Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination, Interpretation 1 · Question 4
To the fourth Doubt.
HOw may it appeare that Gods hatred of Eſau, is of a leſſe 4 Doubt. Queſt. 4.degree of love, ſince the making of him who by birth is ſuperiour, to be a ſervant to his underling, argueth no good will at all, but:
Firſt, rather a purpoſe to paſſe him by, in reſpect of communicating grace and glory.
Secondly, ſince the raiſing of Pharaoh, which was to this intent, to ſhew his power in his overthrow argueth the like.
Thirdly, ſince hardning is an effect of hatred, and depends on the will of God, as the firſt cauſe thereof, even as Mercy doth.
Fourthly, ſince there is no cauſe of that objection, why complaines hee? Who hath reſiſted his will? or at leaſt of that anſwer, Rom. 9. 20, 21, 22.
I Anſwer, as Jacob preferring Ephraim the younger brother to greater eſtate then his elder brother Manaſſes did not thereby Anſwer.declare a poſitive hatred of Manaſſes, but a leſſe degree of love to him in compariſon of his brother:
So Gods preferring Jacob to bee a ſuperiour and Lord to his elder brother Eſau, doth not argue that in him there is no good will at all to Eſau, but a leſſe degree of love.
To ſubject Eſau, as a ſervant to Jacob, doth not reprobate Eſau, but puts him into the condition of the world of mankind: who together with the reſt of the Creatures are made to bee ſervants to the Church of the elect, and to the members of it.
But grant Gods hatred of Eſau, and making him a ſervant to his underling, argueth no leſſe then a purpoſe to paſſe him by, in reſpect of communicating glory unto him out of grace. And for my part thus farre I yeeld, that it may well argue a purpoſe of God to paſſe by him, in reſpect of communicating glory to him out of grace, that grace I mean, whereby hee hath made us accepted in his beloved: for this grace or free love, is made Jacobs preheminence, and is denyed to Eſau, and though it put him into the eſtate of a ſervant to his elect brother, and ſo into the condition of the world of mankind, yet it doth not reprobate him, or argue a purpoſe to paſſe him by in reſpect of communicating life or glory at all unto him, but implyeth only a purpoſe to deale with him in juſtice, viz. to give him life or death according to his works, as I have already ſhewed in the anſwer to the former doubt, and ſhall have occaſion more fully to declare it, in the end of this.
Surely Jacob in doing that which hee did to Manaſſes and Exam.Ephraim, did neither preferre one to a greater eſtate then the other, or love one leſſe then the other. But in the ſpirit of prophecy fore-ſignifyed, what would bee the condition of each in their race and poſterity. But ſuppoſe a father in that which lyeth in his power, preferres one ſon before another, and accordingly in that way of Amor beneficentiae, bee ſaid to love one leſſe then another, will any ſober man ſay, that hee loves the one, and hates the other? is this a decent expreſſion of leſſe love? Wee know full well, that a leſſe love in the way of beneficence, may bee joyned with a greater love in the way of complacency: As for example, an earthly Father, though hee ſuffer his eldeſt ſon to goe away with the Land, yet hee may bear greater affection to a younger ſonne, though hee aſſigne unto him a farre leſſe portion then to his elder brother. And if it were decent to ſay, hee hates him, whom hee loves leſſe in reſpect of beneficence; then hee ſhould bee ſaid to hate him whom hee loves beſt.
Laſtly, if the hating of Eſau bee interpreted leſſe loving, why may not the loving of Jacob, by the ſame liberty bee interpreted the leſſe hating of him.
Amongſt Gods elect ſome are more beloved of God, and ſome leſſe, according as hee ordaines one to greater grace and glory then another, and is it fit to attribute that to Eſau, which wee attribute to Gods elect?
I grant that to ſubject Eſau to Jacob as a ſervant, is not to reprobate him, for this ſubjection is made in time; But reprobation, as wee take it in oppoſition to election Epheſ. 1. 4. was made before all times. It is your own phraſe, to diſtinguiſh the world of mankinde from the elect, as if the elect were none of the world of mankinde. For the very elect themſelves are ſubjected as ſervants to the elect, every one unto others: though as great as Paul and Apollo, as appeares by the very place, your ſelf have now in a contrary ſenſe alledged more then once. And who doubts that wee muſt all ſerve one another through love, ſince Chriſt himſelf was content to waſh his Diſciples feete? Laſtly, the yoke of Eſau unto Jacob was at length ſhaken off, as appeares by Iſaacs propheſie it ſhould bee; but the yoke of ſubjection of all things unto the Church, ſhall never bee ſhaken off.
