Defense of the Synod of Dort, Chapter 2 · Defense 8 – Adversary 11
DEFENCE.
AS the proper and particular scope of divers parts of this Epistle, is divers; so do they misse of the drift of this particular chapter, which is not (as they conceive) to prove justification not to be by the workes of the Law, but by the faith of Christ in the Gospell: But to shew that the first and highest cause, why, of all mankinde faln in Adam, one is cleared, and another not, is onelyonly the good pleasure, and free wil of God, and not mans deservings: and yet that God in so choosing, or electing one before another, doth nothing unjustly, as shall appeare in the particulars hereafter to bee explained: and may in the mean while be gathered by these three generall reasons.
First, for the Apostle, when of purpose he handles the matter of justification by faith, chap. 3. & 4. doth so oft and againe iterate and inculcate the terms of Faith, and Iustification, almost in every verse whereas here, he never so much as once mentions either of them in the disputation it selfe. which is to the end of vers. 24. where he descends from the matter of election to the calling of the elected, both of Iewes and Gentiles.
Secondly, it is unreasonable to conceive, that the Apostle, having in the third and fourth chapter so fully handled, and so expresly concluded that matter of Iustification by faith, and not by works; and chap. 7. the effect and end thereof, Peace with God, and perseverance to salvation; and chap. 6. the matter of sanctification; and chap. 7. the imperfection of that sanctification in this life; and chap. 8. the afflictions of the faithfull, and their perseverance notwithstanding to the death; should now again without any occasion, and against all order, return to the same matter of justification, so fully handled and ended before. This might wel agree with these mens wandrings in this their treatise, but agrees not with the wisdom either divine or humane wherewith the Apostle was furnished. Much more absurd is it to imagine, that having formerly handled that subject matter of justification so plainly as he hath done, chap. 3, and 4. he should returne to handle the same matter so darkly and obscurely, as all the adversaries to the truth, and fautors of this conceit, are compelled to confesse he hath done in this place.
Thirdly, if this were the Apostles proper drift, what needed he to have made such deep protestation of his hearty sorrow for the Iewes as he did, more in this place then in the former, where he handled that matter more clearly then here? It was in truth no other thing that moved the man of God to these sad and sorrowfull protestations, then to remov the offence which might be taken at the Iews rejection, and calling of the Gentiles in their stead; of which, and the highest cause thereof, hee was now to speak in the 9. 10. and 11. chapters.
Lastly, we shall (God willing) make it appear in sundry particulars, that these Adversaries, by wresting of some things, and omitting of others, pervert the Apostles words to a strange sense, how soever they think to get advantage by striking others first with that imputation.
And first, though they account it plain, and without difficulty, that the Apostles meaning v. 5, & 6, is, that not all the Israelits, not all the children of Abrahams flesh specially, not such as boasted of the observation of the Law, were therefore in the state of salvation, or should be saved: yet in truth, he plainly means anotherPag. 60. thing; namely, that all Israel, all that were the seed of Abraham, and children of the flesh, were not that Israel, that seed, those children to whom the promise was made: that is, were not they touching whom God by his promise declared his purpose of election mentioned, v. 11. For though all are saved that receiv the promise by faith, and none by the works of the Law, yet the Apostle in this place, neither speaks a word of salvation (as the effect of the promise) but of election (as the cause therof:) nor yet of mens receiving the promise by faith; but of Gods making it, according to election; that so the purpose of God, and promise manifesting it, might stand according to election, v. 11, that the word of God might take effect, v. 6. even the word of promise; At this time will I come &c. v. 9, they are then called children of the promise, not because they received, but because the promise (Sara shall hauehave a Son, &c.) was made unto them, according to the election of grace, and stableness of Gods purpose, v. 8. 9. 11, which promise also, they did in time, receiv by faith, according to the election of that remnant from the rest, the promise following the purpose of election; and faith, and salvation by it following the purpose and promise. Though Israel, that is, all which were of Israel, obtained not that which he seeketh for, yet the election hath obtained it; even the remnant of Israel, to whom Gods promise is, according Chap. 11. 5. 7.to the election of grace: in regard of which remnant according to election, the word of God is effectuall, and the promise fulfilled touching the yonger son of Rebeca: of whose two sonns, it was said before they were born, or had done either good or evill, the elder shall serv the yonger.
