Discovery of Jacksons Vanity, Section 2 · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIIII.
Of Gods infinite love to mankinde.
YOur theame runnes in an indefinite current as touching the object of Gods love; but it appeares by your discourse ensuing, that you have a farther reach, and doe extend this love of God towards all and every one. For by the last clause of the first section it appeares, that you conceive the notion of love infinite to bespeake as much, namely, that therefore it must extend to all and every one. And this reason of yours is soone dispatched, in lesse then two lines; all the rest of your first section is wide enough from the marke you shoot at, and yet unsound enough in many particulars. First you maintaine that blessing and cursing both cannot proceed out of the mouth of God. Secondly, that God is the author of being to all, and therefore loves all. Thirdly, that in as much as he gives being to all, he loves all. For he hateth nothing that hee hath made. All these I will examine in their order.
Touching the first, you beginne with the authority of St. Iames, Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing, my Iam. 3. 10.brethren, these things ought not so to be. And he doth illustrate it with similitudes drawne from naturall things, as from a fountaine that sends not forth at the same place sweet water and bitter: and from trees, which bring forth proper fruit onelyonly, according to their kinde: Can the figtree beare Olive berries, or the Vine figs? And you seeme to conceive that these reasons of the Apostle, as you call them, (which indeed are but illustrations) have more force to prevaile, then the Apostles authority; for thus you write, If the Apostles authority could not perswade us to beleeve, his reasons would inforce us to grant, that the issues of blessing and cursing from one and tho same mouth are contrary to the course of nature, and argue the nature of man to bee much out of tune. Herein I am not of your minde. I am rather of Abrahams minde. If they will not beleeve Moses and the Prophets, Luc. 16. 3.neither will they beleeve, though a man rise from the dead. And yet a man rising from the dead, were as fit to make faith of the state of the dead (in my judgement) as these illustrations (secluding S. Iames his authority,) are of force to prove, that it becomes not a man out of the same mouth to send forth blessing and cursing. For fountaines send forth water, and trees bring forth fruit by necessity of nature: But man speakes by freedome of will; and as a man may be induced to curse, so in case he curseth, and be challenged for it by a brother, hee may answer as David did unto his brethren, And what have I 1 Sam. 17. 19.now done? is there not a cause? For if all curses were causelesse, Solomon would never have told us, that The curse which is Pro. 26. 2.causlesse shall not come. I never yet read of any that censured Elisha for cursing the children that mocked him, saying, Come 2 King. 2. 23, 24.up thou bald head, come up thou bald head; and indeed it is said, He cursed them in the name of the Lord. And yet this curse of his had a very bloody issue, two Beares comming out of the wood, and tearing forty two of them. And in the booke of Iudges the Angell of the Lord bids the people curse Meroz. Curse ye Meroz, saith the Angell of the Lord; curse ye bitterly Iudg. 5. 23the inhabitants of Meroz, because they came not to helpe the Lord, to helpe the Lord against the mighty. And as curses may have their due course, so blessings may bee causelesse. For as for him that blesseth himselfe in his heart, when hee heareth the Deut. 29. 19, 20.word of Gods curse, saying, I shall have peace though I walke after the stubbornnesse of my heart, herein he doth but adde drunkennesse unto thirst, and the Lord will not bee mercifull to that man. And if some doe sinne in blessing themselves, how much more doe others sinne in blessing idols? Wee well know that Esa. 66. 3.out of our Saviours mouth came forth cursings sometimes, as well as blessings at other times. For he cursed the figtree, and Matth. 21. 19.anone it withered. And therefore it were fit to distinguish betweene cursings and cursings, yea and betweene blessings and blessings, lest otherwise we confound truth and errour, good and evill.
And to this purpose I thinke fit to distinguish betweene cursing as it signifies onelyonly the pronouncing of a curse; and cursing, as it signifieth cursed speaking. And S. Iames, as I take it, speakes of cursing as it signifies cursed speaking, and not as it signifies the bare pronunciation of a curse, which may bee done without cursed speaking, and in an holy manner, as when our Saviour cursed the figtree, and Elisha the children that mocked him, moved undoubtedly thereunto extraordinarily by the Spirit of God. Like as when prophane persons blesse themselves, and superstitious persons blesse their idolls, their actions are unholy enough, and doe bring the curse of God upon their persons. For they shall multiply sorrow upon Psal. 16. 4.their heads that runne after other gods. Now S. Iames useth fit similitudes to illustrate this duty of blessed speaking, and to move them to refraine from cursed speaking: considering that Gods Spirit is as a fountaine of holy life in their hearts; and therefore they should send forth nothing but sweet water, not indifferently either sweet water onelyonly, or bitter water onelyonly, but sweet water, and that onelyonly. And seeing they are trees of righteousnesse, of the Lords planting, that hee may be glorified: Esa. 61. 4therefore to bring forth nothing but good fruit, but that of divers kindes, like unto that tree of life, that bare twelve manner of Revel. 22. 2.fruits, and gave fruit every monethmonth.