But you perceive well enough that the diſcourſe which you anſwer, conſidered this temporall preferment (which yet had courſe onelyonly in their ſeed) onelyonly in a typicall manner, as that which under temporall things prefigured ſpirituall, and accordingly you proceed to ſhape your anſwer thereunto in that reſpect alſo. The ſame is this, Though God had no purpoſe to deale with Eſau, as hee dealt with Jacob: that is, to communicate glory unto him out of grace, yet hee had a purpoſe of communicating glory unto him ſome other way, and what can that bee, but of communicating glory unto him, not out of grace? A very ſtrange aſſertion, and therefore no marvell, you ſpared to ſet it down in ſo many words. OnelyOnly you ſay, that the putting him into the ſtate of a ſervant, did not reprobate him, or argue a purpoſe to paſſe him by in reſpect of communicating life and glory unto him. Which to my judgement doth manifeſtly intimate that you acknowledge in God a purpoſe to communicate life and glory to Eſau, ſome way or other.
And if you did acknowledge a purpoſe in God not to communicate life and glory at all unto him, this Aquinas confeſſeth, and wee joyntly with Aquinas, confeſſe that it is nothing leſſe then to hate him. For if God will have a man to bee, and will not have him to bee ſaved, ſurely hee will have him in the end to bee damned. For in the end there will bee found no middle ſtate, equally remote from ſalvation and damnation. But you doe in plain termes acknowledge a purpoſe in God to deale in juſtice with Eſau, and to give him life or death according to his works. I preſume you will not avouch this of all them that you account the world of mankinde. For I doubt not but you will except Infants. As for men of ripe years, is it not as true of the elect, as of thoſe you call the men of the world, that they ſhall bee dealt withall according to their workes? I doe not ſay according to their deſerts, but according to their works, keeping my ſelf to your own phraſe. Hath not the Apoſtle profeſſed, 2 Cor. 5. 10. That wee muſt all appeare before the judgement ſeate of Chriſt, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that hee hath done, whether it be good or evill? But theſe works I confeſſe are different, for either they conſiſt in obedience or diſobedience; either to the Covenant of the Law, or to the Covenant of Grace; either to the Law of works, or to a Law of Faith. Now as for thoſe whom you call the world of mankinde, and concerning whom you profeſſe, God hath a purpoſe to judge them according to their works. I demand whether your meaning is, God wil judge them according to their works, in reference to the Covenant of the Law, or in reference to the Covenant of Grace. If in reference to the Covenant of the Law, then the meaning muſt bee this, God hath a purpoſe to ſave them, in caſe they perform exact obedience to his Law: But in caſe they continue not in every thing that is writen in the book of the Law to doe it, Gods purpoſe is to condemn them to everlaſting death. Now I appeale to every ſober Chriſtians judgement, whether if God hath no purpoſe to ſave them, but upon condition of ſuch obedience, and withall hath a purpoſe to damne them upon condition of ſuch diſobedience, whether, all things conſidered, it may not bee more truely avouched, that God hath a purpoſe to damne them, but no purpoſe at all to ſave them. If it bee ſpoken in reference to the Covenant of Grace, I diſpute againſt it, firſt in the ſame manner. The conditions of the Covenant of Grace on mans part being Faith and Repentance, if God will not ſave them, but upon condition of faith and repentance, and will damne them in caſe of infidelity and impenitency; then ſurely if it ſhall bee found, that the men of this world are far more prone to infidelity and impenitency then unto faith and repentance, it followeth that God purpoſeth rather to damne them then to ſave them; But in caſe they are naturally carryed to infidelity and impenitency, and have no power to beleeve in Chriſt, and to break off their ſinnes by true repentance; then it followeth as well in reſpect of this Covenant of grace (according whereunto God will deale with them) as in reſpect of the former Covenant of the Law, that God hath no purpoſe to ſave them, but hath a purpoſe to damne them unto everlaſting fire. But ſo it is of all thoſe whom you call the world of mankind, namely, that they have no power to believe in Chriſt, or to break off their ſinnes by repentance, but are naturally carryed on unto infidelity and impenitency, as I prove thus. They that cannot diſcern the things of God, but account them fooliſhneſſe, they cannot beleeve in Chriſt: But ſuch are all they whom you call the world of mankind, for 1 Cor. 2. 