Discovery of Jacksons Vanity, Section 2 · Chapter 15

Discovery of Jacksons Vanity · Section 2 · Chapter 15

p. 507CHAP. XV.

What the Church of England doth teach concerning the extent of Gods love: Of the distinction of Singula generum, and Genera singulorum. Of the distinction of Voluntas signi, and Voluntas beneplaciti.

WHat you meane by a course of Compromising contentions betweene some other reformed Churches, in certaine points of religion, I know not, neither am I acquainted with any such course. I conceive our Church to be as absolute and entire in maintaining the prerogative, as of Gods grace effectuall to every good action; so of his soveraignetie in electing whom he will, according to his good pleasure, and passing by others, as any Church in Christendome; which I do not speake upon, snatching of a clause here and there to be found in the litturgie of our Church, whereunto I shape at pleasure an interpretation as I thinke good (as your fashion is) but this I speake upon consideration of that doctrine which is positively set downe in the articles of religion, manifestly containing the profession of the Church of England. Yet you would perswade your Readers, the Church of England concurreth with you, in extending the love of God towards all. But you manifest a faint heart in the maintenance of your cause, by walking in the cloudes of generalities; as if you feared to come to the light, and had a purpose rather to circumvent your reader then to endoctrinate him. You talke of Gods unspeakable love towards mankinde, but you define not in what kinde, but keepe your selfe a loose off for all advantages.

p. 508Wee acknowledge Gods love to all in respect of conferring upon them blessings temporal, and that in an unspeakable manner. But the question onelyonly is, whether God doth bestow, or ever did intend to bestow grace of sanctification upon all, or salvation upon all. If Gods love in these respects, in your opinion doth extend to all, say plainly that God hath elected all with Huberus, and predestinated all. For predestination in Austines divinity is but praeparatio gratiae & gloriae. Now the Church of England, in her publicke and authorized doctrine; plainly professeth, that God hath predestinated none, but those whom he hath chosen in Christ, as vessells of honour. If you say, that the reason why God did not predestinate all, nor elect all in Christ, proceeds not from the meere pleasure and free disposition of God, but that onelyonly upon the foresight of the obedience of the one, and disobedience of the other he elected those, and reprobated these (for hereunto the Genius of your Tenent carrieth you, though you are loath in plaine termes to professe as much) let any man judge whether this bee suitable to the seventeenth Article of religion in our Church, whereupon Rogers in his Analesis thereof published by authority, and dedicated to Archbishop Bancroft, observes in his fifth proposition, that, In Christ Jesus of the meere will and purpose of God, some are elected and not others unto salvation. And he just fieth it by holy Scripture, Rom. 9. 11. that the purpose of God might remaine according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth, Ephes. 1. 5. Who doth predestinate us, according to the good pleasure of his will, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Not according to our workes, but according to his owne purpose and grace, Exod. 33. 19. Rom. 9. 15. I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy, Prov. 16. 4. The Lord hath made all things for himselfe, even the wicked against the day of evill, Rom. 9. 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make of the same lumpe one vessell to honour, and another to dishonour.

But consider the Article it selfe, They which are indued with so excellent a benefit (to wit, as election and predestination is) are called according to Gods purpose by his spirit, working in due p. 503season; they through grace obey their calling, they be justified freely, they be made sonnes of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his onelyonly begotten Sonne Jesus Christ, they walke religiously in good workes, and at length by Gods mercy they attaine to everlasting felicity. Whereby it appeares, that election and predestination is made the fountaine and cause of obedience, and perseverance therein even unto everlasting life; whereas if God did elect and predestinate any man unto salvation upon foresight of obedience and perseverance; our obedience and perseverance should be the cause of our election and predestination, rather then our election and predestination the cause of our obedience and perseverance.

Againe consider, these alone whom God hath elected in Christ, and predestinated, are noted to bee made in due time the sonnes of God by adoption. But you make all to bee the sonnes of God, and Gods infinite love in unspeakable maner to be enlarged towards all and every one; even towards them that have hated God all their life.

Lastly, onelyonly the elect are here noted to bee those vessels whom God hath made unto honour; not that any others are made unto honour: which is nothing answerable to your tenet. But proceed we along with you. You undertake to prove that Gods love is extended to mankinde, which no Christian ever called in question; but your meaning is, that it extends to all and every one of mankinde, and that so farre forth as to will the salvation of all and every one, as appeares by the sequele, and all this out of the publique and authorized doctrine of our Church. And yet you insist onelyonly upon certaine passages and prayers in the Liturgy of our Church. The Liturgie I hope is not the doctrine of our Church, though it be not contradictory to our doctrine. But therein wee have beene content to conforme unto the practice of the Chuch, so farre forth as it might seeme tolerable, and such as might be performed with a good conscience, which yet if in any particular it be found dissonant from the Articles of Religion, it is rather to receive correction from the Articles, then the Articles to receive correction from the Liturgy.

p. 510But consider wee what is that which you plead for your selfe. You enter upon it after your course with great state, discovering unto us a wonderfull providence of God, in drawing those Articles; for you tell us, that No Nationall Councell, though assembled for that purpose, could fit their doctrine more expresly to meet with all the late restrictions of Gods love, then the Church our Mother, even from the beginning of reformation, hath done, as if she had then foreseene a necessity of declaring her judgement in this point, for preventing schismes or distractions of opinions amongst her sonnes. Here we have a pretty Comedy towards, and you have a poeticall wit for fiction. Had our Church foreseene a necessity of declaring her judgement in this point, where I pray was it fit that she should doe this, but in the Articles of Religion? But you finde no place where she hath fitted her doctrine to meet with the restrictions of Gods love, but in the Liturgy and Catechisme. Was that think you a fit place to fit her doctrine for the preventing of schismes and distractions in opinion?

Againe, had she intended to prevent (as you say) distractions in opinion about the extension of Gods love, would shee not have done it rather expresly, then onelyonly in such a manner as to leave it to others to draw conseque…s therefrom, for the manifesting of her opinion about the large extent of Gods love to mankinde? Who would thinke that a sober man should be caried away with such vaine and frivolous presumptions, without all tolerable ground? But let us come to the particular scanning of the places. All of them, I marke, are onelyonly the expression of prayer for others. Whence it no way followeth, that God will therefore save them, because wee pray for their salvation. The childe prayeth for his father, the father for the childe, the brother for the brother; but hence it followeth not that God will save them; though wee are bound to pray for the salvation of one another.

Moses prayed God to wipe him out of the booke of life, rather then to destroy his people in the wildernesse. God had no such resolution, and what sober Divine could doubt, but that Moses knew well that this could not be, yet hee shewes p. 511hereby what his desire was, secluding the consideration of Gods will to the contrary, and what he would preferre, …f hee were left to himselfe, even his owne eternall confusion, rather then the glory of God should bee obscured. And who ever censured this prayer of Moses for sinne? I am sure God doth not: so S. Paul could wish himselfe separate from Christ for his brethrens sake, which were his kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. 9. 2. yet he well knew that nothing could separate him from the love of God in Christ. Our Saviour in like sort well knew that the cup must not passe from him, yet neverthelesse he prayed earnestly that that cup might passe, if it were possible, and with finall submission of his will to the will of his Father.

The first place you alledge, is that passage of the Liturgy, where we pray unto God, that it may please him to have mercy upon all men. And for good reason doe we pray so: for is not every one bound to seeke the salvation of all men, as much as lyeth in his power? did not the Apostles labour for this in their place? And is not prayer a speciall meanes for this? We are bound to pray for them that persecute us, wee are bound Mat. 5. 4….Matt 5:4to pray for them that hate us. For what, if God will not save all, and wee know so much, shall that hinder us from doing our duty in seeking by all meanes the salvation of all: specially considering we are not able to put a difference and to discerne who are elect, and who are not. S. Paul, though he saved 1. Cor. 9. 2….1 Cor 9:2but some, yet would he become all things unto all men that he might save them. Yet he well knew that the word in his mouth was the savour of death unto death unto many; yea 2. Cor. 2. 10.2 Cor 2:10to Israel in speciall manner, and yet notwithstanding his hearty desire and prayer unto God for Israel wa…, that they might Rom. 11▪ …Rom 11be saved. And albeit God should save all, and every one that live in some one time or age, yet were this …o prejudice to the doctrine of election. For the number of Gods chosen, for all this might be but few in comparison to the reprobate: And therefore we see no cause why you should upbraid your opposites, as if they thought this practice of the ancient and moderne Church had need of reformation.

p. 502As for the restraint of the universall all men, in the place of Timothy, by S. Austin unto genera singulorum, it is according to the usuall Scripture phrase. For Matth. 3. 5. it is said that There went out unto John the Baptist Jerusalem and all Iudea, and all the region round about Jordan; what sober Divine doth extend the signification hereof any father then to give to understand, that some from all parts of Iudea, and of the region round about Iordan had resort unto him? Matth. 4. 23. it is likewise said, that Iesus went about all Galile, teaching in their Synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdome, and healing every sicknesse, and every disease among the people; and that his fame spred throughout all Syria, and they brought unto him all sicke people. Doe you thinke there was not one sicke person left in all Galile and Syria that was not brought unto him? Act. 10. it is said, that while Peter was in a trance he saw in a vision a vessell let downe from heaven, wherein was foreign, every foure-footed beast; who doubts but that the meaning hereof is no more then this, that of all sorts some, or rather of most sorts some? 1 Cor. 15. 22. it is said, that in Christ all shall be made alive; is this true thinke you of all and every one? All flesh shall see the salvation of God; what sober man will apply this to all and every man? Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one man the fault came upon all unto condemnation: so by the obedience of one, righteousnesse came upon all men, to the justification of life: will you hereupon extend the benefit of Christs death to the justification of all men unto everlasting life, like as all and every one are fallen into condemnation by the sinne of Adam? Rom. 7. 8. the Apostle professeth that sinne wrought in him foreign, can this possibly bee applyed to every particular concupiscence?

But by the way, what doe you meane to apply S. Austins restraint to this universall in this place? whereas Austin applyeth it onelyonly to this universall in the place following, where it is said, that God will have all to be saved. And if no other place did afford us any such restraint of course, yet wee must … driven so to interpret it in this place, lest otherwise we be cast upon denying the first Article of our Creed. For seeing p. 513all are not saved, and the cause thereof is not because God will not save them; it necessarily followeth, that the cause thereof must be because God cannot save them. And it would have becommed you well to have answered this argument, and not presumed to cary your Reader to the embracing of your construction hand over head, in spight of so manifest a reason to the contrary. Now if you had but accommodated your selfe to make answer hereunto, I doubt not but wee should have had good matter to worke upon; which I speake upon experience of another discourse of yours that passeth by tradition; but you were loth to intersert it there; and made choice rather to pitch upon the universall in the former place; that so you might be out of danger of that gun-shot that must needs have rung a peale in your eares from this place. Yet in this place alone S. Austine interprets the universall according to the restraint mentioned, and not in the former. And therefore you were content not to quote the place in Austin, but onelyonly to say that it is somewhere; and indeed so it is; and that somewhere is in his Enchirid. cap. 103. And in the Chapter immediately going before, he professrth; Deo procul dubio quàm facile est quod vult facere, tam facile est quod non vult esse non sinere. Hoc nisi credamus periclitatur ipsam nostrae fidei confessionis initium, quo nos in Deum Patrem omnipotentem credere consitemur. Neque enim veraciter ob aliud vocatur omnipotens, nisi quia quicquid vult potest, nec voluntate cujusquam creaturae voluntatis omnipotentis impeditur effectus. That looke how easie it is unto God to doe what he will, so easie is it not to suffer that to bee which hee willeth not. Vnlesse we beleeve this, the very first Article of our Creed will be shaken, whereby we professe to beleeve in God the Father Almighty. For he is not truly called Omnipotent, in any other respect then because he can bring to passe whatsoever he will have to be, neither can the effect of will omnipotent be hindred by the wit of any creature. So that herein we have both the authority of so great a Father, and manifest reason also directly opposite to your discourse. To avoid the brunt whereof, you juggle and consider his restraint there, where he doth not use it.

And here you tell us magnificently, that if any man will lay p. 514this restraint upon this place, the scanning of the words following, the fitting of the matter contained in both, with the reason of the exhortation, and other reall circumstances, will shake off this or other like restriction, with greater ease then it can be laid upon it. Here we have a great deale of cry, if the wooll be answerable, wee shall speed a great deale better then he in Aelian that shore his hogs. But the mischiefe is, S. Austin doth use no restraint in this place; but conceives the Apostles commandement to be this, ut oraretur pro singulis. So that your paines is like to bee well bestowed, in shaking of Austines restriction from this place, whereupon he laid no restriction at all. It seemes you came to this discourse as a man should come to play at putfinger in the darke.

We grant we are to pray for the salvation of no other then whose salvation we are unfainedly to desire, and we are to desire the salvation of every man, of what condition soever, or fort, or nation, provided that wee know him. For doe you thinke it a sober course for me to desire and pray for the salvation of I know not whom? If so, I see no reason but I may pray also for I know not what. Any malignant and persecuting enemy of mine, I am bound to pray for, and I shall bee sure to take notice of such a one, for I shall bee sure to feele him. And as well for meane persons as for Kings, that I have any thing to doe withall: albeit I may have greater cause to pray for the conversion of Kings then others, and that without accepting of persons: because by the good affection of Kings to Gods Church, the Church of God is like to prosper farre better then by the conversion of meane persons. And the Apostle gives this reason of praying for Kings, that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godlinesse and 1 Tim. 2. 21 Tim 2:2honestie. And therefore I hope you will beare with mee, if I pray with greater devotion for Gods grace upon the Kings heart, and Gods blessing upon his head, then for meaner persons: because the gracious disposition of a King is of far greater importance for the advancing of Gods glory, in the liberty and prosperity of his Church, then the gracious disposition of meaner persons. And herein I hope I shall not be p. 515censured for an accepter of persons, a conceit of yours quite besides the Apostles text you treat of. But yet the Apostle doth not command every congregation to pray for all kings (wherunto you drive it, devising circumstances to fill the scale.) For what have I to doe to pray for the king of Bungo, if any such king or kingdome there be? or for the kings in Terra Australis incognita, discovered by Ferdinand de Quit? yet his relations are of so little efficacy, that hitherto hee hath made no mens mouthes water after them. It is enough for us to pray for the fulnesse of the Gentiles, that it may come i…, so to make way for the calling of the Iewes. But by vertue of the Apostles exhortation, every Christian congregation is bound to pray for their owne king. Like as Darius, though an heathen Prince, desired the prayers of Gods people that lived under him: Ezr. 6. 10. Let them have to offer sweet odours to the God of heaven, and pray for the Kings life, and for his sonnes. When I pray for the comming in of the fulnesse of the Gentiles, and the calling of the Iewes, I except none; as likewise when I pray for the ruine of Antichrist, I except none.

I finde, you doe not much satisfie your selfe in the weight of this your discourse, you are still casting about for somewhat more to make up the totall of your account, Wee must desire (you say) the spirituall good of all men, not as they fall under our indefinite, but under our universall consideration. So that belike you are still jealous, lest we draw all men to an indefinite and not to an universall consideration. I desire to deale as plainly as you would wish; name any man throughout the world unto me, try mee whether I will not pray God blesse him, and convert his heart, and save his soule. And yet to my thinking, you should not urge mee to pray for one with whom I have nothing to doe, onelyonly I heare a relation of him, perhaps dwelling in the Ile of Iapan. For though I am bound to love my neighbour as my selfe; and by neighbour I must comprehend a Iew, although my selfe bee a Samaritane, yet this is in case we meet together, and I see him to have need to make use of my charity. Otherwise to my judgement, generall prayers should serve the turne, as I shewed, for the fulnesse p. 516of the Gentiles to come in, for the calling of the Iewes, for the ruine of Babylon. Neither doe wee finde any practice of the Saints to the contrary; and herein I assure you I except none. But because I see you travaile to bee delivered of somewhat, and I take pity of you, tell me I pray, is not your meaning this, that we must pray for all and every one that liveth in the world? If this be your meaning, and it did not satisfie you to say we must pray for all, or desire the salvation of all; you do as much as confess hereby, that to pray for al doth not include the praying for every one; & consequently the Apostle in exhorting to pray for all, doth not exhort to pray for every one. I would I knew once what forme would satisfie you; for I am apt to entertaine a resolution to gratifie you therein. But to say that we must pray for all, not in an indefinite, but in an universall consideration, if you could make me understand it, I would soone come to capitulation with you. In the meane time, I appeale to your conscience, did you ever pray in this stile, for all, and signifie that your meaning was to pray for them, not in an indefinite, but in an universall consideration? I professe unto you, if God should leave me unto my selfe and to follow mine owne desires, I should desire not onelyonly that all that now live, but that all that ever lived might have beene converted and saved, yea the Angels that fell might have been kept from sin; or having sinned might have beene brought to repētance, & saved. I see no cause why I should desire the contrary. But considering the wil of God, wherby the angels that fell are bound in chaines, and kept to the judgement of the great day, I dare not pray for their salvation. And to pray that every one that now lives might be saved, with submission to the will of God, I see no incongruity; but we have better grounds of faith, and those sufficient to take up our thoughts especially in these daies wherein we live, whereupon to proceed in the ordering of our prayers. And I would be loath you should put upon us any course or forme of prayer for all, which you practise not your selfe. And if I knew your practice in this kinde, I would soone give in mine answer whether I thought good to subscribe to your forme or no.

p. 517In the next place you tell us, that the reason why we are bound to desire the spirituall good of all men universally considered, is, because we must be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Here againe you bewray your jealousie of the weaknesse of your owne cause, as when you content not your selfe in saying, we must pray for all men, but adde hereunto, that we must pray for all men universally considered; the opposite member wherto before you signified to be this, To pray for all men indefinitly considered. Now the Apostle is farre from these scrupulosities. He simply exhorts us to pray for all men; hee doth not adde as you doe, We must pray for all men universally considered, and not indefinitely. Yet in no other sense you think it will serve your turne.

