauſe, and from the uncertainty and ambiguity of their thoughts, for the juſtifying of that which they doe maintain. But let us proceed. Theſe helps of grace by which I hope you mean, helps unto faith and repentance, you plainly ſignifie are offered upon a condition, and by the quality of this condition wee may judge whether they to whom they are offered are included within the covenant of grace or no.

Now let us indevour to ſound your meaning; Theſe helps of grace muſt needs bee, either outward means, or inward qualities and habits.

By helps I ſhould underſtand outward means, after mine own phraſe of ſpeech, and by yours alſo I have good cauſe; for as much as in the words immediately going before, you joyn helps and means together, and confound common graces with them both. As for means of grace, they are not given upon condition; for what condition can bee imagined whereupon the Goſpel ſhould bee given to a Nation? ſhall it bee the uſing of their naturalls right? how will you bee able to make it good, that heathen men before they injoyed the Goſpel, did uſe their naturalls right? Did the Corinthians who were carryed away with dumb Idols even as they were led? 1 Cor. 12. 2. And for not honouring God as God, did not God give them up into a reprobate minde, to doe things inconvenient as well as others, thereby to receive the recompence of their errours? Judge of this by that which the Apoſtle mindes them of, 1 Cor. 6. For after hee had told them that neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Wantons, nor Buggerers, nor Theeves, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Raylers, nor Extortioners, ſhall inherit the Kingdome of God, ver. 9. 10. forthwith hee addeth [...], [Page] theſe things were ſome of you, as much as to ſay, ſome of you were fornicators, ſome adulterers, ſome Idolaters, ſome wantons, ſome buggerers, ſome theeves, ſome covetous, ſome drunkards, ſome raylers, ſome extortioners; or ſome of them in diverſe kindes, if not in all theſe kindes lyable to condemnation, and utter excluſion out of the Kingdom of God: But (yet for all this) yee are waſhed, but yee are ſanctifyed, but yee are juſtified, in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the ſpirit of our God, ver. 11. And is it not manifeſt that when the Goſpel is firſt preached to any Nation, it is preached as well to the uncivill as to thoſe that are civill: as well to the debauched as to the morall?

Again, In this caſe, the Goſpel ſhould bee beſtowed by way of reward of obedience: but obedience is no obedience, unleſſe it bee performed upon knowledge, in obedience unto ſome Law given. Now how could the Gentiles know of any ſuch Law, that whoſoever uſed their naturalls ſhould bee rewarded with the benefit of the Goſpel; ſeeing this is no where pretended to bee revealed but in the Goſpel? So that aſſoon as any man hears of ſuch a Law, hee already enjoyeth the Goſpel. The two firſt of theſe arguments may as well bee applyed againſt this doctrine of yours, if by helps of Grace you mean ſome habits or qualities beſides that which may bee further alledged upon your ſpecification, what theſe habits and qualities are.

And here is a faire way opened for a third Covenant; for as for the two covenants commonly acknowledged, they are onely for the obtaining of Salvation different wayes: beſides which here is brought in another Covenant for the obtaining the means of grace, and that different wayes alſo, to wit, either by works or by Grace. But when I look unto your former words and conſider them well, as when you ſay it is not the helps of grace offered or given, that include men within any part of the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given, theſe words, It is offered or given, perhaps are not referred to the helps of grace, but rather to the grace it ſelf, yet I interpret them of the helps of grace, with no other minde then to ſalve this rule of yours from manifeſt contradiction.

[Page] For by your rule you profeſſe, that the incluſion of ſome within the covenant of grace, and the excluſion of others, depends not upon any indifference in the things offered or given, but onely on the condition whereupon they are offered or given; manifeſtly implying thereby, that the ſame things are given to them that are without the covenant, and to them that are within; but the difference is onely in the condition whereupon they are given.

But if your rule run thus, it is not the helps offered or given, that include a man within the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon the grace it ſelf is given. Hereby you manifeſt that they within the Covenant of grace, and they without are diſtinguiſhed, not onely by the condition, whereupon that which they have is given, but alſo by the things themſelves which are given them: for as much as onely the helps of grace are given to the one, to wit, to them that are without the covenant, but not only helps of grace, but grace it ſelf is given to the other, which ſerves directly contrary to your rule here given: not to ſpeak of the miſerable confuſion that like a Leproſie ſeizeth upon your manner of expreſſion, and which you hold up in the beginning of your next ſection. But before I come to the ſcanning thereof, let mee tell you of your diſ-junctive phraſe, as when you ſaid, offered or given; this is very ill-accommodated to the helps of grace, if you meane helpes outward, ſuch as the Goſpel; for the Goſpel where it is preached, there it is not onely offered, but hoc ipſo given.

The phraſe offered, is as ill accommodated to grace it ſelf in reſpect of the condition, whereupon depends admiſſion into the convenant of grace. For to offer to a man admiſſion into the covenant of grace upon condition, is to offer it upon a condition to bee performed by him to whom it is offered. But ſuch an offering your ſelf confeſſe doth ſavour of a covenant of works, but when the condition is meerly for Chriſts ſake, that you ſay makes the covenant of grace. Now to that which followeth.

If God offer (ſay you) and give it, to wit, [grace] though never ſo ſmall, even as a grain of muſtard ſeed, and promiſeth to uphold it freely for Chriſts ſake, and not according to our [Page] works, it is a covenant of grace. But if hee offer and give never ſo many helps, and means, and gifts, and uphold them according to the works of the creature, it is ſtill a covenant of workes, as it was to the Angels that fell, and to Adam. Here you continue your former confuſion; for pretending to maintain the difference between them within, and them without the covenant of grace, as depending meerely upon the condition, whereupon things are given; you notwithſtanding this, make a difference alſo in the things given. For the one thing, given to them within the covenant of grace, you ſeem to make grace it ſelf, though perhaps as ſmall as a grain of muſtard ſeed, and not onely helpes of grace; but the things given to them without the Covenant, are onely gracious helps and means. And withall you deale not fairely in the expreſſion of that which you intend; for you do not make it plainly appeare, that you put a difference between the things given (leſt you ſhould contradict your ſelf, for you place the difference onely in the condition whereupon the thing given, is given) but that which is given to them within the covenant of grace you formerly expreſſed by the relative [it], which made mee in doubt whether I ſhould referre it to grace it ſelf; or to the helps of grace; yet forthwith on the other ſide running again to helps, you doe not ſtyle them helps of grace, as before you did, which doth manifeſtly diſtinguiſh helps of grace, from grace it ſelf, but you call them gratious helps and means, and not contented with that, you adde gifts alſo, as if your purpoſe were not to diſtinguiſh them from grace in the other member of the compariſon mentioned, but rather to confound them therewith. Which I confeſſe ſorts beſt with your rule, which placeth the difference only in the condition of the things given, and not in the things given themſelves. And this is further confirmed by the inſtance given in Angels and Adam, where you plainly give us to underſtand, that by gracious helps and means, and gifts given them, you underſtand the Image of God; which clearly ſignifies not any outward help and means, (after which manner I was prone to interpret this phraſe of yours) but the very inward ſanctification of their natures, which in my judgement is very untowardly called means of grace, or helps of grace.

[Page] Whereas it is rather, that holy power wherewith God had indued them to perform that which hee had commanded them. For of Adam, that is undoubtedly true which Auſtin ſaith, namely, that God gave Adam, poſſe ſi voluit; non dedit velle quod potuit, power to obey if hee would, but not a will to doe that which hee could; and queſtionleſſe it is as true of the Angels as of Adam.

And this power I confeſſe had continued in them, had they performed actuall obedience according to that power, whereof by their diſobedience they were deprived. Whereby you give mee good ground to gueſſe, what that opinion of yours is, (which you carry wondrous cloſely, (and I verily beleeve becauſe of the offenſive nature thereof to good men, ſuch as your ſelf) namely, That power to beleeve and repent is given to them as well without the covenant, as to them within; like as both Angels and Adam before their fall, had power to perform obedience to Gods Commands: But to them within the covenant of grace, it is given and upheld onely for Chriſts ſake; to others it is to bee given and upheld onely according to the covenant of worke, that is, upon condition of ſome performance of theirs. But yet of the full pourtraiture of your opinion, I am to ſeek in ſome particulars: As

Firſt, what the condition is upon the performance whereof they ſhall have power given them to beleeve and repent. Whatſoever you ſay, or give inſtance in, if it bee a work of nature, it will neceſſarily follow that grace ſhall bee poſſibly, at leaſt reſolved into a work of nature; then wee are where wee are, and ſtill to ſeek how they came by power to perform that work of grace.

