Defense of the Synod of Dort, Chapter 1

Defense of the Synod of Dort · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. I.

Of Predestination.

ADVERSARIES.

WEE hold, that before the foundation of the Pag. 3.world, the most holy God predestinated to make the world, and man. &c.

DEFENCE.

NEither the Scriptures so speak; neither is it sensibly said, that God predestinated to make the world and man &c. To predestinate, is to predetermine, or to destinate, or ordain before hand, a person, or thing to its end. God indeed purposed from eternity to make the world, and man; but destinated it, and him, considered as (to be) made, to their ends. Christ as God was preordained or predestinated before the foundation 1 Pet. 1. 1… ▪ 20.1 Pet 1:11 Pet 1:20of the world, and manifested in the last times for our redemption; yet is he not of the number of persons or things p. 2made or created. Again, the glory of the grace of God, shineing in mans salvation, is a created thing, and yet not predestinated of God, nor preordained to any end, being it selfe the utmost end of all things. We see then something predestinated, and yet not made; and something again made, and …ot predestinated. With like incongruity they adde, that God predestinated to make man a reasonable soule, to giuegive him a righteous Law, and lastly, to send his sonne to purchase the very wicked, &c. which last words hauehave neither truth in them (in their meaning;) nor sense, as they lay them down.

Secondly, the Synode at Dort, against which these Adversaries deal, and all others, speaking distinctly of things, apply the decree of predestination, to reasonable creatures: and that Synode specially to men, and the same considered, as faln its Synod Dor. Art. 6. 15, of divine providence.Adam, and thereby made guilty of eternall death; referring the decree of creation, and permission of the fall, to a more general work of divine providence.

Their description of the elect, and reprobate may be admitmitted, in a good sense: namely, that the receiving of grace by some, argues Gods eternall election of them, as the effect doth the cause. The not receiving of this grace by others, to whom it is offered, his eternall reprobation; that is, his not-electing, but refusing or passing by of others, as the consequent, the antecedent. Of which, more hereafter.

In setting down the difference between them and us, theyPag. 4. 5. insinuate, as if we made God the Authour, yea, the principall Authour of all the evill of sin in the world. But as the Synode disclaims that prophane errour, so doth it justly complain of this ungodly slander: which in these men ariseth from their want of skill, to put difference between Gods working of the sinne, as authour therof; and his appointing, and ordering both of sin, and sinner, to his own holy ends.

ADVERSARIES.

THe first particular against which they deal, is our affirmation, that God decreed the sinne of Adam, and that of p. 3necessity to come to passe, and consequently, all other sinnes, in their time, taking upon them with all to manifest, that herein wee not onelyonly contradict the truth, but our own affirmation elsewhere, quoting for example, Theses Genevenses, pag. 26, where it is affirmed, that Adam in innocency, had free-will or power, from the creation of God, not to hauehave sinned: which matter they also prosecute in many words, with great disorder, making the head of their discourse, Predestination; and the body sin.

DEFENCE.

AS the contradiction is not in our Assertions, but in their misunderstanding: So might I, by good right, forbeare to meddle about Adams sin, in the case of predestination; considering the determination of the Synode at Dort hereabout, which I take upon me to defend: which considers man as fallen in Gods account, as the object of the Predestination in question. But I will not use all my lawfull liberty; but as he that will overtake and hold a malefactour, must follow him, not onelyonly in the high and beaten way, whilst he keeps it, but in all the out-leaps also, and turnings, which he makes: So, God assisting me, purpose I (though it be troublesome) to follow and prosecute these Adversaries in this, and other their particular straglings, if any way pertinent to the generall controversie.

I affirm then, that Gods decree, and ordination about Adams fall was such, as that the same could not but follow therupon; not as an effect, upon a cause working it (God forbid); but as a consequent upon an antecedent; or as an event necessarily following upon a most holy, wise and powerfull providence; so ordering and disposing, that the same should so come to passe infallibly, though performed by Adams free, and freely working will. If any demand how this can be, that God who forbiddeth and hateth sinne, yet should so order persons and things, by his providence, and so from eternity purpose to order them, as that the same cannot but be? I answer, by free acknowledgment, that the p. 4manner of Gods working herein is to me, and to all men, unconceiueable; and withall avouch, that he, who will not confesse, that God can (and could in Adams sin) by his infinite wisedom and power, most effectually, and infallibly, in regard of such event, order and dispose of things, without violation to his holinesse, or violence to the creatures will, as no mortall man is able to conceiue the manner therof, is himselfe in a high degree, guilty of that pride, which was Adams …uine, by which he desired to be as God in knowledge.Gen. 3.Gen 3 Who is able to understand the manner of Gods working, in giving the Holy Ghost to men, and in directing the tongues and pens of the Prophets infallibly, and so as they could not erre? Much lesse discernable is Gods manner of working in, and about the creatures sinfull actions. And because many take great offence at this doctrine of truth, and work of God, I will (the Lord assisting me) plainly, and briefly, as I can, proue, that all events, even those most sinfull (in regard of the creatures work in, and of them) come to passe necessarily, after a sort, in respect of Gods providence, as being a hand steady, and which swarveth not in ordering the creature in, and unto the same.

My first proofe is from Act. 2. 22. 23, & ch. 4. 27. 28. Him Act. 2. 22. 23, & ch. 4. 27. 28.Acts 2:22Acts 2:23(to wit Christ) being delivered by the determinate counsell, and foreknowledge of God, ye hauehave taken, and by wicked hands hauehave crucified, and slain. And again, Herod, Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and people of Israel, were gathered together to doe whatsoever thy hand, and thy counsell determined before to be done. What words could the Holy Ghost make choise of more liuelily to expresse Gods effectuall work, according to his eternall purpose? Here is expresly mentioned, not onelyonly his foreknowledge (upon which the event necessarily followeth, except God goe by guesse onelyonly) but his determinate counsel, yea his hand, as the effectuall instrument of working: as if the Holy Ghost should hauehave said, That which the heart of God unchangeably purposed s…ould be done, touching the killing of h…s Son by wicked men, that his hand powerfully ordered to be done accordingly.

p. 5ADVERSARIES.

THeir evasions else-where are, that God decreed to sufferPag, 28. 29▪ them to doe that which they did, but decreed not that they should so doe, and that God might hauehave appointed some to sacrifice his sonne Christ, as he did Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. And againe, that although God determined certainly that his sonne should be slain, yet he might hauehave been slain without sin▪

DEFENCE.

THat God suffered, and so decreed to suffer the wicked to kill his sonne, is plaine. If he had not decreed to suffer them, he had not suffered them; if he had not suffered them, they could not hauehave done it: but that he onelyonly suffered them, is against the expresse words and meaning of the text, which sayth, the wicked took him, being delivered by Gods determinato counsell. Is to deliver by determinate counsell, to suffer onelyonly? So where it is sayd, that Gods hand determined that which was done, it shewes that God was a doer in the businesse, and not a sufferer onelyonly. If God onelyonly suffered them, (that is, hindred them not) he had no hand in it at all, but with-held his hand from medling in it. How then could his hand and counseli determine before whatsoever was done? Besides, if God onelyonly suffered the death of his sonne, all the worth of our redemption by his death, vanisheth away: seeing that which God suffers onelyonly, is onelyonly evill, and not good. Also by this perverse exposition, neither the Father gaue his sonne, nor the sonne himselfe for us to the death, which the Scriptures every where affirme. Lastly, hee that considers the end of theIoh. 3. 16. Gal. 2. 20. 1. Ioh. 4. 9. Rom 5. vers 25. 29.John 3:16Gal 2:201 John 4:9Rom 5:25Rom 5:29 Churches prayer, Act. 4. will plainly see how they meant therein to ascribe unto God more then the sole suffering of those things. The end was to comfort themselues and other Gods servants against the threatnings and rage of the wicked in all their persecutions. But what comfort (I marvail) can the servants of God draw from this consideration, that God suffers the wicked in rage to persecute them, and hinders p. 6them not. This were indeed rather matter of discouragement and dispaire, then of comfort unto them. But herein stands their comfort firme, that God by the hand of his providence orders all these things according to the fore-determination of the counsel of his will. Neither wil their vain imagination helpe them, that Christ might hauehave been slain, and become our sacrifice, yet without sinne. For howsoeevr it bee not for them, nor me, to determine what was possible to Gods absolute power; yet we know, considering the declaration thereof both by the Scriptures and event, that in regard of Gods decree, it was necessarie that Christ should dye, as he did, by the conspiracie and rage of wicked men; as both the expresse words, and plain drift of the places proue. Lastly, it is an erroneous presumption, that God might hauehave appointed some to hauehave sacrificed his sonne Christ, as he did Abraham to sacrifice his sonne Isaac, to wit, in obedience to Gods commandement, considering how expresly the Scriptures did even before his death, teach the contrary: and that the sonne of man must suffer many things, and be killed by the Elders and chiefe Priest. Also thatMark. 3. 31. Luk. 24. 20.▪ 26. Ioh. 12. 32. 33. Gal. 3. 13.Mark 3:31Luke 24:20Luke 24:26John 12:32John 12:33Gal 3:13 Christ ought to suffer, to wit, what he had suffered, by the Priests and Rulers which had delivered him to bee condemned to death, and had crucified him: which manner of death, by being hanged upon the tree, so becoming a curse for us, that he might free us from the curse of the Law, was as well foretold by the scriptures, as his death it selfe. If that cannot but be, which the Scriptures fore-tell, and that the Scriptures fore-told that Christ must thus be killed and crucified by the hands of wicked men, then was it necessary (and could not otherwise be) in regard of Gods decree, that Christ should die as he did, and not without sinne in them that killed him.