And yet if sometimes they breake forth into cursed speaking, it is the lesse strong, considering they are in part carnall, Gal. 5. 23and but in part, spirituall; and therefore in part out of tune, though nothing like so much as they were in state of nature; when they sent forth nothing but bitter water, neither blessing their brethren, nor God; no nor themselves neither. Not one of these instances, say you, but holds as truely in God as in man. He being the tree of life, cannot bring forth death. To cause the vine to bring forth figges, were not so hard a point of husbandry, as to derive cursednesse or misery from the fountaine of blisse. For a spring to send forth water sweet and bitter, fresh and salt, is more competible, then for hatefull and harmefull intentions, to have any issue from pure love. But God is love, yea love is his essence as Creator. Why doe you not speake plainely, and tell us, that out of Gods mouth cannot proceed blessing and cursing? Yet the Lord protesteth to Abraham, saying, Blessed shall hee be that Gen. 12. 4. I will bless them that blesse thee, and curse them that curse thee. Mal. 2. 2 Levit. 26 Deut. 28 Deut. 30. 19blesseth thee, and cursed shall he be that curseth thee: And tells the Iewes to their face, that he would curse their blessings. Yea, that he had cursed them already. And equally and indifferently, as God is made the Author of blessing to the obedient, so is he made the Author of a curse to the disobedient: and therefore calls heaven and earth to witnesse, that hee hath set before them, life and death, blessing and cursing. So that death and cursing is indifferently attributed to God, as the Author of them, like as life and blessing; and both are in due proportion to the behaviour of man, as it is found, either in the way of obedience, or in the way of disobedience. And in this respect perhaps you may say, that man is the cause of cursing, & not God. To this I answer; 1. By the same reason, man is the cause of blessing suitable to this cursing, and not God. 2. If in this respect, cursing be to be derived from sin, it is onelyonly in the way of a meritorious cause; so doth not fruit proceed from trees, but onelyonly in the way of an efficient cause. God, and none but God can be the Author, as of happinesse, so of misery, as of eternall life, so also of everlasting death. And as none is truly blessed, but whom God blesseth; so none is truly accursed, but whom God curseth. Yet no man, I thinke, that hath his wits in his head, will say, that this cursing proceedeth from Gods love, but rather from his hatred. Gods love towards the creature is essentiall, his love to the creature is not so, no more then to be a creator, is of Gods essence. And love is no more of Gods essence as a Creator, then hatred is of Gods essence as a revenger. And the blessing and cursing attributed unto God in the Scriptures before alledged, belong to God onelyonly as a Iudge, to execute the one by way of reward, and the other by way of punishment. Albeit there is another course of Gods blessing and of his cursing, though you love not to distinguish, but to consound rather; as all that maintaine bad causes, love darknesse rather then light.Ioh. 3. 19.
I come to the second point, wherein you insist, In that he is the Author of being, he is the Author of goodnesse to all things that are. And this is very true; for, God saw all that he had made, and lo it was very good. And as it is very true, so it is nothing at Gen. 1. 31all to the purpose. For when we enquire, whether Gods love be extended towards all and every one, wee presuppose their beings in their severall times and generations. And secondly, we speake of a love proper to mankinde, which consisteth not in giving them their being; for, God hath given being unto Angels, even unto Devils as well as unto men; and as to men, so to all inferiour creatures, be they never so noysome and offensive unto man. And it is a strange course of yours, to magnifie the love of God to man, in giving him being, which is found in the basest creature that breathes, or breathes not. I have heard a story of a great Prince, when one of the prime subjects of the land, being taken in a foule act of insurrection, and yeelding upon condition to bee brought to speake with that Prince, presuming of ancient favour, whereof hee had tasted in great measure, and which upon his presence might haply revive, he found nothing answerable, but imperious ta…ts rather, and dismission in this manner, Know therefore that we hate thee as we hate a toad. Yet you magnifie the love of God to mankinde in as comfortable manner, when you say that hoe hath given us being, which wee well know God hath given to lyons, rigers, and beasts of prey; yea, to snakes and adders, to frogges and toads, and fiery serpents.
Herehence you proceed to the third point, and do inferre, That because he hath made us, therefore hee loveth us; for, He hateth nothing that he hath made, as saith the wise man: and to give the greater credit to the authority alledged by you, you use an introduction of strange state; for you say, The wiseman saith this of him that is wisest of all, of him that can neither deceive, nor be deceived, that, He hateth nothing that he hath made, But to what purpose tends all this pompe? Is the sentence any whit of greater authority because it is spoken of him that is wisest of all, and can neither deceive nor be deceived? May not fooles speake of him, that can neither deceive nor be deceived, as well as wise men, and have their sayings any whit the greater credit and reputation for this? If the author of that sentence had beene such a one, as neither could deceive nor be dedeceived, then indeed the sentence had beene of greatest authority, and infinitely beyond the authority of Philo the Iew. Or did you presume that your Reader inconsiderately might swallow such a gull, & take the author of it for such a one, as could neither deceive nor be deceived? If you did, this were very foule play, and no better then a trick of conicatching. Yet we except not against the sentence, but pray you rather to take notice of an answer to this very objection of yours, taken from the same ground, above two hundred yeares ago.
You shall finde it in Aquinas his summes, where his first objection is this; Videtur quod Deus nullum hominem reprobet. Aquin. 1. … 23. art. 3.Nullus enim reprobat, quem diligit: sed Deus omnem hominem diligit, secundum illud Sap. 11. Diligis omnia quae sunt, & nihil odisti eorum quae secisti. Ergo Deus nullum hominem reprobat. It seemes that God reprobates no man. For, no man reprobates him whom hee loveth. But God loves every man according to that, Wis. 11. Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing that thou hast made. Therefore God reprobateth no man. And the answer hee makes unto this objection followeth in this manner, Adprimum dicendum, quod Deus omnes homines diliget, & etiam omnes creaturas, in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum: Ibid.non tamen quodcunque bonum vult omnibus. In quantum igitur quibusdam non vult hoc bonum, quod est vita aeterna, dicitur eos habere odio velreprobare. To the first is to be answered, that God loves all men, yea, and all creatures, for as much as he willeth some good to them all: but yet he willeth not every good to all. There-fore in as much as unto some he willeth not this good, which is life everlasting, he is said to hate them, or to reprobate them. And you might have beene pleased to take notice, not onelyonly of that wise man (though as wise as Philo) who speakes herein of him that can neither deceive nor be deceived, but of that wise God, who is wiser then men and Angels, and can neither deceive nor be deceived, and affirmeth openly, that He hath loved Iacob and hated Esau; as also of the Apostle Saint Paul, who by the infallible direction of Gods Spirit, applies this to the disposition of God towards them before they were borne. And if to inflict the torments of hell upon these, or these for their sinnes be to hate them; surely to intend to inflict the torments of hell upon them for their sinnes, is to hate them. And seeing God from everlasting intended to doe whatsoever hee doth in time, it followeth, that from everlasting hee did hate them.