14.they are not regenerate, and conſequently they are meere naturals. Now the naturall man, as the Apoſtle ſpeakes, perceives Rom. 8.not the things of God, for they are fooliſhneſſe unto him. Again, all ſuch perſons are ſtill in the fleſh. Now the affection of the fleſh is enmity againſt God, is not ſubject to the Law of God, neither indeed can bee. Secondly, I prove that God cannot deale with them whom you call the world of mankinde, according to the Covenant of Grace: For if hee ſhould, hee ſhould ſave them all; as I prove thus. If whatſoever God requires by this covenant on mans part, God undertakes to perform on his part, then it is impoſſible but that all muſt bee ſaved with whom hee meanes to deale according to this covenant. But whatſoever by this covenant God requires on mans part, God himſelf undertakes to perform on his part, as I prove thus. Firſt, in generall, God undertakes in this covenant, to bee our Lord and our God, to ſanctifie us. Therefore, hee undertakes to give us faith and repentance. Secondly, in ſpeciall, and firſt, doth God require at our hands, that wee ſhould love him with all our hearts, and with all our ſoules? God undertakes to perform this.Dent. 30. 6.
I will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of thy children, that thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy ſoule. Doth God require at our hands that wee feare him? And God alſo undertakes on his part to work us unto this. Jer. 32. 40. And I will put my feare into their hearts, that they ſhall never depart away from mee. Doth God require Faith? this alſo on his part hee performes, Act. 2. ult. God added to the Church dayly ſuch as ſhould bee ſaved: And Philip. 1. 29. To you it is given to beleeve in him, and to ſuffer for him. Doth God require Repentance? Even to this end God ſent his Sonne, to give repentance unto Iſrael, and forgiveneſſe of ſins. In a word, it is God that makes us perfect unto every good work to do his will, working in us that which is pleaſing in his ſight, through Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. 13. 21.
Anſw. But in the ſecond place it may bee argued, that Gods raiſing up of Pharaoh, to this intent to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow, argueth the like hatred of Eſau as of Pharaoh: viz. a purpoſe of paſſing both by, without communicating grace, or glory unto them.
To which I anſwer, a difference there is between Eſau and Pharaoh; though not in their finall condition, nor in … purpoſe concerning them: Yet in the degree of their preſent eſtate, whereunto they were ſeverally come, when God gave out his ſeverall Oracles concerning them both: for hee ſaith not of Pharaoh, God raiſed him up to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow, before hee had done good or evill, as hee ſaid of Eſau, that hee ſhould ſerve Jacob, before hee had done good or evill. The Hebrew and Greek word ſignifie neither to create, nor bring into the world, but to preſerve, or to cauſe to ſtand, to ſtirre up, or to advance; which preſuppoſeth Pharaoh already born, yea, and of ſuch a Spirit; that if God preſerve him and ſtirre him up, hee was become a fit ſubject upon whom God might ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow. Otherwiſe God might as well bee ſaid to condemn Pharaoh out of his abſolute will, without all reſpect to ſin, as to ſhew his power in hardning of him without all reſpect to ſin.
Hardning, when it falls upon the creature, is both the height of his ſin, and depth of his miſery, and therefore is it as prejudiciall to Gods juſtice to inflict it without reſpect of ſin going before, and to the creature as dangerous to undergoe it, as condemnation to hell it ſelf. Hell hath no greater torment then an heart deſperately hardned under the wrath, curſe, and judgement of God, which was Pharaohs caſe.