That reason of yours drawne from the conformity to the courses of our heavenly Father, whereon you so much insist, I have already shewed how little it serves your turne. Now I will shew you how in another respect it is rather repugnant, then consonant to your Tenet. For that example of conformity is onelyonly in an indefinite consideration, thus; Wee must pray not onelyonly for our friends, and them that love us, but also for them that are our enemies, and hate us, and persecute us; like as God doth good unto the just and wicked, and not onelyonly to the just and good. To our desires you say wee must adde our endeavours, that saving truth may be imparted to all. It seemes you have not failed herein. Now I would gladly know▪ what those endeavours of yours have beene hitherto, whereby you have endeavoured, that saving truth may be imparted to the inhabitants of terra Australis incognita, or to the Negroes, or to the Tartarians, yea or the Turkes, Saracens, or Arabians. Hitherto you have seemed to dispute thus: God will have it our duty to pray for the salvation of all: therefore God willeth the salvation of all; but now you dispute in a quite contrary manner, thus: God wils that all should come to the knowledge of his truth, therefore wee must desire and endeavour that his saving truth may be imparted unto al. The consequence of your former argument is utterly untrue, as I have already shewed; and as Austin long agoe discoursed, mans will in an holy manner p. 518Aug. Enc… cap. 101,may be contrary to the will of God; and againe in a most unholy manner may the will of man be concurrent with the will of God. As it is the duty of the childe to pray for the life of the father, though God will have the father to dye, and not live: On the other side, a wicked childe wisheth the death of his father in an ungracious manner, yet it may bee that herein he concurreth with the will of God, supposing (as it may well be) that God willeth the death of the father at the same time that the sonne wisheth it.

As for the second argument, we deny therein the antecedent, if you understand it of all and every one. For the case is cleer, that God doth not bring all and every one to the knowledge of his truth; not because he cannot; for doubtlesse he could bestow his Gospell upon them that want it, as well as upon us that enjoy it; therefore the reason must needs be because he will not. As he plainly professeth, he will bring a famine of his word upon a Land, Amos 8. 11. Behold the dayes come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. vers. 12. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the North even to the East shall they runne to and fro, to seeke the word of the Lord, and shall not finde it. So the Lord threatens the Church of Ephesus, to remove her candlesticke out of his place, Revel. 2. and long before threatned the Iewes to take his vineyard from them, and let it out to others that Mat. 12. 14Matt 12:14should bring him the fruit thereof in due season. And it is very strange that these and such like judgements should come to passe, and God should not will them. This is the reason whereupon Austin is moved to enquire into a commodious construction of that place, left otherwise we should fall upon a direct contradiction to the prime Article of our Creed; and therefore after he hath given two constructions of the place, the last whereof is this, which you impugne, but not answer his reasons, which are two; the one drawne from the analogie of Scripture phrase, as where our Saviour saith unto the Pharises, you tithe Mint, and Rue, and every herbe: which phrase cannot be understood otherwise, then of every kinde p. 519of herbe: the other reason is that formerly spoken of; as if we say, That God willeth such a thing to come to passe, which yet doth not come to passe; we shall thereby deny Gods omnipotency. Yet see the ingenuity of this worthy father: hee gives any man leave to give any fair construction of the place, provided that God bee not made unable to bring to passe whatsoever hee will have to come to passe. Et quocunque alio modo intelligi potest, dum tamen credero non cogamur aliquid omnipotentem statutum voluisse fieri factum que non esse: qui sine ullis ambagibus si in coelo & in terra (sicut veritas dicit) qucunque voluit, fecit, profecto facere noluit quaecunque non fecit. Let it, saith hee, be understood after what other manner soever it may be construed, so that wee be not constrained to maintaine, that the Almighty God would have something come to passe, which notwithstanding comes not to passe. For, without fetching any further compasse; if he hath done whatsoever hee will both in heaven and in earth, as the truth witnesseth, certainly, hee would not doe whatsoever he hath not done.

2 But you proceed to shew, that both this duty of ours to pray for all sorts, and for every man of what sort soever; and also that Gods will is, that all without exception should come unto the trueth and be saved, are expresly included in the praiers appointed by the Church of England. And the Collects whence you gather this, are in number three: they are, I take it, all appointed for Good Friday. In the first, wee pray, that God would graciously behold this his family, for …he which our Lord Iesus Christ was contented to be betraied. Now this family, being the present congregation wherein the prayer is made, it is very strange, that hereby should be signified all sorts of men, and every man, of what sort soever throughout the world. And what expresse signification doe wee finde here, that Gods will is, that all without exception should come unto the trueth and be saved?

To helpe your argument drawn herehence; as if you should reason thus, Wee must pray for this family, therefore wee must pray for every one throughout the world. You tell us that, The tenour of this petition, if wee respect onelyonly the forme, is indefinite, p. 508not universall: but being in a necessary matter it is equivalent to an universall, as every logician knowes. To which I answer, first, that the tenour of the petition is not indefinite, but definite, (to follow you in your owne language) for therein wee pray definitely for that family which is before us. Now that family is a particular family; and never any Logician was so simple as to thinke it law full to inferre an universall out of a particular. Againe, here is no necessary matter in it. For to use such a forme of prayer is meerly the arbitrary constitution of our Church.

Suppose God had bid us to pray in this forme, to wit, for this family present; yet this makes not the matter necessary absolutely, but meerely upon supposition of the will of God, and yet in this particular onelyonly. As for example, Our Saviour Ioh. 17. …. & v. 20John 17prayed for them that his father gave him, and for all those that should afterward believe through their word, will you inferre herehence, that therefore he was to pray for the world also? Againe, God hath expresly bidden us to pray for them that 1 Ioh. 5. 161 John 5:16sinne unto death; and therefore, unlesse I may be assured, that there is none in the world that sinneth a sinne unto death, I have no reason to pray for all and every one; though I were bound to doe so, it would nothing pleasure and advantage you. Hitherto I have followed you in your owne most unlogicall discourse, the absurdity whereof, every simple Logician may easily discover.

Where have you beene taught, that petitions indefinite in a necessary matter are universall: we were taught indeed, that propositions indefinite in a necessary matter are as good as universall: but for petitions indefinite to be counted universall in a matter necessary, is one of the absurdest notions that ever I heard to proceede from the mouth of a Logician. You proceede to prove, that the forme of the petition is in the intention of the Church of England to be extended to all and every one of the congregation present. But erst you told us, the matter indeed was universall, but not the forme, which you acknowledged to be indefinite. Now the very forme, you say, is to be universally extended: this is not to extend, but to destroy. p. 521But this that you labour for in so uncouth a manner, I never doubted of, namely, that by this family is understood all and every one of the Congregation there present: onelyonly I deny, that herehence it followeth, that our Church bindes us to pray for all and every one throughout the world; and if it doth, wee must comprehend even those that sinne sinnes unto death, amongst the rest, unlesse wee believe that there are no such sinners in the world: and hee had need bee of a strong faith, and have some extraordinary revelation that believeth that.

So that your second place tending to no other end but to prove that which wee never doubted to be comprehended in the first, wee need not trouble our selves about any answer thereunto; save onelyonly this, though we are bound to pray, not onelyonly for the congregation present, but for the whole Church and every member of it; yet there is a great gulfe of separation betweene the Citie of God, and the citie of the Devill; which makes me remember what Abraham answered Dives, and therefore wee can no way approve this consequence; We are bound to pray for all Christians, therefore we are bound to pray for all Atheists and heathens. Wee are bound to pray for Christs members, & therefore wee are bound to pray for Antichrist and his members. Therefore you tell us, the third and last prayer will cleerly quit this exception, and free both the foremr petitions from these and the like restrictions.

But in this last clause you overlash miserably; I see no reason but I may as well say, that the restrictions in the former prayer will quit this latter prayer, for its extension. Certainly two of the three prayers you proposed to evince your Tenent are nothing to the purpose. Herein indeed we pray unto God, to have mercy upon all Jewes, Turkes, and Heriticks; which in effect is no more then to pray, that the fulnesse of the Gentiles may come in, and thereupon the calling of the Iewes. And whereas you desire to inferre herehence, that it is Gods will, that all these should come to his truth and knowledge, and be saved. As the consequence you shall never bee able to make good, so the consequent is directly contrary to the word p. 522of God; for it is not, nor ever was it the will of God that all this should be done together, but one after another, namely, that the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in first, and after that the calling of the Iewes, Rom. 11. Luc. 21. 24. Hence you conclude, That if God will not the death of any Turke, Jew, or Infidell, because of nothing he made them men; wee may safely conclude that he willeth not the death of any, but the life of all, whom of men or infidels he hath made Christians. In reading your antecedent I wondred at your boldnesse, in supposing that which you are never able to gaine by force of argument; but when I view your consequence, I wonder what giddinesse possessed you, to take so wilde a course in proving that which no Christian will deny. For your conclusion is, that God willeth not the death of any, but the life of all whom of men or infidels he hath made Christians. Did ever any Christian deny this? Is this it you are to prove, that God wils the salvation of all Christians? Have you not rather undertaken to prove that God willeth not the salvation of all sorts of men onelyonly (which was Austins glosse, and which you set up here as a mark to shoot at, thinking by the power of your discourse to beare downe the authority and learned discourse of that worthy Father hereupon) but that he willeth the salvation of every man, of every sort throughout the world? And this you would prove out of the doctrine established in the Church of England, that is, out of their Liturgie: and three prayers therein you insist upon, whereas the two first are apparantly nothing for the purpose; whereof your selfe seeme to bee sensible enough, and therefore the third place (Triary like) was to doe the feat, and to cleare all: and the conclusion herehence definit in piscem: being no more but this, that God willeth the salvation of all men whom he hath vouchsafed to make Christians: which no man denies or cals into question. May I not justly aske, and that with admiration,

Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu?

Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus.

p. 523But what should move you to carie your selfe so preposterously, and to balke or blast rather so faire a consequence, and so beneficiall unto your cause, as your antecedent doth bespeake? For if your antecedent be true, namely, that God willeth not the death of any Turke, Iew, or Infidell, will it not manifestly follow, that God willeth not the death of any Turke, or Iew, or Infidell? To my thinking it should follow as manifestly, as to say, that if the Sunne shineth it shineth; though in my poore judgement this is identity rather then consequence or concomitance; I say, I wonder what moved you to blast this consequence with such a dash of your pen, in the very face of it, and the addition of such a proviso as this, whom of men or infidels he hath made Christians. First, especially considering that no such qualification is in the antecedent; and it is most unreasonable that any qualification should be foisted into a conclusion that hath no ground in the premisses; especially it being such a qualification as utterly marres your market, and that at the end of the day, and you have a long time waited for a good penyworth, and now your selfe are the man that cuts your owne throat. Did the conscience of so foule a conclusion as was towards, make you blush to put it in writing? that cannot be, for you have it full and whole in the antecedent; though straining to proceed most indecently, it fares with you as it doth with the horse in the Poet:

Peccat ad extremum ridendus & ilia ducit.

Or by the way did your consequence suggest unto you that the argument drawne from this prayer, proves no more but this, that God will save every Iew, Turke, and Infidell, in case he be first made a Christian? If so, then the supposed consequence in your antecedent, was made against your conscience; and therefore by the consequence herehence made, you desired to strangle it, that so the birth of it might bee abortive. Yet because you carie some shew of argumentation in the antecedent, I will not trust to the corruptnesse of your consequent deduced therhence, but I will take the pains to strangle p. 524it my selfe, since the presse hath brought it to light: your antecedent is this, If God therefore will not the death of any Jewe, Turke, or Infidel, because of nothing he made them men. Now this includes such an Enthymeme: Of all Turkes, Iewes, and Infidels it is true, that God of nothing hath made them men; therefore he will not the death of any Iew, Turke, or Infidel. Now I say this consequence is notoriously false, and in stead of your proving it in any manner, I disprove it in this manner. Of all Devils it is as true, that God of nothing made them angels; shall I herehence inferre, therefore he will not the death of any devill? So likewise of all cats and dogs, horses and hogs it is as true, that God of nothing made them such as they are; will it therefore follow, that God willeth not the death of any of them?

But perhaps some may say, that the Collect implyeth some such argument, for it runneth thus; Mercifull God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, have mercy upon all Jewes. I answer first, here is no such argument implyed, as to inferre that God will not the death of any Iewe, Turke, or Infidell, but onelyonly it implieth a reason why we pray God to have mercy upon all Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels. But albeit we doe thus pray for all, yet it followeth not that God will save every Iew, Turke, and Infidell that liveth, as before I have shewed. For who doubts but the childe is bound to pray for the recovery of his fathers health, being cast downe upon the bed of sicknesse, at what time it may bee, it is Gods will that his father shall not recover, but dye the death. Secondly, the complete reason why we pray for all, signified in this praier, is not this, because God hath made all men, and hateth nothing that he hath made; for by the same reason we might be urged to pray for devils as well as for men: This is onelyonly a part of the reason, not the whole reason. The whole reason is this, Who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live. And we finde by manifest experience, that most wicked men are converted, and God hath revealed unto us, that the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in, Rom. 11. p. 525and that then shall be the calling of the Iewes; therefore wee pray for the fulnesse of the one, and of the other; but with submission unto the will of God, as touching the time of this, and the manner how.

Thirdly and lastly; like as it followeth not, that because we must pray for all men, therefore wee must pray for every man throughout the world; in like sort it followeth not, that because our Church prescribes us to pray for all Iewes, Turks and Infidels; therefore it prescribes us to pray for every Iew, Turke, and Infidel throughout the world; and looke what restraint may be laid upon all men, the very same restraint of interpretation may be laid upon all Jewes, all Turkes, and all Insidels. Yet you keep your course, and tel us that as God made all things without invitation, (a prettie phrase for them that affect eloquence beyond intelligence) out of meere love, made nothing hatefull. Apply this I pray to devils, and see whether we have not as good a ground to pray for them as for others. Againe, if sinne hath made them hatefull, is there not sinne enough in the world, in Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels to make them hatefull? Wherefore though in case they were in the same state wherein God made them, then they should not be hatefull to God, and thereupon be thought fit matter of prayers; yet seeing they are in the state of sinne, and consequently hatefull to God; for the same cause, in just proportion of reason, they are no fit matter for our praiers. Though a full measure onelyonly of enmitie against God exempt men from Gods love, yet will you denie that such a full measure is found in many throughout the world? and will not this be sufficient to forbid our praiers for all and everie one? Sure I am, if there be anie in the 1 Ioh. 5. 16.1 John 5:16world that sin a sinne unto death, we may not pray for such an one.

3. From the authorized devotions in our Church, you proceed to the Catechisme; and aske what can be more cleare then that, as God the Father doth love all mankinde without exception, so the Sonne of God did redeeme all mankinde, not onelyonly some of all sorts, but all mankinde universally taken. And I thinke indeed that the one is as cleare as the other. p. 526Throughout the Scriptures shew me one passage wherein the love of God is expressed to Reprobates. If the Sonne of God did redeeme all and everie one, then all and everie one have redemption in Christ, through his bloud, and consequently the forgivenesse of their sinnes. For in Scripture phrase, remission Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. 2 Co. 5. 19Eph 1:7Col 1:142 Cor 5:19of sinnes is that redemption which we have in Christ: so is reconciliation also all one with forgivenesse of sinnes. Sure I am, Christ professeth, Iohn 17. 9. that he would not pray for the world, but for those whom his heavenly Father had given him, and for those that should beleeve through their Ioh. 17. 19. 20.John 17:19John 17:20word. And for their sakes did he sanctifie himselfe for whom he prayed; and to what did he sanctifie himselfe, but unto his death and passion, by the consent of as many Fathers as Maldonate had seene, as the Iesuit himselfe professeth on that 17. of Iohn: and he had seene very many, as there hee signifieth, namely, Chrysostome, Cyril, Austine, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, and Heracleotes, Leontius, Beda, Theophilact, Enthymius, Rupertus.