Yet this truth you dare secretly to outface, without taking any notice of it. But here you argue; well, let us consider it; For men to blesse God and to curse men, doth argue a dissolution of that internall harmony which should be in the humane nature: therfore for God to hate some men, and to love others, would necessarily inferre a greater distraction in the indivisible essence, besides the contradiction which it implies to insinite goodnes. This latter clause is thrust in to make weight, and to turne the scale, but being nothing save meere breath and aire, makes it rather lighter. Like as when the Spaniard to make his state weigh as much as the state of France, and finding that Spaine and other places News from Parnassus.would not serve the turne, clapt in Millane and Naples into the ballance, whereupon it was found well the lighter. Yet I am content to consider that also in its turne. But first of the argument. My answer hereunto is twofold: First, as touching the antecedent; I say, and have already shewed, that the passage of Iames, whereat you aime, proceeds of cursing, onelyonly Iac. 3. 9.as it signifies cursed speaking, not as it signifies the pronouncing of a curse, which may be in an holy manner, it being cleere, that both God and man; both God the Father, and God the Sonne, may, and have pronounced curses in an holy manner, without giving evidence of any dissolution of that internall harmony which should be in them; and yet such a dissolution is to be acknowledged to have its place more or lesse in the best of men in this world, for they have flesh in them Gal. 5. 2…as well as spirit, but neither is nor can be in God. Secondly, I deny the consequence; for, it doth not follow, that, because it is not lawfull for man to curse, therefore it is not lawfull for God to curse. Are not Devills accursed? At the day of judgement shall not our Saviour pronounce that sentence on thousands, Go ye cursed into everlasting fire? And why should this argue any distraction in God, more then in a Iudge that absolveth some, and condemneth others? So our Saviour at the day of judgement will say unto some, Go yee cursed into Matth. 25.everlasting fire: unto others, Come ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdome prepared for you from the beginning of the world. If you do not speake of blessing and cursing in the way of execution of judgement and reward, what meane you to walke thus in the cloud of generalities? If you speake not of execution, but of intention: as God doth execute judgements for sinne, and rewards of obedience; so doth he from everlasting intend both the one and the other, as it is impossible it should be otherwise. Your selfe acknowledging in words Gods decrees to be eternall. And doth it not become God from everlasting to intend to proceed in the day of judgement, as before spoken of? As great a divine as you are taken for, I much doubt you little understand the state of the question, wherein you seem to oppose some body, for, I cannot be perswaded you doe wilfully dissemble it. But there is another course of Gods providence in another matter, and farre different from the execution of punishment and reward, maintained by your opposites, and impugned by you: but you are loath to bee seene in your opposition therein, and to have your opinion knowne particularly for feare lest the common voice should cry shame upon you, as upon a profest Arminian, a manifest impugner of the soveraignty of God, in shewing mercy on Rom. 9. 18whom he will, and denying mercy to whom he will, and so hardening whom he will. Now here you have no comparison to helpe your selfe withall, drawne from the condition of man. For in mans power it is not, either to give grace, or to deny it. But to the contrary wee finde, that Superiours have the dispensation of favours and gratifications in their power, which they enlarge or restraine at their pleasure, and extend to whom they will. How much more shall the Lord of all take liberty unto himselfe, to have mercy on whom hee will have mercy, and to shew compassion on whom hee will shew compassion; yea, and as to have mercy on whom hee will, so to harden whom he will also; and that I hope without contradiction to his goodnesse, which you besides the word of God cast in, to outface the proclamation of God himselfe. For as Gods goodnesse did not binde him to make the world; so neither doth it binde him to save the world. And as when he made the world, he made as many creatures as he thought good; so in saving the world, he saves as many creatures as he thinkes good, both amongst men and Angels, by giving grace to whom he will, and denying grace to whom he will. When you say, that, To love the worke of his owne hands is more essentiall to him that made all things out of his meere love, then it is unto the fire to burn matter combustible. This speech of yours is a grosse unsavory speech, transforming God into a naturall and necessary agent: for, it is well knowne that the fire burnes naturally and necessarily. And if God doth more essentially love his creatures, then he must naturally and necessarily preserve them in being, and cannot destroy them And because it is out of the same love that you derive the creation of the world, it followeth, that God was necessitated by the necessity of nature to make the world; and consequently that the world was everlasting without beginning, and so shall continue without end. Behold the flowers that grow in the paradise of your contemplation, fitter for Aristotles Physicks, or Metaphysicks, then for the meditations of a Christian Divine, as being fit onelyonly to make a nosegay for the Devill. The love of God towards himselfe is essentiall, towards his creatures is meerely accidentall. Hee needed not to have made them, neither is it any whit necessary that he should preserve them. And as creation and preservation are attributed of extrinsecall denomination unto God, so is his love towards his creatures also. Neither was it out of love to the creature that he made the world, but out of love to himselfe, as who is the end of all. For, both Salomon professeth, that God Prov. 16. 4made all things for himselfe: and Saint Paul likewise gives us to understand, that as things are from him, so all things are for him Rom. 11. last.also. But Gods love is infinite, therefore, say you, it extends to all, seeing all are lesse then infinite. A proper argument, and as well suitable unto your text, which undertaketh onelyonly to shew, that Gods love is infinite to mankinde. And this argument proves as well, that it is extended to frogges and toads; to Angells and Devills, as well as to mankinde. This is onelyonly to professe, that it extends to all. Now this is a very improper interpretarion of infinite love: for lesse love, and lesse liberality, may extend to more then greater love, and greater liberality: for he that gives ten shillings to one person, is more liberall, then that divides five shillings amongst threescore persons, in giving them a peny apiece. Lastly, the fruit of this love can be but being: and is it not a proper commendation of Gods infinite love towards mankinde, to say that he gives being unto all? And doth Gods love to man appeare more herein, then to the vilest creature that is?