But conſider Pharaoh, not in the eſtate of Eſau, as having done neither good nor evill; but in the ſtate wherein he ſtood, when God gave out his Oracle concerning him, that for this cauſe hee ſtirred him up, to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow; and then may I eaſily grant more then is required. viz. When God purpoſed to paſſe by him, not only in communicating grace and glory unto him, but alſo to fall upon him in his utmoſt wrath, as well in outward ſtrange calamity, as eſpecially in ſpirituall judgements, hardneſſe of heart, and blindneſſe of minde to his utter perdition.
In the former part you declined a direct anſwer to the queſtion propoſed; for whereas the queſtion propoſed was touching Exam.the communicating of grace and glory, you not adventuring to maintaine a purpoſe of God to communicate grace and glory to them whom you call the world of mankinde, onelyonly maintain a purpoſe in God (at leaſt you ſeem ſo to doe) of communicating life and glory ſome other way then out of grace. But with what advantage to your cauſe that hath been carryed, I have already conſidered. Now you ſeem to anſwer the queſtion, looking it directly in the face. For though you acknowledge ſuch a purpoſe in God concerning Pharaoh, to wit, of paſſing him by in communicating grace and glory, yet the cauſe (you ſay) is not alike of Eſau, when Gods Oracle was given out concerning him, (hee being not then born) as of Pharaoh, when the Oracle, here ſpoken of, was given out concerning him, hee being then a fit ſubject, upon whom God might ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow. Yet here againe you decline the queſtion: For the queſtion was not, whether Pharaoh at that time when God ſaid, For this cauſe I have raiſed thee up, &c. were a fitter ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow; then Eſau was, while yet hee was in his mothers wombe. But whether God had not a purpoſe to paſſe by Eſau as touching the communicating of grace and glory, even before hee was born, which hee had concerning Pharaoh at that time before ſpoken of; which that hee had, I prove thus. It was ſaid of Eſau before hee was born, that God hated him. What more could bee ſaid of Pharaoh, to expreſſe his alienation from him?
Secondly, look how you qualifie the hatred of God to Eſau, in the ſame manner may it bee qualifyed towards Pharaoh, even at this time you ſpeak of. For Gods hatred towards Eſau, you qualifie thus. God had a purpoſe to deale with him according to his works: But ſay I, even then when God profeſſed of Pharaoh ſaying, For this cauſe have I raiſed thee up, &c. God had a purpoſe to deale with him according to his works.
Thirdly, if therefore God had no ſuch purpoſe towards Eſau, (namely, to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow) becauſe Eſau was not yet born; then belike God had no ſuch purpoſe towards Pharaoh himſelf, while Pharaoh was not yet born. But this is utterly untrue, for as much as Gods purpoſes are eternall, and not temporall.
And in like manner, it may bee proved, that if ever God had the like purpoſe towards Eſau, to wit, after his preferring a meſſe of pottage before his birthright, or at any other time, it followeth that God had the ſame purpoſe towards Eſau, even before hee was born, for Gods purpoſes are not temporall, but eternall.
Laſtly, as for the difference you put between them, (beſides the queſtion) one being a more fit ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow then the other, I grant it to bee true in part, as touching the hardning of them. For obduration preſuppoſeth a man of ſuch ripeneſſe of years, as to have the uſe of reaſon: But this hinders not, but that God might at the ſame time have a purpoſe to harden him in his time, as Pharaoh in his time; And yet, why I pray was not Pharaoh as fit a ſubject for God to ſhew his power in changing his heart, as well as Saul was in the middeſt of his bloody perſecutions of the Church of God? And what naturall man (ſuch as I preſume are all thoſe whom you call the world of mankinde) is not a fit ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning and overthrow, though hee bee never ſo morall, yea as morall as Trajan, who raiſed one perſecution, or Marcus Antoninus Philoſophus, who raiſed another, or as Aurelianus, who raiſed a third. It is true, if God will move any man unto courſes contrary to his corrupt inclination, and not give him grace to maſter that corrupt inclination; that man whatſoever hee bee, ſhall bee a fit ſubject for God to ſhew his power in his hardning, yea, and overthrow alſo, if it pleaſe him. But if God move any man never ſo contrariouſly to his corrupt inclination, and withall give him grace to maſter that corrupt inclination of his, hee ſhall bee a fit ſubject for God to ſhew the power of his grace in his converſion and ſalvation.