To conclude this place: These men granting, that God decreed the death of his sonne, but denying that he decreed the meanes and manner thereof, make the most wise God like weak man, who often resolues of a thing to bee done, but takes time to consider of the manner of doing it.

Neither yet doe we, by all this, make God the appointer of p. 7evill in their meaning, that is, either the commander, or worker, or approver thereof; but onelyonly the supreme governour of the whole world, and of all persons and actions therein, how sinfull soever; using and ordering the covetousnesse of Iudas, the envy of the Priests, and injustice of Pilate to this event of Christs death; in regard of them most wicked, but of God, most gracious; and to us, most profitable.

Take we one other instance, for this purpose, from God… threatning of David by the Prophet, for his sinne against Vriah. Now therfore the sword shall never depart from thy house, 2. Sam. 12. 10. 11. 12.2 Sam 12:102 Sam 12:112 Sam 12:12&c. Behold I will raise up evill against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wiues before thine eyes, and giuegive them unto thy neighbour, and he shall ly with thy wiues in the sight of the Sunne, &c. Whence it appeares, that Absoloms practises against his father, as necessarily followed, by the work of Gods providence, as Gods threatnings going before, were necessarily true. Will they say, that God onelyonly suffred this, and so gainsay God himselfe, saying, I will doe this, v. 12. Is to do to suffer with these men? Tell me, you poore seduced soules, doth not the Lord here threaten a judgement from him to come upon2 King. 29▪ 19. Psal. 119. 160, 164▪Ps 119:160Ps 119:164 David for his sin? Are not all Gods judgements good and righteous? Doth the Iudge onelyonly suffer the punishment of the malefactors, and not inflict or procure it? The scriptures teach, and these men acknowledge, that whatsoever is good, commeth from the father of lights: Are not Gods judgements (wherof this is one) good in truth, though both evill to mans sence, as this was to Davids; and worse sometimes in the instruments both intention and action, as it was in Absoloms? It is therefore evident, that the same thing, in divers respects, was both the horrible sin of Absolom, and the severe punishment of David, and the just judgment of God. Take a familiar similitude for the explaining of this matter. The water is of it selfe apt and prone to flow to and fro. The husbandman by h…s artificiall ditches and trenches, brings it to this or that place, in this or that measure, at this or that time, and so for other circumstances: yet doth not he at all work the disposition of flowing in p. 8the water, but finding it there, makes use of it for his purpose, and by his skill leads the water whither seems good unto him. So neither did the Lord infuse at all corrupt on into Absolom, but finding it there by the Divels and his owne work, ordered it to that his holy end, the glory of his justice in punishing the heynous sins of David: of which punishment he was the authour.

These men grant, that God foreseeth all evill to come. This foresight of God they will not deny to bee certain, and that wherein God cannot be deceived. Whereupon it followes, that such evils so foreseen, necessarily and unavoydably come to passe. If any object, that Gods foresight is not the cause of the evill. I answer, no more is his decree or work of provividence about it. It sufficeth for the purpose in hand, if it follow by way of event or consequence upon the antecedent, though not of effect upon the cause. Let us yet a little further open this poynt. This knowledge, or fore-knowledge of God, is two-fold: naturall and indefinite, by which God knowes all possible things, and whatsoever in any respect, or upon any supposition, can possibly be: or definit…, and determinate, by which of things possible he knowes what shall and what shall not be. Now howsoever this fore-knowledge (as all other things in God) be one, and that infinite and eternall; yet in our conception, the former of those acts of Gods fore-knowledge, goes before the decree, the latter presupposeth it. For therefore God certainly and infallibly forsees a thing shall be, because he unchangeably decrees it shall be in and according to its kind: if good, by his working it: if evill, by his suffering it, and governing the creature in working it.

But you will answer, that God from eternity certainly and infallibly fore-saw Absoloms incest, because Absolom would certainly and undoubtedly practise it in time. But I would further know, whence this certainty and undoubtednesse of Absoloms such practise should arise, so as it could not possibly but be, nor God be deceived in that his prescience or foreknowledge? p. 9It was not of any absolute necessitie of it self, that Absolom should be born: or being born, that he should be preserved, and surviue to that time: or being till then preserved, that he should hauehave naturall ability, and opportunitie therewith to practise that sin: seeing it was not impossible, but that David might hauehave taken his wiues with him, or they hauehave fled els whither, and hauehave hid themselues. In all these things God was not a meere sufferer, but a powerful worker by his providence. But suppose the being of all these things as they were; and withall, Absoloms heart by the Divels work, and his owne, fraught with lust, and impiety this way; yet was Absalom a changeable creature, haveing in himself freedom, or libertie of will to hauehave forborn that act at that time, or to hauehave exercised his lust upon some other object. How then could that particular event follow unchangeably from his changeable will? How necessarily and inavoydably, from his choyce of will which was free in it self either to that act, or to another of that kinde, or to neither? Either therefore Gods decree from eternitie (and so his work in time) must be acknowledged for the disposing and ordering of all events unavoydably, or his knowledge be denied in foreseeing them infallibly.

Lastly, to affirme that any thing, great or small, good or evill, comes to passe in the world, without Gods providence ordering and governing it and them that doe it, is to set the creature from under the Creators rule and dominion therein; and to shut God out of the earth, whilst men doe what they list in it, he letting them alone, and not medling with them.

How Adam had power from the creation of God not to sin whichPag. 5. they urge in the nextplace, we shal shew hereafter. In the mean while, their addition, that Gods cōmanding him not to sin, and yet his decreeing that he should sin, are contrary, as light and darknes, is faulty both in regard of our assertion, and their own. For us, we do not hold, that God decreed Adams sin, as they conceiue, p. 10that is, either to approue it, or command it, or compell unto it, nothing lesse: but this we affirm, that God decreed to leaue Adam to himself in the temptation, and not to assist him with that strength of grace, by which he could (if he would) hauehave upheld him; and so to order both him, and all things about him, in that his temptation, as that, he, by the motion and sway of his own free-will, following his naturall appetite to the pleasant, but forbidden fruit, and that false perswasion wherewith his understanding was by Sathan overclouded, should both choose and eat the forbidden fruit. Neither are these two things contrary, that God should forbid a thing, and yet decree that it should come to passe in theGen. 22.Gen 22 manner fore-mentioned. God commanded Abraham to kill his son, as it was a tryall of his obedience: and yet decreed that the event of killing should not follow, as we know. God commanded Pharaoh, by Moses, to let Is…l goe; and yet sayd Exod. 4. 21. 22. Luk. 12. 50. &. 22. 42.Exod 4:21Exod 4:22Luke 12:50Luke 22:42before, I will harden Pharaohs heart, that he shall not let the people goe. That which he sayd, he decreed and pu…pos…d. Christ our Lord desired to drink of that bitter cup appointed him, and to be baptised with that bapt…sme, and was pained till it were accomplished: and yet desired in an other respect, that the same cup might passe from him, and he not drink of it, if it were possible. These things may well stand together in their severall respects, and are not as light and darknesse to any, but to them, whose light is darknesse.

Next, they take upon them to impugne the received distinctionPag. 5. of Gods revealed and secret will; and demand, If it be Gods secret will, how we come to know it? I answer, by his revealing it afterwards, either by his word, or by his work. When a thing comes to passe in this or that manner (though before not so much as insinuated in his Word, and therfore secret) we then know that it was the will of God it should so come to passe, either by his working it according to its kinde, if it be good; or by his suffering and ordering it, and the worker therof, if evill.

It is true which they adde, that Gods revealed will, was not p. 11revealed but hidden, before it was revealed. But what then? There was then, say they, two hidden wils in God contrary to each other: wherof the one willed; yea, decreed Adam to sinne, and the other willed him not to sin, and so by consequence, a good will, and an evill will.

