Commentary Upon Ephesians 1, Commentary · Verse 5
This predeſtination is two-fold, according to his ends: The firſt is an act of counſell, ſhewing or preparing meanes whereby his grace in ſome ſhall be glorious; and of this onelyonly here he ſpeaketh, as is plaine in the Text: He ſpeaketh of it as a benefit in Chriſt, as it reſpecteth perſons elect, verſe 4. as it hath his terminus adoption. The ſecond is, an act of counſell, accepted of his will, which doth ſhew and decree the being of all ſuch meanes, by which his iuſtice ſhall in ſome perſons be glorious: Thus Fulgentius doth make predeſtination, not onelyonly a preparation in his eternall diſpoſition of things which he did fore-know himſelfe about to worke, whether in mercy or iuſtice; and the Scripture doubteth not to ſay, that God did predeſtinate all thoſe things done to the perſon of our Sauiour, then which the Sunne neuer ſaw viler. The Fathers doe define Gods predeſtination in euill things by fore-knowledge, onelyonly to ſhew a difference betweene the working of his prouidence in good and euill, viz. that he doth not worke theſe by himſelfe, or by command, or by concurring effectually to them, as he doth to good actions. Now that which is ſpoken reſpectiuely, muſt not be abſolutely taken, neither neede men to feare the vſe of ſuch phraſe, which God himſelfe hath not declined: But inough of this for this place.
Touching the third point, Adoption; it noteth the ſame matter for ſubſtance, which was the end of Election, euen glorious life with God; but it includeth further, a dignitie or ſonne-ſhip which doth intereſſe vsus in ſome ſort to life of glory; and looke as the royalty of a Lordſhip, may be diſtinguiſhed from the Lordſhip it ſelfe, though they goe together; ſo may this dignity or title of ſonne-ſhip from the inheritance it ſelfe, which doth goe with it. By Adoption then, he meaneth here the dignitie and glory of the ſonnes of God, vnderunder what maine benefit, whether vnderunder iuſtification or glorification, it is to be conceiued, I will ſhew after in vnfolding the Doctrines. The ſumme of theſe two Verſes, is in larger terme of ſpeech, as followeth: Bleſſed be God, who hath bleſſed vsus in Chriſt with all ſpirituall bleſsing; as for example: Who hath elected vsus, and not onelyonly choſen vsus to the end, but hath ſo ordered all things, by an eternall diſpoſition for vsus, who beleeue, that they ſhall bring vsus to that dignity and full glory of the ſonnes of God, which is both begun in vsus here beleeuing, and is alſo to be accompliſhed hereafter through Chriſt; and this he doth, not looking out of himſelfe to any thing fore-ſeene in vsus, but within himſelfe; my meaning is, out of his meere gracious pleaſure, that thus his glorious eternall grace might be magnified, out of which this grace floweth, that he hath now in his time done vsus fauour, and made vsus accepted in his beloued. Firſt it is to be marked in the order that God doth to our conceiuing; firſt louelove vsus to life, before the meanes bringing vsus to life are decreed; This is the order, in which we are to conceiue that one ſimple action of God which worketh our ſaluation: Here election is the firſt in this enumeration Paul maketh, and, Rom. 8.39. Paul ſetteth fore-knowledge before predeſtination; and when the Scripture ſaith, we are elected to life, through faith and holineſſe, as the way of life; needes muſt the end be firſt in order of nature, before thoſe things which ſerue to the end. As it is with vsus, we firſt are at a point concerning the end, before we ſeeke meanes which leade vntounto it; as I am firſt at a point to Write before I take in hand Pen, Inke, or Paper. Obiect. 1 But how may God louelove to life, ſuch who are now the children of wrath, and not eligible to it? He muſt firſt make them louely or eligible, then chooſe them to life. I anſwere;Reſp. It is one thing to louelove any ſo, as that I will bring them to life by iuſt meanes; another thing to louelove any ſo, as immediately to communicate life with them; In the firſt ſort, God may louelove thoſe who are ſinners before him; the latter cannot conſiſt with his wrath inflicting death: And thus he did louelove them before the giuing of Chriſt; So God loued the world, that he gaue his onelyonly begotten Sonne; that he ſpared him not, but gaue him all to death for vsus. This is to be marked, againſt them who make God firſt decree the giuing of Chriſt to death; of faith and perſeuerance to ſome, before hee make either inward or outward election of them.
Doct. Obſerue ſecondly; That God hath not onelyonly choſen ſome, but ordained effectuall meanes, which ſhall moſt infallably bring them to the end, to which they are choſen. Such whom he hath foreknowne, marke, ſuch he predeſtinated; not all, but ſome are foreknowne: God hath ſet an order of meanes, which ſhall bring them to glory: Or looke as when God appointeth any to liue forty, fifty yeares, his prouidence in nature doth ſo worke, that eueryevery thing from a mans firſt birth to his laſt breath, doth paſſe him on to this period praeordained: So thoſe whom God hath appointed to that laſt finall end of life ſupernaturall, his ſupernaturall prouidence doth ſo worke, that all things doe after a ſort conſpire and worke to that end: Euen as we doe nothing about any thing, further then the ends we hauehave do moue vsus to worke. If we look at the things before our callings, or after, we ſhall finde this true, though they worke not in the ſame manner; ſome promoting it directly by themſelues, ſome by accident occaſionally: Before our callings, the good things we hauehave our ſelues in our ſelues, or which we ſee, or hauehave giuen vsus in others, they perfit vsus to ſaluation: When God doth call vsus; the good things we hauehave our ſelues, in our ſelues, make vsus admire Gods bounty and patience, when we ſee what wee were when hee ſhewed vsus that kindeneſſe; Yea, they are after our callings, diſpoſitions, and helpes, which make vsus ſerue God with more facility and fruitfulneſſe. Some complexions and conſtitutions are farre more accommodable inſtruments to grace now receiued, then others. The good we ſee in others, we glorifie God in it, in the day of our viſitation, though we ſcorne it for the preſent, the good giuen vsus in others, is often ordained as an antecedent to our conuerſions, as when God doth giuegive vsus louelove in the eyes of ſome good man, ſtirre him vp to pray for vsus; Thus Austen thinketh that Steuens prayer was ordained of God, as a meane to worke Sauls conuerſion. The euils we know before our conuerſions, work to this end likewiſe: The Iailors affrightment God had ordained as a meanes to make him ſeek out of himſelfe: So the ſickneſſes which were vponupon many in the Goſpel, made them ſeek out to Chriſt: So the deformity which befalleth ſome, the infirmities, the feares & griefes of minde which follow them, though they know not why, (as we ſay) nor wherefore, are often diſpoſed as occaſions of their greateſt good, of preſeruing them from many ſins: Nay, the ſins they liued in before their calling, God maketh them occaſionally worke to this end; For, after our conuerſion, they make vsus more to louelove, as Mary; more humble and mercifull, as Pauls perſecuting, more diligent in well doing, when we were in the fleſh, Rom. 6. Euen as the art of the Apothecarie maketh Vipers into Treacles; ſo doth our God. Now when God hath viſited vsus, we proue then by experience, that our good which he giueth vsus in our ſelues and others, whether it be ſpirituall or temporall: yea, the euill we ſuffer, whether of ſinne or of puniſhment, whether the puniſhment come immediately from God, or mediately from the hands of men; that all I ſay, are ordained to carry vsus home to the end, vntounto which he hath choſen vsus. In the good things we finde to helpe vsus, it is more apparant, then that we neede to ſpeake of it; in good gifts which wicked men hauehave, they are often predeſtinated for our good; Euen as Carriers hauehave money often, not for themſelues, but for thoſe to whom they are ſent; So men vnſanctified hauehave golden gifts, ſometime for the ſake of others, to whom they are ſent. Our ſinnes and euils wee ſuſtaine, God doth euen vſe them as Phyſicke to our ſoules, and he prepareth wicked men often to doe that by his children, which thoſe of the skullerie doe by a veſſell when it is foule, euen to ſcoure them from their ruſt: Euen as he predeſtinated his Sonnes ſufferings; ſo ours alſo, whom he hath predeſtinate, that we ſhould be like to his Sonne, as well in ſufferings, as in glory. Saint Paul proueth, that to the called, according to Gods purpoſe of life, all things did worke together vntounto good; and hee proueth it hence, becauſe God had predeſtinated them. Now if Gods predeſtination did not contriue eueryevery thing befalleth vsus to this end, his proofe were vnſufficient.