And as they truely affirm, that neither birth nor works did prefer with God: so I demand here, what those works were, by which Esau sought for justification? The Scriptures expreslyHeb. 12. 16. Gen. 25. 32. 33, &c. term him a prophane person; that is, a despiser of goodnes; yea, of his very birth-right, which was a speciall legall priviledg: How then sought he to be preferred with God, and justified for birth or works? Or how doth this example of Esau fit their imagined plain exposition? specially to proue that the children of Abrahams flesh were not in the salvation, who so much boasted of being Moses disciples in the observation of the Law: when as the Law of Moses was not yet given, nor the Law-giver born.
Their words following, that God purposeth to prefer those that seek it by his free election, through faith in Christ, are true in themselvs, but not in their sense. Their meaning is, that God purposed to saue them effectually that should beleev in Christ Iesus: whereupon should be meant in this place onelyonly, such a purpose of God as was no more towards Iakob then towards Esau: for God, by their doctrine, purposed to chuse Esau if he beleeved; and not Iakob but upon his beleeving first. But the Apostle speaks more then evidently of such a purpose of God, as was towards Iakob particularly and alone, excluding Esau.
Besides the standing of this purpose, and election, are here noted as two distinct things; of which, election is the former, and that according to which this purpose of God stands: whereas they make them one and the same, accounting election nothing but the purpose of bestowing salvation upon them that beleev.
Thirdly, the Apostle cannot mean such a purpose and election as presupposeth faith in Christ, (which they would hauehave) seeing he expresly affirms it to hauehave been when the children had done neither good nor evill. Is to beleev in Christ, to pu… on the wedding garment by faith, and obedience, to submit to the righteousnesse of God (which they will hauehave the condition upon vvhichwhich election depends, and the quality for which God elects the Pag. 39.persons in whom he finds it) are these to doe no good with with these men? and is the doing of the contrary to doe no evill?
Lastly, he saith not, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of vvorks▪ but of faith, as they say: but not of vvorks, but of him that calleth; that is, as followeth, that vvill hauehave mercy on whom he vvill hauehave mercy. By which it isVers. 15. plain, that Paul doth not in this chapter (as chap. 3. and 4, and Gal. 4,) oppose works and faith; but vvorks, and Gods calling: He should hauehave said for their purpose; that the purpose of God stands not of works but of faith, or of him that beleeveth: and not, as hee doth for the purpose of the Holy Ghost, of him that calleth: Shewing thereby his meaning to be in this whole discourse, that the obtaining of righteousnesse, or standing of Gods purpose in its actuall effect, depends upon God alone, according to three degrees here expressed: first, his gracious purpose of election in himselfe towards some: secondly, his free promise manifesting his purpose: thirdly, his effectuall calling, in which his vvord of promise hath effect, and his purpose stands firm and undisappointed, notwithstanding the unbeleif of the body of Abrahams seed.
Their making Iakob and Esau types as they doe, is like the rest, or worse. The Scriptures are not to be drawn from their natural & simple sense, without apparant warrant. It is the high way to heresie, to be bold in framing typical expositions. And with what spirit these men are led this way, appears by their expounding the parable, Luk. 15, making the Iews the elder brother, Pag. 64.vvho sought salvation by vvorks; and the Gentles, the yonger in the offer of the Gospell, seeking salvation onelyonly by the free promise of God: wheras the plain meaning of Christ is, onelyonly to avow his preaching to the Publicans and sinners resorting unto him, against the pride and envy of the Pharisies; those Publicans and sinners being Iews as well as the other.
Secondly, I demand, what it was, in which Iakob typed out beleevers, seeking righteousnesse by God? and in which Esau typed out workers, seeking justification by their own works? The contrary in Esau is expressed in the Scriptures.
Lastly, seeing it cannot be denyed, but that Iakob as a faithfull and godly man was in time actually beloved of God, and Esau, as godlesse and prophane, actually hated; it must needs follow, that God before the world was, purposed in himself accordingly, to louelove the one and hate the other: seeing whatsoever God in time doth, by way of emanation or application to, and upon the creature, that he purposed to do, as he doth it, from eternity.