But to proceed; out of our Catechisme you alledge, that God the Father made us and all the world; now the Church our mother hath taught us, that God hateth nothing that hee hath made. The booke of Wisedome saith so indeed; but because of the little authority that booke hath in matter of faith from God our Father, therefore you charge us with the authority of the Church our Mother. Now you are not ignorant, I suppose, whence the Church our mother taketh this, which hath its course amongst Papists, as well as amongst us. And you know of what authority Aquinas is amongst Papists; and what interpretation he makes of this place, though received to bee canonicall Scripture amongst them, I have already shewed out of his Summes: God (saith he) loves all things, in as much as Aquin. in 1 q. 23. art. 4.he willeth unto them some good or other: but in as much as he willeth not a certaine good to some, to wit, eternall life, he is said to hate them, and reprobate them. And indeed God saveth both man and Psal. 36. 6.Ps 36:6beast, as the Psalmist speaketh; and so he may bee said to love them all; and so the Apostle acknowledgeth him to bee the Saviour of all men, but especially of them that beleeve. And to professe p. 5271 Tim. 4. 101 Tim 4:10ingenuously what I thinke, I see no cause of controversie hereabouts, if so be the question be rightly stated. For when we say, Christ died for mankinde, our meaning is that Christ died for the benefit of mankinde. Now let this benefit bee distinguished and considered apart, and forth with contentious hereabouts will cease. For if this benefit be considered as the remission of sinnes, and the salvation of our soules; these being benefits obtainable onelyonly upon the condition of faith and repentance: As on the one side no man will affirme that Christ died to this end, namely, to procure forgivenesse of sinne and salvation to all and every one, whether they beleeve or no; so on the other side, none will deny, but that he dyed to this end, that salvation and remission of sinne should redound to all and every one, in case they should beleeve and repent. For this depends upon the sufficiency of that price, which Christ paid to God his Father for the redemption of the world. But there be other benefits which Christ merited for us also, even the very grace of faith and of repentance. For all Gods promises are Yea and Amen in Christ; and amongst 1 Co. 1. 20 Deut. 30. 6 Esa. 57. 18. Hos. 14. 5.1 Cor 1:20Deut 30:6Isa 57:18Hos 14:5these promises one is, the circumcision of the heart, the healing of our waies, of our rebellions. These promises doe include the grace of faith and of repentance. Now consider ingenuously, did Christ die to this end, that the grace of faith and repentance should bee bestowed absolutely or conditionally? Not conditionally, for before the grace of faith and repentance and regeneration comes, there is nothing to bee found in man but workes of nature. Now it is meere Pelagianisme to affirme that God bestoweth grace on man upon the performing of a worke of nature. And the Apostle clearely 2 Tim. 1. 9 Tit. 3. 5.2 Tim 1:9Titus 3:5professeth that God doth not call us according to our works. Therefore it remaines, that albeit remission of sinnes and salvation are conferred unto us conditionally, to wit, upon the condition of faith and repentance; yet the grace of faith and repentance cannot be so conferred: and consequently they must be conferred absolutely. If then Christ died for the purchasing of faith and repentance to all and every one absolutely, it would follow herehence, that all and every one should p. 528beleeve and repent. But this being found to bee a notorious untruth, it followeth that Christ died for the purchasing of these graces onelyonly unto some; and who can those bee, other then the elect of God? Accordingly as our Saviour professeth, that for those who were Gods, and whom he had given unto Christ, or should in time to come give unto him (the rest excluded) for those he sanctified himselfe, that is, offered himselfe upon the Crosse; which interpretation of Christs sanctifying of himselfe, Maldonate professeth, was received by all the Fathers whom he had seene.In Iohan. 17. 19.

Now to goe along with you. Secondly, we are taught, you say, by the same Catechisme, to beleeve in God, who hath redeemed us and all mankinde. What I pray is this more then to say, He hath redeemed us and all men? Is all mankinde more then all men? and in the straining of this phrase we have tried your strength; and the issue of all was to prove but this, that God willeth not the death of any, but the life of all, whom of men and Infidels he hath made Christians.

By the way I observe an incongruity. Of Infidels wee are made Christians, as whereby we cease any longer to bee Infidels: but I hope of men we are not made Christians so, as to cease any longer to be men. Yet you couple them together under one yoke, though very unequall heyfers: you should have said rather, of meere men we are made Christians. All that are redeemed are unfainedly loved; but if all mankinde signifie no more then all men; and all men, no more then all sorts of men, what are you the nearer to that you reach after? And you know, I suppose, that this was Austins interpretation of that universality; and hee gives reasons for it; though you magisterially will have your owne way, in spite of the pie, without answering his reasons.

Againe consider, whether to pay a price which is sufficient for the redemption of all and every one, be not in a faire sense to redeem all & every one. And what one of our Church will maintaine, that any one obtaines actuall redemption by Christ without faith? especially considering that redemption by the bloud of Christ, and forgivenesse of sins are all one. I would p. 529Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14.Eph 1:7Col 1:14you would speake plainely, and tell us what is meant by redemption, which, you say, every one hath in Christ, denying that every one hath sanctification. So that whereas the Apostle joynes these two together, where hee saith, Christ is of 1 Cor. 1. 2…1 Cor 1:2God made unto us wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctification and redemption, you divide them, telling us, that Christ is made redemption to all and every one, but not sanctification. And truely I had thought that Christ had deserved the one as well as the other, for all those for whom he died. And it is very strange that God should be said to love them whom he never meanes to sanctifie.

But I pray answer me, Doth he unfainedly love the Devils? I thinke you will say he doth not; what reason have you then to say, that hee loveth all men, though you will easily perswade your selfe that the most part of them are reprobates, and whom hee never will bring unto wholesome and spirituall repentance, whereby a man is reconciled unto God in Christ, as Austine writes, lib. 5. cont. Iulian, Pelag. cap, 4. and whether you meane to contradict Austine in this also I know not as yet: yet one word more with you before wee part; How long doth God continue to love them? till the measure of their sinne is at full? tis your owne oracle in the former Section. And then belike hee beginnes and continues to hate them. But I pray consider, how can this change, this alteration stand with the nature of God, that his love, his will to save them should bee changed into hatred, into a purpose to damme them, considering that Gods will is his essence? And the Lord professeth of himselfe, saying, I the Lord am not changed, and yee sonnes of Iacob are not consumed, Mal. 3. 6. All that are baptized, in your opinion, are not sanctified: yet some others much agreeing with you in other opinions maintaine, that all that are baptized are regenerate, and they alledge a better testimony out of the book of Common prayer, then any you have brought to serve your turne, namely, the profession that is made by the Minister thus, Now this childe is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christs congregation. Yet that hath beene answered by a Bishop of our Church, and p. 530that out of the doctrine of Austine. Yet I grant, baptisme is the seale of redemption, and of forgivenesse of sinnes also, but to whom? to none but such as believe: for God hath not ordained, that the benefit of Christs bloud shall redound to the redemption and forgivenesse of the sinnes of any man, unlesse hee believeth. For God hath set him forth to be a propitiation Rom. 3. 25Rom 3:25for our sinnes through faith in his bloud. But your inferences you conceive to bee as cleere as christall, so that the consideration of them makes you doubt, whether such amongst us as teach the contrary to these, have at any time subscribed to the booke of Common prayer.

And no question is to be made of your subscription, which deny all them to bee sanctified that are baptized; though in plaine termes the booke of Common prayer professeth of every baptized childe, that hee is regenerate. And now you have plaide your part so well in working our authorized devotions, as you call them, and Catechisme to serve your turn; you promise to performe as much touching the book of Homilies; but wee must expect your performance therein, untill you come to the article concerning Christ: in the meane time you will give us space to breathe, and take notice of your concludent proofe, as you call it, thus. God wills the salvation of all that are saved, and all that are not saved, therefore hee wills the salvation of all and every one. Now the second part of the Antecedent, which alone is called in question, is proved out of that of Ezech, As I live I will not the death of him that dieth.

I had thought you had done with this; but if it bee your course to tautologize in repeating former arguments, I may take liberty to repeat (without tautologie) my former answer.

First therefore, I say, the words as they lye in proper speech are contradictions to your tenent in two respects; First, because in another discourse of yours, you maintaine, that hee whose death God wills not, is the penitent; but here you professe, that God willeth not the death of them that are not saved, when they die; which as as much as to say, that God willeth not the death of impenitent sinners.

p. 531Secondly, there is a time you confesse, in the former Section, when God hates sinners, to wit, when the measure of their sinne is full; and if then he hates them, he may then as well be said to will their death and damnation, as he was said to will their salvation, while he loved them. In the second place, the words as they lye in proper speech, are contradictions to manifest reason; for, seeing God is he that inflicts death and damnation upon them, hee must needes will their death and damnation, because whatsoever God doth, hee doth it according to the counsell of his owne will, Eph. 1. 11. Secondly, if God doth not will the death which he inflicts, then neither doth he will the punishment that he inflicteth, nor the chastisement that he inflicteth; and so indeed it is said, Lam. 3. That he doth not punish willingly, nor afflict the children of men; which cannot bee understood in proper speech; for then it would follow, that God doth afflict and chastise the children of men against his will. Therefore I say, this must be understood by a figure of speech, to wit, by a metaphor; and God said not to will or this or that, which hee doth, because in the doing of it hee is similis nolenti; as first when hee doth it not, according to the Latine phrase, animi causa, for his pleasures sake, but being provoked; and yet not hastily neither, though provoked, but after long forbearance, and giving time of repentance, upon the despising of this goodnesse of God, as Ezek. 14. 23. They shall comfort you when you see their way, and their enterprises: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord God.

Secondly, when God doth chastise, not as parents, for their owne pleasures, but with an eye to the good of those whom hee chastiseth, Rom. 12. 10. According thereto is that of Augustine, Qui trucidat non considerat quemadmodum laniet, Epist. 48.sed qui curat considerat quemadmodum seret.

This is my answer, following the course of your owne reading of the place, whereas Piscator blames the vulgar translation in this place which you follow: for, saith hee, in the Hebrew it is not, I will not the death of a sinner; but this, I am not delighted in the death of a sinner. But saith he, A man may p. 532will that wherein he takes no delight: as a ficke man may will to drinke a bitter potion, wherein he takes no delight. For he may will to take it, not for it selfe, but for something else, to wit, to recover his health. And so God willeth the eternall death of reprobates for his owne glory, to wit, for the manifestation of his just wrath in punishing of their sinnes. And Iunius reades it and translates it in like manner: and with these accordeth our last English translation, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turne from his way, and live, Ezek. 33. 11. And the 18. of Ezekiel doth cleare the meaning of the Holy Ghost, where the same phrase is used, and in the same manner translated by our worthiest Divines, and followed in our last translation, vers. 23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should dye, saith the Lord God, and not that hee should returne from his waies, and live? and verse 32. I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, wherefore turne your selves and live ye.

Now in this chapter the Lord justifieth himselfe against an imputation of harsh, if not unjust, dealing, as if hee punished the children for the sinnes of their fathers, which in a proverbiall manner was delivered thus; The fathers have eaten sowre grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge; which might occasion a desperate disposition in them, and provoke them to cast off all care of amending their waies, and turning to God by repentance; because all was one, whether they repented, or repented not, because the sowre grapes which their fathers had eaten, were enough to set all their teeth on edge: Against this the Lord made a solemne protestation, that all soules were his, even the soules of the children, as well as the soules of the fathers, and that the soule that sinned, that should dye; and hereupon expostulates with them thus, Have I any pleasure in the death of a sinner, to wit, so as to bring death upon him, notwithstanding his repentance, because forsooth his father had eaten sowre grapes? No, no; the Lord hath no delight in their death, but if they returne and live, hee delights in that, and therefore concludes with exhorting them to returne unto the Lord, that they may live.

p. 533Now when you forsake the translation of our Church, and slicke unto the Vulgar corrupt translation, to hold up your odde conceits; doth it become you to make question whether they that oppose you in your extravagant tenents and proofes, have subscribed to the booke of Common Prayer? Piscator proceedeth further, and saith, that the meaning is not simply, that God delights not in the death of the wicked, but in case he ceaseth not from his iniquity; as appeares, saith he, by comparing of it with that which goeth before, and with that which commeth after: for otherwise God takes delight in all his workes: like as Lyra upon Ezech. 18. Punitio improbitatis bene est à Deo volita quia justa. In Proverbs 1. 26. thus we reade, I will laugh at your destruction, and mocke when your feare commeth. How are these places to bee reconciled? Piscator answereth, God is not delighted in the death of man, as it is the destruction of the creature, but is delighted therein, as it is the just punishment of the creature: which is as much as to say, he delights in the execution of his owne Iustice: like as wee reade, Ier. 9. 24. Let him that glorieth glorie in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me. For I am the Lord which shew mercy and judgement, and righteousnesse in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

4. Now as if you had made all sure on your side, partly out of our authorized devotions, wherein you make choice of three prayers; whereof two are nothing to the purpose, and the third, at your uttermost straining of it, doth but encourage you to conclude finally that God wils not the death, but the life rather of them that of Infidels are made Christians; and partly out of the Catechisme, where you finde that Christ hath redeemed all mankinde, which hath no coloutable extent further then all men; and without manifest opposition to Austin, you finde this phrase will not serve your turne; whom yet you oppose so, as without answering any one of his arguments; one whereof was drawne from analogie of Scripture phrase, another from manifest reason, professing therewithall that your construction of this place contradicts the prime Article of the Creed.

p. 534And last of all, driving the naile of your discourse home, with a concludent proofe depending upon a translation of the text quite different from the most authentique translation of our Church, which yet must be without prejudice to your conformity, having a sound heart of your owne, and therefore some peccadilies may bee well borne withall, and you take liberty to question others your opposites, whether they have subscribed or no to the booke of Common Prayer; such is the height of your imperious cariage, bearing downe all before you.

Now you come to enquire, By what will God doth will they should be saved that are not saved; and you demand whether God doth will their salvation by his revealed, and not by his secret will. As if this were our opinion; whereas neither Calvin embraceth it, nor Beza, nor Piscator, but all concurre upon that interpretation which Austin gave many hundred yeares agoe, and which you impugne; and how judiciously, we have already considered. Peter Martyr proposeth it amongst divers others, but embraceth it not; neither doe I know any Divine of ours that embraceth it. Cajetan indeed embraceth it, and Cornelius de Lapide, and Aquinas amongst other interpretations.

As you doubt whether your opposites have subscribed to the booke of Common prayer; so if you take a liberty to put upon us the opinions and accommodations of distinctions used by Papists, you may in the next place make doubt, whether wee have not subscribed to the Councell of Trent. We plainly deny that God doth will the salvation of any, but of his elect. For to will to save, and decree to save is all one, and election we say is the decree of salvation. And as God hath not elected all unto salvation, nor ordained all unto eternall life, so neither hath he willed to save all. For hence two absurdities doe manifestly follow; first, that the reason why many are not saved, must bee, because God cannot save them; which is the argument of S. Austin. Another is, that Gods will shall bee changed: for undoubtedly when God damnes any man, then he will not save him; and therefore if p. 535before he did will to save them, his will is afterwards changed, both by changing his old will, which was everlasting, and by entertaining a new will, which was not everlasting. Hemnigius, a great patron of universall grace, interpreteth the place of S. Paul, 2 Tim. 2. 4. Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri modo fide oblatam salutem recipere non recusaverint. Neither doe I like Cajetans interpretation after this manner, when he saith, Est sermo devoluntate signi, qua Deus proponit omnibus hominibus praecepta salutis, doctrinamque Euangelij; and that for two reasons: First, because God doth not propose his Gospel to all: Secondly, if God should propose the Gospell to all, and bid all men to beleeve, this is no certaine signe that God will have them to beleeve, like as it is no certaine signe that God will give them grace to beleeve, without which they cannot beleeve; for it is manifest that God doth not give the grace of faith and repentance to all that heare the Gospell, nor to a major part of them; but it is a signe, I confesse, that God will have it our duty to beleeve, by commanding us to beleeve. Gods commandement is usually called his will, and the commandement of God Schoolmen make to be one of the signes of Gods will. So he commanded Abraham to sacrifice his sonne Isaak. This they call voluntas signi, but yet hee was determined that Isaak should not bee sacrificed, as appeared by the event; this they call voluntas beneplaciti. So he commanded Pharaoh to let Israel goe, this was his voluntas signi; but yet he told Moses, he would harden Pharoahs heart, that hee should not let Israel goe; this they call his voluntas beneplaciti; the end whereof was, that God might have occasion to shew his power, and magnifie himselfe, in his plagues brought upon the Aegyptians, to breake those hearts that would not bend unto him.