Secondly, I am to ſeek by what means God doth work this power, whether onely by perſwaſion, which is onely a morall action, or by an immediate change of their natures by the inſpiration of Gods Spirit.

Now the firſt of theſe cannot bee; for perſwaſion hath no power to change the nature of ought, and work new powers in it, which are not wrought without giving a new life. And indeed perſwaſion tends rather to move men to doe that which they have power to doe, then from thence to receive a power of doing. Wee doe not perſwade men, ut poſſint aliquid facere, [Page]ſed ut velint, & ut faciant, to bee able to do ought, but to move them to bee willing to doe it.

If by immediate inſpiration giving a new life, then it follows that regeneration is a common grace, poſſible at leaſt, given to them as well without the Covenant of grace, as to them within: to the Reprobates as well as to the Elect, and that upon performance of a work of nature. And becauſe it were in vain to ſpeak of upholding it after it is given, unleſſe it were given indeed, you imply hereby that even this power is given to Reprobates. But whereas it is to bee upholden but upon condition, yet you doe not expreſſe what this condition is. But I gueſſe the condition hereof is the exerciſing of this power; like as upon the exerciſing of the power which God gave Angels and Adam, before the fall, they had been confirmed in their integrity. But what if they do not beleeve or repent for a year or two together; yet I preſume you will not ſay they are thereupon deprived of this power, but that it continueth for ought wee know to the contrary to their lives end; though it fell out quite contrarily with Angels and Adam, who immediately upon their diſobedience were deprived of this power. What is your meaning when you ſay, God offers mankinde in Chriſt, greater grace and helps to keep the Covenant of works, then after the fall they could have attained to without Chriſt, I cannot eaſily comprehend, and throughout finde you very cloſe and reſerved hereupon, which to ſpeak like a free man, is no good dealing.

Firſt, I know not what that grace and help is, which here you ſpeak of. If your meaning bee no more but this, that they have more power to perform the Covenant of works through Chriſt, then otherwiſe; (as I gueſſe it will come to no more in the end) I pray you what think you of mankinde before Chriſt came into the world, had they this power you ſpeak of through Chriſt? If you think they had, I pray you how came they by it? If onely it hold of mankinde ſince the preaching of the Goſpel; I demand whether of all, or ſome? if of all, then you muſt acknowledge the Goſpel to bee preached to all. If only of them to whom it is preached; yet the queſtion ſtill is, whether it bee wrought by perſwaſion or inſpiration.

Secondly, in ſaying that in Chriſt they have greater grace [Page] to help to keep it, your phraſe doth imply, that even without Chriſt men have grace and helpes and power to keep the Covenant of works. In a word, dare you ſay that any naturall man hath any power to bee ſubject to the Law of God, or to doe that which is pleaſing in Gods ſight? If you ſay they have any ſuch power, I demand whether ever any were found ſubject to the Law of God, or did that which was pleaſing in Gods ſight? It is very ſtrange that never any ſuch act ſhould proceed from a power ſo generall. If they were, or did that which was pleaſing in Gods ſight, then they were not in the fleſh, for they that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God. Rom. 8.

Laſtly, when you ſay, theſe helps or this power is offered them in Chriſt, it implies that upon ſome condition performable on their parts it is offered unto them. Now it were very requiſite you ſhould deale plainly, and expreſſe this condition, which you doe not. I confeſſe I ſee no danger in acknowledging that God purpoſeth to deale with mankinde according to their works; nay I wonder you ſhould exclude the elect from the number of thoſe with whom God deales in this manner, when the Apoſtle profeſſeth ſo directly, wee muſt all appeare before the judgement ſeat of God, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that hee hath done, whether good or evill, 2 Cor. 5. 10. Onely for Chriſts ſake God giveth faith and repentance to ſome, working in them that which is pleaſing in his ſight through Jeſus Chriſt; and doth not deale in the like mercy with others.

The reſt of this Section I diſlike not.

Glory bee to God in Chriſt, and peace upon Iſrael, In ſubmiſſion unto his Truth.

For why ſhould wee lye for God, as man doth for man, to gratifie him?

For an Auctarium, here is laid down a ſhort Survey of the ninth Chapter to the Romans, ſo farre as it treateth of the Doctrine of Predeſtination: the better to clear ſome paſſages of the former Diſcourſe.

[Page]

THe whole Chapter from the firſt verſe to the 23. is taken Analyſis. up in the anſwering of objections, each latter ariſing from the anſwer to the former: for the Apoſtle having taught in the laſt verſe of the former Chapter, that nothing can ſeparate us from the love of God in Chriſt giveth occaſion of this doubt that may ariſe.

Queſt. What think you of the Jews, are not they the Elect people of God, and yet are not they ſeparate from Chriſt?

Anſw. The Apoſtle doth not plainly affirm it, that they are ſeparate from Chriſt, but with much compaſſion bewailes it, yea, and proteſteth, that hee would wiſh himſelf rather ſeparate from Chriſt for their ſakes: The grounds of which hee rendreth to bee for his kindreds ſake, ver. 3. for their priviledges ſake, ver. 4, 5.

This coherence I could brook well enough, onely I ſay it is deviſed at pleaſure: and I finde it is a generall courſe to feign Exam. coherences, and ſometimes onely to ſhape thereby ſome conformation of the Apoſtles meaning to their interpretation of him. The Apoſtle I am ſure makes none, and accordingly Ludovious Leoburgenſis profeſſeth, ſaying, Prorſus nova diſputatio inſtituitur, in qua tametſi doctrinam de Juſtificatione alicubi repetit & intertexit, tamen duas alias materias principales tractat: videlicet, quis ſit vere populus Dei, ſeu quae ſit vera Eccleſia, & de vocatione Gentium. Judaei contendebant, ſe eſſe Eccleſiam, ſe eſſe populum; ad ſe ſolos pertinere promiſſiones. Paulus reſpondet Elector eſſe populos Dei. The diſputation here inſtituted by the Apoſtle, is altogether new, wherein although hee doth ſometimes repeale and inſert the Doctrine of Juſtification; yet hee handles two other [Page] principall matters, to wit, who are the people of God in truth, and which is the true Church; and of the calling of the Gentiles. The Jews contended that they were the Church, they were Gods people, and that to them alone pertained the promiſes. Paul anſwers that the Elect alone are Gods people.

Analyſis. What is then the word (the word of promiſe of inſeparable conjunction with Chriſt) to them of none effect?

Anſw. No, all are not Iſrael which are of Iſrael: nor are all the children of Abraham, that are of the ſeed of Abraham, but in Iſaac are his ſeed called, viz. Not the children of Abrahams fleſh are the children of God, but the children of promiſe, ver. 6, 7, 8. which hee proveth by a twofold inſtance, or example.

Firſt, of Iſaac the ſeed of Abraham by Sarah, who was given unto him as his ſeed by the word of promiſe, ver. 9.

Secondly, of Jacob the ſeed of Iſaac by Rebekah, of whom another promiſe was given, that the elder brother ſhould bee to him a ſervant, ver, 11.

Which promiſe touching Jacob is amplifyed by,

Firſt, the freeneſſe of it, all cauſe of different acceptation being removed from the two brethren, and in regard, firſt, of parentage, ver. 10. ſecondly, of perſonall condition and indowments, ver. 11. which freeneſſe is alſo further ſet forth by the end of it, that the purpoſe of God might ſtand firm, as not depending on any condition in the Creature, ver. 11.

Secondly, A parallell promiſe ſuiting to it, preferring Jacob before Eſau in Gods affection, when they were both conſidered onely as brethren, ver. 13.

