Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 9 · Section 5

Commentary on Romans · Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 9 · Section 5

p. 4335. Places of controversie.

Controv. 1. That succession of Bishops is no sure note of the Church of Christ.

v. 5. Of whom came the fathers: 1. Though the Iewes might alleadge, that they had the fathers, yea, they could shewe a perpetuall succession of high Priests from Aaron vntill the times of our blessed Sauiour, yet for all this they were reiected, and not acknowledged for the Church of God: In like manner the Romanists, pleading for themselues by succession of Bishops, doe but build vponupon a weake ground, vnlesse they could also shewe a continuall succession of true doctrine, together with an outward succession of persons and pace.

2. Our Blessed Sauiour was a Priest after Melchisedech, without any such continued succession, and the Apostles, the first planters of the Gospel, could shew no succession from the high Priests: neither is it necessarie in these times, where religion is corrupted, and the Church deformed, to expect a locall succession for the restoring of religion.

3. Yet the succession of godly Bishops is much to be accounted of where the true faith is continued withall: and for this reason did the fathers, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Augustinae, ascribe so much to the succession of Christian Bishops, who transmitted vntounto their successors true and found doctrine together with their place: See more of succession, Synops. Centur. 1. err. 20.

2. Controv. Against the old heretikes the Manichees, Arrians, Nestorians, confuted out of the 5. v.

1. Where the Apostle saith; of whom came Christ according to the flesh, the Manichees are confuted, which denied Christ to hauehave any true flesh, but onelyonly in shewe; whereas the Apostle saith, that Christ came of the Israelites concerning the flesh: he therefore had true …, because he tooke his nature of them. Likewise their heresie is confuted, that thinke Christ brought his bodie, from heauen, and tooke it not of the Virgin Marie: for then how p. 434could it be true, that Christ according to the flesh came of the fathers?

2. The Arrians also are confuted, who denied Christ to be God, but onelyonly affirmed him to be a creature: for the Apostle saith of Christ, who is God blessed for euer: as Athanasius epist. ad Epictet. vrgeth this place against those, which denied the humanitie of Christ: so Tertullian. lib. de Trinit. Hilar. lib. de Trinit. Theophylact vponupon this place doe alleadge it against those, which impugne the diuine nature of Christ.

3. The Nestorians also which denied the vniting of Christs two natures into one person, but onelyonly affirmed it to be by grace, are here refelled: for the Apostle speaketh of one and the same Christ, which according to the flesh came of the fathers, yet was God aboue all blessed for euer: Ireneus lib. 3. cap. 18. applieth this place against such a like heresie of those which diuided Iesus from Christ, and affirmed Iesus to be one, and Christ an other.

3. Controv. Against the prophane and impious collections of Eniedinus, and Socinus late heretikes.

Whereas the Apostle expressely saith of Christ, who is God ouer all, blessed for euer, &c. these two forenamed heretikes contend by their impious cavills to shew, that Christs diuine nature is not prooued out of this place.

1. This phrase, who is blessed for euer, is alwaies in Scripture giuen vntounto God the father: as Rom. 1.23. 2. Cor. 1.3. and 11.31.

2. Not eueryevery one, that is called God in Scripture, is consequently that chiefe and great God.

3. Christ is said to be ouer all, that is, men, as the most excellent man of all, not ouer all whatsoeuer.

4. He is said to be ouer all with a limitation, for he is not ouer him that hath subdued all things vntounto him, 1. Cor. 15.27.

5. And in that he is ouer all, he hath it not by nature but of gift, Philip. 2.9.

Contra. Erasmus seemeth first to hauehave giuen occasion to these newfangled Dogmatists, who likewise in his annotations vponupon this place, thinketh this Scripture not so fit to prooue the diuine nature of Christ: adding that herein there is no daunger, seeing there are more direct places to prooue Christs Godhead by: But Pet. Martyr here answeareth well, non convenit vt Ecclesiae armamentarium sine causa exhauriatur, &c. it is not conuenient, that the armorie of the Church should without cause be diminished: seeing the fathers, as Origen, Chrysost, Theophylact, Cyprian, cont. lud. lib. 2. c. 5. Hilarius in Psal. 122. doe all alleadge this place for the proofe of Christs deitie, it is not fit, that we should suffer it to be wrestled out of our hands: their cauills are thus answeared.

1. Where the father is said to be blessed for euer, the Sonne is not excluded, and in some places Christ is said expressely to be blessed for euer, as Matth. 21.9. Blessed is be that commeth in the name of the Lord: and if the Creator be blessed for euer, Christ is included by whom all things were created, Ioh. 1. Coloss. 1.

2. He which is said to be God ouer all, as Christ here, must of necessitie be that chiefe and great God.

3. Some indeede reade super omnia, ouer all things, as Origen, the Syrian and Latine interpreter: and this is agreeable to that place, Coloss. 1.17. He is before all things, and in him all things consist: and the Apostle nameth both things visible and invisible: and so Origen well expoundeth, he is aboue all things, that is, powers, principalities, and euerie thing that is named.

4. He is aboue all things, that is, all creatures, and aboue all, as the father is aboue all, and yet neither aboue the Sonne or the holy Ghost: the father then is here excepted: for Christ and his father are one, non post patrem ipse, sed de patre, he is not after the father, but of the father, Origen.

5. S. Paul in that place speaketh of the exaltation of Christ as he is Mediator and according to his humane nature: and so he hath it by gift: but as he is God, he is ouer all by his eternall generation, as the onelyonly begotten Sonne of God.

Controv. 4. That the water in Baptisme doth not sanctifie or giuegive grace.

Chrysostome sheweth here a fit analogie and resemblance betweene the birth of Izaak o… p. 435Sara by the word of promise, v. 9. and our spirituall regeneration in baptisme: the barren wombe of Sarah, he likeneth to the water, which of it selfe hath no efficacie, erat vterni ille aqua frigidior, propter sterilitatem & senectutem, that wombe was more vnapt for generation, then water, because of the barrennesse and old age thereof: like as then Izaak was borne of that barren wombe by the word of promise, ita & nos oportet ex verbo nasci, so we are borne of the word: To this purpose Chrysostome, who maketh the element of water of it selfe but a dead thing, and like vntounto Sarahs barren wombe, which could not hauehave conceiued, but by the word of promise: So the Apostle saith, Ephes. 5.25. Cleansing it by the washing of water thorough the word: the water cleanseth, but by the operation of the word: This then ouerthroweth that opinion of the Romanists, which affirme that the sacramentall signe in the sacraments conferre grace: See further hereof, Synops. Centur. 2. err. 76.

Controv. 5. Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities.

v. 10. Rebecca, when she had conceiued by one, &c. Augustine lib. 2. de doctrin. Christian. c. 21. by this Scripture confuteth the folly of Mathematicians, who in casting of mens natiuities doe obserue the aspect of the planets, and so doe calculate and coniecture of the disposition of men: for Esau and Iacob were borne at the same time of one and the same parents, and yet they were of diuerse dispositions and qualities, and conditions of life.

Controv. 6. That the soules had no beeng in a former life, before they came into the bodie.

It was Origens error who therein did too much Platonize, that the soules in the former life, according to their workes good or euill, were accordingly appointed of God to saluation or damnation. But this error is euidently conuinced by the Apostle here: for Esau and Iacob had neither done good nor euill, before they were borne: Lyranus addeth two other reasons to convince this error. 1. if there had beene an other life before, then the world was not created in the beginning, as it is said Gen. 1.1. for that the soules had a beeing and beginning before. 2. and temporale non potest esse causa aeterni, no temporall thing can be the cause of that which is eternall: the actions then and workes of the soule, could not be the cause of the act of Gods eternall will.

Controv. 7. Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election.

This was in time past maintained by the followers of the Pelagian sect, as it appeareth by the epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatens. sent to Augustine: and not much differing is the opinion of the Greeke expositors: as Theodoret in these words (that the purpose of God might remaine according to election,) vnderstandeth the purpose of men foreseene of God, according to the which he electeth: But the Apostle euidently calleth it the purpose of God, and therefore not of men: Chrysost. and Photius cited by Oecumenius, doe here vnderstand the purpose of God: but where it is added, according to election, they say this election presupposeth a difference and diuersitie of wills foreseene of God.

The late Lutherans tread in the same steppes… who at the first did hold that the foresight of faith was the cause of election: but now they hauehave somewhat refined that assertion: and their opinion now is, fidem non esse electionis causam meritoriam, sed instrument alem, that faith is not the meritorious but the instrumentall cause of election: their arguments are these.