Vſe 1 The Vſe of this is; Hath God ordained meanes by which his ſhall come vntounto the end, to which they are choſen, then how doe they reaſon, who will ſay; If they be predeſtinate, then though they liue neuer ſo, they ſhall be ſaued? God had giuen Paul the life of all in the ſhip,Acts 27.31. yet when the ſhip-men would hauehave left them, Paul telleth them; If theſe men hide not in the ſhip, ye cannot be ſaued; Gods decree doth ſtabliſh meanes, not remoue them; Thus we might refuſe meate in health, medicine in ſickneſſe, and ſay, ſo long as God hath appointed vsus to liue, we ſhall liue: The diuell teacheth men in outward things wholly to diſtruſt God, and relye altogether on meanes; in theſe ſpirituall things, he maketh them lay all on Gods mercy and purpoſe, neuer taking heede to meanes.
Vſe 2 We ſee it is hopefull, where God giueth meanes, which bring to life; where he manifeſteth that wiſdome of the Goſpell, which is a meane predeſtinated to our glory, that God hath there a gracious worke toward ſome: While a man doth carry Reapers further into his field, it is a ſigne hee hath ſome Corne to be inned; So is it with God.
Vſe 3 Let vsus labour to acknowledge God and his moſt wiſe order, in all things which hauehave befallen vsus. If we finde that our courſes before our conuerſions, & the things befallen vsus ſince, hauehave brought vsus neerer God, then it is a ſeale to vsus, that we are the predeſtinated of the Lord; thoſe whom he doth bring nearer him by meanes in time, thoſe he did predeſtinate to draw to himſelfe in ſuch order, from all eternity: We will ſay in choller, when things come croſſe vponupon vsus, Now I was ordained to it, I thinke it was my destinie: But happy is he, who can by euent learne to ſee how God hath deſtinated before-hand eueryevery thing for his good.
Doct. 1 Obſerue of whom we may ſay this, that they are predeſtinated, euen of ſuch as hauehave beleeued and are ſanctified; the perſons which are ordained to life and predeſtinated, they are called, that is brought to hauehave a true faith, and iuſtified, and they ſhall be glorified. This chaine of foure linkes is, ſuch, two wherof are kept with God in heauen, two are let downe into earth, as it were; This chaine is ſo coupled, that whoſoeuer are within theſe midlinkes, are within the two vtmoſt alſo. While a man carrieth a frame or plot of this or that in his minde, we cannot ſay what is his meaning, but when hee now doth execute it, then we know what he had predeſtinated, and afore-hand deſigned within himſelfe. When God doth lay the foundation of faith and holineſſe, ſuch as ſhall neuer be ſubuerted; then we may know that he did predeſtinate in his time, to worke a glorious worke in ſuch a perſon; How precious then is this faith which purifieth the heart, which doth let vsus be able, euen to reade our names written in this predeſtination of God, as a booke or regiſter of life; which maketh vsus diſcerne our ſelues in that ſtate, that all things ſhall worke for our good? eueryevery winde, euen the croſſeſt, ſhall helpe vsus to the hauen of true happineſſe. I know faithfull ſoules cannot alwaies finde this comfort, becauſe they finde themſelues worſe, rather then better, for many things which betide them; but we muſt not be diſmaied, things worke together, when thou ſeeſt the laſt with the firſt, then thou ſhalt ſee that harmony which is in all, for thy beſt good. A Phyſitian doth with one thing or two, make that man more ſicke then euer, whom yet at length he moſt comfortably healeth: Vſe. But what I ſpeake of this circumſtance in the former Verſe, may hither alſo be reduced. OnelyOnly let vsus endeauour to know our ſelues predeſtinated by him, for this is our ſtrength. which cannot be ſhaken, when we know that God hath determined and contriued ſuch meanes as ſhall infallibly bring vsus to glory; this knowne, we may ſay, If God be with vsus, who ſhall be againſt vsus?
That we ſhould be adopted through Chriſt.] Doct. Obſerue what God hath determined to bring vsus vntounto before all worlds, euen to this, that we ſhould be his children; thoſe whom he predeſtinateth, hee doth ordaine they ſhall be like his Sonne, Rom 8. like euen in glory, as well as ſuffering, like in being Sonnes, as he i… a Sonne; like in hauing a ſtate of glory fitting them, as he hath glory, ſuch as is fit for him the Head or firſt-borne of vsus. For this cauſe, Heb. 12. ver. 21. the predeſtinate are called the Church of the firſt begotten, who are written in heauen, becauſe all Gods choſen are by this predeſtination appointed to this, that they ſhall be Sons of God: Euen as great men appoint with themſelues ſome that thinke nothing of it, that they ſhall be their heyres, and doe adopt them by this meanes children to them: So God did within himſelfe ordaine of vsus that wee ſhould be brought to this eſtate of being his adopted children. For our better vnderſtanding this matter, three things ſhall be opened. 1. What this Adoption containeth in it. 2. Through whom wee come to be adopted. 3. In what order we doe receiue in time this ſo great benefit, or to what benefit this is to be reduced, whether to Calling, iuſtification, or glorification.
For the firſt, it conteineth the dignity of being the ſonnes of God. 2. The inheritance of light, or the diuine nature begun here, to be perfected hereafter: for the firſt, ſee Iohn 1.22. 1 Iohn 3.1. Hee giueth vsus this dignity, ſheweth vsus this louelove, that we ſhould be called his children; not that we are children as Adam was, who becauſe hee was produced in the ſimilitude of God, might be called a Sonne of God, but ſonnes through a myſticall coniunction with Ieſus Chriſt that naturall Sonne of God.
Secondly, we hauehave the inheritance of light, or a diuine nature, which ſtandeth not in ſuch a life of God, as Adam had, which was a knowledge of God onelyonly as a Creator of all things, and a righteouſneſſe and holineſſe which were in order to God knowne onelyonly as a creator, not ſuch a life as may fall away, but a life which ſtandeth in knowing, as an Author in Chriſt, of ſupernaturall grace; ſuch righteouſneſſe and holines as are in order to God, as now made manifeſt in Chriſt Ieſus; ſuch a life as ſhall neuer hauehave end, according to that, thoſe who are borne of God cannot ſinne, for the ſeede of God abideth in them.
Thirdly, all that glory wee looke for in Heauen, is comprehended in this adoption, Rom. 8. Wee expect our adoption, euen the redemption of our bodies.
Now wee come to hauehave this executed on vsus by faith on Chriſt; for, ſo many as beleeued, to them it is giuen to be his children, ſonnes and daughters: vponupon our mariage with the naturall Sonne, wee come in the place of ſonnes and daughters alſo: But for the order, in which we receiue this dignity, it is ſomewhat doubtfull, whether when we are iuſtified, or when we are glorified. To which I anſwer briefly, that it belongeth to our glorification, and is to be recalled vntounto that head; for, Redemption which is put for Forgiueneſſe of ſinne and iuſtification, when it doth not note out our finall deliuerance, this redemption is made to goe before it, Gal. 4.5. That he might redeeme vsus who were vnderunder the Law, and that we might receiue Adoption. Beſide iuſtification doth nothing but ſentence this of me, that I am iuſt before God, ſo as to receiue life from his grace. Now to be iuſt is one thing, to be reckoned a ſon another. Againe, this adoption is called by the name of a dignity, or eminency,foreign. yea glory it ſelfe is called by the name of Adoption, Rom. 8. Wayting for our adoption, euen the redemption of our bodies: To omit that, Rom. 9.4. thoſe two words, Adoption & Glory may be put for one thing, viz. Glorious adoption: For, the Arke is well comprehended in that head of ſeruice; as a principall type belonging to the Law ceremoniall; and looke as not onelyonly actually to poſſeſſe the kingdome, but to be heyre apparant of it, is a great point of g…ory, ſo the dignity of adoption, adopting vsus as ſonnes, and heyres apparant of the kingdome of heauen, is a great part of glory, as well as the inheritance it ſelfe. There are but two things of moment which I know to be obiected.
Obiect. 1 That which we hauehave immediately on belieuing; that belongeth to our iuſtification: but belieuing wee hauehave this priuiledge, nothing comming betweene, Iohn 1.12.