So that you are out in the interpretation of voluntas signi, The will of signe, and the will of good pleasure.and beneplaciti, as well as in the accommodation of it, as out of our opinion. God proposeth no signification of his good will to any man, as touching the saving of him, otherwise then by faith and repentance: and plainly protests, that without faith and repentance they shall not be saved.

p. 536You would faine have your adversaries grant, that God doth will the salvation of all men by his revealed will, or voluntate signi. Indeed if you may have the fashioning of our opinion, you may soone be victorious, in conquering men of straw in stead of reall opposites. This distinction of yours is absurdly applied to our opinion, in this case; who deny that God doth at all or any manner of way will the salvation of reprobates. For revealed will, and voluntas signi, is the will of Gods commandement, and the objects of commandements are onelyonly morall duties, and not the rewards of them, such as is salvation. Yet it is truth, that what God is said to will by his will of commandement (so usually called, though improperly the will of God) the same at once he doth not will, but rather the contrary sometimes, by his voluntas propositi, will of purpose and decree, which alone is properly to bee accounted the will of God, and which none can resist, Rom. 9. 19. And this we can prove, and have alreaby proved by two instances; the one as touching the sacrificing of Isaak, commanded to Abraham, but not determined by God that it should be brought to pass; as also in the letting of Israel goe, commanded unto Pharaoh, yet God resolving for a long time to harden Pharaohs heart, that he should not let them goe.

Neither will it herehence follow, that there are two wills in God, as you most unlearnedly urge; but that God may command one thing, which yet he is resolved shall not come to passe; so that the thing commanded may be contrary to the thing determined by God, as when he commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaak, but withall determined that Isaak should not be sacrificed.

But Gods commandement, though it be usually called his will, yet it is improperly so called; onelyonly the will of purpose and decree is properly Gods will; according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 9. 19. Who hath resisted his will? For the commandement signifieth onelyonly what is our duty to doe, it doth not signifie what God hath determined shall be done. For as for the crucifying of the Sonne of God; Gods hand and his counsell had determined before that it should bee done, but p. 537he commanded none to crucifie him; but rather commanded all the contrary, namely in forbidding the shedding of innocent bloud. Neither shall there be a contradiction betweene the objects of Gods will which is one, but onelyonly betwixt the objects of his commandement, and the object of his will and determination, as in the instances proposed I have manifested. As for your applications of the distinction of voluntas signi, The will of signification, and the will of resolution.and voluntas beneplaciti, to the salvation of mankinde, I know none of our Divines that embrace it. Wee plainly deny, that God willeth the salvation of any but of his elect. For Gods will we conceive to be all one with his decree, and election we define to be the decree of salvation, or the ordaining of men to everlasting life. So that we may well give you leave to runne riot in your fruitlesse argumentation. You on the contrary doe apparantly maintaine a manifest contradiction betweene the object of Gods will. For seeing God doth damne many, it followeth that he did will to damne many, and that from everlasting, though onelyonly for their sinne: yet these whom from everlasting he did will to damne, you maintaine that out of infinite love he did will to save, till the measure of their sinne was full. So that at once he did will to save, and will to damne the same persons by your opinion; thus the contradiction fairely and fully lights upon your selfe, which upon a meere fiction of yours, and that contrary to our professed opinion, you charged upon us. Wee grant the will of God is but one, but we say his will properly so called, and his commandement usually called also his will, though improperly, are two distinct things. For by the one he sheweth what is our duty to doe, or to leave undone; by the other he determineth what shall be done or not done, what shall come to passe, or not come to passe in the world. Of what force and credit your words are, when you talke of manifest contradiction upon our part, let the indifferent consider and judge.

5. But you will seeme to gratifie your opposites, by not carying your selfe so rigorously criticall, as to banish this distinction of voluntas signi and voluntas beneplaciti out of the consines p. 538of Divinity. But therewithall you continue your former fiction, in the stating of our opinion, as if we maintained that God did will the salvation of all, by that will which is called voluntas signi, but not by that will which is called voluntas beneplaciti: whereas I know none of our Divines that doe professe their opinion in that manner, but rather they utterly deny in plaine termes, that God doth will the salvation of all. And in my judgement, the application of this distinction in this case, by some that are orthodoxe in the point of Predestination, as namely by Aquinas and Cajetan, is most unseasonable, And therefore we have small cause to feare the imputation you cast upon us, forsooth of canonization of Iesuiticall perjuries, and deification of mentall evasions or reservations; seeing it is onelyonly grounded upon a meere fiction of yours, fashioning our Tenent at your owne pleasure most unseasonably, and most incongruously, in respect of our opinion, who grammatically and plainly professe, God willeth not the salvation of all men. And yet I am perswaded that in the end this canonization of Jesuiticall perjuries, and deification of mentall evasions or reservations, will justly light upon your selfe, according to the lawes of your owne making; and the tenour of your consequences, when you come to manifest wherein this distinction of voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti may have place. Yet I purpose to consider well, how you carrie your selfe in this imputation you cast upon us.

You acquaint us with two Iesuiticall equivocations, each consisting in part of a protestation, and in part of a mentall reservation. The first as touching the protestation, is this, I doe not intend the ruine of King or State; as touching the reservation this, so they will become Roman Catholiques. The second protestation this, J know of no conspiracy against them; the reservation this, with purpose to reveale it unto them. Now let us see how you make us to deifie these or such like equivocations, upon your fiction of our opinion. You need not trouble your selfe about putting any interrogatory unto God, it is enough to prove that God by our opinion doth make protestations of such intentions, or expresse such speeches with such p. 539reservations. God protests, you say, that he would not the death of him that dies; and we (you say) professe this to bee spoken with such a reservation, So he will repent, which J know he cannot doe. A second is this, God doth not will the non-repentance of him that dyeth; the reservation that wee make, as you say, is this, with purpose to make it knowne to him; however, according to my secret and reserved will, I have resolved never to grant him the meanes, without which he cannot possibly repent, whereas without repentance he cannot live, but must die. To each of these I answer distinctly, and to every part of each.

First therefore I deny, that God professeth any such thing in the place you beat upon, as that hee will not the death of him that dieth, but onelyonly that he delighteth not, nor hath any pleasure in the death of him that dieth. And not onelyonly Piscator and Iunius doe so interpret the place, but our last, and best, and most authorized English translation doth so render it. And wee cannot but wonder at your inconsideration, if you take no notice of it, or at your boldnesse thus to proceed in despight of it, if you did take notice of it, and yet question your opposites Archdeacon like at least, whether they have subscribed to the booke of Common Prayer.

Secondly, touching the reservation; I say it is your owne interpretation, as I have read in a manuscript of yours, namely, that he whose death God willeth not, is the penitent sinner. And in the end of the seventh section of this Chapter you professe that God necessarily hates them that have made up the full measure of their iniquity: whence it seemeth that when God saith (according to your translation) I will not the death of him that dieth, it is to bee understood with this provision, provided that he fill not up the measure of his iniquity.

Againe, I say this supposition of repentance is no reservation, but plainly signified by the tenour of the Prophets discourse, as appeares manifestly both by the consideration of the 33. chapter in Ezekiel, and especially by comparing of it with the 18. wherein are found the same words, as I have already shewed in the end of the third section. So that we adde not this by way of reservation, as you impute unto us, but p. 540make it appeare to be the meaning of the Holy Ghost, by the tenour of the Text: and if Iesuites did in like sort make their meanings cleare unto us, we should never challenge them for equivocation or reservation. We see by this what is the issue of your imputation, which in great pompe you called out deisication of mentall evasions and reservations; as if you spent your strength in phrasifying. You seemed to bee sensible of your own weaknesse in justifying this your calumniation, and therfore to give weight unto it, you have your additions, without all congruity to the precedent, of Iesuiticall equivocations, whereunto notwithstanding you desired to conforme our tenent; and rest your selfe wholly upon the odious nature of that conformity, especially as being charged upon God by our opinion, as you manage the matter. But your addition hath no colour of conformity thereunto, but proceeds of it selfe without all respect of proportion. For the Iesuite protesting he intends not the ruine of the King and State, with this reservation, So they become Romane Catholiques; doth not adde hereunto these words, Which I know they cannot doe; I do… not doubt but they have a more comfortable opinion of us then so.

Yet when you come to shew how our opinion doth deisie, as you speake, this very Iesuiticall tricke, the greatest strength of your odious expression of our Tenet, consists in such like addition, whereunto not any thing on the Iesuiticall equivocations part is conformable. Doe you see how well you performe the part of a disputant, and that in making good so foule a calumniation as is the deisying of equivocations? As if you followed the politicians counsell, who bids his disciples bee bold to calumniate; for as much as though a man might cleare his good name, yet in such a case cicatrix manet calumniae. Fie upon such shamelesse courses. And as for this addition of A scarte remaines.yours, what taile of consequence soever it drawes after it, it is like to fall foule on your part, and not on ours. For you maintaine, that there is a state of man in this life, in respect of a certaine measure of iniquity, wherein it is not possible for him to repent. I know no such state, nor any rule that God p. 541hath given to himselfe to confine his grace. Nay to the contrary we reade, that neither continuance in sinne, nor greatnesse of sinne, doth preclude the grace of God; but that Gods grace as it can, so it doth many times prevaile over both. But you love not to speake distinctly, but to carie your selfe in the clouds of generalities. They that maintaine a weake cause had need play least in sight; wee say plainly, that God well knowes, no man can repent except he gives the grace of repentance; the Scriptures in divers places expresly testifying Act. 5. 31. & 11. 18. 2 Tim. 2. last.Acts 5:31Acts 11:182 Tim 2that repentance is the gift of God, though you love not to heare of that eare, nor are well pleased, as it seemes, with the musique that riseth upon the touching of that string. On the other side, God knowes that every man at any time can repent, if God will be pleased to give him the grace of repentance, yea and that he shall repent also; the habituall grace serves for the one, and the actuall and effectuall motion of Gods Spirit is requisite to the other.

I come to the second parallell of Iesuiticall equivocation, or rather the deification of it, as you are pleased out of glorious spleene to calumniate your opposites. The protestation is on Gods part, I will not the nonrepentance of him that dieth, the reservation, with purpose to make this part of my will knowne unto him. But where, I pray, doe you finde any such protestation on Gods part? Ezekiel hath none such. In him it is said, I will not the death of him that dieth. But no where doth he say, I will not the non repentance of him that dieth. This is a tricke of your owne device, as if you followed the counsell of Lysander; and where the Lyons skinne will not reach, you are content to patch it up with some piece of a Fox skinne. Wee professe in plaine termes, that as God hath mercy on whom he will, so he Rom. 9. …Rom 9hardneth whom he will; and as he will give the grace of repentance unto some, so he will not give the grace of repentance unto others. Notwithstanding that he bid all in the ministery of his word, (I meane all those that heare it) To repent and beleeve Mark 1. …Mark 1the Gospel. So he did bid the Iewes, and that with great earnestnesse, to keepe the covenant, Deut. 30. 19. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you p. 542life and death, blessing and cursing. therefore chuse life, that both thou and thy seed may live. By loving the Lord thy God, by obeying his voice, and cleaving unto him, for hee is thy life, and the length of thy daies, that thou maiest dwell in the land which the Lord did sweare unto thy fathers. 'Yet I hope you will not say, this could be done without grace, though of the nature of grace, what you thinke, and of the universall extention thereof, I should be very glad to understand, and that therein you would speake your minde plainly.

As for the reservation here, it is most ridiculous, neither is any equivocation of Iesuites, I trow, answerable hereunto: for by reservations, a sense is raised, contradictious to the sense of the protestation; but by this reservation, no contradiction ariseth to the former as it lieth, but onelyonly it denyeth a certaine purpose to be joyned with it: but, be it that Iesuits allow such artifice, what Divine of ours doth? Did we say, that God wills not the non repentance of any; we would say, hee willeth it not, in as much as hee forbiddeth it. And Gods prohibitions and commandements are usually (though improperly) called the will of God. And here voluntas signi hath proper place enough.

Like as God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his sonne, yet his determination was, that Isaac should not be sacrificed. Some may have said, that God willeth not the death of him that dyeth, in case he repent. But was ever any heard to affirme, that God wills not the non repentance of him that dieth, to wit, with purpose to make it knowne unto him? What madnesse possessed you to ascribe so incredible a thing to your opposites, so contrary to the rule of fiction, foreign, as Callimachus hath set it downe.

Your addition here likewise, which drawes a long taile after it, hath no conformity to the patterne. And as for the substance of it, as touching Gods resolution, never to grant some repentance, or the meanes of it (if thereby you meane the Gospel) we acknowledge it to be truth: for the arme of the Lord is not revealed unto all, neither doth he give repentance, Esa. 53. 1.Isa 53:1or faith to all: but hath mercy on some onelyonly, even on p. 543whom hee will; and hardenneth othersome, even whom he will; that is, denieth them repentance, and consequently, they cannot repent, which interpretation of obduration, your selfe make in the seventh section following: and consequently they cannot live; this I doubt not but you will acknowledge with us.

And therefore the vanity of your discourse is not at an end, you proceed to talke of Gods oath in giving assurance, that he will not the death of them that are damned; built meerly upon a translation which you follow, different from the most authorized translation of our Church; and that contrary to evident reason: for seeing God doth inflict death and damnation upon the impenitent, so hee must needs will it; for hee doth all things according to the counsell of his owne will, Ephesians 1. 11. And yet according to your reading of it, a good construction may be given without all reservations, as plainly enough deduced out of the word of God it selfe. And what God hath manifested unto us in his word, I hope is not to bee accounted a reservation, but a revelation rather. I am not of your minde to thinke, that the keeping of an oath is a branch of perfection; or to keepe a mans word either, which yet is a better point of morality, then to keepe an oath.

Such justice is to bee found amongst heathen men; yet workes of mercy go beyond workes of justice, yet no great perfection neither; but to be mercifull to our enemies, When Matt. 5. 4…Matt 5:4they are hungry to feed them, when they are thirsty to give them drinke: this is the perfection that our Saviour calleth us unto, and sets before our eyes the goodnes of our heavenly Father, in suffering his raine to fall, and his sunne to shine on the bad as well as on the good. And here withall, how well your calumniation hath sped, imputing to us the deification of Iesuiticall equivocations, let the indifferent Reader judge.

6 Here you proceede learnedly to distinguish betweene somethings determined by oath, and somethings else, and in the accomodation of your distinction, you tell us, that Voluntas signi, and beneplaciti, can have no place in things determined p. 544by divine oath, but well it may in other things. What is the other member of your distinction opposite to things determined by divine oath, you expresse not, but leave to your reader to conjecture. Now because usually when oathes are spoken of by way of distinction, the opposition is made betweene oathes and bare words, therefore wee conceive your distinction completely delivered to runne thus. Some things are determined by Gods oath; other things are determined by Gods bare words. Now this distinction I take to be neither accurate according to the forme, nor sound in the matter thereof.

As touching the forme. It is not right to say things are determined either by Gods oath, or by his word, but rather by his will. For determination is the act of Gods will. Words and oathes are but the signification and outward protestation of the determination of his will. Then as for the matter, I see no cause but that by what reason soever the distinction of voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti, hath course in the one, by the same reason it may have course in the other also. For Gods word undoubtedly is as certaine as his oath; albeit in condescending to our infirmity he is pleased to protest in solemne manner, and by oath, for the strengthning of our faith. We commonly say that an honest mans word is as good as his oath to binde him. Certainly as God cannot breake his oath, so is he foreign, a God that cannot lye, and his will Ti…. 1. 2.can neither change from within, nor bee resisted from without.

When you come to explicate your meaning by instance as touching the accommodation of this distinction, we wil perhaps speake more of this. The distinction you say of voluntas signi, and beneplaciti, can have no place in their doctrine who make the bare entity and personall being of men the immediate object of the immutable decree concerning life and death everlasting. It seemes you desire to speake enough, as if you could hardly satisfie your selfe, no marvell if you doe not satisfie your reader. Yet in my judgement it is usuall with you to over-doe. For the distinctions implied by you, of the object of Gods p. 545decree mediate or immediate; and especially of Gods decree mutable or immutable, may soone cast us upon wilde-goose meditations. By the entity or personall being of man, I take your meaning is, (for you speake in your owne peculiar phrase) to expresse the pure masse of mankinde. This (it seemes) you like not to be made the object of election and reprobation, but rather the corrupt masse of mankinde after Adams fall. Now because there was an election and reprobation of Angels as well as of men, if you can devise how a corrupt masse should be the object of Gods predestination, in the election and reprobation of Angels, you shall performe such a piece of work as never any man adventured on before you.

And as for the distinction of voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti, I am perswaded I shall devise a more commodious place for it, supposing the pure masse to be the object of predestination, then you can upon supposition of the corrupt masse to be the object of predestination. This I presume taking the distinction of voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti in that sense which they take it that have beene the devi…ers of it. But if you shall take liberty unto your selfe, to put what sense upon it you thinke good, and make your owne grounds; as Aesop advised his master how to make his undertakings good in drinking up all the water in the sea, to wit, alwayes provided that all the rivers that runne into the sea were first stopt. For it were unreasonable that as fast as hee dranke up, the rivers should powre in, and that somewhat faster too. And I performe my undertakings thus. To promise salvation upon obedience, and to command obedience unto all, is in the phrase of Schoolemen to will the salvation of all voluntate signi. But withall to determine, that by his speciall grace heo will keepe some from sinne, and save them, but not others; is not to will the salvation of those others voluntate beneplaciti, whose salvation he is said to will voluntate signi. So that albeit to will and not to will the salvation of one and the same man voluntate proprie dicta, which alone is voluntas beneplaciti, bee contradictions; yet to will the salvation of one man voluntate improprie dicta, which is voluntas signi, and not to will it voluntate p. 546proprie dicta, which is voluntas beneplaciti, is no more contradictious then to will the sacrificing of Isaak by commanding it, and to nill it by determining the contrary, is contradictious.