If the Apostle, v. 13, Iakob hauehave I loved, and Esau hauehave I hated, confirm his former doctrine, as they say, then he confirmsPag. 64. 65 the doctrine of Gods eternall and stedfast election from eternity. And their boldnesse is excessiue in calling them perverters of the words of Paul, which will hauehave this to be before Iakob and Esau were born: seeing the Apostle adds this Scripture out of Malachy, to shew the reason of that contained in the former, which both Moses and Paul with him, expresly affirm to hauehave been before the children were born: namely, that theGen. 25. 23▪ Vers. 11. highest cause of the elder, (to wit, Esau) his serving the yonger, (to wit, Iakob) was Gods louelove to Iakob, and hatred of Esau.
That following is partly true, namely, that v. 12. & 13, is not shewed for what cause God loved Iakob and hated Esau: for that is shewed so far as God would hauehave us see, v. 15. 18. But fals, where they say, that they shew not when this was. For this louelove and hatred was (and before) when God said, The elder shall serv the yonger: and this he said, when the children were not yet born: the effect of which was, that the purpose of God according to election might stand in after time, and that both in respect of the two persons themselvs, and of the bodies of the Nations to come of them, though not of every particular. And so indeed they are to be considered both as instances in their persons, and heads of their Nations; the Scriptures accordingly every where testifying, that God loved, and chose from the rest, the Israelits in their fathers Abraham, Isaak, and Iakob, Gen. 1…. 7. 8 Exod. 3. 6. 7 Deut. 7. 7. 8. & 29. 12. 13. 14.according to the tenour of his gracious promise and covenant of being their God, and the God of their Seed, expressing his eternall, and most stedfast purpose of will.
That which they adde in the last place of Gods not hating (to wit actually) and destroying without desert, is most true. ButPag. 65. when we speak of Gods loving or hating any before the world, we mean onelyonly of his decree of loving, which he actually exerciseth in time for Christs righteousnesse by faith applyed upon the so loved; and so of his decree of hating, which hatred he comes not to exercise actually, but for sin deserving it. God from eternity purposed in time to glorifie his justice in the deserved destruction of Esau, and not of Iakob. Of this different decree of God, touching Esau, and not Iakob, and his leaving him in and to his own corruption, and hardning him in the same, rather then Iakob, our reason is, the will of God; but of Gods actuall hating and destroying of him rather then the other, the Scriptures shew sufficient reason, to wit, his obstinacy in sin, the onelyonly cause of his destruction.
Vers. 14, upon the premises, that God of two alike in themselvs, and without respect of good or evill, in the one, or other, had loved the one, and hated the other, an objection is framed, that by this, injustice might seem to be with God: which the Apostle denyes, with God forbid. This objection our AdversariesPag. 65. understand to be upon Gods rejecting the fleshly Israelites, for contemning their salvation offered them by faith in Christ, as Esau was rejected for contemning his birth-right. But herein (as children skip, where they cannot reade) they leav out the principall part of the objection, which is not onelyonly moved upon Gods rejecting some, but withall upon his receiving of others. The Apostle in the words before going (which occasion the objection) mentions not onelyonly Esau the elder hated, and serving; but also Iakob the yonger loved, and served: so in answering the same objection, he speaks first, and most of Gods shewing mercy and compassion, and last and least of his hardning any. Now whether they have omitted this part of the objection in cunning or inconsideratenesse, themselves best know. This is certain, that the adjoyning it, qutie overturns their exposition. For comparing together two such persons, as whereof the one glories in his own righteousnesse, as perfectly answering to the holinesse and righteousnesse of the Law; justifying himselfe, when the Law condemnes him; despising the grace and mercy of God in Christ offered, and making him a lyar in not receiving the testimony which he gives of 1. Ioh. 5. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 13 Gal. 4. 29.his Son and joyning with these, blasphemy and persecution, and all injurious dealing against them that doe receive this grace of Christ all which those proud justiciaries, and carnall Israelits did: and the other, as honoring Gods justice and holinesse, in the sense, and confession of sin, and misery due therefore; flying to the merciemercy of God in Christ, and by receiving the testimony Ioh. 3. 33▪of his Sonn, setting to his seal that God is true; and therewith repenting with all his heart, which every true beleever doth that God now should shew merciemercy upon the latter of these, and not upon the former, cannot minister to any man, indued with common sense, occasion of objecting injustice to God; seeing the light of nature teacheth every naturall man the reason of a difference. And if any should be so senselesse, as to object injustice to God in such a case (as they conceive the objecter to be) yet was not the Apostle so witlesse, as to fly for answer to the absolute will of God, and to plead, that God will doe so, because he will or pleaseth to doe it, as v. 15. 18. I will hauehave merciemercy on whom I will have merciemercy, &c. Which answer of the Apostle also ministers matter of further and more difficult objection, as appeares v. 19. 20. Whereas if the objection had been cast in their mould, a child could have answered it and sayd, that it had been a most just and equall thing for God to have received and loved the one rather then the other; considering how the one honored the holynesse, justice, truth, and mercy of God; which the other dishonored and despised. They erre therefore in applying to this purpose Rom. 2. 4. 5. Neither doth the Apostle there speak of a mercy and bounty, to be shewed to them that beleeve, and repent, as they conceive; but of that which goes before repentance, as a means to lead unto it: But here he speaks of a higher work of Gods shewing mercy; namely, the purpose of his will according to election to glory; and the means thereunto.