Reſp.The ſecond part of this reaſon is not true, and the proofe is vnſufficient; for though we be adopted, beleeuing on Chriſt, which the teſtimony voydeth, yet it followeth not that we are immediately adopted, nothing comming betweene our faith and adoption. Wee are ſaid to be ſaued by faith, to hauehave eternall life belieuing, yet betweene faith and life, iuſtification muſt be conceiued, ſo heere alſo.
Obiect. 2 The ſecond reaſon is; that which giueth vsus a title to life, that muſt be a branch of our iuſtification to life: But our adoption giueth vsus title to life. To the firſt part I anſwere with limitation thus; That which giueth vsus title to life,Reſp. being it ſelfe no circumſtance, nor part of life, now executed in vsus: But ſo adoption doth not, which is the giuing of life, in regard it maketh life now ours, as an Orphans lands are his; ours, as who hauehave the right to it, but are not yet actually poſſeſſed in it. Should not the propoſition be limited as I hauehave ſaid, it would proue, that the giuing of the ſpirit belongeth to iuſtification, for that doth giuegive me right to life, as an earneſt penny, or part of paiment, doth giuegive a man right to challenge the whole ſumme: This benefit then is fitly couched vnderunder that laſt of our glorification, Rom. 8. Whom he predeſtinated he called, whom he called he iuſtified, whom he iuſtified he glorified; in this manner executing their glory: Firſt he giueth them of grace, the dignity of ſonne-ſhip, and ſo a right to glory, and after hee doth actually poſſeſſe them of it; thus glorifying thoſe whom out of grace he had iuſtified, to the receiuing of life from him, as a gift of his meere grace.
Vſe 1 This then being, that God did before all worlds diſpoſe the meanes whereby we that are his ſhould be brought to adoption; how ſhould wee admire this ſo great grace which we found in his eyes from all eternity? Thou beleeuing ſoule who by faith art married to Chriſt Ieſus, thou who haſt receiued the ſpirit, which maketh thee call Abba Father, the ſpirit of this Adoption, what is this now wrought in time, but that which God did preordaine before all time, euen thy Adoption through Chriſt? See then what louelove the Father did beare thee, that thou ſhouldeſt be made a Sonne, admire it. When Dauid was told of matching with Sauls daughter, what? ſaid he, ſeemeth it a ſmall thing to be ſonne in Law to a King? And ſhall it ſeeme a ſmall matter to vsus that wee are now, according as we were predeſtinated, that we are ſonnes in Law, adopted heyres, ioynt-heyres with Chriſt of the kingdome of glory?
Vſe 2 We may ſee hence what duty wee owe to God; we I ſay whom he hath now adopted for his children, euen as of grace, he did predeſtinate. If I be a Lord, where is my feare? if a Father, where is my honour? Earthly Parents, the greater things they meane to leaue their children, the more they expect all obſequious and dutifull behauiour from them; ſo doth God from vsus; the greater and more excellent condition he hath appointed vsus vntounto, the more he doth challenge from vsus all ſuch care and duety as may declare vsus not vnworthy ſo great fauour.
Doct. Secondly, that we are predeſtinate to adoption; Obſerue that the life which God hath ordained by meanes prepared to bring vsus, is a life comming immediately from his grace, that life which is a conſequent of Adoption, yea called adoption it ſelfe, that which accompanieth ſonneſhip is an inheritance; that life cannot but come from the free grace of God our Father: Adoption and ſonnelike inheritance are not things purchaſed by contract of Iuſtice, but are freely vouchſafed: Behold what louelove the Father hath ſhewed vsus, that we ſhould be called his children, 1 Iohn 3.1. Ergo, life is called a gift of Gods grace, Rom. 6. vlt. And that which God will do about his children in the day of iudgment, is called mercy. 2 Tim. 1. The Lord ſhew Oneſiphorus mercy in that day. This is to be marked againſt the Papiſts, the firſt force of their error in the matter of merit beginning here. For they grant this propoſition true,They make grace belonging ad actionem dei predeſtinantis eligentis, non ad terminum electionis. that God doth out of his grace predeſtinate vsus to life; but this they will not admit, that God doth predeſtinate vsus to life, which ſhall come immediately from this grace. Now to conceiue thus of predeſtination, is to take away all the grace of predeſtination. For to chooſe one out of grace to hauehave this or that hee ſhall well pay for, is grace not worth God hauehave mercy? As they ſay this is grace, when he might hauehave choſen others, & left vsus, he did take vsus, as who ſhould hauehave life purchaſed from his Iuſtice. I anſwer, here is an action of liberty, to take one before another; but while this is it to which I am taken, viz. to hauehave a penny-worth for my penny, there is no grace at all ſhewed me. For when actions are defined according to the obiect about which they are conuerſant, if the obiect of life hauehave not grace in it, there can be no grace in electing to it.
Secondly, predeſtination ſhould be an intermedled action; partly a preparation of things God would doe out of his grace, as of calling, the firſt iuſtification according to the Papiſts; partly a preparation of things God would doe out of Iuſtice, as of our glorification.
Thirdly, this maketh all that God doth out of grace, tend to this end, that his iuſtice may be glorious in giuing life: We read the contrary, that iuſtice ſhutteth all vnderunder ſinne, that grace may be glorious in all; this wee reade not, and it were abſurd to thinke it, when all his iuſtice doth in reprobation tend to this end, that the riches of his grace may be more diſplayed.
Fourthly, the life to which wee are predeſtinated is here included in this word Adoption; it is called a gift, an inheritance; it is heere ſaid to be attained through Chriſt, Rom. 5. v. vlt. As ſinne reigneth to death, ſo doth not the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to life; But grace by Chriſts righteouſneſſe reigneth vntounto life, the immediate cauſe ergo of life, is Gods grace; for the immediate cauſe of death is ſinne;The Papiſts make life from grace remote, quoad radicem, not preximè & immediatè. and God is ſaid to hauehave made Chriſt eueryevery thing to vsus, that our whole reioycing might be in God, ſhewing vsus grace through him: not that we might be able to reioyce in our ſelues, as now reinabled to deſerue from iuſtice throgh him: this then is to be held as a principle of great moment, that the life to which we are choſen and predeſtinated, is a life immediately flowing from the grace of God: For this doth ſhew that the iuſtifying righteouſneſſe which God doth prepare for vsus, muſt be ſuch that God may vponupon it reckon vsus iuſt from his meere grace, to the receiuing of life from his grace. But heere is no place to enter the doctrine of iuſtification and merit, the which wee ſhall hauehave fit occaſion to vnfold hereafter.
Now followeth the manner, [within himſelfe;] that is, according to the good pleaſure of his will: The firſt phraſe I rather reade thus, becauſe in that wee are ſaide to be ordained to adoption through Chriſt, it doth intimate that we are ordained to be children to him, and becauſe he would rather hauehave ſaid, Who hath predeſtinated vsus to be Sonnes through Chriſt, to himſelfe, then to adoption through Chriſt to himſelfe: but it skilleth not how we take it, ſeeing the latter words doth ſufficiently ground the inſtruction to be gathered.
Doct. Obſerue, that God out of his meere good will doth determine both the end, and all the meanes by which hee will bring vsus to the end. If God doe chooſe and predeſtinate vsus to life, becauſe that hee doth foreſee that we will ſo vſe his grace as to perſeuer in beliefe by meanes of it, then muſt hee call vsus rather then others, becauſe he doth foreſee that wee will vſe his grace offered well, and concur with it in manner forenamed. For ſo farre as foreſeene conſiderations moue mee to take any to the end of life, ſo farre they moue to intend and execute the meanes which muſt bring to life. But the Papiſts themſelues in this are ſound, who hold, that therefore God doth freely ordaine vsus to the end, and that he doth therefore freely call and iuſtifie vsus; hitherto they grant grace, euen in the execution of Gods predeſtination, and it may be proued by Scriptures: For in calling, two things may be marked. 1. The ſending his word. 2. The working with it by his ſpirit: now he doth both theſe out of his free pleaſure; For the word hee doth ſend it to thoſe whom he doth ſee will leſſe profit by it then others; If the things done in thee, had beene done in Tyrus and Sidon, they would at leaſt hauehave humbled themſelues in Niniuie-like repentance; & Ezech. 3. I ſend thee not to a people of a ſtrange tongue, they would heare thee, but theſe will not heare thee. Now he teacheth inwardly no leſſe freely. Luke 10.2. Father, I confeſſe thou reuealeſt theſe things to babes, and hideſt them from wiſe ones, euen according to thy good pleaſure. Therefore Paul ſaith, 2 Tim. 2.9. Hee hath called vsus with a holy calling, according to his purpoſe and grace: Now if God doe call vsus to ſaluation without any thing fore-ſeene in vsus, it cannot be but that hee did ordaine vsus to ſaluation without fore-ſeeing any thing which might moue him vntounto it; this is taught, Rom. 9. that the purpoſe of God, is according to election, that is, free, depending on him onelyonly who calleth vsus to glory, not on any thing in vsus called. The reaſon why God ſheweth mercy, or hardeneth, that is, denieth mercy, is his meere will; That as the Potter hath nothing but his pleaſure mouing him to appoint or make of the ſame lumpe veſſels to ſo diuers ends; no more hath God: And here it ſhall not be amiſſe to cleare that Scripture from ſome miſconſtructions which hauehave beene made, obſcuring the true meaning of it to ſome vnderſtandings.