Againe, if massa corrupta be the object of predestination, which is the more common opinion of our Divines, this distinction in this sense (which I take to be the onelyonly true sense of it) cannot be so well accommodated. For as much as in that case, the onelyonly way left for salvation is faith and repentance; for performing whereof there is no power in nature, as there was power in nature for the performing of obedience before Adams fall. And you hold it ridiculous to say that God wils the salvation of man so he repent, in case he cannot repent, as but erst you signified.

But let us consider your reason why the distinction foresaid can have no place, if the pure masse be the object of predestination. For (say you) the entity or personall being of man is so indivisible, that an universall negation, and a particular affirmation of the same thing (to wit salvation) falling upon man as man, or upon the personall being of man, drawes to the strictest kinde of contradiction. All this is but one proposition, but it containes more then one fault. For first you make the affirmation and negation of salvation upon the same men, to follow upon voluntas signi touching their salvation, and voluntas beneplaciti touching their non salvation. Whereas no such thing will follow. For although from voluntas beneplaciti, whereby God doth will the salvation of one man, it followeth, such a one shall be saved; yet upon the voluntas signi, whereby God doth will their salvation, it shall not follow that such shall be saved: like as from voluntas signi, whereby God did will Abraham to sacrifice his sonne, it did not follow that Isaak should bee sacrified: yet you swallow this consequence without any chawing; but an Estrich will sooner digest a tenne-peny naile, then any sober and intelligent Scholar wil digest this consequence. If you would deale directly, you should professe, that to will and not to will the salvation of the same man is contradiction; but that is untrue as well as the former. For unto contradiction p. 547is required that it must be, ad idem, secundum idem, eodem modo, & eodem tempore. Now these conditions are not found in this that we speake of. For we doe not say, that God doth will and not will the salvation of the same man, voluntate eodem modo accepta; for that hee wils the salvation of this man, is onelyonly voluntate signi; that he doth not will it, is voluntate beneplaciti; and this will which is called the will of good pleasure, is onelyonly the will of God in proper speech, and that S. Paul speakes of when he saith, Who hath resisted his will? Rom. 9. 1…Rom 9:1the other, to wit, voluntas signi, is improperly (though usually) called the will of God. It being indeed nothing else but Gods commandement; in which sense he willed Abraham to sacrifice his sonne; yet who doubts but that it was Gods will in proper speech, that Isaak should not be sacrificed. And because you perceived how easily the shew of contradiction might be washed off, if it were proposed in this manner, therfore you made bold upon dame Logicke, and without her leave, and in despight of her, faine a contradiction under another forme by way of consequence, which indeed proves most inconsequent.

Thirdly, you speake in a strange language when you say that the affirmation and negation of salvation falling upon the personall being of men, containes contradiction; implying that it might fall otherwise then upon the personall being of men, and in that case it would not prove contradictious; both which are not onelyonly untrue, but absurd also. For the affirmation of the salvation of man cannot fall otherwise then upon the person of man, and consequently upon the personall being of man, whatsoever be the cause of it; which cause you most preposterously conceive, to give unto man a being different from his personall being, whereupon, and not upon his personall being his salvation should fall.

Againe, no distinction of personall being and other being will serve your turne, to save the affirmation and negation of salvation of one and the same man from contradiction. I say of one and the same man, which is of principall consideration in the course of contradiction, and yet wholly permitted p. 548by you in this proposition, though therein you talke of the strictest point of contradiction. Straine your invention while you will, you shall never be able to free these propositions from contradiction; Peter shall be saved, Peter shall not be saved. But to change the nature of these propositions, and of absolute to make them conditionall thus; Peter shall be saved if he beleeve and repent: Peter shall not be saved if he beleeve and repent not; is neither to affirme nor deny the salvation of Peter. For to affirme or deny the salvation of Peter, is categoricall, not hypotheticall. What you want of force of argument, you supply with devotion, as if you came to enchant your reader, and not to informe him; as when you say, Farre be it from us to thinke that God should sweare to this universall negative, I will not the death of him that dieth; and yet beleeve withall that he wils the death of some men, that die as they are men, or as they are the sonnes of Adam. This is proposed by way of an holy and confident asseveration; but consider how sottish it is, and most averse from sobriety.

For first, what if God had not sworne it, but onelyonly said it, had there been the lesse truth in it for this? Is not Gods word sure enough without an oath? yet before wee heard, that in things determined by divine oath, the distinction of voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti could have no place.

Secondly, where were your logicall wits, when you said this was an universall negative, I will not the death of a sinner? I pray examine your rules well, and see whether it bee not a singular? will you measure the quantity of a proportion by the predicate, and not rather by the subject? Yet if you should doe so, it would not serve your turne. For both Aristotle of old hath taught us, that it is absurd to put an universall signe to the predicate; and here is no universality added either to the whole predicate, which is, Nolens mortem peccatoris, nor to any part of it (which you seeme to confound.) For he that dyeth, is a terme indefinite. Neither is it in a necessary matter. For the most holy Angell God could turne into nothing, if it pleased him. And in the 18. chapter of Ezekiel it is apparant, that this is restrained to him that repenteth, without any p. 549mentall reservation, but by plaine evidence of the Text it selfe.

Thirdly, you harpe upon a false string, and an erroneous translation, as it were in spight of the most authorized translation of our owne Church, and follow the vulgar Latine herein. And withall in opposition to manifest reason to the contrary; for seeing God doth inflict death and damnation upon every one that dyeth, and is damned; and he doth all things according to the counsell of his owne will, Eph. 1. 11. it is impossible he should doe any thing and not will it, that he should inflict death on him that dieth, and not will it.

Fourthly, be it as you will have it, that God doth not will the death of him that dieth; will you herehence inferre that God willeth not the death of him that dyeth as man, or as the son of Adam, implying that notwithstanding hee may will the death of him that dieth in some other respect, without any prejudice to his oath? what a senselesse collection and interpretation is this? You may as well say, God willeth the life of him that liveth, ergo, farre be it from us to say that hee willeth not the life of him that liveth, as he is a man, or as he is the son of Adam; implying that for all this God may be said not to will the life of him that liveth in some other respect. But I say that if God willeth not the death of any man that dieth, (as you will have it, and to be confirmed also with the Lords oath,) then in no respect can it be said that hee willeth the death of any man that dieth. For it is both ad idem, death is the same in both; and it is secundum idem, for we speak of the same man in both; and it is eodem modo, for we speake of the will of God in the same sense in both; and it is at the same time, and must be; for Gods will is everlasting, and therefore willing whatsoever he doth everlastingly, he cannot bee said at any time not to will it. As for the cause of death and damnation willed by God, we maintaine, that God willeth not the death of any man, or the condemnation of any man, but for sinne. But I pray what thinke you of infants perishing in originall sin? If Goth doth not will their death as the sonnes of Adam, how doth he will it? Or had you rather shake hands with Arminius in this also, p. 550and professe, that no man is damned for originall sinne onelyonly; but that all the children of Turkes, and Sarazens, and Iewes, and Caniballs that die in their infancie, are saved, and enjoy the joyes of heaven, as well as the children of the faithfull?

You proceede in your devout asseveration, and will have it to bee farre from us to thinke, that God should by his secret or reserved will recall any part of his will declared by oath. We are so farre from thinking, that God recalls any part of his will declared by oath, that wee doe not believe that hee doth or can recall any patt of his will that hee hath declared by his bare word. And wee thinke it equally impossible for God to lye, and to perjure himselfe; for he is foreign. Neither when hee kept Abraham from sacrificing his sonne Isaac, doe wee say that he recalled any part of his will, which he had formerly declared by his word, although he commanded Abraham to sacrifice his sonne: for Gods will of commandement, signifieth onelyonly what God will have to be our duety to doe, not what hee hath determined to be done: though you confound these usually, and that as wilfully and unlearnedly as Arminius himselfe, because it serves your turne, and advantageth your cause to confound them. But looke you to it how you free your selfe from maintaining, that God doth recall something which hee hath properly willed and determined to be done. For that God willeth the death of no man that dieth, you make to bee the word of God confirmed by oath, and you understand it of Gods will properly so called, and yet you maintaine, that God willeth the death of him that dieth, though not as man, and as the sonne of Adam, yet in some other manner; which either is flat contradiction, or else God doth recall and change his will.

The last part of your devout asseveration is, Farre be it from us to thinke that God should proclaime an universall pardon to all the sonnes of Adam, under the seale of his oath, and yet exempt many from all possibilitie of receiving any benefit by it. Here you seeme to shew your teeth, but I had rather understand your meaning: for to proclaime pardon to all is ambiguous; for p. 551it may bee done absolutely, as kings on earth grant pardons; and usually our kings grant pardons at the end and conclusion of parliaments. I doe not thinke this is your meaning; for then all should be pardoned; for to proclaime pardon is to signifie his Majesties pleasure that hee doth pardon them. But if conditionally; it is true, God proclaimes, that whosoever believeth shall be saved, this is a knowne truth, no man takes exception against it. And how doe we exempt any from all possibility of receiving it? You will say, that this we doe, in exempting many from all possibility of performing the condition, to wit, of believing. I answer, that your owne opinion is to be charged with this, ours is not; for you maintain that Pharaoh after the seventh wonder, was exempt from all possibility of repentance; and the like you avouch of all reprobates, and such as have filled up the measure of their sinne, which according to your opinion, may be many yeares before their death: and in the seventh Section following, you expresse it thus, Having their soules betrothed unto wickednesse: such undoubtedly was Ahab, that sold himselfe to worke wickednesse, and many such like.

And in this case you professe in your owne phrase, that the doore of repentance is shut upon them. But wee like not this opinion of yours, wee know no measure of sinne, nor continuance of sinne that doth prescribe unto the grace of God, and forbids the banes of matrimony betwixt him and his Church, but that in a due time the power of Gods grace shall breake through all obstacles, even through the furious idolatry of Manasses, in giving his children unto Devills, and that sealed with bloud, wherewith hee filled Ierusalem from corner to corner; yea, and through his sorcery and witchcraft also, and through the rage of Saul, persecuting Gods saints, and making havocke of the Church of God. **When I speak thus, I am to be understood onelyonly of sinnes of course, and▪ knowne sinnes, secluding the consideration of the sin. against the holy Ghost, which is … secret.And for as much as wee maintaine it to be possible for every one to believe and repent through Gods grace, it is manifest, that we exempt no man from all possibility of believing and repenting, to wit, in consideration of the power of God. But in consideration of the power of man, wee exempt not many p. 552onelyonly, but all and every one, from possibility of beleeving and repenting by power of nature. And dare you avouch the contrary? It is apparant that whatsoever you thinke, you dare not openly professe thus much. And therefore are content to hide your head, and lurke under generalities. So that the case is cleare, that you doe us wrong in saying wee exempt many from all possibility of repenting: I say it is a notorious slander; for we exempt men from possibility of repenting onelyonly by power of nature; and so we exempt not onelyonly many, but all and every one from possibility of repenting. But perhaps you may say, that withall wee maintaine that God doth not purpose to give the grace of faith and repentance unto all, but to deny it unto many, yea unto most; and upon this supposition we exempt them from all possibility of repenting.

But I pray consider, to exempt some from possibility of repenting upon supposition; is this to exempt from all possibility without supposition? For you have delivered this without all supposition. And then the issue is to enquire, whether God hath decreed to give the grace of faith and repentance unto all, or rather to deny it to many, yea to most. And dare you affirme that God hath decreed to give the grace of faith and repentance unto all? It is apparant you dare not openly professe this, and therefore carie your selfe in the clouds, without any cleare and distinct proposing of your meaning. In S. Pauls daies there was a remnant amongst Israel which are called Gods election, Rom. 11. and these had obtained this grace of faith and repentance, as there the Apostle signifieth, but the rost were hardned. And if God hath purposed to give grace unto all, you may as well say God hath elected all. But Rom. 11.Rom 11the Holy Ghost witnesseth, that many are called, and but few are chosen. Many I say are called, not all neither, nor the Mat. 20.Matt 20most part; as all experience, and the histories of the world doe manifest: and therefore though God proclaimes in his word pardon of sinne to all that beleeve; yet he doth not proclaimethis unto all.

By the way I observe, that whereas you say, that God doth proclaime an universall pardon to all the sonnes of Adam under the p. 553seale of his oath; this of Gods oath, which you adde, doth draw us to conceive that the meaning of those words, As I live I will not the death of him that dies, containes this sense in your construction, that God will pardon the sinnes of all, and since these words (as you understand them) doe not runne conditionally, but absolutely; herehence it followeth, that according to your opinion God hath sworne absolutely to pardon the sinnes of all men, the absurdity whereof I leave to everie mans sober consideration.

7. Hitherto you have told us in what matters the distinction of voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti cannot have place. Now you tell us in what matters it may have place, to wit, in matters of threatnings, or of plagues not denounced by oath. And why not I pray in matters of promising, or of rewards not denounced by oath. Now you have already signified, that looke in what matters this distinction may have place, there God may recall by his secret and reserved will, what he hath declared to be his will by bare words. For therefore you professed that this distinction may not be admitted in matters determined by oath, because, Farre be it from us thus to thinke that God should by his secret or reserved will recall any part of his will declared by oath. Let the Reader marke it well, and the force of consequence therehence; which I doubt not but you approve of, as we shall farther understand in that which followeth. Now we are so farre from maintaining that God can recall any thing, of that which hee hath sworne shall come to passe, that we stand in defiance of any such opinion, as maintaines, that God may choose whether he will be so good as his word, and that he hath liberty to recall ought of that which upon his bare word he hath testified shall come to passe. And it seemes you are ashamed to propose it in these termes, but keepe your selfe in the generall of voluntas signi, and beneplaciti, the meaning whereof every one understands not; and the best Divines take it in a far different sense from this of yours. And they that doe understand your meaning and explication, yet doe not alwaies consider it, and therefore are the more apt so to be deluded by your generalities.

p. 554But proceed we along with you. God by his Prophet Jonas (you say) did signisie his will to have Ninevie destroyed at fortie daies end; this was voluntas signi: and he truly intended what hee signisied, yet was it his voluntas beneplaciti, his good will and pleasure at the very same time that the Ninevites should repent and live. Now I doe observe in all this, you doe not say God recals by his secret will, what he signisied to be his will upon his bare word. Yet the reason why the foresaid distinction might not be admitted in matters determined by Gods oath, you made to be this, because then God should by his secret will recall that which he had declared to bee his will by solemne oath; permitting that God may have libertie to recall what he hath determined (as you speake) by his bare word. But here you forbeare these expressions; you decline this precipice. And justly. For if it be a part of Gods perfection to keep his oath, as you have said, I see no reason but it should bee a part of greater perfection to be as good as his word. Secondly, I say that if Gods intentions and Gods will be all one; for you to say that God at the same time did intend and not intend that the Ninivites should be destroyed, is flat contradiction. And you doe as good as say so. For at the same time God did will that they should be destroyed, you say; and also intended that they should live, which is as much as to say he did intend they should not be destroyed. And I prove it thus: To affirme and deny the same thing of the same subject, at one and the same time, is flat contradiction; but you herein doe affirme and deny the same thing of the same subject for the same time; therefore herein you speake flat contradiction. But you pronounce there is no contradiction in this; yet in clearing your selfe, your cariage in words is very preposterous. For whereas to purge your selfe you should say, there is no contradiction in this speech of yours; you quite besides the cushion tell us there is no contrariety betweene Gods will declared, which you call voluntas signi, and his good will and pleasure, which you call voluntas beneplaciti; and forthwith you tell us there is no contradiction in the object of his will, however considered. All which is delivered very fumblingly, and so perplexedly, p. 555as nothing answering to those logicall braines and accurate Philosophie, the want whereof elsewhere you pittie in others, but not in your selfe. I say you speake contradiction, in saying that God at the same time both willed that Ninivie should be destroyed, and willed that it should not be destroyed.

As for contradictions in the objects of voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti, we maintaine that such contradiction may have place without any contradiction in the maintainer: As for example; The object of Gods commandement to Abraham (which I call, and all Schoolmen with me call voluntatem signi,) was the sacrificing of Isaak; but the object of Gods purpose and determination (which I call, and all Schoolmen with me, voluntatem beneplaciti) was the not sacrificing of Isaak. Which are termes contradictory. Yet is it no contradiction for me to maintaine that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son; and yet resolved with himselfe that Isaak should not be sacrificed.

Yet we must give you leave to take your course, and consider what a fluttering you keepe to unentangle your selfe of this contradiction, wherein you are not taken as in a snare, but wilfully and with your eies open cast your selfe thereinto, presuming either by the finenesse of your wit to escape, or rather by the perplexity of your discourse so to confound your reader, as not to discover your fumbling to deliver your solfe.