You ſpeak much of hardning, even according unto pleaſure, without giving your Reader any explication of the words, whereby hee might underſtand your meaning, wherein obduration conſiſts. Surely, obduration is either the denyall of grace, or whatſoever it bee, it is alwaies joyned with the denyall of grace, as I take it. But in very different manner I confeſſe, which you diſtinguiſh not. As for the deniall of grace, that was found to have courſe in the firſt ſin that was committed both in Angels and men. For I am of Auſtins minde concerning the Angels that ſtood, that they were Amplius adjuti then the other that fell, De Civit. Dei. lib. 12. cap. 9. As alſo concerning Adams fall; that in that caſe, Though God gave him poſſe ſi voluit, yet hee gave him not velle quod potuit, and theſe hee makes ſeverall adjutoria. The like may bee ſaid of every ſin that was committed, whereas God could undoubtedly reſtrain from the committing of it, and that either in a gracious manner, or in a meere naturall manner. When it is committed, his gracious reſtraint is not afforded, but denyed rather. What that other action is, wherein this obduration conſiſts, and which is joyned with the denyall of grace, you expound not. Suppoſe it bee Gods moving a man to ſome courſe contrary to his corrupt nature, either by his word, as hee moved Pharaoh to let Iſrael goe, or by his works, or by the ſuggeſtions of conſcience; according to that Law which is writen in mens hearts, is not this uſually found alſo as often as ſinne is committed contrary to light of Nature, or light of Grace? And hath not obduration conſequently its courſe in all this? And why you ſhould pronounce of obduration indefinitely, That it is both the heighth of mans ſin, and depth of mans miſery, I ſee no reaſon. Do not the children of God ſometimes feele it, and in patheticall manner complain of it, Lord why haſt thou cauſed us to erre from thy wayes, and hardned our hearts againſt thy feare? Eſay 63. 17. What ſaith our Saviour to his Diſciples? Mark 8. 17. Perceive yee not, neither underſtand, have yee your hearts yet hardned? As for your phraſe of inflicting obduration, that doth much require explication, which you doe no where perform that I know. There is I confeſſe another operation of God beſides thoſe I mentioned formerly; whereby men are given over by God, whence it followeth, that they will grow harder and harder, and that is the ſuſpenſion of his admonitions, either by taking away his word, or forbearing inward motives by his ſpirit, or removing his judgements and giving outward proſperity, whereby God is ſaid to give men over to their own hearts luſts. But how this or any of theſe can bee called the inflicting of abduration, I underſtand not. And whereas you ſay it is prejudiciall to Gods Juſtice, to ſhew his power in hardning Pharaoh without reſpect to ſin, like as to condemn him; I have already ſhewed the great difference between condemnation and obduration. It being never ſaid, that God damnes whom hee will, but the Apoſtle plainely profeſſing that God hardens whom hee will, even as expreſſely as it is ſaid, Hee hath mercy on whom hee will; and no marvell. For God hath revealed a Law, according to which hee proceeds in damning men, but you are not able to ſhew us a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardning of them. For if the elect before their callings, bee no better then reprobates, it is impoſſible to aſſigne a Law, according to which God proceeds in the hardning of men, but that by the ſame Law, the Elect of God muſt bee hardned alſo. And hardning in the Scripture phraſe is uſually oppoſed to Gods ſhewing mercy. It is one thing to ſpeak of an heart hardned, another to ſpeak of a heart deſperately hardned. Yet if you were put to explicate your ſelf, and ſhew what it is to bee deſperately hardned, and that of God, and there withall to prove how Pharaoh was at the time you ſpeak of, deſperately hardned, I am perſwaded this phraſe would coſt you more pains then you are aware of, for the ſatisfying of your ſelf, and perhaps ſomewhat more for the ſatisfying of others. If then God purpoſed to fall upon Pharaoh in his utmoſt wrath, &c. Surely, from everlaſting hee purpoſed ſo to fall upon him: for all Gods purpoſes are everlaſting.