Rom. 9. Verſ. 11. cleared from falſe conſtructions.Some make (the purpoſe of God) verſe 11. to note out ſuch a purpoſe by which God determineth to chooſe out to life, ſuch whom he doth fore-ſee, will ſeeke it by conſtant faith in his promiſes, reiecting others from life, who ſeeke ſaluation by their owne righteouſneſſe in the workes of the Law: This conſtruction floweth from a former errour, viz. that the Apoſtle in this paſſage of Scripture, from the ſixt verſe downeward, doth ſpeake of the Iewes taken & reiected, not as perſons, by carnall generation deſcended from Abraham, but as perſons who ſeeke ſaluation by cleauing to the promiſe, or otherwiſe by workes, according to the tenour of the Law. This likewiſe doth preſuppoſe that thoſe Iewes, whoſe obiection Paul preuenteth, verſe 6. doe by the word of God conceiue the word of the couenant legall, in this manner; What then? if we be reiected from ſaluation, who ſeeke it by workes of the Law, then the word of Gods couenant is come to nought: Which Obiection, they ſhould ſeeme to make by occaſion of the former Doctrine of iuſtification; but in all of theſe, and in all inferred on them, Arminius is deceiued; For it is not the doctrine of iuſtification ſo much, as the doctrine of Predeſtination, which in the eight Chapter went before, which maketh the Apoſtle enter this diſcourſe: For he hauing taught in the former part of the Epiſtle, Rom. 4. that thoſe who traced the ſteps of Abrahams faith, were his children; and in the Chapter next before, that ſuch whom God did fore-know and acknowledge for his people, they were predeſtinated and called to faith in Chriſt, eueryevery one might be ready to gather that the Iewes; for the body of them were not acknowledged of him as his people, becauſe they did ſet themſelues ſtiffely againſt the faith of Chriſt, and therefore they were not the Iſrael of God, the choſen ſeede of Abraham, the people whom God did know before; and this is that which he leaueth to be gathered in that lamentable preface, Rom. 9. from the firſt to the ſixt verſe, viz. that a great part of the Iewes, carnally deſcended of Abraham, are reiected now from being the people and Iſrael of God, the ſeede with which God had promiſed his preſence and bleſſing: Compare Rom. 8.29. with Rom 9.6.7. Rom. 11.8. he ſpeaketh not of a reiection from righteouſneſſe and life, befalling ſuch as followed ſaluation by works, for thus were the greateſt part alwaies reiected, when yet they could not be ſaid reiected euer before, in this manner which did befall them, and is here lamented: This reiection intimated, he preuenteth an obiection, which ſome might make againſt it, in this manner: That which would make Gods word to Iſrael, and that ſeede of Abraham fruſtrate, that is not to be granted: But the reiection of the Iewes from being Gods Iſraell, and the ſeede whom he will bleſſe, maketh his word in vaine, Ergo, The reaſon which confirmeth this aſſumption is to be gathered from the Apoſtles anſwer; ſuch as the Iſrael, whom God hath loued, and choſen, and promiſed to bleſſe for euer, ſuch cannot be reiected, but the word of God will be made fruſtrate; but ſaid they, we are Gods Iſrael, we are Abrahams ſeede, which are plainely to be gathered from verſe 6. and 7. From theſe circumſtances, well marked, we may ſee that the word here meant, is that word which opened Gods gracious election of this people, to be his people and children, and which promiſed his perpetuall preſence with them, and bleſſing towards them: The word here meant, is ſuch a word as taketh effect in that part of the Iewes whom God did know before, and is ſtill made good in them; but the word of the legall couenant is abrogated to all the choſen of the Iewes. Secondly; Ieremie declared the word of the legall couenant to be made in vaine, yet did not this giuegive place to ſuch an obiection, that Gods word to his people was made of none effect. Againe, the Apoſtle his anſwere was direct, the word is made by mans ſinne in vaine; and to hauehave informed them in the true end of the word of the Law, and not to anſwer them, that the word of the Goſpels couenant is not fruſtrate, when they obiect, that the word of the couenant of the Law is come to nothing; this were but being asked of Chalke, to anſwere of Cheeſe. Againe, we ſee that Paul doth not intimate the reiection of the Iewes, as from righteouſneſſe and life, as they were followers of the law, which is a point he commeth to in the beginning of the next Chapter; but he conſidereth them, as part of Iſrael, and the ſeede of Abraham onelyonly: for had this beene the thing in which they grounded themſelues, if thoſe who follow the Law be reiected, Gods word is come to nothing, then ſhould not Paul hauehave anſwered, all who are from Iſrael, are not Iſrael; all who are Abrahams ſeede, are not children; but all who follow the Law are not the true Iſrael to which God did tye himſelfe by promiſe. Secondly; It is plaine, he intimateth their reiection, as they were the people of the Iewes, as they were denominated the Iſrael of God, which may be gathered from the firſt Verſe of the eleauenth Chapter. Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. I am an Iſraelite, of the ſeede of Abraham, of the tribe of Beniamin. Thirdly, No godly faithfull ones could thinke the word of God falſified, if ſuch as did ſeeke iuſtification in the Law by the workes of it, were reiected; but the Apoſtles and godlieſt a while were exerciſed with this doubt, they could not ſee how it could ſtand with Gods word, that Iſraell ſhould be forſaken, and the Gentiles called: It is certaine therefore, that he doth intimate the reiection of the Iewes, as thoſe who had beene the Iſrael of God, and ſeede of Abraham. The Apoſtle denieth the reaſon on which they thought their reiection a thing which could not ſtand with the immobility of Gods word. He anſwereth the aſſumption of the latter ſyllogiſme, by diſtinguiſhing of Iſrael and children; denying that all Iſraelites are that Iſrael to which Gods word belongeth; or that all Abrahams ſeede are thoſe children whom God adopted to himſelfe, verſe 7. but ſuch onelyonly who were like Iſaac; Firſt, begotten by a word of promiſe, and partakers of the heauenly calling: The reaſon is to be conceiued in this manner; The reiecting of ſuch, who are not the true Iſrael, nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children, cannot ſhake Gods word, ſpoken to Iſrael and Abrahams ſeede: But many of the Iſraelites and Abrahams ſeede, are ſuch to whom the word belonged not, Ergo, The word of God is firme, though they be reiected. This aſſumption is propounded in the end of the fift and ſixt verſes. Secondly; It is proued to the foureteenth verſe. Here Arminius hauing preſuppoſed this word the word of the legall couenant, and this reiection of ſuch as ſought righteouſneſſe in the Law; he thus taketh vp the argument.
If the word reſpect the children of promiſe, then it is firme, though the children of the fleſh are reiected: But it concerneth children of the promiſe, that is, beleeuers; Ergo, it is ſafe, though iuſticiaries, children of the fleſh be reiected.