Theſe words of the Apoſtle are I confeſſe the key of the whole Exam. Chapter, for opening the meaning, or at leaſt making way to a faire underſtanding of all that follows. If the Jews are rejected [Page] as the Apoſtle preſuppoſeth (to wit, as touching the moſt of them) in the former words, then it may ſeem that Gods word is of none effect, which conſequence, (the Apoſtle ſuppoſing ſuch a conſequence likely to bee made) by his denying of it doth imply, that there was ſome Word of God that ſeemed to bee made of none effect by this Doctrine concerning the rejection of the Jews. This word therefore is to bee inquired into, the inveſtigation whereof will give light to all the reſt. Now this word can bee no other then the word of ſome promiſe made by God for the taking of the ſeed of Abraham to bee his people, to bee his Church. For ſuch a promiſe alone ſeems to ſtand in contradiction unto our Chriſtian Doctrine, concerning the rejection of the Jews. And indeed ſuch a promiſe God made to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between mee and thee, and thy ſeed after thee, for an everlaſting Covenant, To bee a God to thee and to thy ſeed after thee. This I conceive to bee the Word of God, which the Apoſtle had before his eyes when hee delivered this, and denyed that this word and promiſe of God can bee of none effect; although it bee granted, that moſt part of the Jews bee rejected, provided that all are not. And hee gives this reaſon, to wit, becauſe this word and promiſe of God concerning Abrahams ſeed to bee taken into his Covenant of Grace, did not comprehend all his ſeed: for all are not Iſrael, that are of Iſrael, &c. ſeeing then wee doe not maintain that all Iſrael are rejected (for as it followeth, Rom. 11. 1. I demand then; Hath God caſt away his people? God forbid, For I am alſo an Iſraelite. God hath not caſt away his people whom hee knew before, ver. 5. Even ſo then at this preſent there is a remnant according to the Election of grace. Withall the Apoſtle ſignifyeth that not one of Gods people is rejected: to wit, not one of them whom hee did foreknow, which Rom. 9. 8. are called children of promiſe, in oppoſition to the children of the fleſh: alluding to Iſaac, who was begotten beyond the power of nature, and by vertue of Gods promiſe made to Abraham for a Son, when both hee and Sarah were dead as touching any naturall power to beget, or conceive a Childe. But God to make his promiſe good, inabled them with power hereunto above nature. And conformably hereunto alluding alſo to the condition of Gods children begotten unto [Page] him, not by power of nature, but above nature, by vertue of a promiſe likewiſe, even that which hee made unto Abraham, that in his ſeed (that is, in Chriſt) all the Nations of the earth ſhould bee bleſſed. That is, the Elect of God amongſt all Nations. And to make this good by the power of his grace and his holy Spirit, hee begets them unto himſelf, each in his appointed time according to their generations.

Queſt. Is there not then unrighteouſneſſe with God to deale ſo unequally with perſons equall? ver. 14.

Anſw. God forbid, which denyall the Apoſtle proveth by a double teſtimony of Moſes, both of them declaring the abſolute Soveraignty of God over the creatures, and thereby his liberty to deale diverſly or unequally with perſons equall.

Firſt, the one by ſhewing the independency of his mercy, ver. 15. wherein hee inferreth a Corollary denying the obtaining of mercy to the means which the creature uſeth who findeth mercy, ver. 16.

Secondly, by declaring and ſetting forth the right God challengeth to himſelf, to ſtirre up a ſinfull Creature to this purpoſe, to ſhew his power on him, though it bee in his juſt hardning and overthrow, ver. 17. Where hee inferreth another Corollary ariſing from both theſe places, aſcribing as well the hardning of the creature that is hardned, as the ſhewing mercy to him that obtaineth mercy, both to the abſolute Soveraignty of Gods will, ver. 18.

This objection ariſeth from the conſideration of the equality Exam. of Eſau and Jacob, before they were born, and whileſt they were in their mothers wombe.

The Anſwer is rightly conceived, as freeing God from injuſtice, by reaſon of the ſoveraignty hee hath over his creatures and liberty thereupon to deale, not onely as here it is expreſſed in generall, diverſly, or unequally with perſons equall (for ſo hee deales even with his Elect) giving a greater meaſure of grace to one, as even to Saul a perſecutor and leſſe to another though never ſo morall, and free from ſuch as the world accounts foule ſinnes before their callings, but ſo unequally as to ſhew mercy unto one, and to deny mercy unto the other. For the more full explication whereof wee are to conſider, that righteouſneſſe or Juſtice is taken in a double notion. The one is, [Page] when things are carried towards men according to their works: The other is, when a man doth no other thing then hee hath power to doe; as in executing the power that God hath given them over inferiour Creatures, wee are juſt though wee doe kill Sheep, or Oxen, &c. Not in reference to any works of theirs, but onely in reference to our own neceſſary uſe, and unto that lawfull power which God hath given us to ſerve our own turns of them. And thus God is not unjuſt or unrighteous, but righteous and juſt, in ſhewing mercy on ſome, and not on others, when there is no difference between them.

But whereas it is ſaid, ver. 16. that the Apoſtle inferreth a Corollary, denying the obtaining of mercy to the means, which the Creature uſeth to finde mercy; implying that when the Apoſtle ſaith, it is not of him that willeth, and of him that runneth, this of willing and running are the meanes to obtaine mercy.

I no way like this, for if it bee underſtood of willing and running in a naturall manner, ſuch willing and running are no means to obtain mercy: Or if it bee to bee underſtood of willing and running in a gracious manner; whoſoever thus willeth and runneth hath obtained mercy: as the Apoſtle ſignifyeth when hee ſaith, I found mercy that I ſhould bee faithfull. And to obtain mercy in the Apoſtles phraſe, Rom. 11. 30. 1 Cor 7▪ and 31. is clearely to obtain faith and repentance; So that according to this expoſition, the meaning of the Apoſtle is this; though man is hee who beleeveth and repenteth, yet the glory of all is to bee given unto God, as who ſheweth mercy to whom hee will, when as freely hee denyeth it to others, and ſo hardneth them. And that this is the Apoſtles meaning in this place, it appeareth by the Antitheſis which the Apoſtle makes, between ſhewing mercy on the one ſide, and hardning on the other.

Again, whereas the right of God in ſtirring up a creature to this purpoſe to ſhew his power on him, though it bee in his hardning, and overthrow; this right I ſay, or rather the exerciſe of this right in God, is confined to a ſinfull creature, this is quite beſides the Apoſtles Text; For albeit the creatures hee ſpeaketh of (as Pharaoh and the rebellious Iſraelites) were ſinfull creatures, yet it doth not follow that the Apoſtle in the [Page] Doctrine which here hee delivereth, taketh any notice of their ſinfulneſſe; As indeed it is apparent that hee doth not juſtifie Gods courſes here mentioned upon the conſideration of their ſinfulneſſe, but only upon the conſideration of Gods Soveraignty over his creatures. And indeed it is plain, that of two ſinners God can give the grace of raiſing from ſin to whom hee will, and deny it unto the other: ſo it is manifeſt that of two creatures ſtanding in the eſtate of grace; God can maintain the one in that eſtate by his corroborating grace, and by denying the ſame grace, permit the other to fall from that eſtate of innocency wherein hee ſtood; As it is clear in the difference that God put betwixt the Angels that ſtood, to wit, his elect Angels,) and thoſe that fell; they that ſtood being amplius adjuti, more ſuccoured then the other, as Auſtin profeſſeth, De Civ. Dei, lib. 12. cap. 9. And Coquaeus at large upon him. So that in this reſpect the denying of corroborating grace to thoſe Angels that fell, while before they were without ſin, was juſt with God; not in any reference unto their works, as if they had deſerved that God ſhould permit them to fall into ſin, it being impoſſible that any creature ſhould deſerve this. For in this caſe there ſhould bee acknowledged a ſin to precede the firſt ſin, which cannot bee avouched, without manifeſt contradiction. But it is juſt in reſpect of Gods Soveraignty to keep from ſin whom heo will, and to permit whom hee will to fall into ſin.