2 In the next Section you discourse at large after your manner of the amplitude of Gods love in comparison, which is nothing at all to your purpose, whose chiefe aime is to insinuae, that Gods love is alike to all.
Yet having proceeded thus farre, my resolution is to go on, and to consider what you bring. What thinke you of Adams love in the state of innocency, was it perfect, or no? Though without sinne awhile, yet hee fell into sinne: so did the Angells before him, so should wee, though as perfect as they, if God should not uphold us. Yet our love in greatest perfection could not be so much as a shadow of Gods love, there being no resemblance betweene them: our love being a love of duety, Gods love to us of meere grace and mercy. Besides, betweene the fruits of Gods love to us, and the fruits of our love towards God, no colour of resemblance. Man is bound heartily to desire the good of all; but God is free, and hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Many widowes were in Israel in the daies of Elias, when Luc. 4. 25. 26. 27.heaven was shut three yeares and six months, and great famine was throughout all the land: But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta a city of Sidone, unto a certaine widow. Also many lepers were in Israel in the dayes of Elesaeus the prophet, yet none of them was made cleane but Naaman the Syrian. And if Gods will had beene to doe the best that might be, hee could have cured no doubt all other lepers as well as Naaman, and succoured other widows as well as the widow of Sarepta. Yet I confesse, Gods good will exceeds ours, not intensively onelyonly, but extensively also: for not a sparrow falleth to the ground Matth. 10. 29.without the providence of our heavenly Father: hee saveth both man and beast, and heareth the young Ravens that call Psal. 36. 6. & 147. 9. & 145. 15.upon him: the eyes of all doe wait upon the Lord, and hee gives them their meat in due season.
And as touching the conferring both of grace and glory, therein hee saveth more then wee know, or are acquainted with. The number of the children of Israel, is as the sand of the sea that cannot bee counted for multitude. As touching Hos. 1. last.temporall blessings, all partake of his goodnesse therein, in their naturall preservation and consolation; therein wee must imitate him in doing good to all, as it lieth in our power, though chiefly to the houshold of faith, yet not to them onelyonly, Gal 6. 10. Luc. 10. 30.but to others also. But though he causeth his sun to shine, and his raine to fall upon the just and unjust; yet pronounceth not the sentence of salvation on all promiscuously, whether they be just, or unjust.
And whereas all are equally corrupt in state of nature, yet he doth not equally shew mercy on all, or bestow the meanes of grace on all; or where he doth bestow these meanes of salvation, he doth not make them effectuall unto us. He blindes the eyes, and hardens the hearts of some, that they should not see with Ioh. 12. 40.their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, that he might heale them. Whereby it comes to passe, that the word of God, though it be the savour of life unto life unto some, yet it 2 Cor. 3.is the savour of death unto death unto others; and the Ministers of God are a good savour unto God in both; even both in them that are saved, and in them that perish. For God made all Pro. 16. 4.things for himselfe, even the wicked against the day of evill. MercieMercy, you say, is not restrained from ill deservers in distresse, so long as the exercise of it breeds no harme to such as are more capable of bountifull love and favour.
This is a consideration, which I confesse hath place among men sometimes, and in some cases. Yet hardly can I devise how to suit with a fit instance. For no states (for ought I find) doe take notice of any such distinction of times, wherein the exercise of mercy will not breed harme, and wherein it will, but they execute condigne punishment upon malefactors according to the lawes, that all may see, and feare to doe the like; not be encouraged malorum facta imitari, but rather eorum Deut. 17. 13.exitus perhorrescere. God doth not so. His patience and long suffering is exceeding great; yet if hee should give every man repentance in his death bed, and save their soules, what one in the world should be the worse for this? And though the wicked many times spend their daies in mirth, and sodainly Iob 21. 13.goe downe to the grave; yet by the grace of God we shall be nothing the worse for this, nor provoked hereupon to condemne Psal. 73. 15.the generation of Gods children. Yet what is it that makes one man more capable of bountifull love and favour then another I know not: what makes him more capable of love in the execution of reward, I know; but what makes him more capable of love in the communication of grace, and in shewing mercy towards him, I know not. Sure I am, that woman who had many sinnes forgiven her, loved so much the more, the ninety nine just persons that thinke they need no repentance, Luc. 7. 47. Luc. 15. 7.like enough love so much the lesse.