1. Argum. Photius thus reasoneth: electio de illis fit; qui aliqua in re differunt, election is said to be of those, which differ in some thing: God then did see some difference in them which he elected from others.

Contra. 1. Augustine at the first was somewhat mooued with this argument, which made him deuise an other sense of the Apostles words, to this effect: that it was said vntounto the children beeing not yet borne, and before they had done either good or euill, the elder shall serue the younger: least the purpose of God should remaine according to election, which he supposeth to rise of some difference in the parties elected: to this purpose Augustine, lib. ad Simplician. quest. 2. But this parenthesis, or interlaced sentence is …tered by the Apostle affirmatively, That the purpose of God might remaine, &c. p. 436it cannot therefore be drawne to a negatiue sense: And indeede Augustine whether vponupon this or some other reason, otherwise expoundeth these words, epist. 115.

2. But the best answear is, that the proposition is not true, for election in God presupposeth not a difference: God may make election euen in things in themselues equall, by the right of his Creatorship, and make a difference: as euidently appeareth in the creation of the world, when all things were equall at the first, in that indigested himpe and masse, whereout the creatures were made: and yet our of it were different creatures made: some lightsome, as the Sunne and starres, some darke and obscure, as the earth and earthly things: And so the Lord in his decree of predestination made a difference in his election, according to his good pleasure of things, which differed not before: And so there is a difference indeede in those which are elected from others, sed non invenit Deus, sed ponit ipse in hominibus differentiam, but God findeth not any such difference in men, but he maketh it, Pet. Martyr: the difference then dependeth not of the nature of the things, but of the purpose and counsell of God.

2. Arg. 1. S. Paul saith, Ephes. 1.4. He hath elected vsus in him, that is, in Christ: but none are in Christ without faith: that then which ioyneth vsus to Christ, is the cause of election. 2. againe, 2. Thess. 2.13. we are said to be chosen to saluation in faith. 3. and Heb. 11.6. It is impossible to please God without faith: the elect are pleasing to God: therefore by faith they were accepted. 4. and seeing faith is the instrumentall cause of saluation, why not also of election? Thus the Lutherans reason for the foresight of faith.

Contra. 1. Not euerie thing whereby we are ioyned vntounto Christ, is the cause of election: but that whereby we were first giuen vntounto Christ, which is the absolute and free merciemercy of God: who elected vsus of his free grace and merciemercy, and in Christ appointed to bring those whom he elected vntounto eternall life: And the Apostle doth expound himselfe, what he meaneth, by beeing elected in Christ: that is, he hath predestinate vsus to be adopted thorough Christ: faith then in Christ is not the cause of election, but a meane subordinate to bring the elect vntounto saluation.

2. We are said to be chosen in faith, not faith foreseene, as the cause of election, but in faith present as a meane vntounto saluation.

3. The same answear may serue to the third place obiected: which must be vnderstood likewise, de fide praesenti, non praevisa, of faith present, not of faith foreseene: for God thorough his merciemercy elected vsus, beeing yet his enemies: his louelove therefore was before any foresight of faith: by his merciemercy he made vsus acceptable vntounto himselfe, by the election of grace, before he sawe any thing in vsus.

4. It followeth not, that euerie thing which is the cause of saluation should be the cause of election: it is true in the generall cause, which is the merciemercy of God, which causeth as well the one as the other: but not in the next and immediate causes: as for example, the father is the cause of his son, and the son of the nephew, and yet the son is not the cause of the father; so election is the cause of faith, and faith of saluation: but it therefore followeth not that faith should be the cause of election. And Hunnius that was at the first a great patrone of this cause, in the ende argueth, that faith in the mysterie of election was to be considered neither vt causam meritoriam, as a meritorious or instrumentall cause, sed vt partem illius ordinis, &c. but as a part of that order which God had appointed, that is, a meane vntounto saluation, Pareus dub. 6.

3. Arg. If God simply should elect some and refuse others without foresight of their faith: how is he not an accepter of persons?

Ans. The accepting of person is, when against the rule of iustice a man of no good parts or qualites is preferred before him that is well qualified: But there is no feare of this in Gods election: for he findeth all alike in themselues: none endued with any good gifts or qualities, but as he giueth them: therefore herein he is no accepter of persons, in preferring one before an other, all beeing alike. Now on the contrarie side, that the foresight of faith or any thing in man is not the cause of election, but onelyonly the good pleasure and will of God, it may be thus further confirmed.

1. The Apostle in saying, not by workes, but by him that calleth, excludeth whatsoeuer in man: for if either the foresight of faith or of any other thing, and not onelyonly of works should be the cause of election, then it should not be onelyonly in the caller, as the Apostle here saith, Mart. Pareus, Tolet annot. 19.

p. 4372. The effect of election is not the cause: faith with the fruits thereof are the effects of election, Ephes. 1.4. he hath chosen vsus that we should be holy: Pareus.

3. The eternall decree of God is not founded in that which is temporarie: the faith or good workes of men are but temporarie things: and therefore they cannot be the ground and foundation of Gods eternall decree. Faius.

4. Faith is the worke of God, Ioh. 6.29. therefore not the cause of his election: so the same thing, should be the cause of it selfe: and so also be before it selfe. Pareus.

5. If election depended vponupon the foresight of good workes, then it would followe, that we are iustified by workes: for from election and predestination proceedeth our vocation, and from vocation iustification: and if election be out of the foresight of works, then iustification also which followeth election by degrees. Mart.

6. Lyranus addeth this reason further, Deus non vult finem propter ea, quae sunt ad finem, God will not appoint the ende for those things which tend vntounto the ende: but rather these are for the ende: now faith and works are but the way to the ende, and therefore they cannot be the cause of the appointment of the end, that is, that men should attaine vntounto euerlasting glorie: Lyran. vponupon this place.

7. Tolet also annot. 16. vrgeth this reason: whereas the Apostle saith, v. 14. is there iniquitie with God? if he had meant that the difference in the decree of election ariseth out of the foresight of faith, then the reason had beene apparent, and there had beene no shew at all of any iniustice in God, and so no place for this obiection at all: See further of this question before, c. 8. contr. 16.

Controv. 8. That not onelyonly election vntounto grace, but vntounto glorie also is onelyonly of the good will of God.

Stapleton antidot. p. 126. will hauehave this place of the Apostle to be vnderstood onelyonly of election vntounto grace, which is the first effect and fruit thereof, and this onelyonly proceedeth frō the free grace and merciemercy of God, but the election vntounto glorie, which is the last effect thereof is not without the foresight of workes: he reasoneth thus.

Argum. Election to glorie is not onelyonly of him that calleth, for it is also by iustification, for whom he iustified he also glorified, Rom. 8.30. but the election whereof the Apostle speaketh here is onelyonly of the caller, therefore he speaketh not here of election vntounto glorie, but of election onelyonly to the first grace.

Contra. 1. Other Romanists herein dissent from Stapleton, as Bellarmine lib. 2. de grat. c. 15. sheweth that men are freely elected not onelyonly vntounto grace, but vntounto glorie: so also Peter. disput. 5. and before them Thomas in his commentarie denieth, that praescientia meritorum, the foresight of merits is the cause of predestination to glorie; likewise Lyran. here.

2. And for the argument: Glorification, as well as grace is onelyonly of God that calleth as the efficient cause: iustification goeth before glorification, not as an efficient, or meritorious cause, but as a meane appointed of God to that ende.

3. But that the Apostle speaketh euidently of election as well vntounto glorie as vntounto grace it is euident. 1. he treateth of election vntounto the promise: for he maketh expresse mention of the children of the promise, v. 8. but the promise comprehendeth both the first grace in our vocation, and the rest that followe, iustification, glorification. 2. he speaketh of election ioyned with the dilection and louelove of God, Iacob hauehave I loued: but whom God loued he loueth to the ende, and bringeth them vntounto eternall life. 3. v. 23. the Apostle in direct tearmes maketh mention of the vessels of merciemercy prepared to glorie: he therefore speaketh here of election to glorie.

Controv. 9. That the Apostle treateth as well of reprobation in this place, as of election.

Huberus, who defendeth vniuersal grace, will hauehave the Apostle here onelyonly to speake of election, and not of reprobation: for he holdeth all generally to be elected: the same is the assertion of Stapleton antid. p. 565. against Calvin, that S. Paul treateth onelyonly of election here, and not of reprobation at all: he reasoneth thus.