Queſt. Thou wilt further ſay unto me, Why doth hee yet find fault, for who hath reſiſted his will?

Anſw. To this the Apoſtle returneth anſwer in foure materiall points.

Firſt, Hee checketh the petulancy of the creature, by ſhewing that though God ſhould harden the creature by his irreſiſtible will, yet it is not for the creature to reply thus to God; this hee doth by a compariſon, arguing Gods Soveraignty over the creature, ſuitable to the power which the potter hath over the clay, ver. 20.

Secondly, hee admitteth a deny all or at leaſt a mitigation of the rigour of that word objected in the manner of Gods hardning by his irreſiſtible will, inſtead whereof the Apoſtle implyeth, hee doth rather harden by his ſuffering and long patience. What if God ſuffer in long patience, &c. ver. 22.

[Page] Thirdly, Hee cleareth the juſtice of God in hardning the creature, by ſhewing the conditions of thoſe perſons, whom hee thus hardneth, not creatures that have done neither good nor evill; but, 1. veſſels of wrath, which men are not, till firſt conſidered as ſinners: 2. fitted, or as it were perfected and ripened unto deſtruction, which Epheſ. 2. 23. men are not till after the refuſall of the means of grace, Epheſ. 2. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 15, 16. or elſe after groſſe and unnaturall iniquity, Gen. 15. 16. compared with Levit. 28. 27, 28, 29.

Fourthly, hee declares the holy ends which God aimes at in all this his dealing with veſſels of wrath after this manner; which ends are the manifeſtation, firſt, of his power and wrath toward the wicked, ver. 22. ſecondly, of the riches of his glorious grace toward the elect, in dealing far otherwiſe with them, v. 23. Rom. 11. 33. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wiſdome, and of the power of God! how unſearchable are his judgments, and his wayes paſt finding out! To him bee glory for ever, Amen.

By this objection ariſing out of the former Doctrine, namely, Exam. that God hath mercy on whom hee will, and hardneth others: hee doth evince that by ſhewing mercy, is ſignifyed Gods giving the grace of obedience; by hardning, his denying the ſame grace of obedience; And withall that by denying this grace it comes to paſſe, that men cannot obey the will of God, ſeeing hereby is manifeſted, that Gods will is not, they ſhould obey, but rather continue in their hardneſſe of heart uncured, and conſequently in their diſobedience, whereupon it ſeems unreaſonable that God ſhould complain of mens diſobedience, as oftentimes hee doth, as Eſa. 1. Hear, O Heavens, and hearken O Earth, I have nouriſhed and brought up a people, and they have rebelled againſt mee. Again, Eſa. 65. All the day long have I ſtretched out my hands unto a people that walk in a way that is not good, even after their own imaginations, And Jer. 8. 7. Even the Stork in the aire, knoweth her appointed times, and the Turtle, and the Crane, and the Swallow obſerveth the time of their comming, but my people knoweth not the judgements of the Lord, and ver. 6. I hearkned and heard, but none ſpake aright, no man repented of his wickedneſſe, ſaying, what have I done? Every one turneth into their race, as the horſe ruſheth into the battle. And Hoſe. 7. 14. Though I have bound and ſtrengthened their arm, yet they have rebelled againſt mee. And Exod. 10. 2. [Page] Thus ſaith the Lord God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuſe to humble thy ſelf before mee? Let my people goe that they may ſerve mee, ver. 4. But if thou refuſe to let my people goe, behold, to morrow I will bring Graſhoppers into thine houſe, &c. ver. 20. But the Lord hardned Pharaohs heart, and hee did not let the children of Iſrael goe. Now this I ſay ſeems moſt unreaſonable in the judgement of fleſh and blood. Namely, both to harden a mans heart, and yet to complain of, and finde fault with the hardneſſe of his heart, with his rebellion and diſobedience, conſidering that no man can reſiſt his will.

To this the Apoſtle anſwereth in certain notable particulars.

Firſt, ſhewing that when the Scripture doth manifeſt this to bee Gods courſe, namely to harden, and yet to complain of a mans hardneſſe and diſobedience, it becommeth not the creature to quarrell with God, or diſpute with God hereabout, becauſe his weak capacity is not able to comprehend the reaſonableneſſe thereof. As for hardning by a will irreſiſtible, implying that there may bee a kinde of hardning by a will reſiſtible, as Arminius interpreteth the Apoſtle, it is to put upon the Apoſtle the conceits of man, for hee maketh no ſuch diſtinction.

Secondly, Hee proceeds to ſhew how that God as the Creator, hath power over the creature to diſpoſe of him as he thinks good, in two notable particulars. Firſt, in making him, of what faſhion hee will, ver. 20. Secondly, in making him to what end hee will, and that without controll from the creature (the one being anſwerable to the other) in theſe words: Shall the thing formed ſay unto him that formed it, why haſte thou made mee thus? Now theſe different conditions, as different faſhions of a veſſell, are to bee conceived in congruous reference to the double act of God formerly mentioned. Firſt, the one was in ſhewing mercy on whom hee will, whereby a man is made a veſſell of grace fit for honour. Secondly, the other was in hardning whom hee will, whereby a man left deſtitute of grace, is expoſed to rebellion and diſobedience and conſequently made a veſſell fit for diſhonour.

Secondly, to what end hee will, to wit, either to honour or diſhonour, that is, either to become finally a veſſell of mercy, or a veſſell of wrath, like as the potter diſpoſeth of clay in making veſſels thereof; anſwerable hereunto in each particular, [Page] according to the meere pleaſure of his will.

Thirdly, hee ſheweth that the end of all this is threefold.

1. The manifeſtation of his wrath or juſtice on the one.

2. The riches of his glory, that is, of his glorious grace on the veſſels of mercy.

3. His power and ſoveraignty in making whom hee will veſſels of wrath, or mercy.

Fourthly, hee ſhews withall, that before the execution of his wrath comes, hee ſuffers theſe veſſels of wrath with long patience; implying both by this, and by this wrath, that the liberty of the creature in ſinning, is nothing prejudiced in all this, and in the courſe of his patience, way is opened for his complaints and admonitions, and that in patheticall manner, unto theſe veſſels of wrath to move them to repentance. For that God doth complain, and expoſtulate, and reprove for theſe their ſinfull courſes is moſt evident. And it is no leſſe evident that when they goe on in their obſtinate courſes, not profiting by Gods Word and Works unto Repentance, the cauſe is (though no culpable cauſe) that God hath not given them a heart to perceive, and eyes to ſee, and ears to heare, from the firſt unto the laſt, Deut. 29. 4. That is, that both man runneth on wilfully in his ſinfull courſes, and that moſt culpably, and alſo that without grace it cannot bee otherwiſe. Though the reconciling of both theſe bee very obſcure and difficult as indeed the providence of God eſpecially in evill, and generally in working what hee will, by the free wills of the creature, is of a moſt myſterious nature. This patience of God comprehends not Gods bare ſuffering the wicked only, but his proſpering of them alſo, Jer. 12. 1. Why are all they in wealth that rebelliouſly tranſgreſſe? 1. As for the firſt materiall point of the Apoſtles anſwer, I agree with you, in the explication thereof. 2. But as concerning the ſecond, in my judgment there is nothing ſound.