And truely, these mens boldnesse is too great in putting, for, God hath mercy on whom he wil have mercy; God hath merciemercy on them that seek him by the means that he himselfe appoynts. For though it be most true, that God hath merciemercy on such; yet the Apostle here speaks no more of Gods appoynting or commanding will for his shewing of mercy, then of his appoynting or commanding vvill for his hardening, v 18, whom he will he hardens. He speaks of that will, according to which he himselfe works in louelove or hatred: not of that according to which he commands and appoints men to worke. These men in truth confound all things, setting mans will wherePag. 67. Gods should stand. God saith, on whom I will: they say, on him that himselfe wils, or seeketh as he ought, &c. The same Idol of mans wil they advance & set up, v. 16, where in stead, of Gods shewing mercy; they put, mans beleeving mercy. The Lord by willing, and running, v. 16, excludes whatsoever is of, or in man, and either within, or without him: and draws all to himselfe alone. In the stead of God shewing mercy, they put themselvs, and their free-will receiving mercy by God offered, as the proper cause of difference between man, and man.
The 17 vers. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, &c, they handle very sleightly: saying something (such as it is) about Gods hardening Pharoahs heart; but not medling at all with the place, according to the coherence which it hath with the words going before: unto which, yet the Holy Ghost strongly tyeth them, in saying▪ For the Scripture saith, &c. And herein they are in truth, wise in their generation. These words must needs answer to the latter part of the objection of unrighteousnesse with God in hating; that is, as they interpret it, in rejecting such as seek righteousnesse by the works of the Law, as did the fleshly Israelits. But wherein, I wonder, did Pharaoh so? How sought he justification by the works of the Law? Who so professedly despised the God therof, saying, Who is the Exod. 5. ….Lord that I should obey his voyce? Did they see, that this example of Pharaoh, and their exposition of the place could not stand together; and therfore chose to cut off the coherence so firmly tying the words together, rather then to let fall their preconceived erroneous exposition? Whatsoever they intend herein, we know it is brought for an example of Gods absolute (but righteous) power of hardening (rather then another) whom he will; and not whom he finds most deserving it; (for whom finds he not too much deserving it, if he would deal in like manner with all?) as it is said, whom (that is, which rather then other) he will, he hardneth, v. 18.
And let it be diligently minded, that the Apostle here opposeth Gods shewing mercy to some, and his hardening of others; and not his shewing mercy to some, and his condemning of others. The adversaries, by Gods shewing mercy, would hauehave us understand his saving of such, as beleev and repent. And then, on the contrary, by Gods hardening, should onelyonly be meant his not shewing mercy to, but punishing & condemning such as doe not beleev, nor repent. But we know, that the not hearing God voyce, not beleeving, and repenting followHebr. 3. 7. 8 15. 18. 19. Rom. 2. 1. Ezech. 11. 14 & 33. 21. 26. Exod. 4. 7, 8, &c. upon hardnesse of heart. Wherupon the Lord promiseth, that in the day of his mercy, and pittie, he will take from his people their stony and hard hearts. And so touching Pharaoh, the Scriptures expresly shew, that his hardnesse of heart was the cause of his unbeliefe, and disobedience. Whereupon I conclude evidently, that the Apostle here speaks not of such a mercy onelyonly, as follows faith (as the Adversaries would hauehave him) but as goes before it also: as he speaks of such a hardening as go…s before unbelief.
