Defense of the Synod of Dort, Chapter 2 · Defense 11 – Defense 13
DEFENCE.
BY the Law, the false accuser must be done by, as he would doe Deut. 19.by his brother. These mens slanders therefore being false, are as odious in them, as were the opinions odious in us, if true.
First, we know that God hates none before the world, otherwise then they are, and that they are no otherwise then in Gods decree, and foreknowledge. He hates none actually, or by application of hatred, till they hauehave actuall, yea sinfull being; but hates them before in decree onelyonly, as they are onelyonly in decree and foreknowledge. This decree of God we consider according to two objects, Sin and Condemnation: For sin▪ we say, that God decrees to suffer the sin, which he could hinder by his almighty power, if he would, and to order both sin and sinner, both before he sin, and in sinning, and having sinned, to his own holy ends. For damnation, we hold, that God decrees it towards none, but for their sin, by him infallibly foreseen, and by them freely to be committed and continued in without repentance. For though God be moved onelyonly from within himselfe, and the louelove of his holinesse, to decree the condemnation of a sinner; yet doth lie not so decree to condemn him, but for sin, as the deserving cause, foreseen, and by him to be practised. Neither yet doe either of these decrees passe forth from God for themselvs, but both the one, and the other for the glory of his power and justice to be made known to men and Angels, v. 22. Neither is the secret and revealed will of God held by us, contrary one unto another, as they mis-judg… no not though he will that by the one, called revealed, which can be resisted▪ and will not, but will that by the other, called secret, which cannot be resisted, I say, though God will the same thing by the one, which he nils by the other: for some things God wils by both: for example, the repentance of Paul and Peter, and of all that doe repent. It is his revealed will which requires it; but his secret and unknown will to giuegive it, till he make it known by giving it. Neither doth the willing and not willing, (no nor nilling, which is more) of the same thing, make two contrary wils, saue as they crosse one another in the same respect, else they are but divers in respect of divers objects in consideration.
To open this a little further. It was the revealed, or commanding will of God, that Pharaoh should let Israel goe: but so it was not his secret, or working will; that is, God did not so will this, as that he would use his omnipotent power, and doe what he could to bring it to passe. God, who turnedGen. 31. Act. 9. Prov. 21. …. the heart of Laban, persecuting Iakob, and of Saul, persecuting the Christians; and in whose hands are the hearts of Kings as the rivers of waters, which hee turneth whethersoever hee wils, could (had it so pleased him) by his irresistable power hauehave softned Pharaohs heart towards his people Israel. It was Gods revealed will (wherewith Moses acquainted him) that he should let the people goe: his secret will, which he knew not, till he felt the woefull effects of it, to harden his heart for the declaration of his power in his deserved destruction. So for Abrahams offering up his son Isaak, it was Gods revealed will,Gen. 22▪ that he should offer him up for a burnt offering, as is plain, in that he commanded him so to doe, v. 1. 2; yet withall, it was Gods secret will, that he should not offer him, nor lay his hand upon him, nor doe any thing unto him; as he also revealed unto him in due time, but purposed in himselfe before: God being without variablenesse, or shadow of turning, and not to be conceivedIam. 1. 17. to hauehave changed his mind, as vain man doth; yet were not these two wils contrary one to another, but divers, not in God, in whom all things are one (even one God) but in respect of divers objects and ends. God willed Isaaks offering, so far as the commanding will reached, for the tryall of Abrahams faith and obedience, and this he revealed: But now God would not hauehave him offered, in regard of the event of the thing: but this as secret for the present, and till God revealed it in its time. Neither doe we (or the Apostle whose steps we tread in) by teaching that God hardens men by a will that cannot be resisted, say (as they ignorantly accuse us and him) that God compels men to trespass, and so to suffer. There is no compulsion of any, but of him that is unwilling: but he that is hardned, is willingly hardned, as well as necessarily. His hardning of himselfe in a course of sin, is as voluntary, as is Gods hardning him by way of punishment, necessary and irresistible.