If your meaning bee onelyonly to denote the precedency of ſuch a condition of Pharaoh in ſin, to Gods falling upon him, in bringing ſuch judgements upon his back; but not a precedency to Gods purpoſe; I willingly concurre with you herein. But then the like may bee ſaid of God concerning Eſau, before hee was born, to wit, that God purpoſed to bring ſuch a meaſure of obduration and confuſion upon him after ſuch a condition of ſin. But if your meaning bee (as indeed hitherunto the genius of your opinion drives you,) namely, that upon the foreſight of ſome ſinfull condition, God did decree to bring obduration and condemnation both upon Eſau and Pharaoh, as this may bee ſaid as well of one as of the other; here you will give us leave to diſſent from you, conſidering how manifeſtly you are found herein to diſſent from your ſelf. For if ſuch a foreſight of ſin goe before Gods decree of obduration and condemnation, then God did firſt decree to permit that ſin, before hee did. decree to harden and condemne man for it, ſo that the permiſſion of that ſin in Gods intention, muſt bee before obduration and condemnation, and conſequently laſt in execution: that is, men ſhall firſt bee hardned and condemned, and then ſuffered to commit that ſinne, for which they are hardned and condemned.
Again, if Gods purpoſe to puniſh with condemnation, muſt neceſſarily preſuppoſe foreſight of ſin in God; by the ſame reaſon Gods purpoſe to reward with ſalvation muſt neceſſarily preſuppoſe a foreſight in God of obedience, and in this caſe, what ſhall become of the freeneſſe of Gods grace in election? not to trouble you with the profeſſion of Aquinas, that never any man was ſo mad as to introduce a cauſe of predeſtination, quoad actum praedeſtinantis. The caſe is the ſame with introducing a cauſe of reprobation, quoad actum reprobantis. For the ground of this is, only becauſe there can bee no cauſe of the will of God, quoad actum volentis. Now reprobation is well known to bee an act of Gods will, as well as predeſtination.
Anſwer, But ſay further, that this hardning of Pharaoh, bee an effect of the like hatred of Pharaoh as of Eſau; neither is it ſaid to depend on the ſin of Pharaoh, but on the will of God, as mercy doth, as the firſt cauſe thereof.
I anſwer, this hardning of Pharaoh, though an effect of Gods hatred of Pharaoh, yet it is not an immediate effect of the like hatred hee bare to Eſau, before hee had done good or evill, but preſuppoſeth the ſin of Pharaoh, viz. his malitious hatred of Gods Church comming between. God hateth no man ſo farre as to harden him, till hee hath fallen into ſome ſin, in which, and for which hee may bee hardned. Hardning being alwaies (as far as I can perceive by Scripture) not only a ſin, and cauſe of ſin, but a puniſhment of ſin.
How can God bee ſaid to puniſh ſin with ſin, in hardning the creature, if ſin in Pharaoh bee not preſuppoſed to goe before the hardning? It is true indeed, this hardning of Pharaoh is referred by the Apoſtle to the will of God as the firſt cauſe thereof: For otherwiſe the anſwer of the Apoſtle had not been ſufficient to the objection propounded, ver. 14. for there it was objected that unrighteouſneſſe might ſeem to bee found in God, even reſpect of perſons to deale ſo unequally with perſons equall, ſuch as Jacob and Eſau were; for if Jacob and Eſau had done neither good, nor evill, when God had exalted the younger to the participation of his free love, and to ſoveraignty over his Brother, and depreſſed the elder to the condition of a ſervant, and as a ſervant reſerved for him juſt dealing, but not fatherly love; might not this ſeeme an unequall partiality with God, to deale ſo unequally with perſons equall? To reſolve this doubt, the Apoſtle could not have cleered God from unrighteouſneſſe by pleading the ſin of Eſau, which deſerved that hee ſhould bee ſo dealt withall, for neither did Jacobs ſin deſerve better; and beſides the Apoſtle had ſaid before, God gave out theſe Oracles which pronounced his different reſpect of them without all conſideration of good or evill in either of them; viz. before they had done either good or evill. Therefore to ſatisfie the objection, and cleare Gods righteouſneſſe, the Apoſtle wiſely alledgeth teſtimonie of Scripture, to prove Gods abſolute power and ability, to ſhew mercy on whom hee will, and whom hee will to harden.