For firſt, you feign the rigour of that which was objected to conſiſt in a certain manner of Gods hardning: to wit, by his irreſiſtible will; As if the Apoſtle did give us to underſtand, that there is a double kinde of hardning, that is imputed unto God. The one by his irreſiſtible will; the other is not expreſſed by you, but intimated to conſiſt in hardning by his will reſiſtible, whereas no ſuch diſtinction is either expreſſed or inſinuated by [Page] the Apoſtle, neither doe you once goe about to prove it. And the diſtinction it ſelf is very abſurd; both in bringing in a will of God reſiſtible, whereas the Apoſtle ſuppoſeth the will of God in hardning to bee irreſiſtible, without all diſtinction; neither doth hee give any the leaſt intimation of a twofold hardning uſed by God, or imputable to him. Hee plainly profeſſeth, that as God hath mercy on whom hee will, ſo hee hardneth whom hee will, without all diſtinction. And you may as well diſtinguiſh Gods ſhewing of mercy, as if that were twofold; one by his will reſiſtible, another by his will irreſiſtible; For ſhewing mercy and hardning are made oppoſite by the Apoſtle. And it is a well known rule in Schooles, that Quot modis dicitur unum oppoſitorum, tot modis dicetur & alterum, of two oppoſites, look how many wayes the one is taken, ſo many wayes may the other bee taken. And upon this Doctrine of the Apoſtle, ariſeth the objection to this effect. That ſeeing Gods will is irreſiſtible in hardning a man; it ſeems unreaſonable that God ſhould complain of ſuch a mans rebellion and diſobedience whom himſelfe hath hardned, ſuppoſing that they cannot obey God who are hardned. And throughout this objection alſo, there is no colour of any ſuch diſtinction as you introduce at pleaſure, concerning Gods will, as either reſiſtible or irreſiſtible, and accordingly as concerning the different manner of Gods obduration, to wit, either by his reſiſtible will, or by his irreſiſtible will.

Secondly, you feign at pleaſure in like manner, a denyall, or at leaſt a mitigation of the rigour of St. Pauls former Doctrine, whence roſe this objection (for ſo I had rather expreſſe it, then as you doe, when in very obſcure manner you call it the rigour of the word objected) And I wonder you would adventure to deviſe a deniall, or any colour of deniall made by the Apoſtle of that, which formerly hee delivered in ſaying, Hee hath mercy on whom hee will, and whom hee will hee hardneth; when your ſelfe have not hitherto manifeſted any minde to deny ought delivered by him, as it is not fit you ſhould. But it may be the rigour mentioned by you, is not conceived to conſiſt in Pauls former Doctrine of Gods hardning whom hee will, but rather in complaining of their diſobedience whom God himſelf hath hardned, his will being irreſiſtible. Now this, though amplified as a rigorous thing, the Apoſtle may ſeem to deny, or at leaſt mitigate. [Page] But firſt it ſeems to mee, that the objection chargeth God not ſo much with a rigorous courſe, (for who ſhall hinder God to deal with any, as rigorouſly as pleaſeth him, there being no injuſtice in rigour?) as with an unreaſonable courſe. But whether rigorous or unreaſonable in ſhew, the Apoſtle by ſaying God ſuffers them with long patience, doth neither deny, nor any way mitigate the condition of this courſe of his, for complaining of their diſobedience, whom himſelf hath hardned. For albeit God all the day long, yea, and all the yeer long, yea, and many yeers long, ſtretcheth out his hands to a people that walk in a way that is not good, even after their own imaginations, ſuch being the hardneſſe of their hearts, as even in deſpight of Gods ſufferance of them, and gracious proceedings with them, in the miniſtry of his word, and ſparing them in his works alſo, yet if God himſelf continues to harden them, his will being irreſiſtible, Gods complaining of their rebellion and diſobedience, ſeems never a whit the leſſe rigorous or unreaſonable, according to the objection propoſed. For as Auſtin ſaith, Contra Julianum Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Quantamlibet praebuerit patientiam, niſi Deus dederit, quis agat paenitentiam? though God afford never ſo great patience, yet unleſſe God give [grace] who ſhall perform repentance? And to ſay that God doth harden by his long patience, is a ſtrange liberty that you take in interpreting Paul. If to harden, bee to ſuffer with long patience, then to ſhew mercy, being oppoſite to hardning muſt bee not to ſuffer with long patience. And if to ſuffer with long patience bee to harden, then as often as hee ſuffers his own elect with long patience, hee hardneth them. And when St. Peter ſaith, God is patient toward us, the meaning in proportion muſt bee, hee hardens us. Let me tell you, that Julian the Pelagian of old, took the like advantage as you doe of the word Patience in this place to corrupt the Doctrine of St. Paul, lib. 5. contr. Jul. Pelag. cap. 3. Quid eſt (ſaith Auſtin) quod dicis, [cum deſideriis ſuis traditi dicuntur, relicti per divinam patientiam intelligendi ſunt, non per potentiam in peccata compu ſi.] quaſi non ſimul poſuer is haec duo idem Apoſtolus, & patientiam & potentiam, ubi ait. Si autem oſtendere volens iram & demonſtrare potentiam ſuam, attulit in mult a patientia, vaſa irae, quae perfecta ſunt in perditionem: Quid horum tamen dicis eſſe quod ſcriptum eſt. Et propheta ſi erraverit & locutus ſuerit, ego dominus ſeduxi prophetam illum: & extendam manum meam,[Page]ſuper eum & exterminabo eum de medio populi mei Iſrael, patientia eſt, an potentia? Quod libet eligas vel utrumque fatearis, vides tamen falſa prophetantis peccatum eſſe paenamque peccati, An & hic dicturus es, quod ait, Ego dominus ſeduxi prophetam illum, intelligendum eſſe deſerui, ut pro ejus meritis ſeductus [...]rraret? Age ut vis, tamen eo modo punitus eſt pro peccato: ut falſum prophetando peccaret, ſed illud intuere quod vidit Micheas propheta, Dominum ſedentem ſuper thronum ſuum, & omnis exercitus caeli ſtabat circa eum, a dextris ejus, & a ſiniſtris ejus. Et dixit dominus, Quis ſeducet Achab Regem Iſraelis, & aſcendet & cadet in Ramoth Gilead? & dixit iſte ſic, & iſte ſic. Et exiit ſpiritus & ſtetit in conſpectu Domini; & dixit. Ego ſeducam eum. Et dixit Dominus ad cum, in quo? Et dixit, exibo, & ero ſpiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum ejus. Et dixit, Seduces & praevalebis, exi & fac ſic. Quid ad iſta dicturus es? Nempe Rex ipſe peccavit falſis eredendo prophetis. At haec ipſa erat & paena peccati, Deo judicante, Deo mittente, angelum malum. Ut apertius intelligeremus, quomodo in pſalmo dictum ſit, Miſiſſe iram indignationis ſuae, per angelos malos. Sed numquid errando, numquid injuſte quicquam aut temere judicando, ſive faciendo? Abſit. Sed non fruſtra illi dictum eſt, Judicia tua ſicut abyſſus multa. Non fruſtra exclamat Apoſtolus, O altitudo divitiarum ſapientiae & ſcientiae Dei! quam inſcrutabilia ſunt judicia ejus, & inveſtigabiles viae ejus! Quis enim cognovit ſenſum Domini, aut quis conſiliarius ejus ſuit, aut quis prior dedit illi, ut retribuatur ei? And again in the ſame Chapter; Sequitur propter hoc, Tradidit illos Deus in paſſiones ignominiae. Audis propter hoc, & quaeris inaniter quomodo intelligendus ſit tradere Deus, multum laborans, ut oſtendas cum tradere deſerendo: ſed quomodo libet tradat, propter hoc tradidit. Propter hoc deſ [...]ruit, & vides ejus traditionem, qualem libet, & quomodo libet intelligas, quae conſecuta ſunt. Curavit enim Apoſtolus dicere, quanta paena ſit a Deo tradi paſſionibus ignominiae, ſive deſerende, ſive alio quocunque, vel explicabili, vel inexplicabili modo quo facit hoc ſumme bonus, & ineffabiliter juſtus.

Thirdly, as touching the third, there is as little ſounding in that alſo, for already you have confeſſed, that the Apoſtle in anſwering this objection, to juſtifie God, hath recourſe to Gods ſoveraignty over his creatures, as great as the potter hath over the clay, who maketh veſſels of what faſhion hee will, and to what end hee will. But in the laſt place you feign moſt unreaſonably, [Page] a juſtification of Gods courſe in hardning whom hee will, from the conſideration of the perſons hardned, as being ſinners. I ſay this is moſt unreaſonable.