It is true, the lawes of States take order for the just execution of punishment upon offenders for the common good; yet by your leave, Kings on earth, by their absolutenesse doe give pardons to whom they will, respecting more their own pleasure then the common good. And withall I thinke Princes doe lesse offend (if at all offend) in refusing to pardon malefactors, then in granting pardons unto them. As for God, to whom you say the execution of justice is unnaturall, he being the Father of mercy; I pray consider, if God should give repentance to all on their death-beds, and consequently save all, what common good of mankinde would be hindred by this? And as God is the father of mercy, so is he also the Iudge of all the world, and I conceive the execution of justice punitive to be as naturall to him, as he is Iudge of all the world; as the Gen. 18. 25execution of mercy is naturall unto him, as he is the Father of mercy. Yet you seeme to have a place of Scripture to prove a notorious untruth; as namely, that the execution of justice punitive is unnaturall unto God; and that is out of Lament. 3. 33. He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men. Thus you take Scripture hand over head to serve your turne. But I pray consider, is it possible that God should doe any thing against his will? men may have reluctations, and conflicts in them, and doe things volentes nolentes; is such a condition possible to be found in the nature of God? Yet in this case Aristotle hath defined the action to be simply voluntarie, Eth. 3.and done willingly. If God be represented sometimes unto us as it were fluctuating like men betweene different resolutions of executing either mercy or justice, as in the Prophet, How shall I give thee up Ephraim, how shall I deliver thee Israel? Hos. 11. 8.how shall I make thee as Admah, how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, and my repentances are rowled together; like as he is represented unto us, as well in the shape of the members of our body, as of the passions of our minde; we have cause rather to take notice hereby of the goodnesse of God in condescending thus far to our infirmities, to make us the better acquainted with him, and the more sensible of his favour, then hereby to take occasion to fashion God like unto our selves, either in body or minde. Yet the meaning of the Prophet is plaine enough, namely, that God comes not to afflict his children, unlesse he be provoked by sinne, and herein he differeth from earthly parents, who sometimes chasten their children for their owne pleasures; but God as hee doth not, Heb. 12. 10but in case he is provoked; so he doth it for our profit, as the Apostle telleth us in the same place. To doe a thing willingly hath the same signification with the Latine phrase, animi causa, that is, when nothing is the cause thereof but a mans owne will, as Causabon observes out of Seneca de beneficiis 4. whose In Characteres Theophrasti, pag. 172.opinion was, Neminem adeo à naturali lege descivisse, & hominem exuisse ut animi causa malus sit.
You further say, that Nothing can provoke good men to execute punitive justice upon offenders, but the good of others, deserving either better, or not so ill, which might grow worse and worse through evill doers impunity. I pray consider, doe parents chastise their children for the good of others, and not for the good of the children themselves? God himselfe chastiseth his owne children all manner of wayes, and is this for the good of others that deserve better, or not so ill? and not rather for the good of those his owne children themselves? No chastising for the present Heb. 12. 11.is joyous, saith the Apostle, but grievous, but afterwards it bringeth forth the quiet fruit of righteousnesse to them that are exercised thereby. Marke I pray, To them that are exercised thereby, he doth not say that this fruit is brought forth to others.
As for the torments in the world to come, who is the better for them, unlesse they tend to the improvement of joy in those blessed ones, while they behold in others that miserie which onelyonly by the grace of God, themselves have escaped. For as for any other welfare of the Saints of God, or any welfare at al of the damned crew, or avoidance of grievances that is procured by the damnation of the wicked, if you know, it is well, but I assure you it is more then I can divine of. Yet doe we not say, that God hath pleasure in the torture either of men or devils, but onelyonly in the demonstration of his owne glorious justice towards them, and in the magnifying of his mercy so much the more toward his Saints.
You say, It goeth against the nature of God to punish the workes of his owne hands. A vile speech, and withall senselesse; and no marvell if when men prostitute all honesty and the feare of God in opposing manifest truth, they lose their wits also, and fall upon most unsober meditations. For what a vile speech is it to say, that any worke of God goeth against his nature, who as the Apostle professeth, worketh all things according to the counsell of his will. Then againe, what a senselesse speech Eph. 1. 11.is it to insinuate, that it were not so contrary to GODS nature, to deale thus with those creatures which were not the workes of his owne hands; but being the works of his owne hands, you say, it is against his nature to punish them. A wonderfull assertion, and wherat the most barbarous people might be astonished in the consideration of the impiety, shall I say? or the insulsity thereof, or both rather, namely, that it should be against Gods nature to punish sinners. For it is well known that God punisheth none other, nor ever did; Christ Iesus the Sonne of God onelyonly excepted. And what a field have you here to expatiate in if you list to aggravate the unnaturalnesse of any action in God? And with as little sobriety doe you amplifie that unnaturalnesse in God by the consideration of man especially, as who (you say) is more deare to him then any childe is to his Father. So then to punish others, you are willing to grant not to be so unnaturall an action in God, as the punishing of man. And I pray what are those other creatures? Are they inferiour, as Oxen and Sheepe, and all these never sinned; yet is it not unnaturall to punish them, if punishment may have place (as being taken for the afflicting of them) where there is no sinne. For God gives us leave to weare them out, with plowing, carying, riding, for our necessity, for our d…light; yea to set one creature upon another, the greyhound upon an hare, upon a deere, the hauke upon a partridge, or phesant, or wilde fowle. No unnaturalnesse doe we exercise in all this, such is the liberty which God hath given unto us. But yet to punish man, though a sinner, (for he punisheth no other) this how greatly (say you) doth it goe against the nature of God? It seemes you cannot tell how greatly; neither can I helpe you herein. For I doe not see how it is against his nature at all. But you seeme to give a reason, in saying that God is loving kindnesse it selfe. But I pray consider, is he not justice it selfe also as well as loving kindnesse? and is it against the nature of Iustice to punish sinners? no nor against his loving kindnesse neither. For I hope that no attribute of God is contrary to another, though according to their different notions, some actions are more suitable to the one, then to the other. And why man should have more speciall consideration here then Angels, I know no reason. For if you say that God is the father of man, in as much as he hath created him, by the same reason he may be the father of the ignoblest creature that is. To say that God is the father of man, in as much as hee made him after his owne image, this is no more true of