But this aſſumption is no word of it in Arminius his ſenſe, here expreſſed: For though children of the fleſh in ſome other Scripture, doth note out iuſticiaries, ſeeking ſaluation in the Law, yet here the literall meaning is to be taken; a childe of the fleſh being ſuch a one who deſcendeth from Abraham according to the fleſh; for it is moſt plaine, that theſe did make them thinke themſelues within the compaſſe of the word, becauſe they were Iſraelites and the ſeede of Abraham, in regard of bodily generation propagated from him; and Arminius doth decline that, in obiecting and anſwering which this diſcourſe conſiſteth? Beſide that, though the ſonnes of the fleſh may ſignifie ſuch, who carnally, not ſpiritually conceiue of the Law, yet the ſeede of Abraham without any adioyned, is neuer ſo taken. The aſſumption which is to be proued, is this; That many of Abrahams ſeede, are ſuch to whom the word belongeth not: The word which belonged not to Iſmael and Eſau but to Iſaac and Iacob onelyonly, and ſuch as were like to them, that word belonged not to many of thoſe who are the ſeede of Abraham, and Iſraelites: But the word ſhewing Gods louelove, choiſe, adoption, bleſſing of Iſrael, and Abrahams ſeede, belonged not to Eſau, Iſmael, and ſuch as they were, but to Iſaac and Iacob. Here Arminius hauing thoſe legall iuſticiaries, thus gathereth his ſillogiſme.
Iſmael and Eſau were types of ſuch as ſought iuſtice in the Law: Iſmael and Eſau were reiected; Iſaac was reckoned in the ſeede; Iſaac was a type of the children of the promiſe; Ergo, the children of the promiſe are the ſeede. Iſmael was not in the ſeede, but Iſmael was a type of all who ſought righteouſneſſe in the Law of all the children of the fleſh; Ergo, the children of the fleſh were not in the ſeede.
The concluſions are true, but not pertinent to this ſenſe; for the children of the fleſh heere are thoſe onelyonly who in courſe of nature came from Abraham: the children of the promiſe thoſe who were ſo borne of Abraham, that they were in Iſaac called to the heauenly benediction. But in laying downe this reiection of Eſau from benefit of this word, belonging to the ſeede and taking of Iacob, he ſheweth plainely, that it is not a reiecting of thoſe in Abrahams ſeede, who were iuſticiaries as iuſticiaries, becauſe that Eſau was reiected before hee was borne, or had done good or euill, from part in that word made to Iſrael and Iſaac, taken to the heauenly benedicton before any thing which might moue thereunto: marke, Ergo, in the 10.11.12.13. ver. three things. Firſt, the equity of Eſau and Iſaac in Parents conception, merits, demerits, onelyonly in birth Eſau had preheminence. Secondly, marke the word Came, ſignifying the election of the one, & calling him to the heauenly inheritance, with the reiection of the other, which is laid downe, verſe 12.13. Thirdly, Marke the end, why God did chooſe and refuſe, before merits or demerits in the end of the 11. verſe, by a Parentheſis, viz. that Gods purpoſe according to his free election might abide for euer, while it depended not on workes in men, which are changeable, but on himſelfe, who freely calleth whom he wil to this heauenly glory. The ſcope of this example is the ſame with the other, viz. to proue that all of Iſrael, and all the ſeede of Abraham were not ſuch to whom the word declaring Gods free Election and Adoption to the heauenly inheritance belonged.
That word which belonged not to Eſau, but to Iacob, that belonged not to many of Abrahams ſeed, & by conſequence that may ſtand firme, though a multitude of Abrahams ſeede be reiected: but the word declaring Gods election, &c. But the Apoſtle doth lay downe the manner after which the word chooſing and adopting Iſraell, refuſing Eſau, was giuen forth, viz. that it came without reſpect of good or euill, which might moue vntounto it, that hee may preuent a ſecond obiection which the Iewes might make from their owne righteouſneſſe, in reſpect of the Gentiles, ſinners; for they might thinke it impoſſible that Gods word could ſtand with reiecting them, who were righteous in compariſon of the Gentiles receiued; for hee conceiued this included in that quaerulous obiection: Firſt is Gods induration a cauſe why hee is angry with vsus? Secondly, can he be angry with vsus who are hardned by his vnreſiſtable will? Thirdly, can he be angry with vsus iuſtly? The Apoſtle in this 21. ver. telleth vsus, that that induration is not the cauſe of Gods anger, but anger of induration; for none are hardned but veſſels now of wrath, by their owne deſeruing. 2. Saith he, God beareth them with much patience, and doth not harden them by will irreſiſtable. 3. God doth it for moſt iuſt ends, and thus a reddition might be framed, ſaith he, a maiori ad minus: Shall the Potter hauehave ſuch abſolute power in his clay, and ſhall not God hauehave power to decree the hardning of thoſe who iuſtly deſerue it? and that with ſuch a will as doth expect with much patience their conuerſion, and all for the obtaining of moſt iuſt things: But for this latter it is plaine the argument of the Potter is a pari or minori, if it be compared to God: Shall we thinke that God hath leſſe power ouer his creatures then the Potter? God I ſay,Beſides that Gods actuall induration beginneth where his patience endeth. who createth and maketh the clay, hee diſpoſeth? And to vſe this ſimilitude to Arminius, his order is to illuſtrate a thing by that which hath nothing like; for Gods worke (by that Arminius conceiueth) hath no reſemblance to that the Potter doth, as is already ſhewed. For the matter anſwered.
Firſt, he conceiueth not the queſtion right: They aske not whether Gods induration be cauſe of his anger, but whether God may be angry at them who come to this ſtate of being hardned? Now this is certaine, that men hardned and forſaken, are the obiect about which Gods anger is exerciſed, as a malefactor puniſhed is the obiect about which the Magiſtrates anger is exerciſed, though puniſhment is not the cauſe why he is angry, but the effect of it; neyther is there one word in this verſe, which teſtifieth God to harden ſuch, with whom he is angry for ſinne, vnleſſe to beare with patience, ſignifie to harden, and veſſels made or prepared to deſtruction, men now hauing by ſinne prouoked God: the firſt abſurd, that an act of patience ſhould be induration oppoſed to mercy; the other equiuocall, as a veſſell prepared to glory is not a veſſel now beleeuing and ſanctified, and actually fitted for glory; ſo on the contrarie.
For the ſecond it is falſe that heere is any thing to teſtifie Gods will vnreſiſtable, which the Apoſtle did neuer except againſt, but rather iuſtifie, and yet maintaine it equall by a compariſon fore-conſtrued. And this is no argument why his decreeing will ſhould not be irreſiſtable; this I ſay, that hee vſeth patience toward thoſe whom he hath decreed to reiect, hee conceiueth the will of God to hauehave come to election, and otherwiſe to include an appetite as it were, of hauing ſome thing which hee will not worke by his omnipotency, but he whoſe omnipotency is not in eueryevery thing, he is not a God omnipotent; for there are ſome things in which he is not omnipotent; not to name the ſame things he would hauehave of vsus, he hath couenanted to worke them in vsus, I will put my ſpirit in your hearts, and make you, &c. and that there is no power in God which is not infinite and omnipotent; true it is that the verſe ſetteth downe iuſt ends, and that therefore God hath power to purpoſe and worke moſt iuſtly that which is decreed and done to ſo iuſt purpoſe. Theſe are collections which his head hath deduced, but not once imagined by the Apoſtle: and marke now how the Apoſtle hath foyled the cauſe of God, by ſtrugling ſo laboriouſly and myſtically againſt that which might ſo eaſily be anſwered: They ſeeme to murmure againſt God; if he be angry at them who are hardned by his will, or a decree of his will irreſiſtable: The plaine anſwere is, God is not vniuſt though he be angry, becauſe the decree of his will did determine the hardning of none, but ſuch who ſhould firſt by their vngratefull and horrible vnbeleefe prouoke his iuſt anger and induration, (whereas you thinke that hee did decree to bring you to this with a will vnreſiſtable,) the truth is, he did decree nothing about you, but conditionally, putting alſo the condition ſo in your power, that you might hauehave kept your ſelfe from comming into the number of thoſe, who are in his anger hardned, if you would, but you would not. The manner, ergo, laid downe, preuenteth ſuch a thought, in as much as this might be deduced from it; That word which doth ſignifie ſuch an election and adoption, as doe not depend, nor once reſpect any merit in the creature, that word is ſinne, though the Iew, righteous in compariſon of the Gentiles, be reiected, and the ſinfull Gentiles receiued: The end ſhewing why God would not looke at any thing in ſuch whom hee elected and called, viz. that his decree and word about ſome whom he had elected, might abide ſurely, taking effect, while the ſtability and efficacy of it depended on him freely calling, not on vsus; for did Gods decree, or word, touching ſaluation, depend on men, it would proue more vnſtable then a decree in Chancery; as we ſee in Arminius his decrees, I will ſaue them all, if they will obey me; I ſee they will not, but they will ſinne: Well, I muſt let them, but I will condemne them all; I but my mercy heere muſt moderate Iuſtice, this decree muſt not be peremptory: I will ſend Chriſt to redeeme all, that I may ſaue all againe: I decree to ſaue all, if they will beleeue, but I ſee they will not; I will ſaue ſuch as I ſee now beleeue with perſeuerance, and reiect others: that order was fit in electing, which doth make Gods decree moſt firme, and of moſt effect to his elected; but to chooſe them without any reſpect to their workes, was fit to this end; Ergo, hee did chooſe in this order, not looking at any thing in them, but at his gracious pleaſure; and in theſe examples, as in types, are laid downe, all the high points of election, viz. that God doth chooſe vsus before we are, that God doth not looke at any thing in vsus, for which to chooſe vsus; for though it is true they were in their cauſes, yea, in ſome degree out of them, yet they are brought in as now choſen, when they were not manifeſtly in the nature of things, but creatures to be borne afterwards; and though they both had in Adam offended, yet this is excluded in their typicall conſideration, and they are heere brought in as hauing done nothing. Like as Melchiſedeck had Father, Mother, length of daies, but as hee is a type, none of theſe things come to be conſidered in him. What ſaith Arminius heere? He maketh the 10.11.12.13. verſes to contain theſe two things, the Type, & the explication of the Type; the Type, ſet forth with ſundry circumſtances, which are not ſo much to be heeded as the things typified, expreſly ſet downe in theſe words; That the purpoſe of God, according to his choyce of ſome, or in which hee chooſeth ſome to life, reiecting others, might be firme, while it dependeth not on works of the Law, but on faith, obeying him that calleth. From which explication he gathereth two ſyllogiſmes, proouing things to his thought, which goe before.