Firſt, becauſe when the creature is dealt withall according to his deſerts, this alone is moſt ſufficient and ſatisfactory to every one that acknowledgeth it, for the juſtification of any courſe taken with ſuch. And it is meerly in vain to fly to any other courſe of juſtification, eſpecially when it is leſſe ſatisfactory then this. And how ſtrange were it, that the Apoſtle ſhould inſiſt ſo fully and directly upon that other courſe of ſatisfaction, upon the conſideration of Gods ſoveraignty, and ſhould onely intimate this, and that obſcurely, when this doth afford farre better ſatisfaction then the former.

Secondly, in this caſe, there were no ground for any ſuch objection, nor any colour of unreaſonableneſſe; if God did but deale with them according to their deſerts, as often as hee hardneth them.

Thirdly, the objection ariſeth not upon Gods hardning a man ſimply, but upon the hardning of whom hee will, and that in a conjunct conſideration, with his ſhewing mercy therewithall on whom hee will. In which caſe if God bee juſtifyed from the conſideration of their conditions with whom hee deales, like as hee dealeth differently with them, in ſhewing mercy on ſome, and hardning others, ſo there ſhould bee acknowledged a different condition, in the perſons with whom God dealeth in ſo different a manner. But it is confeſſed by you, that the perſons here in St. Pauls conſideration are equall, with whom nevertheleſſe God deales very unequally.

Fourthly, though this bee a plauſible courſe in the judgement of man, eſpecially of the Arminians, for the ſmothering of the light of Gods truth in this place, yet when it is well conſidered, in the proper nature of it, I preſume it will bee very diſſonant unto common reaſon. For what I pray you is hardning in this place, ſtanding in oppoſition to the ſhewing of mercy, but onely the denying of the grace of Faith and Repentance to them that heare the Goſpel; like as to ſhew mercy is to give the grace of Faith and Repentance, as appeareth manifeſtly, both by the ſame phraſe uſed, Rom. 11. 30, 31. and alſo by this very place cleering it ſelf? For it is ſuch an operation whereupon it will [Page] follow, that God ſhall have cauſe or occaſion to complain, as appeareth by the objection moved hereupon. Now I ſay, to deny Faith and Repentance is not of the nature of a puniſhment, neither can it bee ſaid with ſobriety, that man by ſin doth deſerve that God ſhould deny him faith and repentance, like as it cannot bee with ſobriety affirmed, that man by being ſick, hath deſerved that the Phyſitian ſhould not cure him: or that man being dead, hath deſerved thereby that God ſhould not raiſe him from death; whereas indeed a man could not bee raiſed from death, unleſſe hee were firſt dead, nor cured unleſſe firſt ſick, neither were there any need of Faith in Chriſt crucifyed, and of repentance, unleſſe man were a ſinner.

Laſtly, conſider, as there is a grace of raiſing from out of ſin, ſo there is a grace of pieſerving from ſin. This grace God granted to the elect Angels, hee denyed to the reſt, meerly out of his own free pleaſure, according to the Soveraignty hee hath over his creatures, and not with any reference unto ſin preceding. For how was that poſſible? namely, that there could bee any ſin found in Angels before their firſt ſin? yet were the one, (to wit) the elect Angels amplius adjuti, more ſuccoured then the other, as Auſtin expreſtely profeſteth, lib. 12. De Civ. Dei. cap. 9. Indeed I finde Epheſ. 2. 3. That wee are born children of wrath, in reſpect of ſin, but that ſin makes a man a veſſell of wrath, or that hee is not a veſſell of wrath till ſin comes, the Apoſtle ſaith not; nay, the Apoſtle intimates the contrary, when hee repreſents the power of 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 [Page] 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, Philoſopherlike, 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, [Page] 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]

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 all angels. lin. 23, 24, 25, 26. that alwayes in every life he may be chiefe and principall: in grace and glory: in generation and reſurrection: as well in viſible as in inviſible creatures.

Page 14. lin. 17, 18, 19 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. If Chriſts predeſtination and ours be conſidered, as touching the act of God predeſtinating, ſo the one is not the cauſe of the other; for the ſame thing cannot be the cauſe of it ſelfe: but by the ſame divine act both Chriſt and we are predeſtinated; therefore the predeſtination of Chriſt is not the cauſe of our predeſtination. But if it be conſidered as touching the effect, ſeeing the effect of our[Page]predeſtination is grace and glory, and the adoption of ſonnes; ſo it is to be ſaid, that the predeſtination of Chriſt is the cauſe of our predeſtination, both the cauſe efficient and the cauſe exemplary. l. 32. firſt. l. 33. latter.

Page 15. lin. 28, 29, &c. a being by accident.

Page 16. l. 14. God only permitting them as they are evill. lin. 16, 17. not any thing comes to paſſe unleſſe God will have it come to paſſe, either by ſuffering it to come to paſſe, or himſelfe working it.

Page 21. l. 3. the reaſon whereof is derived from the reaſon of the end deſigned.

Page 26. l. 10. the reaſon of the end.

Page 27. lin. laſt thirteen. 1. Of all things which God from everlaſting did in his mind deviſe to doe, the firſt was the hypoſtaticall union of the divine Word. The ſecond was the predeſtination of all the elect. The third was the condition of the nature of things. And therefore ſupernaturals are before naturals; and the order of nature preſuppoſeth the order of grace.

2 The fore-knowledge of no future thing is in the mind of God ſuppoſed to goe before predeſtination, but all things follow from it: and ſo farforth, that God decreed nothing at all from eternity to doe, nor in time doth, he permits nothing, or intends, whether naturall or ſupernaturall, whether it be of great weight, or of leaſt weight, or of no weight, which proceeds not there-hence, and is the effect and means of the predeſtination of the elect and of Chriſt. So that all things fall under the order of the divine predeſtination, as means ordained to the glory of Chriſt and of his Saints.

Pag. 28. 3. There is no other providence in God preceding predeſtination, to wit, from which providence proceed things naturall, and ſome other effects ſupernaturall; but there is one onely providence, and that is predeſtination, from which all things throughout proceed, without all exception. So that according to this concluſion, the whole univerſe, as it comprehends things naturall and ſupernaturall, things good and evill, ſubſtances and accidents, and all wayes throughout of being and working, not onely in generall, but in ſpeciall and individuall, are to be conſidered as the onely totall object of divine predeſtination; ſo that not any one thing is without the breadth of its object, and which falls not under that act of predeſtination.

4. If there had not been a predeſtination of Gods elect, nothing at all had been in the nature of things. Therefore I hold this as certaine, that unleſſe Chriſt had been to come into the world, there had been no predeſtination of the elect made by God; and if no predeſtination had been, by vertue whereof all things follow, there ſhould have been neither heaven, nor earth, nor other elements, nor living things, nor men, nor angels, nor ſins, nor devils, nor reprobates; and laſt of all, that I may conclude in one word,[Page]God alone had been, and nothing elſe had been beſides God, neither naturall nor ſupernaturall, neither good nor evill; we ſpeak according to the common law and order of things, and according to thoſe ends which probably we conceive God to have had in the making of creatures. For our purpoſe is not at all ſo to tye the majeſty of the divine power to the weakneſſe of our apprehenſions, to deny that God could (ſuch is his abſolute power) make and ordaine the nature of things without dependance upon grace and glory, and grace without dependance upon Chriſt our Lord.

Pag. ibid. five laſt lines. Behold where, look by what reaſon Chriſt is ſaid to be Gods, and the predeſtinate are ſaid to be Chriſts; by the ſame reaſon all naturall things, whether preſent or to come, whether life or death, are ſaid to be the predeſtinates owne things: But ſo it is, that Chriſt is therefore ſaid to be Gods, and the elect are ſaid to be Chriſts, becauſe

Pag. 29. God is the end of Chriſt, and Chriſt is the end of the elect; that is, becauſe Chriſt is ordained unto God as unto the end, and the elect unto Chriſt, as unto the end: and unleſſe hee, that is, God, were the firſt end, or the manifeſtation of his glory, there ſhould be no Chriſt; and if there were no Chriſt, there ſhould be no elect: therefore altogether by the ſame reaſon, the creatures are therefore ſaid to be theirs who are elect, becauſe they are for the elect, and the elect are the ends of them; and ſo if the elect ſhould not have been, no natures of the creatures ſhould have been.