man, then of Angels, even of the very Angels of darknesse. And men also are borne the children of darknesse, and so continue untill the time that God calleth them, and enlightneth them. Or will you say that in speciall sort he is the father of man, by way of redemption; yet I finde hitherto in your discourse no intimation of this fatherhood. But will you say that all and every one have redemption in Christ through his bloud? you may as well say, that all and every one have the Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14.remission of their sinnes in Christ thorough his bloud. For this is it which in Scripture phrase is meant by redemption. Arminius who maintaines that Christ dyed for all and every one, professeth plainly, that the immediate effect of Christs passion is but this, that God now may, his Iustice nothing hindring him, give pardon of sinnes and salvation, upon what condition he will. Which upon the matter is all one, as if he should say, that seeing faith and repentance are the conditions whereupon God gives forgivenesse of sinnes, none but such as beleeve and repent doe obtaine the forgivenesse of sinnes, that is, doe obtaine redemption in Christ, through his bloud. Now consider, are not faith and repentance the gifts of God? It cannot be denied but they are; the Scriptures evidently Eph. 2. 8. Act. 5. 39. Act. 11 18. 2 Tim. 2. last.give testimony hereunto, namely that faith is the gift of God, that repentance is the gift of God. And doth God give faith and repentance unto all? All experience of the world doth manifest that he doth not; no nor so much as the outward meanes unto all, whereby faith and repentance are wrought. I wonder you blush not in setting downe such incongruities; as first, in saying that God as he is willing to be called the father of the sonnes of men, so he is ready to doe the kinde office of a father unto them: and for proofe hereof alledge that of the Psalmist, As a father pitieth his owne children, so the Lord pitieth them that feare him. In which passage, the fatherly love of God is not extended unto all, but restrained to those that feare him. And yet I pray consider, what father would torment his children with everlasting fire, though never so unnaturall towards him? or would not keepe him from it, if it lay in his power, without sinning against God? Yet God torments even those whom you call his children, justly for their sinnes, in the torments of hell fire, that never shall have end. We willingly grant the love of God the Father, and the love of God the Sonne is such a love as passeth knowledge; but it is enlarged onelyonly towards Eph. 3. 19. Gal. 3. 26.those that are his children by faith in Christ Iesus. This is the filiation alone which the Apostle takes notice of; you take no notice of this at all. And againe, Because ye are sonnes, God hath sent Gal. 4. 6.the Spirit of his Sonne into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Now is this common unto all, as you make Gods fatherhood common unto all? So saith the Apostle in another place, As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sonnes of God. Rom. 8. 14Here is a description of that sonneship we have in respect of our heavenly Father. And againe, The Spirit of God witnesseth Rom. 8. 16with our spirits that we are the sonnes of God. Of these passages I sinde no accompt made throughout this whole discourse of yours. And towards these sonnes of God, wee shall willingly give you leave to extend and intend the love of God as much as you thinke fit. But you still continue to extend the fatherhood of God unto all, as it were in despight of all these passages formerly alledged. Where doe you finde throughout the Scriptures, that the title of the sonnes of God is attributed to the uncircumcised, or to the Heathen? To the contrarie we reade both before the flood, that The sonnes of God saw Gen. 6. 2.the daughters of men that they were faire: where we have a manifest distinction opposite to your confusion: And after; for this is the message which God sent unto Pharaoh, Israel is my sonne, even my first borne,—and if thou refuse to let him goe, I will Exo. 4. 22.slay thy sonne, even thy first borne. How much more under the Law? Is Ephraim my deare sonne, or pleasant childe? yet since I spake unto him, I still remembred him; therefore my bowels are Ier. 31. 20.troubled for him, I will surely have compassion on him, saith the Lord. Most of all under the Gospell: Behold what love the Fathe, 1 Ioh. …. 1.hath shewed us, that wee should bee called the sonnes of God. What have you here said of Gods love to man, that may not as well be said of his love to the very Angels of darknesse? For is it not true in respect of them as well as in respect of us, that having given them being, he doth much more love them, after they are enstamped with his image. For he sowes not wheat to reape tares; nor did he give life to Angels that he might bring forth death. God gave both man and Angels life for the manifestation of his owne glory; and for the manifestation of his owne glory doth he punish transgressors amongst men and Angels with everlasting death.
3. You would willingly draw Heathens to the acknowledgement of this fatherhood in God towards all; though thinking it too narrow to comprehend all references of loving kindnesses betweene him and demy gods, which demy gods you take to be men. I thinke rather they were conceived to be inferiour spirits; like as Aristotle makes all inferiour intelligences to depend upon the first mover. And what reference of loving kindnesse is comprehended in this, that Iupiter is said to be both male and female, you may at leisure dilate of when you please. Gods affection to his children exceeds the affection of any mother towards the fruit of her wombe. For God was content to purchase his Church with Act. 20. 23his owne blood. Your next sentence containes meere non sense: I rectifie it thus; And as if his love could not be sufficiently expressed by these dearest references amongst men, &c. hee hath chosen the most affectionate female, &c. Thus I make sense of it; but the poorest sense that ever was vented in so grave a matter of discourse. As if the greatnesse of place, or curiosity of education did make mothers so little compassionate towards their children, that God is faine to seeke out for more proper resemblances. Thus you fetch about for matter, as Balaam did for divinations; as if there were no women in the world, but delicate Ladies, or such nice & curious dames, whose nicenesse hath made them so unnaturall, that our Saviour was driven to compare his tender affection unto the affectionof a hen towards her chicken; which creature is magnified by you (to hold up the jest) for the most affectionate female amongst reasonlesse creatures: implying that reasonable creatures may in tendernesse of affection right well exceed the henne, and so you quite marre your owne play. But where doe you finde (if a man might be so bold to aske) that an henne is so superlative a creature in her affection towards her chicken? I can hardly beleeve that either Aristotle or Pliny hath afforded you any such observation, but rather your comment upon them, or upon the booke of Nature. What? is an henue more affectionate to her young ones, then a Pelican is to hers, who is said to let her selfe bloud to feed them? or then a Storke, that hath her name from foreign, and in the Hebrew is called foreign, which is a word neere of kinne to foreign, bowels of compassion, as which indeed are most tender in her. A story whereof we have in the description of the Netherlands: namely, of a Storke, that when the house was on fire where her nest was, kept the fire off from her yong ones with her owne body and wings so long till she was burnt her selfe.