1. That purpoſe which is according to election of ſome, with reiection of other ſome, that purpoſe may ſtand ſure, though many be reiected.
But Gods word and purpoſe is according to election, or is ſuch as diſcerneth and choſeth ſome from other ſome to ſaluation, ergo, the word of God is not made of no effect, though many of the Iewes be reiected.
2. That purpoſe which dependeth not on workes, but on faith obeying him, that calling, that purpoſe, comprehendeth not ſuch as ſeeke by the works of the Law ſaluation.
But this is ſuch, Ergo.
Eſau the firſt borne is hated of God.
Eſau is a type of ſuch as ſeeke righteouſnes in the Law: Ergo, ſuch as ſeeke righteouſnes in the Law are hated of God.
Iacob the younger, was loued.
Iacob was a type of all who follow life by grace of calling: Ergo, all who thus follow life, are beloued of God.
To anſwer which things briefly, the perſons named, are heere to be conſidered perſonally, and typically. Perſonally, becauſe elſe he doth not proue that Iſraelites the ſeede of Abraham may be reiected. Typically, becauſe they are heads of all the choſen and reiected, both in the ſeed of Abraham, & in the Gentiles alſo. But that they are types here of perſons qualified with zeale of the Law, or faith on Chriſt, this is a dreame without proofe, meerely preſumed, which before hath beene ſufficiently refuted, and ſhall be further touched, in this which followeth. Firſt then, to the circumſtances, why are we not to ſtand vponupon them, ſeeing betweene types and things typified, there is ſuch analogie, as that thereby one doth lead vsus to the other? But he doth ſee well that theſe things here ſet down in the types cannot ſtand with that hee would hauehave typified. How can Eſau now conſidered without workes, good or euil, when he is reiected, be a type of thoſe who are reiected as ſinners for righteouſneſſe by workes of the Law? Or how can Iacob, as he is conſidered without faith, or any other worke, when now hee is choſen and called, be a type of ſuch who are now choſen, when God doth ſee beliefe with perſeuerance in them? Againe, this decree electing Iacob, did offer him grace aboue Eſau; but the decree of ſauing Iacob, if hee would beleeue and obey the heauenly calling, doth offer no leſſe to Eſau, or any other. Now his conceiuing the Apoſtle to explane his type in that parentheſis, is moſt abſurd; doth the note of a final cauſe or euent, that, or to the end, that his purpoſe doth thus begin the accommodation of a type propounded? it is an example not to be ſeconded; nothing is more plaine then that it is added to note the end or euent of that manner electing and reiecting, which are heere expreſſed: and for the two concluſions hee doth argue from theſe words; The firſt is true, but not a thing heere to be prooued; for the Apoſtle had ſaid that, ergo, the word was true, notwithſtanding the multitude of Iſraelites were reiected; becauſe that all Iſraelites were not that Iſraell, and all the ſeede of Abraham were not thoſe children to whom the word belonged: This is then that which here is to be concluded, that thoſe who are the ſeede of Abraham, and Iſraelites in courſe of nature, were not that Iſraell, and that ſeede, to whom the word ſignifying Gods election and adoption belonged: the force of the argument therfore is in this, not that the decree is after election, but that Iacob onelyonly was in decree of election, and Eſau borne alike of Iſaac was not.
The ſecond ſyllogiſme concludeth a thing that neuer came into the Apoſtles minde, and cannot be accommodated to theſe types, vnleſſe types in that wherein they are types may be contrary to the thing teſtified by them; as I hauehave ſhewed aboue. Beſide, who will yeeld him that Gods calling, is heere put for faith obeying God calling, when the ſight of faith and eueryevery thing elſe was before excluded in this election of Iacob; and therefore the decree electing him excludeth and oppoſeth it ſelfe in workes to this faith, aſwell as any other thing. Now then we ſee that this decree electing and adopting, is ſo from Gods will, that nothing in man is conſidered in it, as a meane or cauſe, but onelyonly his meere pleaſure: for cleering which, I entred the explication of this place: to this only the context following will agree, which ſeeing I am thus far entred, I will ſhew ſo ſhortly as I can.
What ſhall wee ſay then (ſaith the Apoſtle) is there iniuſtice with God? God forbid. For hee ſaith to Moſes. This is plaine, that the doctrine next before deliuered, giueth occaſion to this obiection. Let any iudge then whether Arminius his ſenſe is made probably a ground of this imagination; we ſee this doth naturally ariſe from our conſtruction; for if God from his meere pleaſure doth chooſe one, & cal him to adoption and the heauenly inheritance, reiecting another eueryevery way equal to him; Then God ſeemeth vniuſt, for vponupon his meere pleaſure, to deale ſo vnequally with equals, vponupon meere pleaſure ſeemeth very hard; doe but lay that of Arminius by it, and there neede no other confutation. If God decree to reiect ſuch as reiect his grace offered in Chriſt, ſtiffely cleauing to their own righteouſnes; & if out of his meere pleaſure, none deſeruing it, he decree to ſaue ſuch as ſhal by faith lay hold on his mercy offered in Chriſt, then he ſeemeth vniuſt. I anſwer; Here is no ſhew of iniuſtice to the reaſon of man; for that which he ſuppoſeth to be the groūd of their ſuſpecting iniuſtice; namely, that God ſhold of his meere pleaſure decree that beleeuers on Chriſt, not followers of the Law, ſhould be ſaued, contrary to his former decree in the couenant with Adam; for had this beene the ground of their imputation, the Apoſtle ſhould hauehave anſwered, that God did not of meere pleaſure decree otherwiſe about attaining life, then at firſt he had; but he came to this couenant of the Goſpell, by reaſon that we had broken the former, and through weake fleſh, made it impoſſible to vsus: But he maintaineth the will of God from meere pleaſure, ſhowing mercy to Iacob to hauehave beene iuſt in him; it followeth.
Hee who hath power to ſhew ſauing mercy where himſelfe pleaſeth, he is not vniuſt in ſhowing to ſome, without any conſideration on their parts, and denying to other ſome.
But God hath power to ſhew mercy, electing, adopting, calling to the heauenly inheritance, to whom he will.
This is the expreſſe teſtimony of Moſes, which tendeth to proue God free from iniuſtice in his grace to Iacob, and in denying it to Eſau: For if hee may ſhow it to ſuch as he pleaſe, hee may refuſe it others by the ſame liberty; He doth amplifie this by a conſectory deduced.