I answer, that the will of God in him, and its selfe, is but one, and the same most simple; but by us conceived of, as divers, according to the diversity of objects upon which it is set. Secondly, we doe not say, that God willed Adams sin immediately, but that he willed the suffering and ordering of both the sinne and sinner in sinning. Thirdly, the willing and nilling of the same thing in divers respects, makes not two contrary wills, as the Scriptures last cited manifest; but the willing and nilling of the same thing i… the same respect, makes the contrariety.

ADVERSARIES.

THey make us further to say, that God willeth justice for itsPag. 6. selfe, and sin, not for sin, but that he might either hauehave praise in pardoning or punishing sin: and thereunto frame answer, that to pardon or punish sinne, is not to will sinne; and that if God willeth sinne in any respect, why doth he punish it in Adam, and all his posterity?

DEFENCE.

BVT who hath sayd, that God wils sin, though not for sin? We know that the object of mans will is onelyonly good in appearance, and of Gods in truth. We doe not then say, that God wils sin properly, though he will the thing which in regard of the creature is sin: but in regard of him either a most holy and wise tryall of the creature, or just punishment of former sins, either their own that practise it, or others: so Absoloms 2 Sam. 12, & 15, & 16. Rom. 1.2 Sam 12Rom 1wicked sin, was Gods just punishment upon David. So the reprobate minde, vile affections, and all unrighteousnesse of the Gentiles, was a meet recompence from God of their error, in not glorifying him as God in the things which they clearly saw in the creation p. 12of the world. They cannot here hide themselues in their burrow of Gods bare suffering, considering how expresly it is sayd, that God gaue them up to vile affections, and as a just Iudge recompenced thereby their former sins, to wit, as otherwise, so by ordering that corruption which was in, and of themselues, to this fearfull event of a reprobate mind.

The things which they ad about mens, how much more Gods Pag. 6. 7.speaking the truth from his heart; and their bold charge of others with blasphemie, in making God (to be blessed for ever) an hypoorite, I passe by as a fruit of that spirit which makes men presumptuous, self-willed, and not afrayd to speak evill of the things which they know not themselues, nor will learn of others.2. Pet. 2. 10. Iude 10.2 Pet 2:10Jude 1:10 The Lord, who taught Paul, that he, who being a Pharisee, and in his ignorance had accounted Christs doctrine blasphemy, had himselfe blasphemed; shew these men the like merciemercy: for they know not what they speak.

ADVERSARIES.

IN the next place, to shew how free Adam was from all necessitie of sinning, they at large relate how God furnished him with all things that might support him in the estate in which hee created him.

DEFENCE.

THE particular helps mentioned, I acknowledge with them, but with limitation of some of them, which they set down at a large adventure. Whereas in the third they affirm, that Adam had a meet help and comfort for him, his wife Hevah. This is true of her created state, but not of that which followed, she (being first seduced by the serpent, taking advantage upon her womanly weaknesse, and the absence of her husband) becoming the onelyonly imediate instigator of him to sin. So for the 7^th. and last, which is, that God gaue Adam will and power not to hauehave eaten, we confesse it, but not as they mean it, in their more overly considerations, and peremptoric determinations, then is meet, in this deep mystery. Let us therefore p. 13a little more distinctly consider, how it may and ought to be granted, that God furnished Adam with all necessarie and sufficient grace and helps, against sin, and for perseverance in holinesse.

First then, we confesse, that God making him a reasonable creature, bestowed upon him withall whatsoever grace was sufficient and necessarie, on his part; that is, as much (and more) then he was bound to giuegive him. Secondly, that God gaue him whatsoever was sufficient for his preservation in that state of holinesse and integritie in which he was created, out of the case of temptation. Thirdly, I grant, that whatsoever grace he wanted for the resisting of the temptation, when it came, it was by his own default, and that if hee had not failed himself, the grace of God would and should hauehave sustained him therein also. Notwithstanding all this, the event manifested, that Adam had not the grace to withstand the temptation of the serpent by the woman, but was seduced thereby. It was nothing but want of grace in him not to withstand it: and this grace he could not hauehave but by his gift, from whom every good gift, and every perfect giving commeth Iam. 1. 17.Jas 1:17down, even the father of lights. God gaue him will actually onelyonly to good, but changeably; and power to understand and do whatsoever concerned him if he would: But now that constancie of will upon clear understanding and unchanged purpose of heart, which was requisite in so great a temptation (by so subtile an adversarie in an object so pleasing to nature, and good in it selfe, together with the perswasion of his wife, so neere unto him) this grace, I say, Adam received not of God, as the event in the changing of his will upon deceitfull information of his understanding, blinded by an appearing good, made it too manifest; though as before I sayd, through his owne default, in not depending upon God as he ought.

The things which they annex, that God gaue not Adam a Pag. 7. 3. 9. 10.Law to ensnare him; but that that law was holy and good; that Adam was the son of God by creation; that if men, who are evill, do good unto their children, and would not beget them to misery; how p. 14much lesse hath the good God created his Sonne to sinne and misery? As also, that sinne is the defacing of Gods image in man, we willingly acknowledge; and withall whatsoever can be rightly gathered therefrom.

We beleeue that the end of Adams creation in regard of himselfe was holinesse, and happinesse; in regard of God, the glorious manifestation of his power, wisedom, holinesse and goodnesse; and that sinne came in by accident, and misery by sin; man by his free, but corrupted will, willing the sin; and God by his just and holy will, the punishment; and that sin was in no sense the destinated end of Gods creation; nor misery, but by accident, as to come for sin. Yet must the difference here be held (howsoever these men tumble all together) between God (Adams, and all mens father by creation and his children) and between naturall parents, and their children. God was Adams absolute father, and Lord▪ though not for the use of any unjust power; men are but fathers as it were by borrowing, and with a power limited by Gods will. 2 God workes, and orders all things for himselfe, yea, even the wicked for the evill day, and of him, and through Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36Prov 16:4Rom 11:36him, and to him are all things. So doe not earthly parents beget and order their children for themselues, as their utmost, and highest end. 3 Earthly parents are bound not to suffer their children to sinne, if they can hinder it; but to doe whatsoever they possibly can, being lawfull, to keep them from sin and misery. Will these free Burgesses, of their own chusing, make a Parliament-law to binde God to doe whatsoever he possibly can to keep from sinning men and Angels? Lastly, earthly parents would rather (had they before known it) never hauehave begotten their children, then that they should (though meerly by their own default) hauehave come to sin and misery therby without remedy. But God (even our Adversaries being Iudges) foreknew these things of men, and yet created them notwithstanding.

ADVERSARIES.

HEre, upon question moved, whether God could not hauehavePag. 10. made Adam so as he could not hauehave been deprived of his state of righteousnesse; and whether any thing can be done against Gods will: they undertake to manifest two things; 1 in what state God made Adam; 2 that many things are done against the will of God. For the first, they in their bold ignorance, hold it an ignorant conceit, that God could hauehave made Adam unchangeable: that is, so hauehave made, and kept him as he should not, nor could hauehave been deprived of his state of righteousnesse, in which he was made. For this, say they, had been to hauehave made him God like himselfe: and so conclude, that God could not hauehave made man otherwise then he made him, a reasonable creature, yet changeable: 2 that then it had been to no purpose, to hauehave set a penalty to the Law: 3 that then the most holy attributes of God, his justice to punish sin, and mercy to forgiue it, had been voyd.

DEFENCE.

THey, who here desire, that what they say may be well observed, should themselues better hauehave observed what they say, then thus, as they doe, to deceiue both themselues, and others, by an equivocation of words.

Here then in the first place, a distinction must be put, which is, that a thing is unchangeably good, either in, and by it selfe, and so God onelyonly is unchangeable (and so onelyonly hath immortality, 1 Tim. 6. 16 1 Tim. 1. 17▪1 Tim 6:161 Tim 1:17and is onelyonly wise, &c.) or a thing unchangeable by the grace and power of God communicated with the creature; and so God could, if he would, hauehave made Adam unchangeable, or kept him unchanged, which is the same, in the present consideration: as he hath made the Angels and soules of men immortall, and both Angels and men wise in their kinde, by communication of the effects of his being, and wisedom with them. God then is onelyonly unchangeably good by nature, and of hims…lfe; yet by his grace and power, it was possible for Adam to hauehave been kept unchangeably p. 16good, so as he should not hauehave sinned, which is the unchangeablenesse in question.