The Apostle teacheth, how it is impossible for these who were Heb. 6. 4. 5. 6.once enlightned, & have tasted of the heavenly gift, &c. if they fall away to renue them again to, or by repentance. If it be impossible for them to repent, then they remain impenitent necessarily by Gods just judgment upon them, and yet I suppose, voluntarily also, even our adversaries being Iudges. Their impenitency therefore and hardnesse of heart, though in regard of men a sin, and therefore voluntary: it is in regard of God a punishment, and therefore necessary and irresistable, except we will say, that men can resist Gods judgments: and doe that which the Apostle affirmes to be impossible.
Neither needs this deep and divine mystery of Gods judgments trouble any that considers aright of these three things. First, that as the Sun puts no ill savour into the dung-hill, though the stink therof be increased by its shining: so neither doth God add any hardnesse, or impenitency to any, but onelyonly leaves unrestrained, occasions, stirrs up, and orders the corruption which he finds in men to this event. Secondly, that man is more willing to be impenitent, and hard-hearted, then God is to have him so. Thirdly, that this, in regard of man is a sin: in regard of God, a punishment of former sins.
The Apostles answer to the objection now followeth, v. 20. Nay, but O man, who art thou that disputest with God? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor? Wherein first, he represseth mans insolency, who being but man, yet dare presume to call Gods doing into question. 2. He justifies the Lords doing by his absolute power over the creature, as the potter hath power over his clay.
And by this answer of the Apostle it appeares, how these men mistake his meaning in the question. His answer is not at all of this or that manner of saving men, (as they imagine and maintain) but of the saving of this person rather then that: they being both alike in themselves, and as the clay of the same lump. If Pauls answer should be shaped according to their misformed question, then the meaning must be; that the potter might chuse which way he would make a vessell of honor,Pag. 71. 72▪ whether by the workes of the Law, or by faith and obedience to the Gospell: and so not of the same lump, but of two contrary lumps: the one beleeving and obeying; the other, not turning from hi… wicked way▪ and yet seeking salvation by his worke…. The Apostle here plainly pleads the Lords power over the creature, to make him a vessell of honor or dishonor: they plead the Lords power over the means onelyonly, by which he will do this. He, the Lords power over the clay of the same lump: but they, over clay of clean contrary qualities. Besides, if Paul meant here to bring in the Iewes defending themselves, that God had no cause to complain that they stuck to the Law, that is, looked to be justified by it, seeing Gods will was that men Pag. 69.should obey his Lawes, and so live in them, what needed he to hauehave sought so farre for an answer, as the absolute power of God? seeing he had an answer at hand which might have stopped all mouthes, and which he ever presseth when question isRom. 3. 23. & 4. 15. Gal 3. 9. 10 &c. of justification by the works of the Law? which is, that they could not fulfill the Law, and therefore could not possibly be justified by it.
Lastly, their exposition of these words, Why hast thou made me thus? that is, that I cannot obtain salvation by the workes of the Law, directly crosseth the Apostle, who grants that God made men, as is there▪ objected, and justifies him in so making or framing them, both in his decree, and work of holy providence, by the power which he hath over men, as the potter over his clay, Hath not the potter power over the clay? &c. Besides,Vers. 21. men make themselves uncapable of salvation by the Law, in that they keep it not. But the Apostle here speaks of Gods making men, vessels unto dishonor, and not of mens making themselves; and of the potter making the vessell, and not of the vessels making it self thus, or thus. It is plain Paul grants the objection, that no man can resist Gods will; and yet justifies his complaining, considering his power over his creature to decree, and so to bring unto most contrary estates by just and convenient meanes, persons in themselves alike, and as the clay of one lump, v. 21. 22. 23.
ADVERSARIES.
IN the opening of these verses they follow their usuall, but ill custome of carrying the Reader away to other places, and things: and enter upon a tedious discourse upon Ier. 18. from whence they affirme, the Apostle hath these words, and so speaks of the same making of a vessell of dishonor with the prophet in that place.
DEFENCE.