Pag. ibid. l. 9, 10, &c. He hath choſen us in him before the conſtitution of the world. Now hee ſpeaks of Chriſt man, to wit, of Chriſt the head, as Hierome expreſſeth upon that place, and it appeares moſt plainly by the text. Certainly, either I am deceived, or Saint Paul intends not that onely, to wit, that God hath choſen us in Chriſt, before the true and reall conſtitution of the world, which was made in time now ſix thouſand yeares agoe. For that God had choſen us in Chriſt before the temporall creation of all things, was no great thing, nor worthy of ſo great a pen; for ſo he choſe oxen and ſtones: For he decreed them, and fore-ſaw them, before the creation of things in time, or before he made any thing in time; now before the conſtitution of the world, and from everlaſting he deviſed them, and determined to make them. Therefore Paul intends ſome higher and more divine matter; to wit, that God in his eternity, when he deviſed with himſelfe the creation of the world, even before that in order of reaſon he deviſed with himſelfe concerning the election of his elect; and even then (I ſay) he had intended and fore-ſeen Chriſt, and in him he had choſen the predeſtinate.—lin. 27, 28, &c. a moſt efficacious reaſon; Every one willing things ordinately, firſt willeth the end; and of means thoſe means which are nearer to the end: But Chriſt and the predeſtinate, and therefore all ſupernaturals are nearer to the end, that is, to the manifeſtation[Page]of the divine goodneſſe, than all naturall things; therefore ſupernaturals are willed by God before naturals; and the manifeſtation of the goodneſſe of God before them all; becauſe we conſider it as the end of all.—lin. 37. 38. After what order and manner things are determined with God.

Pag. 30. lin. 6. to 15. Thomas is of opinion, that Chriſt ſhould never have been predeſtinated if man had not ſinned. Whence it ſeemeth to follow by conſequence, that ſinne was firſt ſeen by God, and the permiſſion thereof willed, before the incarnation of the Word was willed: So that in the way of the Thomiſts, it appeares not how it can ſtand, that the firſt decree of God was the incarnation or predeſtination of the Word, if ſo be the permiſſion and fore-ſight of ſin was before it: but if Chriſt were predeſtinate before ſin was fore-ſeen, then though ſin had not been yet Chriſt ſhould have come into the world, who was predeſtinate before the fore-ſight of ſin. lin. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. That God did firſt will the hypoſtaticall union and incarnation of the Word, before he willed the permiſſion of ſin, and before he determined to make the nature of man, and of the whole univerſe—Yet becauſe the incarnation was not willed without the conſideration of ſin, but was willed dependently upon the permiſſion of ſin, and of the nature of things, as upon the meanes; therefore it followeth not, that Chriſt ſhould come into the world if ſinne had not entred, or if the world had not at all been.—means tending to the incarnation of Chriſt.

Pag. 32. l. 20. From the greatneſſe of the remedy, take notice of the greatneſſe of the danger.

Pag 36 l 26. beyond the worthineſſe of it. l. 27. leſſe then it deſerves.

Pag 40. l. 4. who by profiting write, and by writing profit. l. 16. the maſſe not made. l. 17. made not yet corrupted. l. 18. the maſſe corrupt.

Pag. 41. lin. 23. the maſſe not yet created. l. 28. the maſſe corrupt.

Pag. 43. lin. 34, 35. God willed glory unto Peter, he willed nothing unto Judas. l. 36. God willed grace unto Peter, hee willed nothing unto Judas.

—l. 37. God would have each of them to exiſt in the corrupt maſſe.

Pag. 44. l. 2. It is ſomething to come thus farre. l. 4. will damnation unto Judas. l. 14. of every thing that is, and of every thing that is not. l. 33, 34. If God did not will glory to Judas, then God did will that hee ſhould have no glory.

Pag. 45. l. 13. to hate. l. 14. not to will grace and glory to ſome one.

Pag. 47. l. 23. as a crown of juſtice.

Pag. 51. l. 25, 26. Reprobation includes the will of ſuffering ſin, and inflicting damnation for ſin.

Pag. 53. l. 22. We know. l. 23. not onely wills averſe from faith, but wills adverſe to faith. l. 29. Of the vocation of the Gentiles.

Pag. 54. l. 20. in the maſſe from the beginning corrupt.

[Page] Page 55. l. 34. in the maſſe of Adam. lin. 36, 37. to conſider,—to erre or feign. lin. 27, 28. as to come in the maſſe of Adam.

Page 56. lin. 5, 6. as ſhould be faithfull, and repent, and perſevere in faith and repentance.

Pag. 59. lin. 13, 14. Let me not live if I delight in the death of a wicked man; but I delight when a wicked man returns, that hee may live. lin. 21, 22. Becauſe our defections and our ſins lye upon us, therefore we pine away in them, and ſhould we live. lin. 24, 25, 26. Say unto them, Let me not live, ſaith the Lord, if I delight in the death of the wicked, but when the wicked returnes from his way, that hee may live. Returne ye, returne yee from your moſt evill wayes; for why ſhould yee die, O houſe of Iſreal?

Pag. 60. lin. 3, 4. by almighty facility convert, and of unwilling make them willing? lin. 38. the will of ſigne,—the will of good pleaſure; l. 39. the will of precept.

Pag. 61. l. 1. the will of purpoſe. l. 14. the will of ſign, and the will of good pleaſure.

Pag. 63. l. 18. as touching the act of God willing. l. 19. as touching the things willed.

Pag. 67. l. 20. the decrees being changed the Court of heaven had mourned. lin. 24. in a greater meaſure ſuccoured.

Pag. 68. lin. 23, 24. Not any thing comes unleſſe God will have it come to paſſe, either by ſuffering it to come to paſſe, or himſelfe working it. l. 25. ſuffers to come to paſſe, hee will have it come to paſſe.

Pag. 69. l. 11. middle knowledge. l. 21. in part. lin. 22. ſimply, or thoroughly.

Pag. 71. l. 2, 3. the pride of man is wont to ſay, If I had known it, I would have done it.

Pag. 72. l. 32. This is an hard ſaying.

Pag. 76. l. 1, 2, &c. Each part of man (the ſpirit and the heart, that is the ſuperiour and inferiour) ill diſpoſed by God, underſtand it negatively, as touching the giving of free grace, but poſitively, as touching the judgement, inclination to, and proſecution of a ſenſible good. So that God made the Kings ſpirit hard (that is, not yeelding to the requeſts made) and not giving him grace to yeeld, and working with him to the affection of ſecurity, and his own good.

Pag. 77. lin. 31, 32. by works, by writing.

Pag. 78. lin. 16, 17. How great patience ſoever God affords, who will repent unleſſe God give repentance?

Pag. 79. l. 11, 12. that they may profit ſo farre, as to performe outward repentance, that ſo their puniſhment may be the leſſe. l. 24, 25. by will of precept, by will of purpoſe or good pleaſure.

Pag. 82. l 4. that hee might afflict thee. l. 28. of duty.—by conformity to the affections of men.

[Page] Pag. 86. l. 6, 7. Fair Laverna, teach me to deceive, teach me to ſeem juſt and holy: Caſt darkneſſe over my ſins, and a cloud over my deceits.

lin. 38, 39. Liberty without grace is not liberty, but wilfulneſſe.

Pag. 89. l. 3. doe that which is juſt. l. 4. becauſe they will not.—why will they not? l. 5. we goe farre,—without prejudice of a more diligent ſearch, l. 6, 7. Either becauſe the goodneſſe of it lies hid, or becauſe 'tis ſuch as delights not. l. 8. but that, what lay hid is made known, and that is made ſweet which formerly did not delight, this is from the grace of God which ſuccoureth mens wills. l. 34, 35. averſe from true faith, but adverſe to true faith.

Pag. 94. l. 27, 28. whom no mans will reſiſts;—for of unwilling he makes them willing. l. 32, 33. the pride of man is wont to ſay, Had I known it, I would have done it.

Pag. 95. l. 5, 6. faith is the cauſe of ſalvation.—cauſe meritorious. l. 7. cauſe of damnation.—cauſes diſpoſing.

Pag. 97. l. 3. Of the vocation of Gentiles.