And this answereth their first reason. To the second also, I answer, that God making Adam changeably good by created nature, might (had it seemed so good to his infinite wisedom) hauehave kept him by grace from possibility of breaking his righteous Law, in our meaning, notwithstanding tho annexing of the penalty, and that to great good purpose; viz. both to shew how God hates all transgressing of his Law, against the breach whereof he denounceth such judgement; and also, as a meanes (by his blessing and grace) effectually for the keeping of Adam from breaking it: which use also it should hauehave had, if Adam had done his duety in constant obedience, and that God, by his most powerfull grace had so preserved him, that he had not sinned.

For the third Reason: First I demand, what necessity there was that God should hauehave use (as they speak) towards men of the attributes of his justice to punish sin, and of his mercy to pardon it upon repentance? Would it hauehave been any diminution of his perfection, and happinesse if he had not so done? Doth not the glory of God also even most brightly shine in the elect Angels, which hauehave been and shall be kept unchangeably holy and without sin for ever? and in regard of whom those holy Attributes, of justice in punishing, and mercy in pardoning hauehave no use. But obserue (good Reader) how these men are taken inavoydably in their own snare. It is not mans being made changeable, and such as might sin, by which their could come to be use of Gods attributes of justice for the punishing of sin; and mercy for the pardoning of it; except withall man become actually changed, and sinfull. Can there be use of justice for punishing, or of mercy for foregiuenesse of sin, but where sin is? Their reason therfore (if it bear weight) proues not onelyonly that man might possibly, but that he must sin necessarily. Which I lay down and apply formally thus. That without which the Attributes of Gods justice to punish sinne, and of his mercy to pardon it, had been p. 17utterly without use towards men, that must necessarily be: but without mans sinning, the attributes of Gods justice to punish, and of his mercy to pardon, had been utterly without use towards men: ergo, man must necessarily sin, by just consequence upon their antecedent.

Their reasons thus answered, I will plainly proue that God could, if it had so pleased him, hauehave kept Adam unchangeably good; as the Angels, and soules of men are, and bodies shall be (at the resurrection) unchangeably immortall.

And first, the Scriptures teach us to giuegive this honour to the power of God, as to beleeue, that our God in the heaven Psal. 115. 4.Ps 115:4doth (and therefore can doe) whatsoever pleaseth him: and so could (had it pleased him, and been his will) hauehave preserved Adam from sinning against him. Of their distinction of Gods will we shall speak by and by. If in the mean while they except, that God could not so will; I would know the reason of their such presumption. If they say, there are some things which God cannot doe, as to lie, to deny himselfe, to make the same thing to be, and not to be, at the same time, and the like, inferring either impotence in the Creatour, or contradiction in the creature. I demand, what had there been herein against the nature either of the Creator, or creature, if God by his grace, had kept the understanding of Adam from being overclowded with errour, or false opinion, and therewith his will and affections in the integrity of obedience? This had not been (as some imagine) to destroy; but to perfect his nature. Hath not God so kept the elect Angels without all change from their primitiue purity? Was not the Lord Iesus in his Manhood so kept upon earth? And shall not all the elect be so kept for ever in heaven? These are, were, and shall be unchangeably righteous; and yet were not, nor are, nor shall be made Gods.

They themselues confesse, that the devils are unchangeable Pag. 11.in evill; And why then might not both Angels and men be unchangeable in good? that is, so kept by the power of God p. 18as they never turn from their goodnes. Or what barre would these men hauehave put against the power of God, if his will had been so to hauehave preserved and kept Adam? I demand, whether the Apostles, in their time, could possibly preach any thing but the truth, being immediately and infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost? All these instances serue to proue, that it is possible to God, if it please him, so to assist and confirm by his Spirit, a reasonable creature (though of a changeable nature in its selfe) as that in regard of the same divine assistance, it is not possible it should be changed from good to evill, or sin against God. Lastly, if God could not hauehave so made and ordered Adam, as that he could not hauehave sinned, then God did not so much as suffer him to sinne, seeing none can be said properly to suffer a thing to be done, saue he that could hinder it, if he would. It were absurdly said, that I suffer the wind to blow, or sea to swell, though I hinder them not, seeing it is not in my power to hinder them.

ADVERSARIES.

THey add from Ezech. 18, & 33, Gods asseveration, thatPag. 11. 12 as he liues, he would hauehave no man transgresse, and so come under the exequution of his justice: making withall, a short description of the will of God, as they call it: and ever confounding these two things; necessity and compulsion: and Gods not decreeing, with his forcing men to sinne,

DEFENCE.

FOr better answering, and understanding of the answer unto these things, it must be considered; first, that the will of God, though simple, and one in its nature, yet exerciseth it selfe diversly, in regard of divers objects. The first and weakest degree of Gods willing (to speak of God as man is able to conceiu of him) is that by which he wills the permission or suffering of sin, as sin. For if God suffer it, he suffers it willingly, seeing he both takes knowledge of it, and could hinder it by his omnipotent power, if he pleased. The p. 19second degree of Gods willing, is that by which he commands a thing to be done, and approues of it, if it be done. The third and last degree is, that according to which he workes all things by his omnipotent power. And if a man whose will is finite, yet can will things according to those degrees; how much more both possible and easie is it to Gods infinite will, to exercise it selfe more intensly or remisly, according to those degrees? I may be willing, in cases, to suffer that in another which I approue not of: so may I command my servant or child to doe a thing, and approu of it, if it be done, and yet not so will it, as to use all the power that possibly I can, to hauehave it done. Some things, again, there are that I so will, as that I doe, or am bound to use all my possible skill and power to hauehave them effected. These things are much more rightly said of God, considering the infinite largenesse of his will, compared with my straitnesse. The same may be said of the Spirit of God which is one (for there is one Spirit) whose1 Cor. 12. 4.1 Cor 12:4 operation yet is divers, and the same sometimes more, and sometimes lesse forcible: as we see in the knowledge of an Apostle, compared with the knowledge of an ordinary Minister or Christ…an; and many other waies.

And these differences of the will of God in the exercising of itselfe towards the creature, I desire the Reader here carefullyPag. 12. to obseru for after use. Their short definition, as they unskilfully call it, of Gods will, by which he either wils what man is to doe, or what he will doe in himselfe, is short indeed, as cutting off all that God will doe and doth out of himselfe, and in the creature, as are all his workes ad extra, as they are called.

It remaines, that in the next place, we shew the difference between necessity and compulsion; and Gods decreeing in our sense, and his forcing of things, (which our Adversaries with great errour confound as the same) and withall, that things may, after a sort, be done necessarily, and freely too. Freely, yea contingently also, in regard of men, and necessarily in regard of Gods work of providence according to his decree. p. 20I mention Gods work according to his decree; because to speak properly, Gods decree or will, works not things, but his power according to his will. There is indeed a necessity which takes away freedom and voluntarinesse from men; but then they rather suffer then doe. For example, the striking or thrusting of a man with such violence, as that he is compelled thereby to stagger or fall: this necessity of compulsion depriues me of all freedom to this bodily motion, so as I stagger or fall unwillingly; but this comes from an externall principle or beginning working violently, and from without me. But this is nothing to that other necessity in regard of God, causing and effecting the good, in and by the creature, according to its kinde; and suffering and ordering the evill person and thing, according to its kind; with which mans freedom may well stand.

And first, whatsoever God doth, he doth it both most freely, and most necessarily well. So the elect Angels doe the… Tim. 5. 21 Esay 6. 2.Isa 6:2 will of God most voluntarily, and yet most necessarily. So did Christ, as man, the will of his Father so freely, as noneMat. 16. 11. Ioh. 4. 34. Act. 20. 28.Matt 16:11John 4:34Acts 20:28 can doe any thing more; and yet as necessarily, as it was necessary for God not to sinne. On the contrary, the devils doe evill, both most necessarily (being by these mens own grant, unchangeably evill) and yet most willingly, as carryed thereunto withall their power. Christ saith, it must needs be that Mat. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 19Matt 18:71 Cor 11:19offences come; and the Apostle, that there must be heresies in the Church. If then freedom of will can stand with no manner of necessity, the authours of these heresies and offences sinne not therin: for all sinnes specially of this kinde are voluntary. I add in the last place, that the better any man, or Angell is, he doth good the more, both necessarily and willingly: and the worse any, evill, both waies.

Neither will it seem strange unto us, that one and the same action comes under so divers considerations, as in one regard, to be voluntary, contingent and casuall; and in another, necessary: if we consider, how divers agents concur and meet together in producing it. No work of man, is so mans alone, p. 21as that God hath not some hand in it, in sustaining and ordering the person and work, yea in effecting that which is good in it, as all that is, which hath in it any created being or order. What hinders then, but that the same thing may in regard of man as the particular and immediate cause, be voluntary and contingent; and yet in regard of God the highest and generall cause, necessary? We daily see the truth of this in proportion amongst men; the meeting of Ahab and Eliah was1 King. 2 … ▪1 Kgs 2 in respect of Ahab, casuall; but in respect of Eliah, of destinate counsell.