Still you proceede in amplyfying the love of God, nothing to the purpose. For the question is not, how great Gods love is towards those on whom it is placed; but whether it extend to all or no? You say, All the sweet fruits and comforts of love, whether of fathers and mothers towards their children, or of husbands towvrd their wives, or of brethren to brethren, sisters to sisters, or of one friend to another (their sinfulnesse excepted) are but distillations or infusions of his infinite louelove to our nature. We well know, the love of God exceeds all this; bu… I verily think your penne hath runne riot ere you are aware, and you have written you know not, or you consider not what. For, herehence it followeth, that there is no act so abominable of the will of the creature, but God may infuse it, the sinfulnesse onelyonly thereof excepted; which yet is a very sory exception. for sinfulnes is not a thing that can be infused by God, Angell, or man. Of old is was determined by Austine, that sinne hath De civit. Dei, lib. … cap. 7not causam efficientem, but deficientem onelyonly.
And herein you manifestly contradict your selfe, as who maintaine, that whosoever is the author of the act, must therewithall be the author of the sinnefullnesse thereof, for as much as sinfulnesse doth result (relative like) upon position of the foundation. And of this kinde of argument I have found you wondrous confident, in a certain treatise of yours, though a very weake argument, and long agoe proposed and answered by Capreolus, and whose answer thereunto is again rehearsed by Soncinas.
But here I shew onelyonly how you make no bones of contradicting your selfe very handsomely, in saying, God doth infuse an act which is sinfull, though not the sinfulnesse of it. The love of God (you say) though infinitely increased in every particular, and afterwards made up in one, could no way equalize Gods love towards every particular soule created by him. Thus you steale up, without all proofe, the extention of Gods love to every particular; and that in infinite manner. Whereas the Scripture professeth as plainely, that God hath hated Esau, as that he hath loved Jacob. And seeing Gods love can be but infinite towards his elect, and towards his dearest Sonne, and towards himselfe, you make it infinite towards the very reprobates, whether men or devills: for every particular of them hath beene created by him. Is not this good divinity, and very comfortable divinity? Yet no Arminian will say, that God so loved the Angells that were fallen, that he sent his Sonne to die for them. When you say, The creatures for feare doe not so much good for their little ones as they might; not so much for the modell of their wit or strength, as God for his part (though infinite in wisedome and power) doth for the sonnes of men. As hee said of his Bore that was sent him, Noster te non capit ignis conturbator Aper, so may I say of this your eloquence, that it passeth mine intelligence. I can neither construe your sentence, nor correct it.
To say that the creature cannot doe so much for his young as God doth for the sonnes of men, is so vulgar a trueth, that when you introduce it with such pompe and state, I may well say', Tu pulicem Gaure giganta facis: yet the adversative interposed (Though infinite in wisedome and power) hath no congruity to this sense neither; for Gods infinite wisedome and power is no adversative to this I trow, but rather a coroborative thereunto. Bee it that God had done as much as could bee done for his unfruitfull vineyard, what is this to prove, that Gods love extends to all? whereas the place it selfe doth manifestly restraine this love of God unto his vineyard. Yet what is there mentioned besides the well husbanding of this vineyard; wherein hee appeales to their consciences, whether a better course could be devised then he had taken for the well husbanding thereof. But I pray consider, doth the worke of grace extend no further then to planting and watering? Is it not God that gives the increase also? Is it not in Gods 1 Cor. 3. 6.power to give faith, to give repentance? you that will have God to infuse that love in carnall men, which is found to be sinfull, and not to infuse the sinfulnesse thereof, cannot indure that God should infuse faith and repentance into the heart of man. But if God can doe this, surely hee can doe more then ought that is expressed in that song of God concerning …s. 5. 1. &c.his vineyard. Yet it is true, that in the way of outward husbandry, Gods course was without all exception, neither could the wisedome of man devise a better course for God to take, then was that which hee tooke with them. And therefore you have small cause to charge your adversaries with such sorry shifts, so atheisticall, as if wee thought Gods serious protestations deserved no credite with us. These are fictions of course, proceeding from an addle braine, to supply the roome of so and arguments.