Pag. 99. l. 34. Juſtice of condecency.

Pag. 105. l. 29. univerſity of elect.—a world of elect. l. 30. Of the vocation of Gentiles.

Pag. 108. l. 10. the will cannot be conſtrained. lin. 15, 16. God by almighty eaſe converts men, and of unwilling makes them willing.

Pag. 109. l. 21. in the maſſe at the firſt corrupt.

Pag. 111. l. 24. of former and latter.

Pag. 114. lin. 31, 32. includes the will of ſuffering ſin, and inflicting damnation for ſin. l. 36. the criticall point.

Pag. 115. l. 33. the outward works of the Trinity are indiviſible.

Pag. 121. l. 2. ſuch as ſhould be ſaved.

Pag. 122. l 1, 2. they encreaſed the errour concerning God.—they took away the feare of God.

Pag. 125. l. 11, 12. into a mind void of all judgement. l 20. from the beginning.

Pag. 127. l. 10. of old fore-written to this judgement.

Pag. 129. l. 28. the pure maſſe. l. 29. the corrupt maſſe.

Pag. 132. l. 38. ſuits at law.

Pag. 133. lin. 31, 32, 33. moreover this metaphor is taken from hence, that Gods eternall, whereby the believers are ordained to ſalvation, is called a book.

Pag. 137. l. 24. righteouſneſſe of condecency.

Pag. 140. l. 20, 21. The love of good liking.—the love of wel-doing.

Pag. 141. l. 10. the will of the fleſh. l. 25. to an outward amendment of life.

Pag. 146. l. 11. is not liberty, but contumacy.

Pag. 147. l. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. what patience ſoever God ſhewes, yet who ſhall repent unleſſe God gives repentance.—None of theſe whom God hath not predeſtinated, doth God bring unto true and wholſome repentance, [Page]whereby man is reconciled unto God in Chriſt, whether hee affords them greater patience, or as great.—God brings to repentance; but whom? whom hee hath predeſtinated

Pag. 185. lin. 9, 10. more helped. l. 11, 12. to be able if hee would.—to will what he could. l. 13. helps or ſuccours.

Pag. 187. l. 22. as touching the act of God predeſtinating. l. 23. as touching the act of God reprobating. l. 25. as touching the act of God willing.

Pag. 191. l. 4. not by infuſing malice or naughtineſſe, but by not infuſing grace.

Pag. 193. l. 15. no man becomes moſt foule at firſt. l. 18. No old man fears God.

Pag. 195. lin. 21, 22. The ſame, as the ſame, alwayes works the ſame.

Pag. 202. l. 12. unequall heifers are not fit to plough under the ſame yoke.

Pag. 203. l. 17. by infuſing malice, but by not infuſing grace.

Pag. 205. l. 3. not as touching the affection, l. 4. but as touching the effect.

Pag. 212. l. 15. In the generall lurk many equivocations.

Pag. 224. lin. 27, 28, 29. Thou art under the wrath of God,—therefore worſhip God who is eaſie to be intreated. For upon thy prayers hee will pardon thee, and his anger will be appeaſed.

Pag. 227. l. 27. of duty, not of fact.

Pag. 229. lin. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. To God, without doubt, look how eaſie it is to doe what he will, as eaſie it is not to ſuffer that to be which he will not have to be. Unleſſe we believe this, wee muſt renounce the firſt article of our Creed, whereby wee profeſſe to believe in God the Father, who is almighty. For he is not called omnipotent, but to ſhew, that whatſoever hee will doe, that he can doe; neither can the effect of an almighty power be hindered, by the will of any creature.

Pag. 230. lin. 28, 29. Exhortation not made, but deſpiſed. l. 32. if I had known it, I would have done it;—if I had heard, I would have believed.

Pag. 232. l. 33. on Gods part,—on mans part.

Pag. 258. lin. 7, 8. O Roman, thou doſt undeſervedly ſuffer for the ſins of thine Anceſtors.

Pag. 262. lin. 31, 32. that they may profit to the outward amendment of their life, to the end that their puniſhment may be the milder.

Pag. 263. l. 24. the will of ſuffering ſin, and inflicting damnation for their ſin.

Pag. 283. lin. 31, &c. what is this that you ſay, [when they are ſaid to be given over to their luſts, they are to be underſtood, as men left by divine patience, not compelled into ſins by Gods power] as if the Apoſtle had not put both theſe together, both patience and power, when hee ſaith, But if God willing to ſhew wrath, and demonſtrate his power, ſuffered in much patience the veſſels of Gods wrath, fitted, or prepared, for deſtruction. Yet which of theſe two doe you ſay is that which is written? And the Prophet if hee ſhall erre, and ſpeake, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet: and I will[Page]ſtretch out mine arme upon him, and cut him off out of the midſt of my people Iſrael. Is this patience, or power? chooſe which you will, or confeſſe both. Yet you ſee, that the ſin of him who prophecyeth falſly, is alſo a puniſhment of ſin. And when it is ſaid, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet: will you ſay here alſo, that this is to be underſtood as if it were ſaid, I have deſerted him, that by reaſon of his merits he is ſeduced that he might erre? Be it ſo, if you will; yet after this manner he was puniſhed for his ſins, that by prophecying that which was falſe hee might ſin. But look unto that which the Prophet Micheas ſaw; to wit, The Lord ſitting upon his throne, and the whole army of heaven ſtood about him, on his right hand, and on his left: And the Lord ſaid, Who ſhall perſwade Ahab the King of Iſrael, that he may goe up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? and one ſpake on this manner, and another on that. And there came forth a Spirit, and ſtood before the Lord, and ſaid, I will perſwade him. And the Lord aid unto him, Wherewith? And he ſaid, I will goe forth, and will be a lying Spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. But this very thing was alſo a puniſhment of ſin; God judging, God ſending an evill Angel: That wee may more clearly underſtand, how it is ſaid in the Pſalme, that hee ſent the wrath of his indignation by evill Angels. But did God erre in this? did he judge or doe ought unjuſtly or raſhly in this? Farre be it from us ſo to think. But the Prophet ſpake not in vaine, when hee ſaid, Thy judgements are a great depth. The Apoſt be doth not cry out in vaine, when hee ſaith, O the depth of the riches of the wiſdome and knowledge of God! how unſearchable are his judgements, and his wayes paſt finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his Counſellour? or who firſt gave unto him, that hee might be recompenſed? And againe, in the ſame Chapter it followeth; For this cauſe God gave them over to the luſts of uncleanneſſe. You heare, that for this God gave them over; and you vainly inquire, How it is to be underſtood, that God gave them over? taking much paines to ſhew, that God gives men over in ſuch manner, by deſerting them: But after what manner ſoever God gives them over, for this cauſe God gave them over: For this hee deſerted them. And you ſee Gods giving of them over, what kind of deſertion ſoever it be, and after what manner ſoever you underſtand the things which followed hereupon. For the Apoſtles care was to ſhew, how great a puniſhment it is, to be given over of God to the luſts of uncleanneſſe, whether by forſaking them, or after what other manner ſoever; whether explicable or inexplicable, whereby God doth this, who is both good and juſt in an unſpeakable manner.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twisse ...

Twisse, William, 1578?-1646.

Edition statement

1646

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2006-02 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A64003

ID [STC]

Wing T3425

ID [STC]

ESTC R11205

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13296775

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13296775

ID [VID]

98898

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A64003)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 98898)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 440:25 and 1846:1 or 2486:14)

Source

— A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof / written by William Twisse ..., Twisse, William, 1578?-1646..

Extent

[11], 148, 177-288, [8] p.

Printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, and are to be sold at his shop ...,. London :: 1646.. ("It seems probable that p. 149-176, which apparently contained the Third doubt, were cancelled since those pages are lacking"--Sabin.) (Does not contain Cotton's treatise.) (Errata: p. [11].) ("The English of the Latine passages in this treatise": p. [1]-[8] at end.) (Marginal notes.) (Item at reel 1846:1 identified as Wing C6464 (number cancelled).) (Reproduction of originals in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, British Library, and University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.