You say the object of Gods will was not one and the same, but much different, in respect of Gods will signified by Jonas, and of his good will and pleasure, which not signified by him was fulfilled. And because you repeat this distinction againe containing the difference betweene voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti, I must needs tell you the exorbitancyie of it. Suppose God had made knowne to Ionas, that he purposed upon this his preaching to give them repentance, to save the Ninivites, had this beene no longer voluntas beneplaciti? If you thinke so, I thinke you cannot name one Divine in the world that ever was of your opinion in this. If it ceased not to be voluntas beneplaciti for all this, then you see how absurdly you make the difference p. 556betweene voluntas signi, and voluntas beneplaciti to consist in this, that voluntas signi is Gods will declared, voluntas beneplaciti is his will concealed.

The resolution at length to free your former assertion from contradiction, is this, One and the same immutable decree of God did from eternity award two doomes much different unito Ninevie, taking it as it stood affected when Ionas threatned destruction unto it, or as it should continue so affected, and taking it as it stood upon the judgement threatned. All the alteration was in Ninevy, none in Gods will and decree; and Ninevie being altered unto the better, the selfe same rule of justice doth not deale with it after the selse same manner. The summe of all (were you pleased to speak plainly) would come to this: When he signified by Ionah to the Ninevites, that Ninevie should be destroyed at forty daies end, the meaning was but this, that in case they continued in their sinnes without repentance they should be destroyed; but in case they repented they should not be destroyed. I find no fault in this as touching the substance of truth; but I wonder not a little to see you faile in the accommodation of it, both to the distinction of voluntas signi, and beneplaciti; as also in the reconciling of your selfe unto your selfe, in respect of what formerly you have delivered concerning the meaning of Ionahs message to the Ninevites. For you doe not tell us which of these doomes is Voluntas signi, and which of the doomes is voluntas beneplaciti: or if both be voluntas signi, (as indeed they are) what is left for voluntas beneplaciti to be distinguished from voluntas signi in this place? It seemes you distribute those doomes, and make one the object of voluntas signi, and the other the object of vol…itas beneplaciti, in which course there … no sobriety in comparison to your owne dictates. For you make voluntas signi to differ from voluntas beneplaciti in this, that voluntas signi is Gods will declared, voluntas beneplaciti is his will concealed. According to the tenour of which distinction, both these decrees are to be accounted voluntas signi for God hath declared this to be his usuall course; as namely Jer. 18. 7. I will speake suddenly against a nation or a kingdome to plucke it up, and to root it out, and to destroy it. 8. But if this nation p. 557against whom I have pronounced, turne from their wickednesse, I will repent of the plague that I thought to bring upon them: 9. And I will speake suddenly concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdome, to build it up and to plant it: But if it doe evill in my sight, and heare not my voice, I will repent of the good that I thought to doe for them. Neither indeed can you in reason maintaine the one of the doomes to be the object of voluntas signi, and the other the object of voluntas beneplaciti. For if Ionas had delivered his message thus, God seeth in what sinfull courses you are, and hath determined that you continuing in the same your Citie shall be destroyed at fortie dayes end; they would never have doubted but that the Lords determination was, that upon their humiliation and repentance, and turning from their evill waies, Ninevie should not have beene destroyed; and so each doome had beene the object of voluntas signi, and nothing (for ought I can gather out of your discourse) should remaine to be the object of voluntas beneplaciti.

Againe, this elucidation of the doubt doth contradict your former assertion, when in contradictious manner you affirmed, that God at the same time did both will that Ninevie should be destroyed, and also intend that Ninevie should not be destroyed; whereas by the interpretation which here you make of Ionahs message to the Ninivites, according to the two doomes by you mentioned, God was so farre from intending both the destruction and the not destruction of Ninevie, as that he intended neither the one nor the other. For to determine to destroy them, in case they continued in their sinnes without repentance, and not otherwise, is to resolve neither one way nor other, but to remaine in suspence, which is a kinde of reservation of liberty; which heretofore you have so much magnified as a point of very great perfection, and therefore fit to be attributed unto God.

But then I pray consider, did not God from everlasting know whether they would repent or no? I thinke you doubt not, but that God knew they would repent. And I pray what need was there then of any two such doomes as you have devised, when one would serve the turne, and that absolute, to p. 558wit, that God from everlasting determined they should not be destroyed, and thereupon tooke a course whereby they might be brought to repentance.

By the way I am glad to heare you make the repentance of the Ninevites the object of Gods will, which is called, voluntas beneplaciti, which wee take to be all one with Gods decree; but I have no cause to rejoyce to see you thus contradict your selfe: for you have in divers places maintained, that no contingent thing, especially no act of man is the object of Gods decree: but to the contrary have professed, that God, though he decreed the contingencie of things, yet hee doth not decree the contingent things themselves. You must bee driven to take the same course in respect of Gods promises of blessing, as well as of his threatnings of judgement. But to distinguish herein as you do between Gods word and his oath, is most out of season. For suppose God had sent Ionah with the same message in this manner, say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord, yet fourty dayes and Ninevie shall be destroyed, might it not admit the same justification according to the doomes proposed by you thus, As I live, Ninevie continuing in this sinfull course, wherein I finde it shall be destroyed at fourty dayes end, not otherwise.

Or if God should have beene charged with perjury in saying this, As I live, yet fourty dayes and Ninevie shall bee destroyed; should hee not as well bee charged with untruth in saying barely thus, Yet fourty dayes & Ninevic shall be destroyed? Now whereas in the judgement pronounced by Ionah against Ninevic, you never speake of any revoking the judgement threatned, though your tenent carried you (as there I signified) so to speake, yet here (the case as you professe being all one) you are bold to professe, that God may revoke the blessing promised (and why (I pray you) may hee not revoke his blessing promised upon oath, as well as a blessing promised upon his bare word? for if he may the one without breaking his word, why may hee not doe the other without breaking his oath. Or if it bee not lawfull for God to break his oath, dare you say it is lawfull for him to breake his word? Alas, p. 559doe your wits carry you? and whither would you carry us, if wee should suffer our selves to be led by you? You conclude with a qualification thus, Yet may wee not say, that the death or destruction of any to whom God promiseth life, is so truely the object of his good will and pleasure, as the life and salvation of them is unto whom he threatneth destruction. This you say, but I had rather heare what you prove.

By the will of God, called voluntas beneplaciti, we understand no other thing then Gods decree, or the determination of his will. And hath not God as truely willed the destruction of them that die in sinne, without faith and repentance, as hee wills the salvation of them that die in faith and repentance. It is true, God takes no delight in the destruction of any, considered in it selfe, much lesse in their sinnes, whereby they bring destruction upon themselves; but God delights both in the faith and repentance of his elect, and in their salvation.

But this signification of good pleasure, is nothing to the purpose in this distinction; for no Schooleman understands it in this sense. And I well know Arminius, considering the usuall acception of Voluntas beneplaciti, amongst Divines professeth, he had rather call it, Voluntas placiti, then Voluntas beneplaciti. If such lettice like your lips, you may make your selfe merry with them.

A second extent and accommodation of this distinction of Uoluntas signi, and Voluntas beneplaciti, you allow of, applyed to men after they have made up the full measure of their iniquity, and are cut off from all possibilitie of repentance. I had thought no man had filled up the full measure of his sinne untill his, death; like as on the other side, no man hath fulfilled the measure of his obedience, untill hee hath finished his course, as Revel. 11. 7. When the witnesses had finished their testimonie, the beast that came out of the bottomlesse pit, made warre against them, and slew them. You seeme to speake it of a certaine measure, whereupon the doore of repentance is shut upon them, and thereupon excluded from all possibility of repentance; as here you say it was with Pharaoh, especially after the 7. plague p. 560upon Aegypt; whereupon you have taken great paines to discourse at large in another Treatise, which I have well considered, and examined your reasons throughout, and that following you foreign; yet there you confesse that it must have beene so with Pharaoh at Moses first comming unto him, yea and was possible to have beene so, when he was but 3. yeares old. And indeed I doe not see how it can bee avoided, but that as many as depart this life in their infancy are excluded from all possibility of repentance.

But it may be you will apply this only to men of ripe years, but by your leave such Pharaoh was not at three yeares old. And though God willed Pharaoh to let his people goe, and sent Moses and Aaron to him to that purpose; yet you say, It was no branch of Gods good will and pleasure that Pharaoh should now repent: Rather it was his good will and pleasure to have the heart of Pharaoh hardned: though you restraine this to Pharaohs condition after the seventh plague, for which I see no reason. So that in such a case you will have it lawfull for God by his reserved will, to recall that part of his will which hee hath declared by his word or oath: and therefore as touching your holy asseveration mentioned in the sixth Section, it must be restrained to them that have not yet filled up the measure of their sinne, as Pharaoh had after the seventh plague. For in such a case God may will their death, notwithstanding his oath in shew to the contrary. For his meaning is this, As I live I will not the death of him that dieth, that is, I will not his death as a man, or as the sonne of Adam; neither doe I herein deifie Iesuiticall equivocations or mentall reservations; for I take libertie to charge that upon mine adversaries, and therefore you may well think I would not be so simple as to transgresse in the same kind my selfe. And I thinke so too, if God had not confounded your wits, but it is Gods course, and most just, to strike with confusion those that build Babel; and he makes the Aegyptians to erre in their counsels as a drunken man erreth in his vomite, the issue whereof is to defile himselfe and his owne favourites, even those that sit next unto him.

In the same spirit you professe that God did punish Pharaoh p. 561for not letting his people goe; as though it had beene free and possible for him to repent, though indeed in your opinion it was not. But Pharaohs case was extraordinary, you say, and not to be drawne into example. But by your leave if God did so but once, it is no unjust thing for God to do so oftner; and therefore pray looke unto it, that whensoever it is your lot to oppose your adversaries in such a point, you doe not lay to their charge that they make God to be unjust, if not for conscience sake of the truth, yet at least for feare of contradicting your selfe.

As for the Apostles intimation (you touch upon by the way) that it was an argument of Gods great mercy and long suffering to permit Pharaoh to live any longer upon earth, after he was become a vessell of wrath, destinated to everlasting punishment in hell; I professe I am not so quicke or accurate as to observe any such intimation of the Apostle. What if you devised this to make good some fictions of yours to that purpose, in another Treatise of yours, which I have already weighed in the ballance, and found them a great deale too light of worth, to move any sober man to concurre with you in opinion thereabouts.

But whatsoever it be that the Apostle intimates, you seeme to expresse strange conceits, when you talke of Gods providence in suffering Pharaoh to live longer on earth, after hee was become a vessell of wrath destinated to everlasting punishment in hell. I had thought every reprobate had beene destinated to everlasting punishment in hell before hee was borne. For Gods destination of them is the ordination of his will; and that I had thought you had not denied to be everlasting. But you referre it to a certaine time, as in speciall to Pharaoh after the seventh plague; and in speciall to all after they have filled up a certaine measure of iniquitie; and shall not men in like sort be destinated to everlasting joies in heaven after they have filled up a certaine measure of obedience? And so a little after you tell us, that men doe not become reprobates, till a certaine measure of iniquitie bee filled up; and so in proportion men are not elect till a certaine proportion of obedience bee p. 562filled up. Yet the Apostle plainly telleth us, that the elect are elect of God before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1. 4. and consequently so are reprobates reprobated before the foundation of the world: for the word election of some doth connotate the reprobation of others. Yea Iacob was loved of God before he was borne, and was not Esau hated also before he was borne? Rom. 9. Did God wait till the measure of Esaus sinnes was full, and the measure of Iacobs obedience, before he did elect the one, and reprobate the other? And if destination unto the punishment of hell, and on the other side destination unto the joyes of heaven, beginne in time after the obedience of some, and disobedience of others, what is the meaning of predestination? for what is that, but the destination of some to the joyes of heaven, and others to the sorrowes of hell? No doubt but if you proceed as you beginne, we shall have a world of new Divinity communicated unto us, to endoctrinate us in these latter dayes.

To what end soever God plagued Pharaoh, for not doing that which he could not doe, all possibility of amending being taken from him, this action was just in God, and so is the like, whersoever it be found to proceed from God. And although Pharaoh could not repent without the grace of God, yet I make no doubt but that he could have let Israel goe, notwithstanding his obduration. And it appeares he did let them goe after the ninth plague, which followed sometime after the seventh plague. And so I doubt not but he could have refrained himselfe from pursuing them when hee had once dismissed them. And yet as for not letting Israel goe God brought ten plagues upon Aegypt, so for pursuing after them he drowned Pharaoh and his host in the red Sea.

Now in confidence of your performances in clearing your self frō contradictiōs in one point, you are as adventrous to fal upon another. The Iesuites pretend they can equivocate without lying, and you take upon you to speake contradiction without all contradiction: yet by your leave, if no body else will, I will take care it may not passe without contradiction. There is no contradiction (you say) betweene these two propositions; p. 563God from all eternity did will the death of Pharaoh; God from all eternity did not will the death, but rather the life of Pharaoh. In like sort we may say there is no contradiction between these two propositions, God from all eternity did will the salvation of Judas; God from all eternity did not will the salvation, but the condemnation of Iudas: and to proceed in the straine of your subtile discourse, I goe along by you step by step. For albeit Iudas continued one and the same man from his birth unto his death, yet did he not all that time continue one and the same object of Gods immutable will and eternall decree. This object did alter as Iudas his dispositions or affections towards God or his neighbour altered. There is no contrariety, much lesse contradiction betweene these, God unfainedly hateth sinners; God doth not hate, but love the elect, though they be sinners. For here the object of his hatred and love is not the same; he hates sinners unfainedly as sinners, not having made up the full measure of faith and repentance; but having made up the full measure of faith and repentance, and good workes, and having their soules betrothed unto holinesse, he loves them. His love of them as elect is no less necessary or usuall, then his hatred of them as sinners. But though he necessarily loves them being once become elect, or having made up the full measure of good workes; yet was there no necessity laid upon them by his eternall decree to make up such a measure of good works. No; to this sufficed the liberty of their wils, both to performe such a measure of good works, and to carry themselves like stout champions and patrons of this power of their free wils, and to gratifie the grace of God so far as to admit her activity, both to admonish them aforehand, and upon their propension to that which is good to concur to the performing of it.

He that walkes in the Sunne must needs be coloured, and I have so long beene versed in the contemplation of your argumentive facultie, that I am growne almost as sufficient to plead for the elects electing of themselves, as you to plead for the reprobates reprobation of themselves; and which of us dischargeth his part best, I leave it to the indifferent reader to consider; and I doubt not but his sentence will bee this; Et vitulo tu dignus & hic.

p. 564But let us run over the contexture of your discourse once more, and consider it in it selfe. I say there is more sobriety in saying, God from all eternity did not will the salvation of an elect, then that he did from all eternity not will the damnation of a reprobate. For the onelyonly qualification of your saying is this, He did not will the damnation of Pharaoh as a man; but the qualification of my congruous assertion on the other side is this, God did not will the salvation or life of an elect as a sinner. Now I appeale to any mans judgement whether there be not greater congruitie betweene the termes in my proposition, then betweene the termes in yours. The termes in mine are these, Not will the salvation of an elect as a sinner; in yours they are these, Not will the death of a reprobate as a man. Seeing it is well knowne, and Arminius confesseth it, that God can turne the holiest creature into nothing, without any shew of repugnance unto his justice, But to will the salvation of a sinner, hath some shew of repugnancy to Gods justice.

But to deale with you closely, and upon a point. I deny that God did ever will the salvation of Pharaoh; and I prove it by two reasons; If hee did ever will it, then Gods will is now changed; for certainly now he doth not will his salvation: But Gods will cannot change, He is without variablenesse or shadow of change. If God would save Pharaoh, and did not, as it appeares he did not, then the reason why Pharaoh was not saved, was because God could not save him. This was Austines discourse long agoe. For a father desiring the saving of his childe, and not performing of it; who doubts but that the reason is because he cannot. It is enough for us that Pharaoh continued the same man; for like as of the same man it cannot be verified that both he shall be saved, and shall not be saved; so neither can it be verified of the same man, that both God will save him, and will not save him. Neither was Pharaoh ever in any other estate, then in the state of damnation.

In like sort the contradiction is evident enough in those propositions which you adde to illustrate the contradictious nature (as you pretend) of the former; as if you should say, p. 565Aske my fellow whether I am a thiefe, which is nimis familiaris probatio. As if you should say, I unfainedly love such a man, and yet I hate him; here is no contradiction: or as if a King should say, I unfainedly love such a one, yet Ile hang him; yet this with more probability may be saved from contradiction.

It is true, wee may parcere personis, & dicere de vitiis, love the man, and hate his qualities, and manifest my love in seeking to redeeme him from his lewd conversations, by prayer unto God, by perswasion towards the man himselfe. But to say I unfainedly love him, and yet I hate him, and thinke to save it from contradiction, by saying I love him as a man, and hate him as a lewd person; is worse then for Adam to seeke with figge leaves to cover his nakednesse.