Argum. 1. OnelyOnly election is of God that calleth, the purpose of God is according to election, therefore the purpose of God is of election.

Answ. 1. The purpose of God is according to election, but not onelyonly, which must be assumed, or els nothing can be concluded: but the purpose of God is as well concerning reprobation as election: the purpose and counsell of God is generall to both, and it sorteth it else either into the purpose of election or reprobation.

p. 4382. And that the Apostle intendeth in this discourse, as well to speake of reprobation as of election, it thus appeareth. 1. by the text it selfe: he expressely mentioneth both the louelove of God to Iacob, and his hatred of Esau, v. 22.23. he speaketh of the vessels of wrath and of the vessels of merciemercy. 2. so much also is insinuated by the nature and propertie of election: for an election of some supposeth that there is a reiection and reprobation of others: As when Moses saith vntounto Israel, the Lord chose you aboue all people, it followeth that as they were elected, so all the rest were refused and reiected.

Controv. 10. Whether as well the decree of reprobation, as of election, be without the foresight of works.

Here are two opinions opposite in two extreames one to the other; the one was of the Pelagians, who vtterly condemned the absolute decree of reprobation, without any respect of works; and Catharinus also in his commentaries vponupon this epistle: some other doe make the decree of reprobation and damnation to be a free act of the will and purpose of God, as election is. But beside these there is a third opinion betweene both, that the decree of reprobation, neither issueth onelyonly from the free and absolute will of God, not yet altogether dependeth of the foresight of sinne; but proceedeth in part from them both. We will now examine these opinions in order.

1. Of the first sort that hold the decree of reprobation altogether to proceede from the foresight of sinne, some doe hold strange paradoxes, as Catharinus before named, whose opinion is this, that God appointed all to be saued, but some absolutely, as Marie, and other holy men and women, some conditionally, if they beleeued and did works, they should be saued, if otherwise, they should be damned; not much differing is the opinion of Becanus, a late Popish writer, who affirmeth that God simply in the beginning appointed all to be saued voluntate primaria, by his first and principall will, but secundaria voluntate, by his secundarie will he would some to be condemned for their sinne, cap. 1. loc. 12. de pradestinat. &c. 5. loc. 4.

But the former of these opinions, is distasted by the Romanists themselues, as Pererius in c. 8. ad Rom. disput. 25. refuseth it vponupon this reason, because vna est ratio, &c. there is one and the same reason of all that are predestinate vntounto saluation; how then can some be certainly appointed and absolutely, some vncertainly and conditionally; for all which are ordained vntounto life, are written in the booke of life, out of the which none can be blotted out. And against Becanus assertion it may thus be obiected.

1. If God indeede would hauehave all to be saued, why are not all saued? for none can resist the will of God; this then sheweth either God to be impotent in not performing his will, or variable in changing his purpose concerning those, whom he first intended to be saued; neither of which imputations must be laid vponupon God. 2. seeing God getteth glorie as well by shewing his power and exercising his iustice vponupon the wicked, as by shewing merciemercy vponupon the elect, the one is as primarily the will of God as the other; for God primarily intendeth his owne glorie, but in the punishment of the wicked Gods glorie is set forth, therefore the decree of iustice as well as of merciemercy standeth with the primarie and principall will of God.

2. Augustine though nothing fauouring these erroneous conceits, yet he referreth reprobation vntounto the foresight of originall sinne, and considereth man in massa corrupta, in the masse of corruption, as all hauehave transgressed in Adam, Vniversa massa poenas dedit, &c. the whole masse (of mankind) is worthie of punishment, and if the punishment of damnation, should be rendred vntounto all, non iniuste proculdubio redderetur, it should not be rendred vniustly, &c. and again in an other place, vna quaedam massa peccati supplicium debens diuina iustitiae, &c. there is one masse of sinne, which is endebted to the diuine iustice: quod siue exigatur, siue donetur, nulla est iniquitas, which though it be exacted or pardoned, there is no iniquitie: ad Simplic. lib. 1. qu. 2.

In this assertion there is no inconueniencie, to say that God beholding and foreseeing all men by the voluntarie transgression of Adam in the state of corruption, did of his free mercy elect some to be saued in Christ, the others he left in their corruption, and so for their sinnes decreed thē to damnation: for here can be no imputation of iniustice at all: for it is free where one hath diuerse debters to remit the debt vntounto one, and to exact it of another.

So then if the reason be demanded, why some are reiected of God, it may be answeared, that mans voluntarie transgression, bringing all his posteririe into bondage, beeing foreseene of God, is a sufficent cause of their reiection; but if it be further demaunded, why p. 439God out of this masse of corruption, hath elected some, and not others, there no other reason can be giuen, but the good pleasure of God, Ephes. 1.5. so that the absolute decree of reprobation, is grounded vponupon the foresight of mans corruption, but of the comparatiue, as why one is reiected and left, and not an other, no reason can be rendred, but Gods gracious and free purpose.

Against this opinion of Augustine, there are two principall obiections. 1. Pererius disput. 12. thus obiecteth: the Angels had no originall sinne, they were all created in the state of grace, and yet some of them were elected, some reprobate: therefore sinne is not the cause of reprobation.

Ans. 1. As the Angels were created in the state of grace, so also was Adam in Paradise; and as Adam fell by voluntarie transgression and so enthralled his posteritie, so did the Angels that fell, abuse the gift of freewill, and so for their pride were iustly condemned for euer: so then the foresight of the apostasie of the reprobate Angels, was the cause of their reiection and condemnation: as the Apostle saith, Iud. 6. The Angels, which kept not their first estate, he hath reserued in euerlasting chaines: as man then hath originall sinne, out of the which proceed actuall sinnes, which are the ground and cause of reprobation and condemnation; so the Apostate Angels for their sinne of pride were reiected: onelyonly here is the difference, that the Angels fell irrecouerable, falling by their owne pride beeing not seduced: but man falling by the sedition and tentation of the deuill, hath a redeemer in Gods merciemercy prouided for him.

2. Pareus thus obiecteth: the foresight of originall corruption is generall and common to all mankind, therefore it cannot be the cause of the reprobation of some onelyonly: dub. 8. argum. 4. so also Vrsinus catech. 3. p. 357.

Ans. Not simply the foresight of originall corruption, which all are subiect vntounto, but it beeing considered together with Gods decree, because he purposed to deliuer some, and not others, is the cause of reprobation.

3. Some doe wholly referre the decree of reprobation and election onelyonly to the will and purpose of God: and thinke, that no other cause can be rendred, why God hath elected some, and condemned others but the absolute will, pleasure, and purpose of God: their reasons are these.

1. As God loued Iacob, before he had done any good, so he hated Esau, without any respect vntounto the euill which he did, Rom. 9.11.

2. The Apostle also saith, v. 18. That God hath merciemercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth: Gods will is the cause of both.

3. And God is compared to the potter, that as he hath power ouer the clay to make thereout vessels of honour, or dishonour, as he thinketh good: so much more the Lord may out of the same masse, make some vessels of merciemercy, some of euerlasting shame.

4. Our Blessed Sauiour maketh this the reason, why God had hid the misterie of saluation from the wise men, and reuealed it to babes, because O Father, thy good pleasure was such, Matth. 11.25.

Ans. 1. Why God loued not Esau as well as Iacob, the cause was onelyonly the gracious purpose of God: and hereof neither the good workes of the one, nor the euill workes of the other were the cause: yet both of them beeing considered in their originall corruption, as it was Gods merciemercy to deliuer the one, so it was no iniustice to leaue the other. 2. here the hatred of God is taken onelyonly for the not conferring of his grace and louelove, which God freely bestowed without respect vntounto workes: but that hatred, which is an ordaining of men vntounto euerlasting punishment, is not without respect vntounto their sinnes.

2. MercieMercy presupposeth miserie, and hardening a corrupt inclination in the heart before, for the which it is hardened: here then mans miserable estate is insinuated, out of the which some by Gods merciemercy are deliuered.

3. By that similitude the Apostle sheweth what God may doe by his absolute power, not what he doth: he dealeth not with men, as the potter with the clay, though he might; that is stricto & absoluto iure, by his strict and absolute right; but aequissimis rationibus, vponupon most equall and iust conditions: he might doe as the potter doth, but yet he taketh not that rigorous and strict course.