These things thus cleered, we will come to the exposition of the words of Ezechiel, so oft and vehemently urged by these men, and others; which are, that God takes not pleasure Chap. 12. 23 & 33. 11▪in the death of a sinner, but that he turn from his way and liue.

I answer; first, that the Lord takes no delight in the death of a sinner, that repents, and turns from his wicked way: but otherwise, if the sinner repent not, the Lord takes delight in his death; not for the misery of the creature, but for the glory of his justice shining therin. Of such the Lord testifies,Prov. 1. 2…Prov 1:2 that he wil laugh at their calamity, & mock when their fear cometh. And considering, that the death, and destruction of the wicked is Gods own just and holy work, for their sins, who will deny that God delights in it? Secondly, for sinne, who was ever so wicked as to imagine that God takes pleasure in it? It pleaseth him for his holy ends, to suffer sin, and to order the creature sinning by his own freewill, & election of evil, as hath been formerly proved. Thirdly, it must be noted that the Prophet speaks there of such sinners onelyonly, as to whom the word comes; saying, Turn yee, turn yee from your evill waies, Chap. 33. 1… ▪for why will yee die, ô house of Israel? Whence we doe gather evidently these two particulars. First, that the Prophet doth not here speak of all men universally, (as they conceiu) but onelyonly of the house of Israel, or of such, as to whom he… sends his Prophets to call them to repentance: secondly, that he speaks not of that decree of the Lord willing, which is accompanied with the powerfull work of his grace, by which p. 22hee will giuegive repentance to wicked men, instructed in the truth by 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25. 26.2 Tim 2:242 Tim 2:252 Tim 2:26his servants: but onelyonly of that degree of his will which stands in commanding that which is good, and in approving of it, if it be performed. And so we grant it to be the Lords pleasure and will, that all repent to whom the Word is preached.

It is true which they add: that Adam and others sinned against the will of God, but not that any ever sinned against the secret will of God, as they affirm. The will of God is no law to man till it be revealed; and where there is no law, there is no transgression. It is also truely sayd, that the Iewes unwillingnesse to be gathered to Christ, was against Gods and Christs will: that is, his commanding will: for he would, that is, commanded, and they would not, but disobeyed: but that it was against that decree of Gods willing, which sets his almightie power awor…, that I deny. For God could, if thus he would, hauehave giuen them repentance, and drawn them to his son. Whatsoever he thusIoh. 6. 44.John 6:44 wills, he can do.

That which they add (as an eye-salue to cure our blindnes) namely, that we hauehave nothing to do with Gods secret wil, not revealed in his word, is true in regard of our obedience to God, & expectationPsal. 135. 6.Ps 135:6 from him▪ but not absolutely, as they conceiue. The particular events of things in the world, though not so much as insinuated in the scriptures, concern us when they come to passe, so as we may and ought to say, it was the will of God they should so be: either his will to work them, if good: or to suffer and order them and their doers, if evill.

ADVERSARIES.

NExt comes into consideration a speciall distinction ofPag. 12, 13. 14. ours, which is, that God is the author of the action, or fact, but not of the sin of the fact or crime. Over which they insult, and in it over all learned men, though they mention Calvin onelyonly, with high contempt and great triumph before the victory; calling it a merely fabulous ridle, and marvellous sophistication; telling us that a spade is a spade, &c. but in truth shewing themselues p. 23sitter to medle with a spade and a mattock, then with those high mysteries. Let us see their reasons. In the first whereof they make us say; that God is the author of the very fact and deed of Adams sin, yea of adultery, theft, murder, &c.

DEFENCE.

WE deny their charge, and answer by distinction; that Adams taking and eating the forbidden fruit, Davids adultery, Ioahs murther, and the like, are to be considered two waies: First, naturally, and as they are motions in nature, performed by mans natural & created faculties and powers of soul and body: secondly, morally, as those motions are misapplyed, and abused to wrong objects, by mans blinde mind and corrupt will. In the former respect, & materially, as we speak, they are of God and created nature; in the latter and formally, of mans proper corruption. Now the sinne is not the naturall action of motion, but the pravity and abuse of the action. The subtilty of our riddle, they, as if they had plowed with our heyfer, find out to be this, that in our account sinne is nothing, and that God, though the authour of all things, is not the authour of sin, for sin is nothing; and so the thiefe, and other malefactors, is punished for nothing by the Iudge: and the wicked for nothing in everlasting fire.

First, I demand of these men, whether, if God command something to be done, and men doe it not, they deseru not to be punished for their doing of nothing? Is it not sinne not to doe that wee should doe; and to doe nothing when we should doe something? These witty men could teach the goats …t Christs left hand, at that day, to answer himMatth. 25.Matt 25 to the full, that bee condemned them to hell fire for nothing; for not to doe is to doe nothing. We then answer, first, that we call not sin nothing negatiuely, but privatiuely, as a want of that which should be; secondly, that sin is not nothing morally, that is not nothing against Gods Law, for sin onelyonly is something against it, but nothing naturally; that is, nothing which hath a created being in nature.

p. 24So, for their next Argument, that by authority of Scripture, & our own description, sin is a thought, word or deed, contrary to the will of God, and therefore that the deed is sin; they should consider, that neither the Scriptures nor writers meaning is, that th… sin stands not in the naturall deed or motion, but in the contrariety which the same deed▪ or motion hath in it to the law of God. Darknes, or a shadow, are nothing positiuely, but onelyonly the want of light. The voydnes, darknes, and unformednes on the earth and deep, in the beginning, were nothing that hadGen. 1. 1. 2.Gen 1:1Gen 1:2 reall being; but onelyonly the want of that form, furniture, and light, which God afterward made, and furnished them withall. When the candle is put out, and it becomes dark; shall we think that any reall thing comes into the house, and causes the darknes? or when I make a shadow by standing in the light, or Sun-shine; do I put any reall thing in the place where the shadow is? or do I not onelyonly keep the light and Sun-shine from it? Likewise, when a man or beast halts in going, shall we imagine that the halting is the very motion of going, or the fault of the motion onelyonly? So is sin onelyonly the absence & want of that conformity and agreeablenesse which ought to be in the thought▪ word, or work of the reasonable creature to the Law of God; which as none of understanding and sincerity will deny; so for further satisfaction of the doubting, and conviction of the refractory, I will annex certain most plain and undoubted proofes of Scripture to confirme the same.

First, the Apostle quoting and confirming the saying of the…. 17. 28 heathen Poet, witnesseth to the Athenians, that in God we liue and moue, and hauehave our being. Our being then, that is, our souls and bodies, and our life arising from their union; and so our motions arising from our life we hauehave of God; yea which is more, after a sort, in him, who filleth all things with his presence. Where let it also be noted, that he speakes of the being, life, and motions of the very prophane and heathenish Idolaters, as well as of any others.

Secondly, God, as it is in the Psalm, made the heavens and p. 25…. 146. 6▪earth, and sea, and all that in them is. If sin then be any thing, (viz. any thing having being) God made it, and so it is his creature. And surely if it hauehave a being, it is either a created or uncreated being. Not the latter, for that is onelyonly God; and therefore the former by their ground. If God created all things that are, sin if it be in their sense, must be Gods creature.

Thirdly, the same naturall motion of man in which great sin is committed, if it were exercised upon another object, might be without sin, and lawfull; and therefore not the very action or motion, but the misapplying of it, is the sin; from which the action hath its morall, but not its naturall being. For example; the very same naturall motion which Adam used in takeing and eating the forbidden fruit, upon any other fruit, had been no sin. The same naturall act in which David practised adultery with Bethsaba, with his lawfull wife, had been no adultery: the very same naturall act and motion whereby Ioab killed Abner, and Amasa, if exercised upon a malefactor at the magistrates command, had been no murther, but a work of iust execution. The sinne therefore is not in the very act, but in the misapplying it, or other vitious adjunct.

Fourthly, considering that there is no sin in deed or action of body, which was not first in the faculties of the soule, the understanding, will and affections: (for onelyonly the things Mat. 15. 1…Matt 15:1which come from the heart, desile the man) the outward sin in fact and deed can no more more make the outward action in itselfe not to be of God; then the inward corruption can make the created faculties in which it is, not to be of God. It is sencelesse to doubt but that when a wicked man sleepeth, and so practiseth no wickednesse one way or other, he is notwithstanding a wicked man. And where now resteth his wickednesse, but in his heart? And what is his heart but the faculties of his understanding, will and affections, which sin possesseth and corrupteth? And yet nevertheles these naturall faculties remain Gods good creatures; so do their motions p. 26naturall, notwithstanding sins possessing them. There is in our sinfull nature, the faculty, and the sin or disorder in it: and in our sinfull works, the action from the faculty, and the outward sinne in it, from the inward sinne in the other.