To say God loves men as they have not made up the full measure of their iniquity, is manifestly to imply that God loves a reprobate untill hee hath made up the full measure of his iniquity, and that this measure being full, God ceasing to love him, God is changed; for Gods love is an act in God, and is made to cease after a certaine time by your doctrine, and be turned into hatred. More probable it is to say that God hates all men, (seeing they are borne and bred in sinne) untill they are regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ. Yet this is untrue: For Gods love is an everlasting love, as without end, so without beginning.

If you had distinguished of love as Aquinas doth, 1. q. 23. art. 4. and said, that God may be said to love all things that he hath made, in as much as he wisheth some good unto them; but for as much as he wisheth not unto them a certaine good, to wit, eternall life, therfore he is said not to love but to hate some, your discourse had beene more specious.

Touching a necessity laid upon them by Gods decree to fill up the measure of sinne, Arminius acknowledgeth, Deum voluisse Achabam mensuram scelerum suorum implere, God would that Ahab should make up the full measure of his iniquity; which is as much as to say that God decreed it; and the Scripture professeth that both Herod and Pontius Pilate p. 566with the Gentiles and people of Israell, were gathered together to doe what Gods hand and his will had determined before to be done; so then in betraying, condemning, and crucyfying of Christ, they did but that which God determined should come to passe.

And upon supposition that God will expose any man unto temptation, and leave him therein destitute of his grace, all which it is but to harden him; wee say it is necessary that men shall goe on in sinne without repentance, as your selfe acknowledge was verified of Pharaoh after the seventh plague: onelyonly wee say this is necessity onelyonly secandum quid, and not simpliciter, and hinders not our liberty: for it is necessary that such a thing should come to passe, but not necessarily but contingently and freely, like as upon supposition of Gods decree to make the world; it is necessary that God should make it, but how? not necessarily like a naturall agent, but freely, like a voluntary agent.

Yet once again to take a view of your uncouth tenents obscurely delivered, whē you say, Pharaoh did not continue one & the same object of Gods decree. It is a very strange speech; for was not the man Pharaoh the object of Gods decree? If he was so, & continued the same man, doth it not follow, that he continued the same object of Gods decree; notwithstanding his person altered much in the space of his life? You may as well say of one of Gods elect, as of David and Paul, that neither of them continued the same object of Gods decree, if the alteration of their natures made them become different objects of Gods decree. Nay, much more may you say so, because farre greater alterations are found in the elect of God then in the reprobate: for in the elect there is found an alteration from the state of nature, to the state of grace; no such alteration is found in the reprobate: the reprobate onelyonly growes from bad to worse; the elect have growne so too before their calling, but by their effectuall calling they are changed, and of the children of this world, they are made the children of God. And after their calling, though after the committing of one sinne, they fall into another, as doe the p. 567reprobate; yet withall againe, they returne unto God by repentance; no such alteration is found in the reprobates, but still prosiciunt in pejus, they grow worse and worse.

Againe, if because the person of a man altereth, therefore the object of Gods decree altereth, seeing that a mans person altereth not only in the course of manners, but in the course of nature, from childehood to youth, from youth to middle age, from middle age to old age, as also from health to sicknesse, from sicknesse to health, therefore the object of Gods decree in this respect altereth also.

If you say the case is not alike; I say you might then have prevented this objection by plaine dealing, and told us not onelyonly in what case, but why, in the case you meane, the object of Gods decree altereth: whereas wee are now driven to fish it out as well as wee can, and bring your opinion to light, and set it forth in the proper and distinct lineaments thereof. Now the reason of the difference I conceive to be this, to wit, because God doth not will the death of a man, according to his naturalls, but according to his moralls, and considered in his moralls. As if you should say, God did not will the death of Pharaoh, but of wicked Pharaoh.

But say I, Pharaoh did alwaies continue wicked Pharaoh, from his birth to his death, never altering from wickednesse to goodnesse; and therefore even in this respect he still continued the same object of Gods decree to damne him. Perhaps you will further say, that Pharaoh, as wicked, was not the object of Gods decree of condemnation, but as having filled up the measure of his iniquity.

But I say againe, from the first time that he thus became the object of Gods decree of condemnation, hee still continued the same: for your selfe confesse, after once they have filled up a certaine measure of iniquity, all possibility of repentance is taken from them. The last refuge for you, is to say, that this speech of yours in denying Pharaoh to continue the same object of Gods decree, is to be understood not in respect of one and the same decree, but in respect of different decrees, thus; Though Pharaoh were wicked all his p. 568life, yet he was not all along the object of Gods decree of condemnation, but untill he had filled the measure of his iniquity, he was the object of Gods decree to save him. For in the consequence you acknowledge, that God doth unfainedly love all men, untill such time as they have filled up the measure of their sinne. And accordingly in another Treatise of yours you acknowledge, that men may change from the state of the elect, to the state of reprobates. And immediately before, you professe that God from all eternity did not will the death, but rather the life of Pharaoh.

This you might have expressed in plaine termes without faultering, but you were loath, as it seemes, to alienate mens mindes with so foule a Tenent, touching the change, not of the object of Gods will and decree onelyonly, but of Gods verie will and decree also; which manifestly appeares by this opening your Tenent, though in termes you professe Gods will is immutable, and would have your reader conceive, that all the alteration is in the object of Gods will and decree, not in the will and decree of God himselfe.

And over and above herehence it followeth, that if Pharaoh had died before the seventh wonder (for till then he had not filled up the measure of his sinnes by your opinion) Pharaoh had beene saved, though he neither had faith nor repentance. For till their soules be betroathed unto wickednesse, God doth not hate them; this is your dialect: whence it followeth, that either all infants of Turkes and Saracens dying in their infancy are saved, or else all men as soone as they are borne are betrothed unto wickednesse, and consequently all reprobates from their birth unto their death continue the same objects of Gods decree without alteration.

And then againe, I pray consider, if God hates them not, and wils not their damnation, untill by filling up the measure of their sinne they are betroathed unto wickednesse (as you speake) then surely hee did not hate them, nor will the condemnation of them in their infancy, much lesse did hee will it before they were borne, much lesse did hee will it before the world was made; yet you have already plainly professed, that p. 569God willed the death of Pharaoh from all eternity; and if from all eternity, then sure he willed it before the world was made, much more before Pharaoh was borne, much more before Pharaoh had filled up the measure of his iniquity. Yet I confesse that though God from all eternity willed the death of Pharaoh, and consequently before Pharaoh was borne, and much more before he had filled up the measure of his iniquity. Yet God did not will that Pharaoh should be damned before he had filled up the measure of his iniquitie, much lesse that he should be damned in his infancie, much lesse before he was borne, much lesse before the world was. So that these two propositions may well stand together without contradiction, God from all eternity willed that Pharaoh should be damned; but God did not will that Pharaoh should bee damned from all eternity, or before hee was borne, or in his infancy, or before he had filled up the measure of his sinnes. But the propositions which you take upon you to free from contradiction, are of a farre different nature, and indeed directly contradictious. God did from all eternity will the death of Pharaoh; God did not from all eternity will the death, but rather willed the life of Pharaoh. And for clearing it, you onelyonly tell us that Pharaoh was not the same object of Gods decree, though he continued the same man. A proposition both very obscure in it selfe, and void of all efficacie to free your selfe from contradiction, neither doe you take any paines to accommodate it, but leaving that as a blanke for your propitious reader to fill up after his owne judgement or affection rather. And the issue of all is, to professe that God did indeede from all etetnity will the life of Pharaoh, and so continued to will it, untill such time as hee had filled up the measure of his sinne; and that from thenceforth hee hated him, as he doth all reprobates, having once betrothed themselves unto wickednesse: which assertion manifestly betraying your opinion as touching the making of Gods will mutable, your desire to satisfie your reader with calling Gods will immutable, and saying that the object of Gods decree is not still the same: Sed quid ego verb a audiam facta cum vidiam? p. 570You manifestly maintaine, that Gods love and will to save, doth cease upon the filling up the measure of sinne, and betrothing a mans selfe to wickedness, and thereupon and from thenceforth hee hates them, and wills their death and damnation, whereas till that time he willed their life and salvation. These propositions (God loves all men, God doth not love all men) I say, are contradictories. All rules of contradiction justifie these to be contradictions.

And your selfe confesse as much in effect; when going about to cleare them from contradiction, you quite alter the forme of them, by shaping them thus in effect, God loves all men till they have filled up the measure of their sinnes, but when once they have filled up the measure of their sinnes, he loves them not. Now these propositions are quite different from the former, neither doe we charge these with contradiction as wee charged the former. But that wherewith wee charge these is this, they make the will of God mutable, contrary to the expresse testimonie of the holy Ghost, saying, I the Lord am not changed, Mal. 3. 6. And Saint Iames professeth, that with the Lord there is no variableness nor shadow of change, which you perceiving, are loath to speake your minde plainly, but to avoide so grose an untruth, had rather cast your selfe upon a manifest contradiction, in saying, God loves all men, and God loves not all men; and to free your selfe from contradiction, betray your corrupt opinion another way, in making Gods love to change into hatred after a certaine time, to wit, after the measure of sinne is filled up: and the onelyonly shift you have to charme it, is to confound the difference of time (which alone avoides the contradiction) and expressing it thus, God loves all men as men, or as men which have not made up the full measure of iniquity; but having made up that, or having their soules betrothed to wickednesse, hee hates them.

But this will not serve your turne: for seeing this contradiction of making up the full measure of sinne, did not belong unto man from the beginning, but onelyonly after a certaine space of time; the difference specified must necessarily resolve p. 571it selfe into a meere difference of time, thus God did love them till they had made up the full measure of sinne, but after that he hated them. And this is further proved: For if the difference onelyonly consisted in respect of different considerations at the same time; then the distinction should have place as well after this full measure of sinne is made up, as before. And so Pharaoh after the filling up of the full measure of sinne, might bee said to be loved of God as a man, and hated as having filled up the measure of sinne: but no where do… you make use of any such distinction. Nay, much more should it have use in this case, and indeed onelyonly in this case: for untill a man hath filled up the measure of his sinne, this distinct consideration hath no place: for a body may bee considered as Ens, or Naturale, or as Quantum, because hee is both Ens and Naturale, and Quantum.

But a man connot be considered at any time as having filled up the measure of his sinne, but onelyonly after that time comes, hee may bee so considered; for to consider him to bee that which hee is not, is not to consider him what hee is, but to faine him to be what he is not. Againe, when you say, God loves all men as men; What is the meaning of this? What do… you denote by this love of God? For wee commonly say, love is not in God, Quoad affectum, but Quoad effectum; at least, Quoad affectum, it is nothing at all different from Gods will. Now I desire to know what that thing is which God wills to man as a man, or what is the effect of this love: and I doubt not but when you say, God hates them as having made up the full measure of their sinne: your meaning is, that God wills their damnation, and that for this measure of their sin. In proportion your answer should be this, That God wills the salvation of all men as they are men; yet here is very great disproportion; for when you say, God wills the damnation of men having filled up the measure of their sin: I finde herein a manifest difference between the reprobate & the elect as touching the cause of damnation, and that on mans part; namely, the making up the full measure of their sin, which is found onelyonly in reprobates, not in the elect.

p. 572But when you say on the contrary side; God wills the salvation of all men as they are men, I finde no difference at all betweene the reprobate and the elect as touching the cause of salvation, either on mans part, or on Gods part; for as touching Gods will, that passeth (you say) upon the salvation of all without difference: then on mans part likewise there is no difference at all, if they are considered onelyonly as men; for the reprobates are men as well as the elect. To help this, you rest not in this consideration of them as men, but adde a clause unto it very inconfiderately as touching the forme, thus, Or at having made up the full measure of their sinne. Now the disjunctive argues that these two considerations are equivalent, which is untrue; for the first consideration proceeds in abstraction from the second.

But I conceive the weakenesse of your cause urgeth you to take hold of all helpes, and thereupon you confound things that differ; for in some cases, the first consideration usually hath place; as when tis said, God hateth nothing that hee hath made: therefore he hateth not man, true, say some, he hateth not man as man: and this distinction seemes plausible to some, and therefore you seemed willing to help your selfe with this by the way, for it might stirre some propitious effection in a pliable reader. But then finding this bed a great deale too short to stretch your selfe thereon, you added by way of disjunctive another consideration, which is this; As not having made up the full measure of sinne. And because you rest upon it, I thinke good to consider it.

Now against this I have already excepted on the part of reprobates, and in the particular of Pharaoh; and argued, that then Pharaoh had beene saved, had he died before the seventh wonder? for, till then in your opinion hee had not made up the full measure of his sinne: yet we doe not finde, that Pharaoh before this time had either faith or repentance.

Now I will propose another exception on the part of Gods elect. Paul never filled up the measure of his sinne, for if he had, then had hee beene a reprobate; but hee was an elect, therefore if hee had died immediately after the s…oning of p. 573Steven, hee had beene saved, though accessary to his death; For he kept the garments of them that slew him, as himselfe confesseth. In a word, all the elect, though dying before ever they were called unto faith and repentance, should notwithstanding bee saved also.

My third exception is against the disproportion that neverthelesse is found in these propositions; for when tis said, God wills the damnation of them that have filled up the measure of their sinne, the filling up the measure of sinne, is noted here as the cause of their damnation; but in saying God willeth the salvation of all, not having filled up the measure of their sinne, the not having filled up the measure of their sinne, cannot be noted as the cause of their salvation. And therefore to mend this foule disproportion, the Genius of your tenet, drives you in conscience to proceede, and professe plainely, that God willeth the salvation of all men that believe and repent: and accordingly God willeth the damnation of all that doe not believe and repent, and such indeed alone are they that fill up the measure of their sinn. Now herein wee agree with you, namely, in justifying the truth of both these propositions.

But like as from the latter it followeth not, that God willeth the damnation of all, but of some onelyonly, namely of those that doe fill up the measure of their sinne, and breake not off their sins by faith and repentance: so from the former it followeth, not that God willeth the salvation of all, but onelyonly that hee willeth the salvation of those that believe and repent. And if you please further to infer that, because perseverance in sinne of infidelitie and impenitencie, as they are the meritorions causes of damnation so they are the meritorious causes of the decree of damnation also: I thinke I may with as good reason take liberty to inferre from the former, that seeing faith and repentance, yea and good workes also are the disposing causes of salvation, therefore they are to bee accounted the disposing causes of the decree of salvation, that is of our election also: And so your opinion shall appeare at full and to life in his proper coulors, not an haires breadth p. 574different, either from the Arminian heresie of late, or from the Pelagian heresie of old.

8 The deductions you speake of in my judgement deserve to be called dictates rather then deductions. As for moderne Catechismes, you are not the first that nibble at them: it is a point of imperious learning now a daies from on high to despise such performances. But to speake as a free man, the lesse they shall consort with these your deductions as you call them, the lesse shall they differ from the truth. As for your concurrence with Bishop Hooper in his preface upon the commandements, which you glorie of now a second time: In this place it is hard, if not impossible to discerne by your text what that passage is of Bishop Hoopers, which you rest upon with ostentation of your concurrence with him, as if your opinions were confirmed by his martyrdome. In the close of the second Section of this chapter, you told us, That it was not every degree of mans hatred or enmity unto God, but a full measure of it which utterly exempts man from Gods love; and withall, that this was observed by Bishop Hooper. But in stead of alledging any passage in him to this purpose, you referred us there to the fourth paragraffe of this chapter, which is this present section.

Yet concerning that sentence, I see a good construction may bee made of it, taking love, quoad effectum (as usually passions are in such sense attributed unto God, and not quoad affectum) and the chiefest effect of Gods love is salvation. Now it is most true, that nothing but finall perseverance in sinne doth bereave men of salvation, of glory; nothing but finall perseverance in sinne, stands in opposition to the possibility of grace succeeding in the same subject. Now albeit in that which followeth it cannot be judged by your text, what you borrow out of Bishop Hooper, and what you doe not. Yet upon consulting Bishop Hoopers Preface unto his exposition of the tenne Commandements, I finde, that both this sentence following, Every man is called in the Scripture wicked and the enemy of God, for the privation and lacke of faith and love that he oweth to God; and all that followeth hereupon to p. 575the end of this eighth Section of yours, is taken out of that Preface of his: and I wonder not a little what you meant, not to discover so much, neither by expresse profession, nor by changing the letter, that thereby at least it might be taken to be another mans discourse, and not your owne.

Well, I am willing to consider what you alledge out of him, and whether his writings bee so consonant as you speake to your deductions. First, you call him, A learned Bishop, and blessed Martyr; Et quis Herculem vituperat? You adde, that this exposition of the ten Commandements made by him, Is a fit Catechisme for a Bishop to make. I am perswaded, the whole Church of England hath a reverend opinion of his learning, of his holinesse, of his martyrdome; and that this Catechisme of his is worthy of a Bishop: but it followeth not herehence, that every Bishop in England doth: neither doe I thinke you your selfe expect they should concurre with him in every opinion of his expressed in this booke.

