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 2] 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 3] 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 4] 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 5] 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 6] 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 7] 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 8] 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 9] 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 10] 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 11] 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 12] 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 13] 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 14] 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 15] 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 16] 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 17] 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 18] 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 19] 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 20] 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 21] 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 22] 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 23] 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 24] 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 25] 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 26] 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 27] 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 28] 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 29] 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 30] 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 31] 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 32] 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.

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 34] 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 35] 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 36] 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 37] 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 38] 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 39] 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 40] 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 41] 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 42] 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 43] 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 44] 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 45] 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 46] 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 47] 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 48] 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 49] 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 50] 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 51] 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 52] 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 53] 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 54] 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 55] 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 56] 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 57] 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 58] 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 59] 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 60] 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 61] 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 62] 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 63] 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 64] 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 65] 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 66] 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 67] 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 68] 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 69] 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 70] 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 71] 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 72] 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 73] 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 74] 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 75] 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 76] 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 77] 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 78] 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 79] 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 80] 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 81] 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 82] 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 83] 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 84] 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 85] 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 86] 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:

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 87] 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 88] 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 89] 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 90] 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 91] 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 92] 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 93] 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 94] 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 95] 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 96] 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 97] 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 98] 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 99] 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 100] 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 101] 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 102] 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 103] 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 104] 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 105] 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 106] 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 107] 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 108] 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 109] 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 110] 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 111] 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 112] 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 113] 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 114] 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 115] 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 116] 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 117] 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 118] 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 119] 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 120] 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 121] 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 122] 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 123] 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 124] 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 125] 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 126] 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 S^t. 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 127] 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 128] 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 129] 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 130] 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 131] 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 132] 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 133] 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 134] 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 135] 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 136] 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 137] 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 138] 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 139] 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 140] 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 141] 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 142] 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 143] 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 144] 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 145] 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 146] 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 147] 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 148] 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.

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 178] 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 179] 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 180] 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 181] 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 182] 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 183] 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 184] 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 185] 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 186] 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 187] 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 188] 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 189] 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 190] 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 191] 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 192] 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 193] 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 194] 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 195] 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 196] 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 197] 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 198] 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 199] 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 200] 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 201] 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 202] 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 203] 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 204] 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 205] 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 206] 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 207] 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 208] 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 209] 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 210] 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 211] 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 212] 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 213] 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 214] 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 215] 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 216] 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 217] 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 218] 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 219] 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 220] 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 221] 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 222] 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 223] 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 224] 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 225] 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 226] 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 227] 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 228] 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 229] 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 230] 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 231] 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 232] 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 233] 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 234] 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 235] 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 236] 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 237] 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 238] 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 239] 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 240] 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 241] 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 242] 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 243] 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 244] 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 245] 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 246] 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 247] 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 248] 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 249] 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 250] 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 251] 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 252] 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 253] 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 254] 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 255] 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 256] 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 257] 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 258] 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 259] (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 260] 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 261] 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 262] 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 263] 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 264] 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 265] 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 266] 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 267] 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 268] 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 269] 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 270] 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 271] 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 272] 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?