4. It is indeed Gods good pleasure to reueale the secrets of his will to whom he pleaseth, and to hide them from whom he will: because he is not bound vntounto any, he may doe p. 440with his owne, as he please and bestow his graces freely: but if he should keepe them from all, none had cause to complaine, seeing their naturall blindnes and corruption was brought vponupon them by the voluntarie corruption of Adam: and though it was Gods gracious favour, to reueale vntounto some his will, yet the rest were hardened and blinded iustly through their owne wilfulnesse and obstinacie against the truth.

And further against this opinion of the absolute decree of reprobation, without any respect vntounto the sinnes of men originall and actuall, these two strong obiections are made: first there would be an imputation of iniustice vponupon God, if he should decree any to be condemned but for sinne: for like as none are indeed in time condemned but for sin: as the Apostle saith, Ephes. 5.6. For such things commeth the wrath of God vponupon the children of disobedience, &c. so the decree of damnation before all time must be vponupon the foresight of sinne.

Secondly, whereas God in Scripture is set forth to be exceeding aboundant in merciemercy, as Psal. 25.10. All the waies of the Lord are merciemercy and truth: and Psal. 144.9. His mercies are ouer (or aboue) all his workes: and Iames 2.13. merciemercy reioyceth against iudgement: Now the Lord should be accused of seueritie and inclemencie, and farre more readie and prompt vntounto iustice, then merciemercy, if he out of his owne will should decree more to be condemned, then to be saued: these obiections, the former position of the absolute decree of damnation beeing maintained, cannot possibly be answeared.

4. Whereas to shunne these rockes of offence, and to preuent these obiections, some here hauehave found out a middle or meane way, to referre the decree of reprobation partly to the will of God, as the efficient, partly to the foresight of sinne, as the materiall cause thereof: And here these distinctions are brought in.

1. Lyranus thus distinguisheth, that reprobation is either taken large, largely, and so it signifieth onelyonly simplicem negationem ad gloriam, a simple deniall of glorie: and this hath no cause in Gods prescience, but onelyonly in the will of God: or it is taken proprie, properly, for ordinario ad poenam, an ordaining vntounto punishment, and so it is not willed or decreed of God, nisi propter culpam, but for sinne: Bellarmine also fleeth to the same distinction of negatiue reprobation,lib. 2. de grat. & liber. c. 17. which is not to hauehave merciemercy, & positive to decree vntounto condemnation: of this the foresight of sinne (he saith) is the cause, of the other the free will of God: But seeing this negatiue reprobation containeth a priuation and deniall of euerlasting glorie, this also must arise from the foresight of sinne: for God excludeth none out of his kingdome but for sinne: as the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 6.9. Know ye not, that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God.

2. Gorrhan hath this distinction: there is a double kind of reprobation, temporalis, the temporall, which is, non appositio gratiae, the not affording or giuing of grace, and eterna, voluntas non apponendi, the eternall, which is the will or purpose of not giuing of grace: this is without the foresight of any merite, but not the other: like vntounto this is that difference which some make betweene the decree, and the execution of the decree: the first is without respect vntounto sinne, but sinne commeth betweene, before the other: But this doth not satisfie, as Pareus well obserueth: for the same cause mooued God to decree punishment, which mooueth him in time to execute punishment.

3. Some doe thus consider of predestination, that it is of two sorts: there is decretum foreign, a decree simply called, of those things whereof God is the author and efficient cause himselfe, such is the decree of election vntounto life: there is decretum foreign, secundum quod, a decree after a sort, which may also be called, permissivum, the decree of permission, as the other is effectivum, an effecting and working decree: of this latter sort is the decree of reprobation: the meanes which lead thereunto, God onelyonly permitteth, and effecteth not, as the sinne and iniquitie of men, for the which they are worthily condemned: to this purpose Rollocus in 8. ad Roman. p. 181.182. But this doth not satisfie: for the decree of damnation is as well an effecting decree, as is the decree of election: God willeth and decreeth the damnation of the wicked as effectually in his iustice, as he effectually willeth the saluation of the elect: as the wise man saith in the Proverbs, 16.4. That the Lord hath made all things for his owne sake, yea euen the wicked for the day of euill.

4. Iunius against Puk…us resp. ad ration. 72. maketh two degrees of reprobation: decretum praeteritionis, the decree of preterition, which is the purpose of God, not to shew merciemercy, and this is absolute without any respect vntounto sinne: then there is decretum ex praescientia, p. 441the decree of reprobation, issuing forth of God prescience: and so none are decreed to be condemned, but for sinne: some call the first decretum non miserandi, the decree not to shew merciemercy, the other decretum puniendi, the decree of punishment: Pareus dub. 8. p. 913. citeth Mr. Perkins, who calleth them, decretum deserendi, the decree of desertion, and ordinatio ad poenam, an ordaining to punishment: Pareus out of his owne iudgement saith, that there are two acts of reprobation, negativus, the negatiue, that is not to hauehave merciemercy, and affirmativus, the affirmatiue, which is to condemne: the negatiue act, is either reprobation from grace, or from glorie: the first of these which is a reiection from grace, be thinketh onelyonly to proceed from the good pleasure of God, but not the other: all these distinctions are the same in effect, which else where I hauehave followed,Synops p 822. allowing that distinction especially of Iunius, as giuing full satisfaction in this matter: But now I find some doubts and obiections, which are not yet remooued by these distinctions.

1. Seeing damnation necessarily followeth reiection, and where grace is denied, glorie cannot follow: if the deniall of the one should be the absolute act of Gods will, so by consequence should the other also.

2. And the Scripture sheweth that the cause why God reiecteth man, is for that they reiect God first; as Samuel saith concerning Saul, 1. Sam. 15.23. Because thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, the Lord hath cast away thee: and Rom. 1.24.27. the Apostle sheweth that the giuing vp of the Gentils vntounto their hearts lusts, was a iust recompence of their error; therefore because the substraction and deniall of grace, the hardening of the heart, the blinding of the mind, are punishments of sinne, and sinne goeth before the punishment thereof, it followeth that these things, as they are not temporally inflicted but for sinne, so neither are they eternally decreed but vponupon the foresight of sinne.

3. If God should absolutely reiect any otherwise thou for sinne, and more are reiected, then elected, then should Gods iustice farre exceed his merciemercy, and his seueritie farre surpasse his clemencie.

To this last obiection Thomas Aquin. maketh this answer by a distinction, that bonum proportionatum communi status naturae, &c. the good things which are proportioned to the common state and condition of nature, are found in the most: but bonum quod excedit com… statum, &c. the good things, which exceed the commō state, are found in few: as they are found more, which hauehave sufficient knowledge and direction for the gouernment of their life, then they which want it, such as are idiots and fooles; but there are few, which are found, that hauehave the profunditie and depth of knowledge: and of this kind of euerlasting life, it exceedeth the common state and condition of humane nature, and therefore it is no maruel, if it be found in the fewest and smallest number: to this purpose Thomas 1. part. qu. 25. artic. 7.

But this answer is not sufficient; he hath giuen a good reason, why eternall life is not merited, or procured by mans deserts, because it is a gift, which exceedeth the proportion, and condition of mans nature; but yet the reason appeareth not, neither is the doubt satisfied, why, seeing God aboundeth in mercy, euerlasting life is not giuen vntounto the most: therefore Thomus addeth further, that Gods merciemercy appeareth in that he directeth some vntounto life from the which the most decline, by the common cause and inclination of nature: And indeed this is the best and most sufficient answear, that Gods merciemercy herein exceedeth his iustice, that whereas all men by nature are the children of wrath, and God might iustly …aue them in their sinne, as he did the reprobate Angels, yet out of that masse of corruption he saueth some, to bring them vntounto glorie; so then, vnlesse the fall and transgression of man he presupposed, there is no way to magnifie Gods merciemercy aboue his iustice. Thus Thomas Aquin, though he mislike Augustines opinion (who maketh the foresight of originall …ne the ground of the decree of reprobation) and thinketh that God absolutely reiecteth the reprobate without any foresight of sinne, yet is constrained to seeke shelter here for the …iding of this obiection.

5. Wherefore fully to decide this great question, and controversie touching the decree … reprobation, we will determine of it in this manner.