I Deny their peremptory assertion, and require their proof. If they say the same words are there; first, that is not simply true; for part of them onelyonly are there to be found, and so are they in other places, by name Esay 45. 9. where it is evident, the Prophet speaks of another matter. It is too weak a collection, that because the like phrase or form of speech in part, is to be found in two places, that therefore the one is taken out of the other, and that to the same purpose. And to put the matter out of doubt, it is evident that the Prophet, and Apostle speak of clean divers things: the Prophet speaks of marring the vessell, and making it again; that is, of destroying persons or peoples, if they repent not; or doing good to them which repent: The Apostle, of making the vessell out of the masse, or lump, honourable or dishonourable. The Prophet speaks of the making or marring of one and the same vessell: the Apostle of divers vessels, and the making of one to honour, and another to dishonour. Lastly, the Apostle here speaks of the Lords purpose and work, without respect to good or evill done by the persons, and considering them as clay of the same lump: the Prophets, of Gods dealing with persons, according to the good or evill which hee finds in them, and so being divers, yea clean contrary lumps. And where they insinuate, that we hold the making of the clay to be in creation, which they affirm to be in vocation; they speak untruely in both. No man ever held that God in, or by creation made any vessell to dishonour; neither can they ascribe this, as they doe to vocation. Gods calling men is not to dishonour, but to honour onelyonly. It is the divell, and his instruments, and not God, who call men to dishonour, which these men also proue against themselvs at large, in the two pages following;Pag. 72. 73 and therin pull down with the one hand, what they hauehave built with the other, as children use to doe with their cob-castles.
That which followeth, v. 24. 25 &c. is not to the thing in hand. The disputation about election ends, v. 23, and that of vocation followeth: which latter is an effect of the former, declaring indeed the persons, but not confounding the things.
And thus, if these men may be their own Iudges, and may hauehave the praise which their own mouth giues them, they hauehave very sufficiently explaned the ninth chapter to the Romans, and to full satisfaction of him that doubts, resolving him in every difficult place therof, as they blow the trumpet, or rather the bladder of their own praise: But if the Scriptures in their true sense, and scope may be judge, and giuegive sentence, they will be found neither to know them, nor the power of God over his creature. Which power, yet v. 22, is declared not to be tyrannicall, but most just, never punishing, but after the induring of the vessels of wrath having sinned: as is his mercy also richly glorious in the salvation of the vessels of mercy, v. 23.
ADVERSARIES.
THE last place which they take upon them to answer is, Act. 13, So many as were ordained to eternall life beleeved; that is, say they, So many as beleev, and obey the truth, are ordained Pag. 75.to eternall life.
DEFENCE.
A Strange perverting of the Scriptures, setting the head in the feets place, and the feet in the heads. For although the thing which they affirm, be in it selfe true, yet is it not the Evangelists meaning. Luke descends from the cause to the effect; they crosly ascend from the effect to the cause. The Evangelists meaning is, that Pauls preaching in Antioch had a divers event with divers: of whom so many as were pre-appointed, or ordained to life beleeved, that is, of unbeleevers, which they were before, became beleevers in Christ: according to that Rom. 8. 30, whom he predestinated them also he called: that is, he gaue them to beleev and repent. Their preordination or predestination to life therefore, went before their effectuall calling and beleeving, as the cause before the effect.
Their assertion in the application of their Similitude, of a Pag. 76.mercifull rich man, offering mony to so many as come, that they who proudly refuse the rich mans gift were ordained to hauehave it, as well as any that received it, is most erroneous, being applyed to the matter in hand, and strikes directly against the Text, which saith, that so many as were ordained to life did beleev; thatIob. 1. 12. 1 Iob. 5. 1… 12. is, did come and receiv eternall life by beleeving in Christ. If all, or so many as were ordained received it, then they that received it not, were not ordained. Neither doth v. 46 (as they affirm for a conclusion, that their end may answer their beginning) testifie any such thing: but onelyonly that they who thought themselvs unworthy of eternall life, had the word of God preached unto them: but that they were therfore ordained to eternall life, is not the testimony of the Text, but their unskilfull glosse. The Holy Ghost expresly opposeth unto them to whom Paul speaks, v. 46, them that were ordained to life, v. 48.