Lastly, I thus argue unresistably: That which God blesseth is good, and of himselfe: This none will deny. I assume. But God blesseth the natural action, or motion, in which horrible sin is practised. This is most evident (amongst a thousand daily instances) in the sinfull commixture of Iudas and Thamar, being on his part whoredom, and on hers incest,Gen. 38.Gen 38 though with a better minde: Yet this action (considered naturally) God blessed with a childe; yea, with two sonnes; yea, with him, on whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is blessed for ever. Here is plainly the action blessed, and therfore good (in our sense) and of God; and yet the sin in the action, evill and accursed.

The meaning of Mr. Knox, in saying, that what Ethnicks Pag. 14, 15▪ 17.ascribe to fortune, we acknowledg to come from God, as the appointer of the things, they mistake and pervert, neither understanding the Ethnicks meaning, nor his. The Heathens speaking of fortune did not conceiu that there was any such divine power causing things to be, but the contrary, and that things come to passe without any divine Providence ordering them, and meerly by blinde chance or fortune: when they spake of good fortune, or ill fortune, they meant onelyonly the good or ill hap of persons, or things. His and our meaning then is, that which Christ our Lord also teacheth, that Not a sparrow Ma…. 11. 29falls to the ground without Gods providence. And where hee speaks of God as the Authour, by his counsell appointing all things to the one part, and to the other; it is plain hee intends it onelyonly of the ordering and governing of them, which they that deny, doe in effect, pluck God out of heaven, by denying his Soveraignty, and power over all his creatures in ordering them, and all their actions, to his own supernaturall ends. The bitter curses which here they break into in their p. 27ignorant zeal against him, and Calvin, and with them, all others, the worthy instruments of restoring the Gospels light, after the darknesse of Popery (into which these men are slidden back in no small measure) are like stones thrown upward by them, which without their answerable repentance will fall down upon their own heads.

Their proofe, that God is gracious and mercifull, of whom Pag. 17.all good things come, and none evill, are needlesse, seeing wee grant as much; onelyonly wishing them to consider these three things. First, that the most of these Scriptures cited, mean onelyonly the mercy and louelove of God to his Church and people. Secondly, with what mind they put once and again, moving for tempting, Iam. 1. Thirdly, that 2 Pet. 3. 4, is not to be extended to all, as it is by those prodigall Stewards of Gods grace, but to the elect onelyonly, whom the Apostle opposeth to the mockers mentioned v. 3, and therefore saith, that the Lord which hath promised, is patient towards us, and so deferres that his comming till the number of the elect be accomplished, by their effectuall calling.

Of Gods suffering, and doing things, and how they comePag. 17. to passe thereupon, I hauehave spoken before, answering what they object therabout. OnelyOnly I may not passe by, without giving warning therof, the stumbling stone of most grievous errour and impiety, which they (pur-blind people) cast in their own way, making Gods purposes and promises no better, in effect, then the vizzard of Stage-players, which they put on, and off again, at every turn.

ADVERSARIES.

THeir affirmation, that God from the beginning of the world Pag. 18.knoweth all things, yet that all things come not to passe therfore necessarily; alledging for that purpose, Math. 26. 35, is dangerous, if they speak to the matter in hand, and with respect to the Text, whose word, for the most part, they bring: Known unto God are all his workes from the beginning of the world. Act. 15. 18.Acts 15:18Their instance in Christs asking twelu Legions of Angels, Mat. p. 2826, Ananias his keeping his possession, and the saving of the ship in which Paul sayled: These Scriptures, together with Sauls Pag. 19.coming to Keilah, and the men of Keilahs delivering David into his hands, 1 Sam. 23, they bring to proue, that although God doe foreknow things will come to passe, and also foretell them, yet they may be prevented: adding hereunto▪ that the Lord knoweth, and pronounceth, that the wicked shall be damned, and yet there lyeth no necessity upon their damnation, but that it may be prevented by repentance.

DEFENCE.

FIrst, these examples of the Lords sending the twelue Legions of Angels, and of Sauls comming to Keilah, and the like, are not to the purpose in hand. The question is (as they themselues put it) of things coming not of fortune, but by Gods providence, and of Gods willing things that come to passe, both good and evill. To what end then mention they things that never did, nor shall come to passe, either good or evill; And so to cover their craft the better alter the words of the Text, All Gods workes, into All things. And what are all these things with them? Christs obtaining 12 legions of Angels, Ananias retaining his possession; the saving of the ship in which Paul sayled towards Rome: Sauls coming to Keilah, and the destruction of the Ninivits within 40 daies: which were neither works of God, nor man; nor never were nor shall be. So then by all Gods works, as the text saith, and matter in hand requireth; and by all things as they say, they must mean plain nothing, and that which never was, nor shall be.

Secondly, the Scriptures cited by them, rightly understood; are to them as Goliahs sword to him; cleerly cutting off the head of their errour. Take for instance one or two of them, upon which they most insist.

For Math. 26, it was a thing in itselfe possible, considering Gods louelove to his Sonne, and his faith in him, that he should hauehave obtained those Legions of Angels to hauehave reskued him: So was it also, not onelyonly possible in it selfe, for Saul, but also p. 29in his minde to hauehave come to Keilah &c. And whence then was it, that these things came not so to passe, and had not their answerable events? Even from the decree and providence of Gods ordering things the other way inevitably. In the former instance we hauehave Christs own testimony, who, after mention of his such praying, if he would, v. 53, adds v. 54, But then how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? As if he should hauehave sayd, it agrees well with the interest which I hauehave in my Fathers louelove, that I should obtain from him an invincible Army of heavenly Souldiers for the reskuing of me out of mine enemies hands: but the Scriptures (manifesting the purpose and decree of God) hauehave foretold the contrary; and that I should thus be oppressed, and afflicted, and made an Esay 53. 7▪ 10.Isa 53:7Isa 53:10offering for sin: which before he also professed to be the will of his Father, v. 39. 42. So for Sauls coming to Keilah, it was a thing in it selfe possible, and also Sauls purpose, and this the Lord saw, and foretold, but hindred by his providence in sending away David, as he had fore-purposed in his counsell to doe, and therby to hinder Sauls coming thither. These men should hauehave said thus, that God, alwaies fore-seeing, and sometimes fore-telling, what in regard of the nature of the things might be, and in respect of the disposition of the persons would be, if they were not prevented; yet doth prevent them effectually by the work of his providence interposed, according to the decree of his will. And this, so farre as it looks towards the thing in hand, makes against them, avowing a most powerfull work of Gods providence, according to a most constant will, over-ruling all dispositions of persons, and events of things. But for them to say bluntly, as they doe, that God fore-knows and fore-tels that things will come to passe, and yet that those things may be prevented, is to accuse the Lord himselfe, both of want of wisedom in discerning; and of truth in speaking, and of power in working.

If any object, that God saith, Saul will come to Keilah, I easily answer, that God therin onelyonly fore-tels what was in Sauls will and purpose; which compared with the event, p. 30shews that Sauls purpose of will was alterable, not Gods, in whom there is neither change, nor shadow of changing; neither is Iam. 1. 17. … Sam. 14. 29.Jas 1:17he as man that he should repent. So the threatning of the Ninivits, as divers other particular, both threatnings and promises, are but upon condition, sometimes expressed, and sometimes understood. It is ignorantly said, that a thing will be which is promised or threatned conditionally, except it be presupposed that the condition will be first. Alike impious (as accusing God, both of being deceived and deceiving) is that which followeth, that God knows, and pronounceth, that the wicked shall be damned, and yet that there is no necessity of it, but that it may be prevented by repentance. This is to say, that God knowes, and saies a thing shall be, when it may not be; yea, when he knows it shall not be, as in them that doe repent afterwards.

If they say further, that wicked men may and shall be saved if they repent, they say but as the truth is: but if thereupon they conclude of all simply, that therfore they may either repent, or be saved, they erre, not knowing the nature of a conditionall proposition: in which it is sufficient, if the consequence or latter part follow truely upon the antecedent or former part; though it may be, that neither consequent nor antecedent can possibly be. For example, 1 Cor. 15. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19, If there be no resurrection from the dead, then is Christ not risen, and your faith is also in vain, &c. The consequence is firm, If this, then that, and yet neither this nor that apart, nor both together could possibly be.

ADVERSARIES.