That which is wholly in the free pleaſure of God, that commeth not from any thing in the power of man: But this mercy, electing, adopting, calling, is meerely in Gods free pleaſure; it is not therefore in man to procure it, but in Gods liberty to ſhow this mercy.
This anſwere doth plainely ſhew, that the point which diſtaſted was this; That God ſhould at his meere pleaſure ſhow mercy to Iacob, which he refuſed Eſau; which would make our election, calling, adoption, quite out of our power, meerely depending on Gods free pleaſure: For, both theſe are here auouched to ſtand with iuſtice in God, what euer might be ſurmiſed: And marke here, that the Apoſtle doth maintaine it without iniuſtice, to ſhow and refuſe mercy, when he conſidereth not any thing in the perſons which might make this equall: For were the equity of Gods mercy ſhewed to Iacob, and denied Eſau in this, that now all were become children of wrath, whom God might pardon and reſtore, or leaue and execute at his pleaſure; then the Apoſtle ſhould in the honour hee owed to the name of God, hauehave here expreſſed this conſideration, that God might iuſtly ſhow mercy to ſome, and deny it to otherſome, who were no… ſuch, that they had by ſinne brought themſelues vnderunder ſentence of condemnation. For if he had not ſhewed it to any, hee had not beene vniuſt; but Saint Paul did know that he had affirmed, that God looking neither at merit in the one, nor demerit in the other, had choſen and loued the one, refuſed & leſſe loued the other. Here marke Arminius.
If that purpoſe, God reiecting ſuch as ſeeke righteouſneſſe by their owne workes, electing beleeuers, depend onelyonly on his mercy, then it is not vniuſt.
But that purpoſe is neither from him that runneth, &c. but dependeth on Gods meere mercy, Ergo, it is not to be accuſed of iniuſtice.
Firſt; Marke how he maketh the Apoſtle not anſwer the difficulty of the Obiection, which was this; How could God goe from one Couenant, decreeing ſaluation on workes, and decree contrary, that not workers, but beleeuers ſhould be ſaued? for Gods mercy cannot be the cauſe, nothing elſe comming betweene, why God ſhould change his order, and goe from one vntounto a contrary. Secondly; Let him ſhow how mercy can be the onelyonly cauſe, why a iuſticiarie, cleauing to his own righteouſneſſe, is reiected from ſaluation. Thirdly; The Apoſtle doth not proue this decree, that beleeuers ſhal be ſaued, to be iuſt in God, but Gods ſhewing mercy in deſtination and execution to one before another. Now this decree, I will ſaue all that ſhall beleeue; doth not ſhow any mercy to one before another, but offers mercy to all alike. Laſtly; Who would euer accuſe the mercy of God, for decreeing in a iuſt courſe to bring men to ſaluation, when now they had made themſelues guilty of wrath: Marke how he depraueth that conſectorie, which ſhoweth that it is not in our power now vnderunder wrath to deſerue that God ſhould decree the ſaluation of vsus, in caſe we would beleeue. But why Gods decree of election falleth on my perſon to life, this he maketh in our power, which is the chiefe thing here excluded; for from that God had purpoſed and performed to Iacob, and from that priuiledge that God will at his pleaſure both intend and manifeſt his ſauing mercy and compaſſions, this is deduced, that this mercy, electing, calling, and adopting one before another, is not in the will or indeauour of man, but in God freely ſhowing compaſſion: Not to ſay, he ſhould tell vsus a great matter, in concluding with a ſolemne Epiphonema; ſuch a point as this, that man vnderunder ſinne and death, could not deſerue, or any way cauſe why God ſhould ſtrike that couenant of the Goſpel, and promiſe ſaluation vponupon beleeuing.
For the Scripture ſaith to Pharaoh.] The 17. Verſe followeth: The connexion may be diuerſely conceiued, either to proue that God ſheweth mercy at his pleaſure to ſome, ſo as he denieth it to otherſome; or that which went before, that it is not any thing in vsus which maketh vsus elected like Iacob, or reiected as Eſau; & then the proofe erre thus; the Scripture doth teſtifie, that hardening and denying mercy dependeth on Gods meere pleaſure, no leſſe then ſhewing mercy; Or we may conceiue it as in reference to the vnrighteouſneſſe formerly obiected; for that obiection had a double fact giuing occaſion; God electing Iacob, reiecting Eſau, without any thing that deſerued it, whence God might ſeeme ſubiect to iniuſtice in two regards; Firſt, for ſhowing his grace to the one before the other, when they both were alike. Secondly; In refuſing the one out of his meere will, and excluding him from the grace ſhewed the other, when he had done nothing to deſerue it.
Hitherto hee hath anſwered the firſt part of the obiection, that God in ſhowing mercy to equals, vnequally is not vniuſt. Now he anſwereth the other part.
That which God hath done, that is in the freedome of his will iuſtly to doe: But God hath for ends of his glory, without any thing done on their parts to moue him, denied grace to ſome, and hardened them, which is plaine in this example; he did raiſe vp Pharaoh, not yet being, purpoſing to harden and puniſh him; Ergo, as hee ſhoweth mercy where hee will, ſo he hardeneth, that is, denyeth mercy, and ſo hardens and puniſheth whom he will.
The Aſſumption is the example, the Concluſion followeth it. Arminius is here ſtill like himſelfe, he frameth a double Sylogiſme, taking away ſhew of vnrighteouſneſſe in his decree, made with election of ſome, reiection of other ſome.
That which God iuſtly doth, that he may decree to doe.
But hee ſtirreth vp, hardneth ſome iuſtly. Ergo, he may decree it without iniuſtice.
The ſecond Syllogiſme, from the 18. Verſe.
Hee who ſheweth mercy and hardeneth, may decree according to election, to ſhew mercy to ſome beleeuing, and to reiect ſuch as ſeeke righteouſneſſe in the workes of the Law. But God ſhoweth mercy on whom he will, &c.
For the firſt, it is true that is gathered, but not pertinent; for this example is brought to ſhew that God may reiect a perſon without iniuſtice, when he hath done nothing for which Gods will ſhould be moued to reiect him; and it is to be well noted, that the minde of God cannot be too prone, that he may make a decree to reiect a perſon that followeth righteouſneſſe in the Law; for Pharaoh cannot be conſidered, as in the number of thoſe Iewes who were zealous for the Law. Beſide that, it could neuer ſeeme in appearance vnrighteouſneſſe, to decree when a man is now a childe of death, that if he will not accept of Gods mercy in Chriſt his Sonne, but cleaue to his owne righteouſneſſe, then he ſhall be reiected. And for the latter Syllogiſme, it is no new Argument, as Arminius would hauehave it; but the concluſion affirming from all gone before, that it is in Gods liberty to ſhow mercy to ſome, as to Iacob, and to deny it to otherſome, and that, Ergo, he cannot be vniuſt in doing that which he hath liberty to doe. Againe, the firſt part of the Propoſition doth fight with it ſelfe; for he who may ſhew mercy on whom he will, he may not make the creature the cauſe why hee ſhould ſhow mercy, for he cannot ſhew mercy on any out of his meere pleaſure, & yet ſhew mercy on ſome conſideratiō in the creature mouing him to it.
Now from this that here it is ſaid; God may ſhew mercy on whom he will; he gathereth, that God may make a decree to ſhew mercy to ſuch as beleeue, repent, and perſeuere, &c, in ſanctification.
He who may ſhew mercy to whom he will, he is not reſtrained to ſome perſons, who ſhall be of this or that condition, but is as free to one as another.
Now the grounds of this new learning, or old errour, I know not which to call it, ſay, that God cannot chooſe any, but ſuch whom he ſeeth eligible, as being qualified with ſuch condition as the iuſtice of God admitteth, which is the moderatrix of his mercy.
He who can ſhew mercy where he will, can doe more then that which may poſſibly be done, and yet not any receiue mercy.
But ſuch a decree as this might be made, and it ſtill poſſible that not one in all man-kinde ſhould be partaker of mercy.
He who ſheweth mercy where he will, is the cauſe why mercy lighteth on theſe particular men, rather then others.
But he who can but make a decree, that ſuch as will beleeue ſhall hauehave mercy, he is not the cauſe in particular why this man hath mercy ſhewed to him, rather then another.