In his declaration of the ninth Commandement. Fol. 80. he justifieth mendatium ossiciosum, and professeth, that it is required in some cases; Doe you looke that all the Bishops of England should concurre rather with Bishop Hooper, then with Bishop Austine in this opinion.

VponUpon the eighth Commandement, Fol. 74. he complaines, saying, A great pitty it is to see how farre that office of a Bishop is degenerated from the originall in the Scripture, it was not so at the beginning when Bishops were at the best, as the Epistle of Paul to Titus testifieth, that willed him to ordain, in every City of Creet a Bishop: and Fol. 79. ▪as sharpely as closely censureth the Bishops of his dayes, for arrogating to themselves so much wit as to rule & serve in both states, in the Church and in the Civill policie; and to the contrary professeth, that one of them is more then any man is able to satisfie; and that it is not possible that one should doe both well, and that it is a great oversight of the Princes and higher powers of the earth, so to charge them with two burthens, when none of them, as hee saith, is able to beare the least of them both. Doe you expect that all the Bishops in England should bee of his judgement in this?

p. 576On the same commandement, Fol. 73. as touching those who have great Forrests or Parkes of Deere or Conies, which pasture and feed upon their neighbours ground, or Columbaries whereas Doves assemble and haun…, and those feede on the poores corne, hee referres it to the charitie of every man, whether the keeping of such beasts bee not against Gods lawes, and mans lawes, and whether it bee not suffered rather for a few mens pleasures, then for many mens prosit: Doe you thinke that either Church or State are precisely of his opinion, as it is manifested by this?

VponUpon the seventh Commandement, Fol. 69. he maintains, that upon divorse in case of adultery, it is lawfull to marry another; and not so onelyonly, but that the adulterous partie ought to be put to death: Do you wish that the Church and State of England would bee of the same minde with him in this?

VponUpon the fourth Commandement he avoucheth, that although the ceremony of the Sabbath be taken away, which appertained onelyonly to the common wealth of the Hebrews, yet one day of the weeke to preserve and use the word of God and his Sacraments, is not abrogated: and that therefore in this are two things to bee observed, the one ceremoniall during for the time, the other morall, and never to be abolished as long as the Church of Christ shall continue upon the earth. Againe, This Sunday, saith he, that we observe, is not the commandement of man, as many say, that would under the pretence of this one law, binde the Church of Christ to all other laws that men have ungodly prescribed unto the Church: but it is by expresse words commanded that wee should observe this day (the Sunday) for our Sabbath, as the words of Saint Paul declareth, commanding every man to appoint his almes for the poore in Sunday: the text saith, in one of the Sabbath: it is an Hebrew phrase, and it is as much as to say, in the Sunday: as you may read the same manner of speech in Luke and John, of the women that came to the Sepulchre to annoint the dead body of Christ. Luke saith, In one of the Sabbaths early they came to the Sepulchre: and so saith Iohn by the same words, the which was the Sunday, as no man doubteth; for tis our faith, that Christ roso the third day.

I presume you will not prescribe to all the Bishops and Divines p. 577in this kingdome to bee of Bishop Hoopers opinion in this point. Now if in these particulars it bee lawfull to differ from him in opinion, without offence of Church or State; I hope wee shall have as great liberty to differ from him in other things also upon good ground.

Yet I speake not this, as if I found this godly Bishop to justifie that Tenet of yours, for confirmation whereof you make use of his authority. And that Tenet of yours is this, that there is a certaine time when the wicked have filled up the full measure of their iniquity, though they live many years after; and such you conceive was the case of Pharaoh after the seventh plague. And that from that time forwards all possibility of amendment is taken from them. And until that time God doth unfainedly love them. But having made up that measure, and so having their soules betrothed unto wickednesse, he hates them. That then they become reprobates, and not till then; and from thence to their lives end it is not Gods will and pleasure they should repent, but rather that it is Gods good will and pleasure that they should have their hearts hardned. Your words are these in the precedent Section, pag. 180. God loves all men unfainedly as they are men, or a… men which have not made up the full measure of iniquity: but having made up that, or having their soules betrothed unto wickednesse, he hates them. And againe; He necessarily hates them being once become reprobates, or having made up the full measure of iniquitie. And pag. 179. It was no branch of Gods good will and pleasure that Pharaoh should now repent, or be willing to let Israel goe. Rather it was his good will and pleasure (specially after the seventh plague) to have the heart of Pharaoh hardned. And a little after, God plagued Pharaoh for not doing that which now he could not, all possibilitie of amendment being taken from him. My opinion to the contrary is, that no man hath filled up the full measure of his iniquity till death. As touching the possibility of amendment, I acknowledge none in man, without the regenerating grace of God, whereby he gives man repentance. Neither do I know any time in the course of mans life wherin any man is excluded from possibility of repentance by the p. 578grace of God. We know God gave the thiefe repentance upon the crosse. Our Saviour gives us to understand, that God calleth some at the very last houre of the day. Paul admonisheth Timothy to carrie himselfe gently towards them that are without; foreign, if so be God at any time may give them repentance, that they may come to amendment, out of the snare of the devill, by whom they are led captive to doe his will. Of old it was wont to be said, Inter pontem & fontem; and the like is usuall amongst us:

Betweene the stirrop and the ground,

Mercy I askt, mercy I found.

All this which followeth, and which you have transcribed out of Bishop Hooper, I finde nothing that contradicteth any of these assertions of mine, or that justifieth any of your opposite assertions, not in this which immediately followeth thus; Every man is in Scripture called wicked, and the enemy of God, for the privation and lacke of faith and love, that hee oweth to God. Et impij vocantur, qui non omnino sunt pij; that is, They are called wicked, that in all things honour not God, beleeve not in God, and observe not his commandements as they should doe; which we cannot doe by reason of this naturall infirmity, or hatred of the flesh, as Paul calleth it, against God. In this sense taketh Paul the word wicked. So must we interpret S. Paul, and take his words, or else no man should be damned. In all this I finde nothing to that purpose whereto you alledge it.

Yet by the way, I am not of Master Hoopers opinion, in saying, that They were called wicked (meaning in holy Scripture) that in all things honour not God, beleeve not in God, and observe not his commandements as they should, which wee cannot doe by reason of this naturall infirmity, &c. For all this is verified of the very Saints and children of God here on earth; and I doe not finde that the Saints of God in holy Scripture, by reason of their infirmities, not honouring God, not beleeving in God, not observing his commandements in such measure as they should (as God knowes, and our consciences well know p. 579that in many things we offend all,) are therefore called wicked. Especially considering that the Greeke word which Master Hooper aimes at, and which hee renders by the word wicked in English, is foreign, as appeares by his reference to Rom. 5. 8. In this sense (saith Bishop Hooper) taketh Paul this word wicked, when he saith that Christ died for the wicked. Now this state noted by S. Paul in these words, is not the state of grace, but the state of sinne precedent to justification, and the state of enmity against God, as appeares by the two next verses; Much more being justified by his bloud, we shall be saved by his life. 10. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne, &c. Whereby it is manifest that the state of sinne in which we were when wee were reconciled to God by Christs death, was the state of enmity against God. And indeed otherwise there were no place for reconcilement, which consists in making them friends which before were enemies. Neither doe I know any Divine of master Hoopers opinion, in construing S. Paul in this manner, as if these sinners foreign, (which he cals wicked) for whom Christ died, were onelyonly such as doe not honour God, beleeve in God, and observe his commandements as they should, which wee know is incident to the very children of God, and to the most righteous Saints that are on the earth, who yet are never accounted in holy Scripture (for ought I know) the enemies of God. Yet such are they termed for whom Christ died, and who S. Paul saith are reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne.

I willingly grant that Christ died to procure the salvation of none but such as sooner or later should become the Saints of God, to honour him, beleeve in him, and observe his commandements, though not in such measure as they should, by reason of the flesh which they carie about them, still lusting against the spirit; and this seemes, by this place, undoubtedly to be the opinion of Bishop Hooper, though he erreth in the interpretation of S. Paul, who in this place considereth not what shall be their condition sooner or later, for whom Christ died, but only sheweth what was their condition when Christ p. 580died for them, thereby the more to commend the love of God towards us, who sent his Sonne to die for us, when wee were sinners, and reconciled us to himselfe by the death of his Son, what time we were his enemies. And I am perswaded your selfe are of the same opinion with me in this, though I will not say that the evidence of S. Pauls text seemed so plaine unto you, this very way I have interpreted it, that therefore you concealed S. Pauls passage, mentioned by master Hooper thus, When he saith that Christ died for the wicked; and in the margent referres us to Rom. 5. 8. all which you have handsomly left out, to what end I know not. But hereby it comes to passe, that the reader may be to seeke of that passage of S. Paul, in case he have no other meanes to judge thereof, then your transcribing it.

As for the reason of Bishop Hooper to justifie this interpretation of S. Pauls text, it is nothing consequent, as when he saith, So we must interpret Saint Pauls words, or else no man should be damned. If S. Paul had said, Christ died for all the wicked, or for all sinners, then indeed we should be driven to seeke out some such interpretation of the word wicked, or sinners, or else none should bee damned. But S. Paul doth not say, Christ died for all that are wicked, or for all sinners, but for us sinners: his words are these, God commendeth his love to us, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Now he writes unto Christians, and for such onelyonly hee died, though they were not Christians when Christ died for them, but rather in the state of enmity against God. And thus to appropriate Christs dying for mankinde, doth manifestly appeare to bee master Hoopers meaning, as before I shewed, albeit he deviates from the right interpretation of S. Pauls Text, in the place mentioned by him.

That which followeth doth in my judgement carie a greater shew of justifying your former assertions, and yet but a shew neither; as when he saith, Now we know that Paul himselfe, S. Iohn, and Christ damneth the contemners of God, and such as willingly continue in sinne, and will not repent. Those the Scripture excludeth from the generall promise of grace. It may seeme p. 581that The contemners of God, and such as willingly continue in sinne and will not repent, in master Hoopers phrase, are the same in your judgement with those, whom you account to have filled up the measure of iniquity. But what ground have you for that? Master Hooper saith not, that all such whom he accounts contemners of God, and such as willingly continue and sinne, and will not repent, have hereupon filled up the measure of their iniquitie, or that hereupon all possibility of amendment is taken from them; these are your assertions, they are not master Hoopers. Again, all contemners of God, and such as willingly continue in sinne, and will not repent, master Hooper saith, the Scripture excludes from the generall promise of grace, and this he utters without any distinction, as well he may, to wit for the present, and so long as they continue in this their contempt and hardnesse of hart. For as much as the promise of grace, both for the pardon of sinne, and salvation of our soules, belongs to none but such as breake off their sinfull courses by faith and repentance. But you distinguish betweene such contemners of God, and presumptuous sinners, and tell us that some of them have arived to the full measure of their iniquity, and that there is no possibility of their amendment, such as Pharaoh was after the seventh plague; others, though contemners of God, &c. yet in this their course of contempt, have not filled up the measure of their iniquity, such as Pharaoh was before the seventh plague, who undoubtedly was a contemner of God before that time, and one that willingly continued in sinne, and would not repent; and of all such you professe that God doth unfainedly love them.

Now there are no tracks or footsteps of such strange assertions as either of these to be found in Bishop Hooper. Of all contemners of God he professeth according unto Scripture, that they are excluded from all promise of grace, to wit, for the present; he doth not say, God unfainedly loves any of them: but as for the time to come, he doth not affirme that all possibility of amendment is taken from them. Had hee thought so, then he should acknowledge them to bee in a desperate condition.

p. 582But hee is so farre from this, that hee accounts Desperation to bee a principall let and impediment unto godlinesse, chap. 18. fol. 90. The first let, saith hee, or impediment is desperation, when as men thinke they cannot be saved, but are excluded from all mercy; and a little after, Of the contrary nature (to presumption) is desperation, it taketh from God his mercy: For when they offend and continue in sinne, they thinke there is no mercy left for them; and that as in the next sentence he sheweth, specially because of custome and long continuance in sinne. Then he proceeds, saying, This discourse and progresse in that knowledge of sinne beareth him in hand that it is impossible to returne unto God: This is as much as in your phrase to affirme, that, all possibility of amendment is taken from him.

But, doth Mr. Hooper justifie this? Nothing lesse, for this is a maine let or impediment to repentance, which he desires to remove out of the way of sinners, and to that hee proceeds in this manner, Moses, saith he, like a good Physitian teacheth a remedie against this dangerous disease, and sheweth the way unto God, declareth that God is full of mercy, and ready to forgive; and beginneth his oration in this manner, unto such as bee afflicted and oppressed with sinne; When there commeth upon thee all those things, when God hath afflicted thee for thy sinnes, and thou returnest unto him with all thy heart, he shall deliver thee from captivity, and receive thee to his mercy againe. Of the which text learne this doctrine, that God will alwaies forgive, how many and how horrible soever the sinnes bee, and learne to feare presumption, and to beware of desperation. So that hoe acknowledgeth no just cause of desperation, no not in respect of custome and long continuance in sinne.

The next sentence in Mr. Hooper, transcribed by you in this eighth Section of yours, conteines no more then that which wee all acknowledge. Thou seest, saith he, by the places before rehearsed, that though wee cannot believe in God as undoubtedly as is required, by reason of this our naturall sicknesse and disease; yet for Christ, sake in the judgement of God, wee are accounted as faithfull believers, for whose sake this naturall disease p. 583and sicknesse is pardoned, by what name soever Saint Paul calleth the naturall infirmity and originall sinne in man. This is something concerning the nature of originall sinne, in the opinion of Mr. Hooper; nothing at all touching a certaine state of sinne, wherein all possibility of amendment is taken from a man, to which purpose Mr. Hooper is alledged by you in this place.

Yet because I doe not know what reaches you have in this also; I answer, that Mr. Hooper speakes of originall sinne, as it is found in the regenerate, and as it is in them, hee calls it onelyonly, A naturall sicknesse and disease. And indeed, when wee are once regenerate, wee are no longer dead in sinne, no longer estranged from the life of God.

But herehence it followeth not, that Mr. Hooper was of opinion, that originall sinne was even in the unregenerate to bee accounted onelyonly A naturall sicknesse and disease, and not rather a death in sinne; especially considering that the holy Apostle acknowledgeth, A law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde, and leading him captive to the law of sinne, and calleth it, A body of death, crying out against it, and saying, Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Rom. 7. 1. The last clause, as I take it, makes more for your present purpose, as when hee saith, And this imperfection and naturall sicknesse taken of Adam, excludeth not the person from the promise of God in Christ, except wee transgresse the limits and bounds of originall sinne by our! owne folly and malice, and either of a contempt or hate of Gods word, wee fall into sinne, and transforme ourselves into the image of the devill. Then wee exclude by this meanes ourselves from the promises and merits of Christ, who onelyonly received our infirmities and originall disease, and not the contempt of him and his law.

This passage I confesse is somewhat strange, and of my knowledge hath troubled some, conc…iving it as an assertion of yours, and not so much as dreaming that it was delivered by Mr. Hooper. I answer therefore; First of all, that this serves not your turne for the present, & that in two respects. p. 584First, you distinguish the contempt of Gods|word, and of his law, according to different degrees; either|such as was in Pharaoh before the seventh plague, or such as was in Pharaoh after the seventh plague. And notwithstanding the former contempt of Gods word and his law, you professe, that God unfainedly loves all such, in whom such a contempt is found, because for sooth as yet they have not filled up the full measure of their contempt: And as for such in whom is found a farther degree of contempt then this, all possibility of amendment is taken from them.

Now Mr. Hooper doth not make any such distinction, much lesse doth hee cast himselfe upon any such uncoth assertions as you deliver hereupon, as before I have shewed. Secondly, your doctrine of filling up the measure of iniquity, proceeds of men in state of nature; but Mr. Hooper delivers that before rehearsed of men in the state of grace. And in my judgement his meaning is no more then this, that imperfections of faith and holinesse, may and doe still consist with the …ate of grace in this life; but contempt or hate of Gods word, and transformation of our selves into the image of the Devill, cannot stand with the state of grace; not denying but that all contempt and hatred of Gods word, and the fruits of the image of the Devill in us, in case they are broken off, and an end is set unto them by repentance, are borne by Christ upon the Crosse, and satisfaction made for them by the death of Christ, as well as for originall sinne: nor affirming that any man once brought unto the state of grace, doth at any time breake forth so farre, as to contemne or hate Gods word, or to transforme himselfe into the image of the Devill.

But his meaning in my judgement is onelyonly this, that Christ hath made satisfaction for the imperfections of our faith and holinesse, although wee continue therein untill death: but hee hath not made satisfaction for the contempt and hatred of his word, and for our transformation of our selves into the image of the Divell (as h… calleth it) in case men doe continue therein unto death.

p. 583Imperfections may and shall continue, and still bee pardoned, but contempt must not. This hath seemed to others as well as to my selfe, an harsh sentence, and I have taken some paines to cleare it: but how little it serves your turne, to that purpose whereto you alledge it, is easily discovered.