1. There is reprobatio indefinita, & definita, a reprobation indefinite; that is, that some …e elected, some reiected: and a definite reprobation, whereby some are certainely reiected, and not others; of the first the cause is onelyonly in God, for the demonstration of his merciemercy …ard the elect, and of his iustice and power toward the reprobate, as the Apostle sheweth p. 442v. 22.23. and so the wise man saith, Prov. 16.4. that God made all things, euen the wicked for himselfe: and to this purpose Thomas well saith, that the reason of election and reprobation is taken from the goodnesse of God, quae multiformiter in rebus representatur, which by his meanes is diuersely represented and set forth in the creatures: when a… some things are in an high, some in a low degree: If all should be elected, Gods iustice should not appeare, if all were condemned, where were his merciemercy? But of the definite and certaine reprobation, why some are in particular reiected, the cause is the foresight of their sinne.

2. Againe reprobation is considered two waies, absolute, comparate, absolutely, as in reiecting these and these, and comparatiuely, in reiecting these rather, then those: of the first the reason is the generall corruption of mankind, which transgressed in Adam, who abused his freewill in choosing euill, it beeing in his power to hauehave made choice of the good, and so he brought all his posteritie into bondage vntounto sinne; in which state of corruption God iustly might hauehave left all, if it had pleased him: but of the comparatiue reprobation, why God left others in their naturall corruption, and freed others, no reason can be giuen, but the good pleasure of God: as Saint Paul saith, Ephes. 2.3. We were by nature the children of wrath, as well as others, but God who is rich in merciemercy through his great louelove, &c. hath quickned vsus: so Augustine well saith, quare hunc Deus trahat, & illum non trahat, no… … dijudicare, si non vis errare, why God draweth one (out of that masse of corruption) and not an other, take not vponupon thee to iudge, if thou wilt not erre. epistol. 105.

3. We must distinguish betweene absolutum ius Dei, and ordinatum, the absolute right which God hath ouer his creatures, and his moderate or subordinate right: By his absolute right the Creator hath power to dispose of his creature, as it pleaseth him, to life or to death, as the potter hath power of the same clay to make some vessels of honour, some of dishonour: and if the Lord should thus deale with his creature, euen without any respect vntounto sinne, no man could accuse, or challenge God: But he dealeth not thus with vsus, secundum spiritum & absolutum ius, according to his strict and absolute right; but according to his subordinate right, whereby he proceedeth not against the creature, either in condemning it, or decreeing the same to be condemned, without iust cause giuen by the creature: And thus the Apostle dealeth in this place: by the similitude of the potter, v. 20.22. he sheweth what absolute power, and right God hath if he would please to vse it, and v. 22.23. he speaketh of the other ordinarie right and power, which God indeed vseth in proceeding against the vessels of wrath, prepared (by their owne sinnes) vntounto destruction. Pareus. And Tolet here well obserueth, that the Apostle maketh two answers vntounto the obiection propounded, one to stop the mouthes of gainesayers, in vrging the absolute power of God, the other to satisfie the faithfull, in shewing that God doth not execute his wrath vponupon any but for their sinne: annot. 28.

Concerning this distinction of the strict or absolute right and power of God, and his ordinarie or rather subordinate right, though it be admitted on both sides, both by Protestant, and Popish writers, yet there is this difference. 1. Some doe thinke, and so professe and teach, that God vseth as well his absolute, as subordinate power in the decree of reprobation: and thus Bucer, Calvin, Zanchius, affirme that God by his absolute will hath reprobate and reiected some, without respect vntounto their sinnes. 2. Pareus, who also acknowledgeth Gods power herein, yet he would not hauehave this doctrine handled either in schooles, or before the people, but according to Gods subordinate power, in reiecting no otherwise then for sinne, p. 912. 3. Both these thinke that God bringeth this his absolute power into act: but I thinke it more safe, to hold that God might if it please him, vse that absolute power, which if he did, none could accuse him of iniustice, but he dealeth otherwise in this mysterie of reprobation, refusing none but iustly for their sinne: and this is that which Augustine affirmeth,lib. de praedest. & grat. c. 16. by way of supposition in this manner: Si hominum genus, quod creatum const… primitus nihilo, &c. if mankind, which at the beginning God created of nothing, were not brought forth endebted both to sinne and death, and yet the almightie Creator should condemne some of them to euerlasting destruction, who could say vntounto him, Lord why hast thou done so? God in his infinite power might hauehave done thus, but not according to the ordinarie course of iustice.

Then seeing I absolutely subscribe vntounto the iudgement of Augustine, seene before in the 2. opinion produced, that mans originall corruption is the first ground of the decree of reprobation: p. 443out of the which God in merciemercy saued some by the election of grace, leauing others, which adding to their originall corruption other actuall sinnes, are made worthie of condemnation: and so Augustine well concludeth, investigabilis Dei miserecordia, de persever. lib. 2. c. 11.&c. the merciemercy of God is vnsearcheable, whereby he hath merciemercy on whom he will, no merits of his going before, and vnsearcheable is his truth, whereby he hardeneth whom he will, (eius praecedentibus meritis) his merites going before, but the same with his, vponupon whom God sheweth merciemercy. Learned Pareus hereunto agreeth, dub. 17. massa damnata propriè est obiectum, &c. the damned masse is properly the obiect of election & reprobation: Vrsinus also as Pareus hath set forth his workes, defineth reprobation,pag. 356. to be the immutable and eternall decree of God, whereby he hath decreed in his iust iudgement, to leaue some in their sinnes, &c. and not beeing made partakers of Christ, to condemne them for euer: Iudicious Polanus hath the like definition of reprobation, in his partitions: It is the decree, whereby God purposed to himselfe to leaue those, of whom it pleased him not to hauehave merciemercy, in euerlasting destruction, vntounto the which they should be obnoxious, for their sinnes, for the declaration of his iustice. In these distinctions all the causes are touched of euerlasting damnation, and the …re-ordaining thereunto: the efficient, is Gods decree and purpose, the materiall, is sinne, the formall, the deniall of merciemercy, and the leauing them to themselues, the finall cause, is the setting forth of the iustice of God: And thus I trust it hath beene sufficiently shewed, how the decree of reprobation, may safely be held to proceede from the prescience of originall and actuall sinne, and not to be an absolute act of Gods will and purpose, as the decree of election is: and in this resolution of this question (whatsoeuer I hauehave before thought and written otherwise) I set vp my rest, as the safest from any inconuenience, and the fittest to giuegive satisfaction to the contrarie obiections, which are such as here follow.

1. Obiect. Seeing the number of the reprobate farre exceedeth the number of the elect, how is Gods merciemercy magnified aboue his iustice?

Ans. They which hold an absolute reprobation without relation vntounto sinne, cannot here remooue this doubt: for if God out of his owne will should cast off more, then he receiueth, he should be farre more iust then mercifull: But this beeing first laid as a foundation, that God casteth off none, but for sin, in that he saueth some out of that masse of corruption, whereas he might iustly leaue all, his merciemercy exceedeth his iustice; and in these three points. 1. in that God in the beginning made man righteous, Ecclesi. 7.31. and gaue him freewill so to hauehave continued if he would, and if he had not willingly transgressed, he should hauehave remained in the state of grace, and fauour with God, and not hauehave tasted of his iustice. 2. after man had fallen, and brought all his posteritie into the bondage of corruption, Gods merciemercy appeared, in sauing some, whereas he might in iustice hauehave condemned all, as he did the reprobate Angels, that kept not their first state. 3. his merciemercy is euident euen toward those, which are left in their corruption, that the Lord denieth not vntounto them meanes, whereby they might be called, if they had grace to vse them: and he suffereth euen the vessels of wrath with much patience, not presently cutting thē off, as he might: in al these points Gods merciemercy exceedeth his iustice.

2. Obiect. When God had made Adam righteous, it was in his power to hauehave kept him from falling, that all might hauehave beene saued: is not God therein accessarie to their sin, is suffering that which he might hauehave hindered?

Ans. 1. … was fit that the Creator hauing made man with free will, should suffer the creature freely to exercise that naturall power and facultie, which was giuen him, as other creatures do… their kind. 2. although God permitted Adam to fall, yet he knew how to vse it for … further demonstration of his glorie: and in this behalfe it is iust with God to suffer euill …e in the world, which he knoweth how to turne vntounto good: as he suffered Iob to be … of Sathan, for the triall of his faith.

3. But in that God saueth some out of that masse of corruption and perdition, and not all, how is he not now partial, and an accepter of persons, in dealing vnequally with those which are in equall state and condition?