THese men having, as they list, vilified Gods infallible Pag. 20.knowledg, and unchangeable truth, come to his counsell, against which (say they) things may be done, as Luk. 7. 30, the Pharises did against the counsell of God: adding, that Christ knew those he admonished should perish, if they repented not; yet there lay no necessity of their perishing because Christ knew it, for as be testifieth, repentance might help it.

p. 31DEFENCE.

IN the former place they commit the fallacie of equivocation, taking the word counsell there for the internall and eternall decree of God in himself; When by it, Act. 7. is meant onelyonly the outward instructions and exhortations ministred by Iohn Baptist.

Of salvation upon condition of repentance, I spake even now that which is sufficient, to which the Reader may look back.

Comming to answer certaine scriptures, they begin withPag. 20, 21▪ 22. Prov. 16. 4. which they set down thus, God created all things for his owne sake, yea the wicked for the day of destruction, and so corupt the text whilst they pretend the opening of …t: for it is not sayd, that God created, but that he made, that is, wrought, or did all things, as Psal. 11. 3. & 15. 2. and generally wheresoever the word is used. They therefore like unskilful workmen make themselues labour, and loose it when they hauehave done, in proving that God created all men good, and none bad. Neither is it wholly true, much lesse the whole truth, which they conclude as the meaning, that man becomming evill, God made the day of destruction for him, or him for the day of destruction, as a iust recompence. For first, is it not all one (as they make it) to say, that man is made for the day of destruction, and the day of destruction for man; seeing the one imports the Lords work in or upon the person for the thing, and the other in or upon the thing for the person. Secondly, they misse the meaning of the place; which is, that all things in the world, yea wicked men▪ who seem to liue without all compasse, yet come under the divine ordination; and that as there is nothing so casuall in regard of men, no not the casting of a lot, nor falling of a Prov. 16. 23 Mat. 10. 29Prov 16:23Matt 10:29sparrow upon the ground, but comes under the Lords disposition and providence: so there is no person, nor thing in the world so evill, but he rules and over-rules it, as it may serue for the manifestation of his glory.

p. 32ADVERSARIES.

VNtoUnto the instances brought by us to proue Gods holyPag. 23. &c work, in and about mens sinfull works, and Satans with them: for example, Gods bidding Shemei curse David; His stretching out his hand upon Iob, and taking away all that he had; His moving David to number Israel; sending a lying spirit upon Ahabs Prophets, and the like: to all these they hauehave their ready and round answer, that God onelyonly suffered all these things, and that Satan and evill men were the workers of them.

DEFENCE.

BVT first let the godly Reader, who will not oppose his own fleshly reason against the wisdom of God, wel weigh the most effectuall and significatiue terms that possibly can be used by the Holy Ghost every where, to shew the Lords powerfull work in those matters, and not his bare sufferance; as if he were onelyonly an idle looker on, letting men alone without medling with them, in a great part of the greatest, even all the evill works of their liues: For example, that God sent Ioseph into Egipt, and not his brethren; that he hardened Pharaohs heart, Gen. 45. Exod. 4. & 9. Iob. 1. 2. Sam. 16. 2. Sam. 24. 2. King. 22 Esay 10. 2. Thess. 2.Gen 45Exod 4Job 12 Sam 162 Sam 242 Kgs 22Isa 102 Thess 2and raised him up to shew in him his power, &c. that the Lord gaue, and that the Lord took away from Iob; that God bade Shimei curse David; that he moved David against Israel, to say, Go number Israel and Iudah: that he put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs prophets: that Asshur was a staffe in the Lords hand, and the rod of his anger: that he sent strong delusions upon them that received not the louelove of the truth; and lastly, (to let passe infinite other places) that God by his determinate counsell and foreknowledge, delivered Christ into the hands of wicked men; and that they did what Gods hand and counsell had determined before to be done.

Now, can we conceiu it to be for no more but a simple suffering, that the Holy Ghost, who knew right well how to speak, should not once, nor twice, but I may safely say, a thousand times in the Scriptures, use words and phrases importing p. 33so effectuall operation and working? Is to send men, to take away things, to raise up, to use men as a staffe in the hand, and bid them goe, onelyonly to suffer them, and let them be still, and alone? Surely the Art of Chimists is nothing to these mens, in evaporeating; who can reduce those most just and powerfull works of God to a very nothing; for no more is a bare suffering then a not doing.

But we will briefly, as may be, handle the particulars, following their foot-steps, who beginning with Shemei, allowPag. 23. God onelyonly the poore pittance of sufferance, for Davids tryall: 2 Sam. 16. 10.2 Sam 16:10But David himselfe will teach them better, in saying, the Lord hath sayd to him, Curse David: who shall then say, wherfore hast thou done so? For first, if God did onelyonly suffer, that is, not hinder Shemei, then God did not try David, but onelyonly suffered Shemei to try him, which …s false: Secondly, this was no… onelyonly a tryall, but specially a punishment, or correction of his former sinnes, and therfore laid upon him by God: but whether it were tryall, or correction, or both, it was in that respect good, and of God as the Authour. Gods suffering of Shemei could not be his tryall of David. It was Shemei who was suffered; but David who was tryed and punished, who therfore bore it with the perceings of a tender and humble heart, as Gods just work in ordering the malice of Shemei to become his rod of correction.

Of Iobs afflictions, it is also presumptuously said by them, that God onelyonly suffered them. Iob speaking of his nakednesse, and misery, saith expresly, that as the Lord had given, so the Lord Iob 1. 21.Job 1:21had taken away. They may as well say, the Lord onelyonly suffered the giving, as that he onelyonly suffered the taking away of Iobs substance. He ascribeth both alike to the Lord, in regard of his providence ordering things according to their kinds. Neither is there sense to imagine, that Iob so blesseth God for onelyonly letting the divell, and wicked men alone, to work their malice upon him, and his; but as by the eye of faith he saw the hand of God (to be blessed for ever) ordering and determining the same to his own holy ends. Can any man blesse p. 34God meerly for suffering the divell to hurt him? So God in 2 Sam. 24. 12 Sam 24:1moving David to number Israel, did not onelyonly suffer him and Satan to do their work, but did his own also by them, though they thought not so, in ordering the malice of the one, and pride of the other, to a just occasion of punishing Israel, against whom his anger was kindled; and this agrees well with both the proportion of faith, and generality of the Scriptures.

The same in effect is to be said of the lying spirits seducing Pag. 24. 1 King. 22.1 Kgs 22Ahabs Prophets, in which God neither puts malice into the divell, nor flattery into the hearts of false Prophets; but finding them there before, and that of themselues, useth them by a most powerfull and skilfull hand to the furthering of the deserved destruction of a wicked King. And where they say, the controversie is, who was the first cause of this cursing, envie, pride, and deceit, they miserably deceiue themselues and others. We abhorre from saying that God is either first or last cause of any wicked thing; but of the tryall or punishment, or other good in the ordering of the wicked thing; as the just Iudg may use the malice or cruell disposition of the Exequutioner for the exercising of just punishment upon the malefactour.Pag. 25. Neither doe we say (as they dream) that cursing, envie &c. are good in God, and wicked in the devill, and man; This is impossible: but we say, that the ordering of them, and of the persons in whom they are, is good in God, either for tryall, or punishment. For example, of such as goe to war, and take meanes, one is moved therto, because he would not work; another in hope of booty and prey; a third being weary of wife or friends; and so others, in the like corrupt respects: And yet the King, or Captain may use and order them all, and all their corrupt ends and intendments to his most just and lawfull ends, and intentions, either in offensiue, or defensiue warres. And if one frail man can make this lawfull use of the lawlesse and sinfull lusts of other men, should proud flesh quarrell at Gods most infinite power and wisedom in his just and holy works? Or will they (vain men) conjure him herein within the narrow circle of p. 35their understanding? Denying him at all to hauehave any hand in working, where they (blinde molles) cannot discern how he works? O the depth of the riches both of the wisedom and Rom. 11. 3…Rom 11:3knowledge of God? how unsearchable are his judgements, and his waies past finding out? cryed he, who yet could farre better discern of them, then they, or we. In opening Esa. 10. 5. 6, they speak the truth, and that which we intend, though presently after they devoure the hallowed thing. They say well, thatPag. 26. one wicked Nation was sent to punish another, which thing (say they) was good from God; namely, to punish the wickednesse of some by others as wicked, and that this is Gods justice, though they thought not so. Very well said; God justly punisheth the Iewes by the Assirians; and how doth he that his just work? By the Assirians invading and spoyling them; and no other way: ThisEsa. 10. 6. 7 12. 13. &c.Isa 10:6Isa 10:7 invading, spoyling, and murdering of Israel, was the Assirians horrible sin, which therfore the Lord hated with great h…tred, and punished accordingly. Here then we hauehave plainly the sinnes of men (and therfore wicked, in regard of them the doers) avowed for the judgments of God, and in that regard just and holy: Their daring any tongue to say, that the delusion mentoned, 2 Thess. 2, comes from God otherwise, then by suffering the divell to delude, is but the fruit of th…i… bold ignorance, with which they abuse unstable minds. As the divell and menss…lues, are the onelyonly authours of these delusions in themselues considered; so are there divers effectuali works of God in and about them. The first thing indeed is, Gods permission or sufferance of the Divell to exercise his malice to hurt, wherin (as they rightly say) he and his children takes delight; but this is rather a not-work of God then a work; namely, a not restraining, or hindering him. Gods next work is to order & direct Satans malice upon the persons so deluded, that so they may receiue a punishment proportionable to their sins, both for quality and quantity. A third work of God is in them, in depriving them of the knowledge and discerning of the truth, which they formerly had, without the louelove therof, as the Scriptures testifie. What should I say more? These Adversaries p. 36elsewhere, being set upon the rack, by the evidence of the place, thus speak, God will hauehave them to be seduced, therby to punish them: confessing therin, their seduction to be a punishment, and therin good and Gods work, and that which God wils also, as they expresly affirm. The divell wills theirPag. 31. seduction as a hurt to them; they will it, as a thing pleasing to them; God wils it as a punishment of them: which last, to wit, a punishment, nothing is in it selfe, but by way of relation put upon it, by the Iudge.