Note we here also, that the Apostle in this place propounds Gods will as the cause of his dealing diversly with divers persons; and not of his saving such as are to be saved, after a divers manner from that, which some, namely the carnall Israelites imagined.
ADVERSARIES.
NOW to return to them. They lay down a question thus. What is the meaning of the hardening of Pharaoh? Pag. 68.And in their answer wholly passe by God, as no doer in the businesse. They make Pharaoh a doer in hardening his own heart, which is true; and Satan a doer in hardening Pharaohs heart, and this is true also; but God no doer, but a sufferer only, in giving him up, that is, as else where they expound it, in leaving him to himselfe, and to Satan, to be hardened.
DEFENCE.
BVT first, the Text imports a further thing in God, whom it brings in thus speaking. For this same purpose hauehave I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that Exod. 9. 16. Rom. 9. 17.my name might be declared through all the earth. Is Gods raysing up (which is his hardening, v. 8,) nothing but his letting a man lie still, and fall down lower then he was before? Besides, the end, which was the glory of Gods power and name, shews God to be a worker. Every end must hauehave an efficient or working cause. The glory of God was not the end of Satans work, nor of Pharaohs work; and therefore of Gods work in it. Thirdly, God hardened Pharaohs heart, by sending Moses and Aaron unto him, as by an occasion, though not a cause; as the Law is the occasion of sin; and the Gospell the occasionRom. 7. 8. Mat. 10. 34 35. of strife and variance. Fourthly, God deprived Pharaoh of the use of common sense and reason; otherwise it could not hauehave been, that after so many experiments by him taken of Gods powerfull hand against him, and for the Israelits, he should so furiously as he did, hauehave followed them into the middest of the Sea. Lastly, besides, and aboue all these, God, in whose hands the hearts of Kings are, as the rivers of waters, to turn them Prov. 21. 1.whether he will, hardened Pharaohs heart, by ordering his pride, cruelty and contempt of God to this effect of obstinacy, appearing in his most desperate course; without which powerfull, and unerring hand of God (all the former notwithstanding) it might hauehave come to passe that Pharaohs heart might hauehave been softned by the miracles and means used; and so Gods word, which before had foretold his hardening, might not hauehave taken effect; which is, contrary to the truth, and driftVers. 6. of the Apostle in this place. God therefore was not onelyonly a sufferer, but a doer in the hardening of Pharaoh.
ADVERSARIES.
THeir next question is, How consider you these words: Who Pag. 69.hath resisted his will? v. 19. VntoUnto which they frame this untoward Answer, viz. that those Iews seeking salvation by those works of the Law did not resist Gods will, and so gaue him no cause to complain.
DEFENCE.
NOthing lesse, as we hauehave shewed, and shall further manifest by and by, from the Apostles answer, v. 20. The meaning is plain. The words v. 19, Thou wilt then say unto me, why doth he yet finde fault, for who hath resisted his will? are an objection against that which immediately went before; whom he will, he hardeneth. Now against this, it may colourably bee objected, that if God hardens whom he will, hee hath then no reason to complain of mens being hardened in disobedience; for Who can resist his will, if he will harden them? A piece of an eie is sufficient to see the plainnesse of this exposition, and coherence. Their discourse then following, that God would saue all, and hauehave all repent, amend, and beleev, is frivolous. The objection is of Gods will to harden men; their answer is of Gods will to soften them by repentance.
ADVERSARIES.
HEre they lay against their Adversaries (Gods friends) Pag. 70.two false accusations: First, that they make God hate Esau, and Pharaoh, and the Reprobates before they be born: from which hatred he decreed their damnation: and that, by his secret will, which cannot be resisted: to which the will of God, declared in the Scripture, is contrary: secondly, that▪ God compelled Pharaoh to trespasse, and so to suffer.