Ans. Where one is bound to giuegive equally to all, there it is partialitie and iniustice not to giuegive vntounto all alike: but in free and voluntarie gifts one may giuegive vnequally vntounto those, which are of equall sort without any touch at all: as when a man hath two debters, he may forgiue vntounto one his debt, and yet require it of another: So God is not bound to giuegive his grace vntounto any, especially where they hauehave willingly fallen from his grace, as Adam did in Paradise, p. 444and we in him: we beeing then all now endebted vntounto Gods iustice in our naturall corruption, God may hauehave merciemercy where and on whom he will: it is lawfull for him to do with his owne, as he will, Matth. 20.15.

4. Obiect. It seemeth to be an hard and cruell part to destroie any for the setting forth of ones power and magnificence, as the Turke and other Tyrants make no account of mens liues to serue their pleasure.

Ans. 1. No earthly potentate hath that power ouer his subiects, which God hath ouer his creatures: therefore though it be vniust in the one, it is not in the other. 2. for one to destroy another for his honour and glorie sake, may seeme hard: but to bequeath them to destruction worthily for their faults, to get glorie thereby, is not vniust: & so although God in the destruction and condemnation of the wicked, intend his glorie, yet they are worthily condemned for their sinne.

Obiect. 5. He that willeth the end, willeth also the meanes, that bring and lead vntounto that end: if God hauehave appointed the damnation of the reprobate, then he willeth also sinne, which is the meanes to that end.

Ans. He that simply willeth the end, willeth also the meanes, but God simply willeth not the damnation of any, but for their sinne.

Obiect. 6. If God hauehave foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate, and willeth their iust damnation for sinne; how is it said, he would hauehave all to be saued?

Ans. God simply willeth not the damnation of any, but for sinne: and no other thing appeareth in the reuealed will of God, in that he offereth meanes of saluation to all, but that he would hauehave all to be saued: this then is to be vnderstood of the absolute and reuealed will of God.

7. Obiect. If God foresee the sinnes of the reprobate, and decree their punishment, why doth God complaine of sinners, seeing his will in them is fulfilled?

Ans. Augustine answeareth 1. God iustly complaineth of sinners, quia non cogit eos peccare, because he doth not constraine them to sinne: howsoeuer Gods decree cannot be altered, yet their will is not forced, they sinne willingly, and so are iustly condemned. 2. and when God complaineth of sinners, by this meanes those, on whom God sheweth merciemercy, are called, & compunguntur corde, and are pricked in heart, howsoeuer the other are hardened.

Obiect. 8. If the case so stand, that the reprobate are appointed to damnation, then it skilleth not what a man doth; for though he should repent him, yet if he be a reprobate, it cannot helpe him?

Ans. If …were apparant who were elected, who a reprobate, then indeed all contrarie endeauour were in vaine: but seeing we hauehave no other way to prooue our election, then by our faith and fruits, we must thereby labour to make our election sure, 2. Pet. 1.10. 2. for one to be a reprobate, and yet to repent, are contraries: for he that is a reprobate can neuer hauehave grace to repent, and he that hath grace truely to repent, may be assured he is no reprobate.

Obiect. 9. But if God hauehave foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate, and that which God foreseeth must needs come to passe, then the reprobate sinne of necessitie, they cannot doe otherwise; how then can they be iustly punished for that, which they cannot auoid?

Ans. There is a double kind of necessitie, the one is called antecedens nec…tas, an antecedent necessitie, or going before, which proceedeth from necessarie and working causes, as when a thing is forced by violence and strength, as a stone out of the hand it is necessarie it should goe there is consequens necessitas, a following necessitie, or by way of consequent, which is vponupon supposition of the effect: as when we see one fit, this beeing supposed, that we see him fit, it is now necessarie beeing done; and yet he was not forced to fit: so it is in this case, the reprobate doe sinne necessarily, not by a necessitie forcing their will, but an infallible necessitie following the effect: for they therefore sinne, not because God did foresee they would sinne, but therefore God foresaw it, because they would sinne: The reprobate then do sinne freely without any compulsion, and therein are guiltie, though they were foreseene to sinne, and because of the corruption of their nature could doe no other.

And thus is this doctrine deliuered from all those cauils, and obiections; and man i… found onelyonly to be the cause of his owne ruine and destruction, but the beginning of our saluation is from God, according to that saying of the Prophet Hoshea. c. 13.9. perditio t… p. 447ex te Israel, salus ex me, thy perdition O Israel, is of thy selfe, thy salvation of me: and so I ende and conclude this point with that saying of Tertullian, Deus de suo optimus, de nostro iustus, &c. God is good and mercifull of his owne, and iust in that which is ours, &c. lib. de resurrect. that is, the originall of merciemercy is from God, but the occasion of his iustice is from sinne which is of our selues.

Controv. 11. Of the difference betweene the decree of election and reprobation, and of the agreement betweene them.

Whereas in both these there are two things to be considered, the decree, and the execution thereof, here are diuerse opinions. Some will hauehave a correspondencie in election and reprobation in both, and these also are deuided. Some only in the former, that is, the decree. Some will hauehave a difference in both, as well in the manner of the decree, as in the execution.

1. Of the first opinion were the Pelagians, and some of the Romanists, which hold, that both the decree of election is grounded vponupon the foresight of faith, and the good vse of freewill, as also the execution of that decree in the giuing of eternall life they will hauehave procured by good works; as reprobation both in the decree and execution proceedeth from sinne, and the foresight thereof: So the whole worke of election they will hauehave to take beginning from man, as reprobation doth: Thus the Rhemists hold, that election is not without the condition and respect to workes, annot. Heb. c. 5. sect. 7. Becanus the new diuinitie Reader in Mentz, hath this assertion, that predestination is ex praescientia conditionata, &c. of a conditionall prescience, whereby God foresaw that one would well vse the grace offered, and not an other, c. 1. de praedestinat. loc. 5. But herein other Romanists do dissent from them, as Bellarmine, Tolet, Pererius, as hath beene shewed before, controv. 7.

2. Other Romanists will hauehave an agreement both in the decree and execution, but after an other manner: as Pererius following Thom. Aquin. disput. 5. numer. 34. & disput. 12. numer. 66. saith that God is the cause of reprobation, as well as election, quantum ad duo, principium & terminum, in respect of these two, the beginning and the ende: concerning the beginning which is the decree, he saith there is nulla causa meritoria ex parte hominis, no meritorious cause of either on mans behalfe: but in respect of the last effect, there is a meritorious cause in man, both of his good works vntounto eternall life, and of euill workes to condemnation: But Pererius in two points is farre wide, both in making good workes meritorious of eternall life, which is the free gift of God, Rom. 6.23. and in assigning the beginning or first cause of reprobation, and so of condemnation, in the will of God, and not in the sinne of man, contrarie to that saying of the Prophet alleadged before, Hos. 13.9. Thy perdition is of thy selfe O Israel, as their Latine text readeth.

3. Some doe make great difference in the execution of these decrees, for good workes are not meritorious of saluation, as euill workes are of damnation, the reason of which difference is, because euill workes are perfitly euill, but our good workes are imperfect, and so not proportionable to the most excellent and perfect reward, and good workes are not our owne, nor of our selues, as euill workes are, and therefore they merit not: but the decree as well of election, as reprobation, they hold to be alike, without any relation vntounto workes good or euill: thus worthie Calvin, Beza, Martyr, with other of our learned new writers.

4. But it is the safer way thoroughout from the beginning of the decree, to the execution, to hold a perpetuall difference betweene election and reprobation: that we are elected freely without respect vntounto faith or workes, for otherwise we should hauehave chosen God first, and not he vsus, and so we are also saued freely, not for our workes, and yet neither without them: But in the way of damnation, neither were the wicked decreed to be condemned, neither yet shall they actually be condemned, but for their sinne and the foresight thereof. 1. because the beginning of damnation is from man, but the decree of reprobation is the beginning of damnation; therefore that decree must proceed from the foresight of something worthie of damnation in man. 2. that for the which God condemneth man, he decreed him to be condemned: but for sinne is man condemned. 3. otherwise if it it were God… absolute will to reiect more then he electeth, his iustice should exceede his merciemercy: see before, contr. 10.

Controv. 12. Whether merciemercy be a naturall propertie in God, or an effect onelyonly of his will, against Socinus.

v. 18. He hath merciemercy on whom he will: Socinus, that blasphemous heretike, lib. 1. c. 1. by occasion of these words, goeth about to prooue, that MercieMercy is not a naturall propertie p. 448in God, but a voluntarie act.

1. Because the Apostle saith, He hath merciemercy on whom he will.

2. God alwaies vseth his naturall properties: but merciemercy he alwaies sheweth not, as toward impenitent sinners.

3. Contrarie properties are not naturally in God: but his merciemercy and iustice are contrarie: therefore they are not both naturally in God.