His Concluſion miſconſtring that word and decree, is aboue refuted, and hath no concord with this Obiection following, which is moſt euident, after this manner.
If it be by his meere irreſiſtable will that men be in the ſtate of ſuch as are reiected and hardened, then he hath no reaſon to blame them being ſo.
But hee out of his pleaſure, without any thing in the creature cauſing it, doth reiect ſome from mercy, and harden them: Ergo.
Now Saint Paul doth anſwere this, either by denying that the will of God is vnreſiſtable, or by denying that the efficacie of Gods will doth reach thus farre, that ſome men are in the number of thoſe who are reiected and hardened; but firſt by rebuking the inſolencie of this fact, that a creature ſhould expoſtulate with his Creator; ſecondly, by ſhowing the right of the thing, viz. that God may at his pleaſure reiect and harden ſome: The firſt in the 20. Verſe.
That which the Pot may not doe with the Potter, that maieſt not thou doe to God thy Creator.
But the Pot may not finde fault with the Potter, for framing it thus or thus, the end of the 20. verſ. Thou maiſt not finde fault with God, as if hee were in fault, by whoſe irreſiſtible will thou art in this caſe wherein thou ſtandeſt, rather then thy ſelfe, who doſt ſuffer his vnauoidable pleaſure.
Hauing thus chidden the inſolencie of this muttering imputation, he proueth that it is equall God ſhould out of his meere pleaſure ſhow mercy to ſome of his creatures, and reiect other ſome, to induration and puniſhment.
The right which the Potter hath ouer his clay, that and much more hath God in his: for the Potter muſt hauehave his clay made to his hand; but God muſt create and make the clay which he will worke with.
But the Potter hath the power that he may ſeuer certaine diſtinct parcels of his clay, out of his meere pleaſure to contrary vſes. v. 21.
The Potter doth not ſeuer his clay in this manner, if it ſhall all be fit to receiue ſome noble forme: I will make it to ſuch end, if not, I will turne it otherwiſe; for then it muſt from the clay, not the Potter; why this parcell were a veſſell to honourable vſe, and that otherwiſe.
The Concluſion followeth, ver. 22.23.
Ergo. ſhall not God hauehave the ſame right to appoint ſome of his creatures to be veſſels of diſhonour, howbeit he vſeth much patience towards them, that he may the better declare his wrath, and power in them, and his moſt gloririous mercy towards his choſen?
The words hauehave a rhetoricall reticency in them, and are thus laid downe. What if God, willing to ſhew his wrath and power, hauehave borne with much patience? &c. and that hee may ſhew his glorious mercy towards the veſſels of mercy. Now ſomething muſt be vnderſtood: Shall his power for this be the leſſer? or any plead againſt this freedome of God in denying his mercy, and reiecting ſome, from the great patience hee vſeth toward them: or wee may conceiue it, if not preuenting this obiection, yet laying downe the concluſion with a double reaſon, after this ſort: If God hauehave moſt iuſt ends of his glory, and the good of others who are veſſels of mercy, and if hee execute his decree with much patience, and long ſufferance, towards the veſſels of wrath; ſhall hee not hauehave power to ordaine them to this end, whom in ſo iuſt manner, and vponupon ſo good conſiderations hee bringeth vntounto? &c. In anſwering theſe, Arminius ſeemeth very accurate, but it is a wily diligence; ſuch as thoſe poore creatures vſe, which being hard be ſet will run round often, & fetch running-iumps, that by this meanes they may bring to a loſſe all that purſue. To leaue him therefore in impertinent diſcourſe, what I can gather out of him, touching theſe words, reſpecteth one of theſe three things: 1. The occaſion which went before, God hardneth whom hee will, as hee ſheweth mercy to whom he will. 2. The obiection. 3. The anſwer.
Let vsus begin with the firſt, for if you marke the antecedent in the ſenſe Arminius taketh it, it will not beare the obiection following. Secondly, If the obiection could be made, yet Saint Pauls anſwere would proue impertinent; the antecedent occaſion, Arminius muſt vnderſtand of Gods decreeing to harden, or actually hardening, according to his decree: His decree is, I will deny thee mercy, harden thee, puniſh thee, if through vnbeleefe and impenitency thou ſhalt make thy ſelfe worthy: His actuall hardning is a powerfull executing this puniſhment of induration, and reiecting, on him who hath by finall impenitency deſerued it: neyther of theſe will beare his obiection, with ſhew of reaſon. And becauſe Arminius ſeemeth rather to reſpect the decree, we will take vp that, and ioyne this murmuring obiection with it. If I am hardned by Gods decree, which doth ſet downe the hardning and reiecting of all ſuch who ſhall by finall vnbeleefe and impenitency prouoke him to it, then hath God no reaſon to be angry with me, on whom this ſentence is executed by his vnreſiſtable will: But I am hardned according to that decree. Take the antecedent in the other ſenſe; If God now in his wrath execute induration on me, hauing deſerued it by my finall impenitency, and that with ſuch power that I cannot reſiſt him, then hath hee no cauſe to be angry with me, who am thus hardned by his almighty power. I doe appeale to any conſcience, what ſhew of reaſon there is, inferring ſuch a conſequence on ſuch antecedents. No, had Gods will beene, not abſolute within himſelfe, but reſpecting conditions meritorious in the creature, or had his induration beene a meere inferring of puniſhment now deſerued, and not a deniall of mercy which ſhould hauehave remooued the entrance of the other (which the oppoſition teacheth to be meant by induration) then there had beene no ſhew of reaſon thus to grant againſt God. But come to the obiection: He conceiued in it thus much, as if it ſhould ſay, Can Gods induration cauſe him to be angry againſt vsus who are hardned? Can that which is the effect of his vnreſiſtable will, cauſe him to be angry with vsus iuſtly? Firſt, the Apoſtle chideth this inſolency, ſuggeſting the ſtate of the perſon murmuring, and the perſon of God againſt whom it is murmured. Secondly, from compariſon, well hauing thus repelled it, he defendeth the equity of God, and anſwereth to the matter. Firſt in the 2. verſe.
He who hath power to decree the life and death of his creature on ſome conditions, and ſo to harden ſome, and ſhew mercy to others; If he harden or ſhew mercy, we muſt not reaſon againſt it.
But God hath this power ſet downe in the compariſon of the Potter: but the compariſon of a Potter pleadeth a farre higher thing in God, then making a decree of ſauing ſuch as ſhould become fit through vſe of their owne liberty, and condemning ſuch, who ſhould moſt iuſtly deſerue it. For this legall kinde of induration, as ſome of his ſchollers call it, giueth no occaſion of imputing, with ſhow of reaſon, any fault to God, ſeeing Gods decree doth not any thing to mee, vnleſſe further then I make my ſelfe a veſſell of diſhonour. Secondly, this ſenſe hath no affinity with the Potters fact, this decree doth not make definitely any perſons veſſels of honor, but ſuch of them as ſhould belieue; all if they will belieue: this doth not make the perſons become veſſels of honour, but the performance of the condition in the decree, this maketh God to frame perſons diuerſly qualified, to diuers ends; whereas the Potter frameth a maſſe all alike to diuers purpoſes. Thus hauing repelled this murmuring, he doth make anſwer to the matter of their obiection three waies, which likewiſe may make, to his iudgement, a limited reddition of the former compariſon.
Thus by the way I hauehave runne ouer part of the ninth to the Romanes, in which were not all error a thing connaturall, I ſhould maruell how any could euer imagine things ſo directly againſt the meaning & diſcourſe of it: The plot of his election was as ſtrong in his braine, as numbers in theirs who thought they ſaw them in eueryevery thing. Let vsus euer hold that the choyſe and purpoſe of calling to the heauenly inheritance, is meerely from his will, becauſe hee will, without any reſpect to the workes or condition of his creature; framing mankinde to diuers ends, with as much freedome, as the Potter doth his clay, though it ſeeme to faſten vnrighteouſneſſe on God, and to excuſe the creature, to fleſh and bloud. It is one thing to doe things with will, another thing to doe them from free pleaſure of will, or becauſe we will onelyonly.
Againe, the decree is therefore made to depend on God calling, that it may be firme; but did it depend on perſeuerance in faith, left altogether in our liberty, it could not be firme, ſeeing it dependeth on ſuch a condition as to the laſt breath is vncertaine, by his owne principles otherwhere deliuered.