And surely, did wee not believe Gods serious protestations, why should wee regard his oath? For, amongst men, he that is found to bee no man of his word, is usually little regarded for his oath. Gods word, without protestation, is, and ever shall bee through his grace, sufficient ground of our faith in him. Looke you unto it that you hunt not after some other foundation, the tenour of whose discourse in many places, and in this very place, treating of his infinite love to all and every one, runnes in a current of manifest opposition against the word of God: though now and then you have a snatch at it, and away, like the dog at the river Nilus, for feare of the Crocadile; and content your selfe onelyonly with a superficiall consideration of it, as in this place, like as in the former. For what? is this spoken indifferently of all? of the Gentiles as well as of the Iewes? It is manifestly spoken of the house of Israel, concerning whom the Lord asketh this question, Why will yee die yee house of Israel? And the whole proceedeth by way of answer to their murmuring against the providence of God, in saying, The fathers have eaten sower grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge; and hereupon God proceedeth to justifie the course of his providence unto their face. Now when God doth not take men upon the hippe, as soone as they have sinned against him, but spares them, and not onelyonly gives them space of repentance, but useth meanes to bring them unto repentance, by sending Prophets unto them to admonish them, to admonish them of their sinnes, and to denounce the judgements of God against them; is not this a manifest evidence that God is not delighted in their death, but rather in their repentance, although he still reserves libertie to himselfe to bestow the gift of repentance on whom he will? And therefore all this is only in respect of his church, not in respect of those who are strangers from the common wealth of Israel, and aliens from the covenants of promise. then concerning those within the church, All are not Israel, that are of Israel, Rom. 9. And though the meanes of grace have their course withall, yet God intends to make them effectuall onelyonly with his elect, according to that, As many as Act. 13. 4… Rom. 9. 30were ordeined to eternall life believed; and whom he hath predestinated, them hath he called, and justified, and glorified. For as Austine saith, Quantamlibet praebuerit patientiam, nisi Deus dederit. Aug. cont. Iulian. Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Ibid.quis aget poenitentiam: And speaking of the Non pradestinatis. Istorum neminem, saith hee, adducit Deus ad salubrem spiritatemque poenitentiam, qua homo reconciliatur Deo in Christo sive illis ampliorem patientiam, sive non imparem praebeat. Therefore we say, that as concerning the elect, though they sinne, yet God willeth not their death, but willeth their repentance, and their salvation. But as touching others who are mixt amongst them, as tares amongst the wheat, and are partakers of the same meanes of grace and invitations unto repentance; in as much as he spares them, and giveth them not onelyonly time to repent, but admonisheth them of their sinnes, and affords them the outward meanes of repentance, it is sufficient to justifie, that God doth not willingly bring judgement upon them, neither for their sinnes, because hee comes not hastily thereunto, but upon wilfull despising of the means of grace, used to reclaime them; like as before I shewed in what sense God is said, not to afflict the sonnes of men willingly. And as for this present place, your selfe elsewhere hath interpreted it thus, I will not the death of an impenitent sinner, but that God wills undoubtedly the death of an impenitent sinner. To quash this construction in this place, you say, this oath of God proceeds as concerning those, who all their life long have hated him. Here I am perswaded wee shall finde no little inconsideratenesse.
To hate God all a mans life time, what is it but to hate him from the first hower of comming to the use of reason, unto the last, even unto the moment of death? now I pray consider, Will not God the death of such a one as dieth in impenitencie? The text I confesse runnes thus, I will not the death of him that dieth. But doe you thinke indeed the meaning is, that as for such a man as now dieth, and hath lived all his life time in the hatred of God, God will not the death of such a one? Like enough you are content your Reader should entertaine such a conceite. But I cannot bee perswaded you take this to be the meaning. The text is manifestly against it; for it followeth, But rather that he returne and live; so that it is spoken of a man living, and such as is capable of repentance. And wee know, the whole Chapter is to justifie Gods providence in afflicting men with his judgements: so that to die in this place, is to be under the afflicting hand of God, and so in the way to death and to destruction.
Our living is reputed a continuall dying; for as much as nature consumeth and wasteth, as the Poet wittily expresseth it;
Childehood ends in youth,
And youth in old age dies;
I thought I lived in truth,
But now I die, I die; I see,
Each age of death is one degree▪
Whereupon he concludes his resolution to correct his former phrase of speech, saying,
Farewell the doating score
Of worlds Arithmaticke:
Life, Ile trust thee no more;
But henceforth, for thy sake,
Ile go by deaths new Almanaeke.
—For while I sing,
A thousand men lie sick, a thousand bells doring.
And would you know what is the difference between me and them;
They are but dead, and I dying.
So that I guesse your meaning according to the articles of your owne creed, is but this; That Gods love is such to them that all their life past (not simply all their life, but all their life past) have hated him, that, He will not their death, but rather that they returne and live. And I grant, that this is true of many in most proper speech, namely, of all the elect of God, though it bee long ere God calleth and converteth some of them. Of others also that live in the Church, I have shewed, how it may have course in the same sense, that God is said, not so much willingly to afflict them for their sinnes, as for refusing to repent and turne unto God after they have sinned.
When you tell us of infinite places more of sacred texts, and those most perspicuous in themselves, and also that, The whole ancient Church, with some small exception, which yet may bee counterpoised, is ready to give joynt verdict for you, it savoureth hotly of Smithfield eloquence;
Pessima quò vendas opus est mangone perito
Qui Smithfieldensi polleat eloquio.
Yet it was an old observation,
Multa fidem promissa levant cum plenius aequo,
Laudat venales qui vult extrudere merces.
If you had some about you to justfie you in cleanly manner by some prety qualification, it had beene absolute. As the Gentleman who professed that he had certaine ponds wherein Carpes were taken as big as that Somer-pole which hee then rode by; and withall askt his man that rode with him, whether it were not so. Sir, quoth his man, though they were so big, yet I am sure they were nothing like so long: and indeed, the dimension of length is more suitable to the proportion of an Eele, then of a Carpe. As Cicero answered him that told a strange tale concerning the length of certaine Eeles which he had seene: for Tully handsomely to convince him of his vanity, made shew of going beyond him in his owne element of tossing; and forthwith replied, saying, That is nothing strange, for I know a place where Eeles are taken, of such a length that they use to make their Angling-rods of them. And this assertion of yours may come as heere to the trueth, as an Eele is to an Angling rod.