4. Naturall properties are not vnequally in God, but his iustice and merciemercy are vnequall, for his merciemercy exceedeth his iustice.

5. MercieMercy is nothing els, but a griefe conceived vponupon an others miserie, but there is no such thing in God.

Contra. Before these arguments be answeared, these considerations must be premised. 1. that merciemercy is otherwise in God, then in man: in man indeede it is a griefe or compassion conceiued vponupon an others miserie: but in God it is onelyonly a propension and readinesse of the diuine will to helpe those which are in miserie. 2. MercieMercy in God, either signifieth the inclination, power, facultie, and propertie to shewe merciemercy, and this is naturall in God: or the act and exercising of that propertie toward the creature, and this is so naturall in God, as yet it is directed by his will. 3. a thing is said to be naturall two wayes, either that which onelyonly proceedeth from the instinct of nature, as the fire naturally burneth: or that whereunto nature inclineth, yet not without direction of the will, as thus a man is said to speake, to vnderstand naturally: So God is both wayes naturally mercifull, in himselfe the first way, toward his creatures the second: now to the arguments we answear.

1. The Apostle speaketh not of the naturall propertie, but of the act of merciemercy, which is directed by the will of God. 2. all the naturall properties which are in God he alwaies vseth not, nor towards all: as his iustice, power, long animitie, merciemercy: they are alwaies in God, but he exerciseth them as it pleaseth him. 3. iustice and merciemercy are not contrarie, but crueltie is opposed to merciemercy: neither is there any contrarietie in God, but in the effects in diuerse subiects: as the Sunne with the same heat mollifieth the waxe, and hardeneth the clay. 4. neither are these properties vnequall in God, but the effects and acts onelyonly are vnequall, as it pleaseth God to dispose in his freewill. 5. humane merciemercy is such as is described, but the diuine merciemercy is of an other nature, as hath beene shewed: now the contrarie arguments that merciemercy is a naturall propertie in God, are these.

1. The Scripture describeth God by his merciemercy, Exod. 34. he is called the father of merciemercy, rich in merciemercy: God is described by his naturall properties. 2. all vertues in God are essentiall, and naturall, but merciemercy is one of Gods vertues. 3. iustice is naturall in God, but merciemercy is a part of Gods vniuersall iustice. 4. merciemercy and compassion is naturall in men, they which hauehave it not, are called inhumane, they are beasts rather then men, therefore much more is it naturall in God: for eueryevery good thing in the creature proceedeth from the fountaine of goodnes in the Creator: See more hereof in Pareus dub. 12.

Controv. 13. Whether the merciemercy of God in the forgiuenesse of sinne, be an effect of Gods free and absolute will onelyonly, and be not grounded vponupon Christ: against the heresie of Socinus, and Ostorodius.

v. 18. He hath merciemercy on whom he will: Blasphemous Socinus, and Ostorodius a Samosatenian heretike directly impugning the eternall dietie of Christ: by occasion of these words doe affirme, that God of his free merciemercy, without any satisfaction purchased by Christs death, forgiueth sinnes vntounto the penitent: Socinus first maketh these and such like obiections.

1. The Apostle here saith he hath merciemercy on whom he will, therefore of his owne will be remitteth sinnes without Christ.

2. He doth forgiue sinnes for his owne sake, Isai. 43.25. therefore not for Christ.

3. If God should forgiue sinnes for Christs satisfaction, then both merciemercy and iustice should be seene at once in the worke of our saluation by Christ.

4. God may remit sinnes without satisfaction, for he may depart from his right, and remit of his owne, as it pleaseth him.

5. God requireth onelyonly repentance and innocencie of life in them, whose sinnes are pardoned: and he forgiueth onelyonly for that which he requireth.

6. Many examples are extant in the old Testament, of sinnes pardoned, and merciemercy shewed without Christ: as in Abel, Henoch and others that pleased God by faith, beleeuing onelyonly that God is, & that he is a rewarder of the righteous, Heb. 11.6. therefore without Christ.

p. 4497. God promiseth, Ierem. 31. to be mercifull vntounto their iniquites, and to remember them no more: but where he requireth satisfaction for sinne, he remembreth it, and is not mercifull vntounto it.

8. We are commanded one to forgiue an other, as God in Christ forgaue vsus: but we must forgiue without any satisfaction: Ergo, so God forgaue vsus.

9. The remission of the debt excludeth all payment, and satisfaction for it: to this purpose, Socinus lib. de Servator.

The other impious heretike thus also obiecteth.

1. Gods louelove is set forth to vsus in Scripture before Christ died for vsus, Ioh. 3.16. Ephe. 1.4. but Christs satisfaction sheweth that God was offended with vsus before.

2. God did remit our sinnes freely by grace, Rom. 3.24. but grace and satisfaction are contrarie.

3. This doctrine of satisfaction by Christs death, maketh God cruell, that would not receiue mankind vntounto his fauour, but by the most cruell death of his Sonne.

4. It maketh God a Tyrant, in punishing the innocent for offenders.

5. The Sonne should be more mercifull then his Father: for he forgiueth without satisfaction, so doth not his Father.

6. If Christ had truely satisfied for vsus, he should hauehave suffered eternall death, and so neuer hauehave risen againe, which had beene impossible: these and other such obiections, this wicked Ostorodius hath in a booke written in the Germane tongue against Tradelius, cited by Pareus, dub. 13.

Contra. Before we come to answear these obiections, the state of the question must first be opened. 1. the question here is not of the power, propertie, and facultie of shewing merciemercy, which is naturall in God, and absolute in him without any condition. 2. but of the act and exercising of this propertie, which is either generall toward all creatures, and toward all men, both good and bad, vponupon whom he suffereth the sunne to shine, and the raine to fall, Matth. 5.45. or speciall toward the elect, in giuing them his grace, and forgiuing their sinnes: whereof the Apostle speaketh, Tit. 3.4. When the bountifulnes and louelove of God our Sauiour toward men appeared, &c. according to his merciemercy be saued vsus. 3. this speciall act of Gods merciemercy must be considered two wayes, according to the causes foregoing, which are none other but onelyonly the good pleasure of God, no merit of any creature, no not of Christ himselfe, was the cause of his merciemercy toward the elect, but as the Apostle saith, he hath merciemercy on whom he will: but there are certaine conditions which doe accompanie or followe this free act of Gods louelove, and merciemercy, for the effecting of the worke thereof, in the sanctification and glorification of the elect, which are these three, the ransome made by Christ, faith in the Redeemer, and our conuersion and turning to God: which conditions God receiueth not of vsus, but conferreth vponupon vsus: the first without vsus, the two other he worketh in vsus, that all may be of grace: these things beeing thus promised, the contrarie arguments are thus answeared.

1. The Apostle speaketh of Gods first decree and purpose to shewe merciemercy in electing some by his grace, which indeede is an absolute act of Gods will without any other motiue: and if we vnderstand it of Gods merciemercy in forgiuenesse of sinne, it is his will also, it should not be done without Christ, Ioh. 6.40. This is his will, that euerie one which beleeueth … the Sonne, should hauehave eternall life: the argument then followeth not: God hath merciemercy on whom he will, therefore without Christ.

2. Therefore God forgiueth sinnes for his owne sake, because he forgiueth them for Christ, who is the Iehovah and eternall God, that forgiueth sinnes.

3. Neither are Gods iustice and merciemercy shewed in the same subiect: Gods iustice is seene in the satisfaction of his Sonne, but his merciemercy toward vsus.

4. 1. The argument followeth not, God can, therefore he will. 2. neither doth that rule alwaies hold, that one may remit of his owne right as much as he will, this must be added, if it be without wrong done to an other: as the Parent cannot remit vntounto his child feare and obedience, because this is against the lawe of iustice, and so against God. 3. so in this case God cannot remit sinnes, without some satisfaction, not in respect of his infinite power, but of his iustice, which is not to suffer his Maiestie to be violated without iust punishment, for this were to denie himselfe.

5. 1. Neither is it true, that God onelyonly requireth of sinners repentance: for the punishment p. 450due vntounto sinne, must be satisfied for, which Christ did for vsus. 2. neither if innocencie of life were sufficient, is it in our power to performe it. 3. and further God doth not pardon sinne for that which he requireth of vsus, it is his merciemercy in Christ, for the which he pardoneth: that which he requireth of vsus, is a condition to be performed by vsus, not the cause.