ADVERSARIES.

AND here, to thrust God from the government of the Pag. 27.world, they take upon them to proue, that in this, and the like cases, Gods sending is nothing but suffering: their proofe is, for that the holy Evangelists making relation of the devils possessing and drowning the swine, where one of them saith that Christ sent them, another saith, that he suffered them to enter into them▪ Math. 8. 31. 32, Mat. 5. 12. 13, Luk. 8. 32.

DEFENCE.

BVT first I would know how they can proue, that though in one place, where no punishment is directly intended, suffering and sending be all one, therfore they are all one in all other places, where the Lord properly and professedly intends a punishment? Secondly, I deny, that sending and suffering are here all one: but as we find in many other places, so in this, that which one Evangelist relates, though truely, yet not so fully, that another sets down more throughly with all the parts. Luke saith, He suffered them, and this is true; Matthew saith, He sent them, and this is the same which Luke saith, and more; namely, together with the suffering of them, the directing and determining also of their malice this way, for the Lords most holy, though unknown ends. And if the Lord in this case onelyonly suffered them, and let them alone, then it should follow, that the creature doth some actions, wherin he is wholly left to himselfe without Gods medling with p. 37him, or ruling of him. But to come neerer the matter, I would know of these men, when two Evangelists or Prophets set down the same thing in divers words, the one in more sparing and strait, and the other in more large termes; whether we be not to expound the strayter by the larger, and not the larger by the strayter, except there be some apparant restraint; The Evangelist Matthew, relating the miracle done by Christ upon Peters mother saith, He touched her hand, and Mat. 8. 15. Mark. 1. 31Matt 8:15Mark 1:31the fever left her: Marke saith, He took her by the hand and the fever left her. Should we now say, that to take her by the hand, and lift her up, were nothing but to touch her hand? Or say we not truely, that Mark said the same thing which Mathew doth, and more also: so is it in Christs suffering and sending the divels. More plainly yet. We reade, how upon the death of Absolom, Ahimaz the Priest being very desirous2 Sam. 18▪ 22. 23.2 Sam 18:222 Sam 18:23 to be the messenger therof to David, importunes Ioab greatly to let him run, and again to let him run. Ioab at the last condiscends, and saith to him run, and so v. 29, Ahimaz expresly affirmes that Ioab sent him to David. He therfore both suffered him to goe, and sent him. He suffered him, as having a desire of himselfe; and sent him also, as his messenger to the King. So Christ both suffered the devils, as desiring to possesse the swine rather then to be cast into the deep; and also sent them, as ordering their malice to that object, and none other, for the tryall of the Gergesenes.

In the next place, followeth to be considered of, the sending of Ioseph into Aegypt, touching which, let these two things onelyonly be added to the things spoken, for the opening of the former instances. First, that Ioseph expresly saith, not onelyonly that God sent him into Aegipt, but that he sent him thither to Gen. 45. 5. 7. 8.Gen 45:5Gen 45:7Gen 45:8preserue life, which was Gods end, and not his brethrens, and therfore depends upon Gods work, not upon theirs: but withall, that it was not they that sent him thither, but God. Ioseph here makes God (in a respect) a greater doer then his brethren: these men shut God quite out, and makes him onelyonly a sufferer, or one that left others alone, and meddles not p. 38with them. His brethren sold him, but God sent him; that is, used their envious injury to his own gracious work, both towards him and them, and much other people, whom by his meanes he kept aliue. Secondly, and for conclusion, let this be observed, that Ioseph speaks of Gods sending him, to comfort his brethren in their sorrow and fear, for the evill they had done to him. But I would know, what comfort it could be to their perplexed hearts, to think, that God suffered them to doe wickedly, that is, hindred them not? Can any man having grace, yea common sense, take comfort in this, that God leavs him to himselfe to doe wickedly, and hinders him not? A miserable comforter would this miserable exposition hauehave made Ioseph to hauehave been. Whereas by the other and true sense, though their sin were nothing the lesse, yet Gods providence appeares the greater, and more gracious, in ordering their envy and malice to such an event as it had, whence no small comfort did accrew unto them.

Of the death of Christ, and Gods work in giving himPag. 30, thereunto, even to the cursed death of the crosse, by the hands of the wicked, I hauehave formerly spoken at large, and will notPag. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. repeat the same things. OnelyOnly, I cannot but tax their allegation of Vrsinus as most vain, who in the place not…d by them opposeth Gods permission, to his willing, and working of sinne, as sinne, and so God indeed onelyonly permits, and neither wils, nor works sin, as sin. Otherwise, all that hauehave but once lookt …nto Vrsinus know, how vehemently he impugneth that imagination of bare permission, avowing the effectuall work of Gods providence in and about sin: as both working the actions themselues, which he cals the materials of sin, and withdrawing …ee Vrsinus of the divine Providence.his grace; and withall, destinating, directing, and bringing to their ends, the same actions.

That of Amos 3. 6, is misapplyed (if by any alledged) and so easily answered.

The last place which they take upon them to answer is Ioh. 12, 39. 40, Therfore they▪ (to wit, the Iewes, before whom p. 39Pag. 31. 32Christ had done so many miracles) could not beleev, because that vers. 3….Esaias had said, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts that they should not see, &c.

ADVERSARIES.

THeir answer, after divers incongruous forms of speech, and some truths among, is, that this, and the like places affirm, that they winked with their eyes, lest they should see, for which cause, God gaue them up to this reprobate sense.

DEFENCE.

THat is, (they being interpreters) for winking with their eyes lest they should see, God gaue them up to wink with their eyes, lest they should see. Thus, by this untoward construction, the same thing is the cause and effect of it selfe; their winking with their eyes, of their winking with their eyes. It is certain, that this reprobate minde in wilfull ignorance, and obduration was their proper sin; and as certain that it was Gods just judgement upon their former sins, by his ordering therunto their corruption; and therfore Christ spake to them in parables (which were dark without exposition)Mat. 4. 10. 11.Matt 4:10Matt 4:11 and expounded them when he was alone to them, which were about him: rendring thereof this reason, because it was Mat. 13. 1…Matt 13:1given to them, namely to his Disciples, to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but unto them that were without, all things were done in parables, that seeing they might see, and not perceiv, &c. and so Mathew saith, this was given to the one, and not ch. 11. 26▪given to the other: wherof also, elsewhere, he rendreth the highest reason, because so it seemeth good in Gods sight: who hath mercy on whom he will hauehave mercy, and whom he will, hee Rom. 9. 8Rom 9:8hardeneth.

Their alledging of Austin against the heathenish desteny, which they held to come from the starres, is frivolous, and impious against Gods infinitely wise and powerfull providence, in governing all things in heaven and earth. In regard wherof, the same Father saith, that the things which are done against p. 40Gods will, are not done without his will: viz. ordering, and directing them to their ends. And if the penners of this book were not voyd, either of all knowledg of the Authours judgment, whom they cite, or modesty in themselues, they would never alledg Austin and Ursinus as patrons of their errours about the divine Predestination, and other points therupon depending: then whom the Synode at Dort hath none (the one of former, and other of later times) more clearly witnessing with it, and all the best Reformed Churches, in those matters.