6. It is false, that the faith of Abel and Henoch, and of other holy Patriarkes had no relation to Christ: for although expresse mention be not made thereof: yet alwaies it must be vnderstood: for the Apostle saith, Coloss. 1.23. that it pleased God by Christ to reconcile all things to himselfe: and all the promises in him are yea and Amen, 2. Cor. 1.20. therefore the promises made to the fathers were grounded vponupon Christ, and they were reconciled vntounto God by no other way, then by faith in him.

7. If God had required satisfaction of our selues for sinne, then indeede had our sinne beene remembred: but although Christ hath satisfied for our sinnes, yet to vsus they are freely forgiuen, and so not remembred any more.

8. The Apostle saith, Ephes. 4.32. Forgiuing one an other, as God for Christs sake forgaue vsus: though Christ hath satisfied for vsus, yet God requireth no satisfaction at our hands, therefore herein we are to imitate God, to forgiue one an others priuate offences without satisfaction, as God forgaue vsus: But in publike offences, and ciuill debts, this rule holdeth not: for if in such trespasses no satisfaction should be made, the course of iustice should be perverted.

9. The remitting of the debt excludeth all solution and paiment of debt, by the partie to whom the debt is remitted, and not otherwise: and so the Lord requireth not of vsus any satisfaction or solution of our debt, which is discharged by Christ.

The like answear may be made vntounto the other obiections.

1. God loued the elect with an eternall louelove, and herein appeared his louelove, that he sent his Sonne to die for the elect: yet in respect of their sinfull estate, they had neede of a reconciler: so they were eternally beloued in Gods election, and yet in respect of their present state, God was offended with them: as a father that purposeth to make his sonne his heire, may yet in the meane time be angrie with him for his misdemenour: See before c. 5. coher. 7. a more full answear.

2. We are saued freely by grace, notwithstanding the redemption by Christ: as the Apostle sheweth, Rom. 3.24. if satisfaction had beene required of vsus, or if we were to hauehave ransomed our selues, it had not beene freely by grace; but now it is.

3. God was not delighted in the death of his Sonne, in that simply he was put to cruel death: but in that thereby all the elect were saued, which sheweth not crueltie, but merciemercy in God, in accepting the death of one for all.

4. Neither was Christ forced, the innocent to die for sinners, but he willingly offered himselfe to die for vsus: therein was no tyrannie at all.

5. As though God the Father, and God the Sonne are not all one in substance: the same merciemercy proceedeth from them both: and the Sonne as he is God, remitteth not without the satisfaction of the Mediator.

6. Eternall death is to be considered in the infinitenesse and greatnes of the torments of soule and bodie, and in the eternitie and euerduring thereof: Christ did endure the one, that is, vnspeakeable torments in bodie and soule for vsus, but not the other, because of the dignitie of his person, which suffered, and the necessitie of the worke of our redemption, which he perfected, which could not hauehave beene performed, if eternitie of punishment had beene vponupon the redeemer inflicted.

Now how contrarie this blasphemous assertion of these heretikes is to the Scriptures, is euerie where euident: for there is no truth that hath more plentifull euidence out of the Scriptures, then that Christ by his death did satisfie for our sinnes, and by faith in him we obtaine remission of our sinnes, and not otherwise: as Galat. 1.4. Which gaue himselfe for our sinnes, that he might deliuer vsus from this present euill world: Galat. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed vsus from the curse of the law, when he was made a curse for vsus: Eph. 1.7. By whom we hauehave redemption thorough his blood, euen the forgiuenes of sinnes: 1. Pet. 2.23. Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie vponupon the tree, &c. 1. Pet. 3.18. Christ hath once suffered for our sinnes, the iust for the vniust, that he might bring vsus to God, &c. and an hundreth such places and more may be produced out of the old and new Testament, for the confirmation of this truth: he that is desirous to see more of this matter, I referre him to learned Pareus treatise dub. 13. vponupon this chapter.

p. 451Controv. 14. Against the maintainers of Vniuersall grace.

v. 18. He hath merciemercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth: Hence then it is inferred, that he hath decreed to hauehave merciemercy on some, and not vponupon others: then they are in error, which thinke that God doth indifferently offer grace to all, and that he hath elected all vntounto life, if they will themselues: as Because telleth vsus, that God simplici affectu desideravit omnes ad aeternam beatitudinem pervenire, that God simply desired, that all might come to eternall life, de praedestinat. Calvinist. c. 8.4. And this assertion may seeme to be fauoured by these places of Scripture, Rom. 11.32. God hath shut vp all in vnbeleefe, that he might hauehave merciemercy vponupon all: and 1. Timoth. 2.4. God would hauehave all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Contra. Diuerse answeares are here found out. 1. Some say that secundum quid, after a sort, God would hauehave all to be saued, in that he offereth meanes of saluation to al: but simply he willeth onelyonly the saluation of the elect, which he effecteth and worketh accordingly. 2. the schoolemen hauehave here a distinction, that there is voluntas signi, & beneplaciti, Gods secret will, and his reuealed and signified will: by his reuealed will he would hauehave all to be saued, by his secret will onelyonly the elect. 3. Augustine hath two answeares: sometime he vnderstandeth these places distributive, by way of distribution, by all men he interpreteth all sorts of men, according to that saying, Reuel. 5.9. Thou hast redeemed vsus vntounto God thorough thy blood, out of euerie tribe and language, &c. sometime he taketh it restrictive, by way of restraint and limitation, vnderstanding all the elect: he will hauehave all to be saued, because none can be saued but by his wil: as that saying is to be taken, Ioh. 1.9. Which lighteneth euerie man that commeth into the world: not that euerie one is lightened, but euerie one which is lightened, is lightened by him. And this interpretation in restraining such vniuersall promises to the faithfull onelyonly, is agreeable to the Scripture: for whereas the Apostle saith in generall, Rom. 11.32. God hath shut vp all in vnbeleefe, that he might hauehave merciemercy vponupon all, he restraineth it onelyonly vntounto those which beleeue, Galat. 3.22. The Scripture hath concluded all vnderunder sinne, that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ, should be giuen to all that beleeue, Pareus.

4. But yet none of these answears doe fully satisfie: this therefore may further be added, that in the beginning God made man righteous, and gaue him free will and sufficient strength to hauehave beene kept from tentation, if he would himselfe: but man abused his freewill, and transgressed and fell: yet God offreth outward meanes vntounto all of their calling, which if they refuse there is no want on Gods behalfe, but on their owne: this then is our answear, that God would all men to be saued, that is, not that God purposeth all to be saued, or giueth grace to all to be saued, but that there appeareth no let on Gods behalfe why all are not saued, either the creation considered, or Gods generall vocation: but man is the cause of his owne perdition or ruine.

Controv. 15. Of the sufficiencie of Scripture.

v. 17. The Scripture saith, &c. Hence may be answeared that cauill of the Iesuites against the Scripture, that it cannot be the iudge of Controversies, because the iudge must speake, but the Scripture is a dumbe letter and speaketh not: But this the Apostle denieth here: for he saith, the Scripture saith to Pharaoh: the Scripture speaketh, it is not then a dumbe and mute Iudge, therefore the voice of the Scripture must be heard, as the onelyonly sufficient Iudge to decide and determine all controversies of doctrine: and this the Apostle euidently sheweth, by the frequent alleadging and citing of the Scripture in this chapter, shewing that he appealeth thereunto, as the supreame and highest Iudge of all truth.

Controv. 16. Of the certaintie of saluation.

v. 24. Euen vsus, whom he hath called, &c. The Apostle doubteth not to affirme not onelyonly of himselfe, but of others also that are called, that they are prepared vntounto glorie: so then we neede not expect some speciall revelation, to make vsus assured of our saluation (as the Romanists affirme) we are made certaine of our election, by our vocation, Par. and afterward the Apostle saith, v. 33. he that beleeueth, shall not be ashamed: he then that is sure he shall not be confounded or ashamed, what cause hath he to doubt of his saluation? Mart.

Controv. 17. Against the workes of preparation.

v. 30. The Gentiles which followed not righteousnesse, hauehave attained vntounto righteousnesse: silence it is manifest, that a man cannot make a way, or doe any thing by way of preparation to further his calling; seeing the Gentiles were cōuerted vntounto God, when they sought it not: p. 452so it is true, which the Apostle saith els-where, Philip. 2.13. it is God, which worketh in you both the will and deed of his good pleasure: See further Synops. Centur. 4. err. 81.