When you ſay this hardning of Pharaoh, though an effect Exam.of Gods hatred of Pharaoh, yet was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Eſau, before hee had done good or evill, but preſuppoſeth the ſin of Pharaoh, your meaning ſeems to bee this, that it is not at all an effect of the like hatred which hee bare to Eſau, before hee had done good or evill, yet it is no leſſe then the not writing of his name in the book of life, as touching the communicating of ſaving grace and glory, neither do wee acknowledge it to bee any more; (like as Aquinas doth not) now the conſequent of this kinde or meaſure of hatred in holy Scripture is no leſſe, then the worſhipping of the beaſt, Rev. 13. 8. nothing leſſe then the obduration of Pharaoh. The obduration of the children of Iſrael, was no greater then ſuch as was conſequent unto this, that God did not give them an heart to perceive, and eies to ſee, and ears to heare, Deut. 29. 4. And this of not giving hearts to perceive, &c. undoubtedly, is a conſequent even to that hatred which you are content to attribute unto God, concerning Eſau. But you helpe your ſelf with a complicate propoſition, and flie to an immediate effect, which alone you deny in this caſe, for as much as the hardning of Pharaoh (as you ſay) preſuppoſed ſin committed by him, but very improvidently: For if it bee not an immediate effect of the like hatred that God bare unto Eſau, then in accurate conſideration it is to bee acknowledged an effect thereof. Only there is ſome effect thereof more immediate then this, and what I pray was that? was it Pharaohs ſin? for of no other doe you make the leaſt intimation; the more improvident is your expreſſion, intimating thereby that Pharaohs ſin was a more immediate effect in Pharaoh of the like hatred God bare to Eſau then this obduration.
But how doe you prove that Pharaohs hardening was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which God bare to Eſau? to wit, becauſe it preſuppoſed ſin. But I deny this Argument, neither doe you (diſcourſing at large) give your ſelfe to the proving of it; but onelyonly ſuppoſe it. By the ſame reaſon you might ſay, that ſalvation is not the immediate effect of election unto ſalvation; becauſe ſalvation in men of ripe years preſuppoſeth faith, repentance and good workes.
Nay, you may as well ſay, that Gods giving of grace, is not an immediate effect of Gods love to any man; becauſe in moſt men of ripe years it preſuppoſeth many good works. In Saul it preſuppoſed his zeale and his righteouſneſſe according to the Law, which was unblameable. If you ſay that Sauls righteouſneſſe, whatſoever it was before his calling was no fruit of his love: I may with more probability affirme, that Pharaohs ſin which preceded his obduration, was no effect of Gods hatred. If you ſay, that though ſuch righteouſneſſe in Saul was no moving cauſe to God to give him ſaving grace: In like manner I ſay, that no ſin in Pharaoh was a moving cauſe in God to deny him ſaving grace: For if it were, then either by neceſſity of nature, or by the conſtitution of God. Not by neceſſity of nature; for undoubtedly God could have pardoned this ſin of his, and changed his heart, as well as he pardoned the ſins of Manaſſes, the ſins of the Jews in crucifying the ſon of God, Act. 2. the ſins of Saul in perſecuting Gods Saints; and changed all their hearts. Nor by any conſtitution of God; for ſhew mee if you can any ſuch conſtitution of God. And if you would but explicate wherein the hardening of Pharaoh did conſiſt, I preſume it would clearely appeare, that the meere pleaſure of Gods will is the cauſe of it; like as it is the meere pleaſure of God that he doth not harden others in like manner: But when we carry our ſelves in the clouds of generallties, we are very apt to deceive not others onelyonly, (if they will be deceived) but our ſelves alſo. Againe, you ſeem to ſpeake of Pharaohs hardening mentioned Exod. 9. 16. And indeed for this cauſe have I appointed thee, to ſhew my power in thee, &c. Whereas from the firſt time that Moſes was ſent unto him hee was hardened, and that by God, according as God had told Moſes before-hand, that hee would harden him. As for his ſin, before ever Moſes was ſent unto him, you doe not take any ſpeciall notice thereof at all; but whatſoever it were, as ſuppoſe the cruell edict of his in commanding the male children of the Hebrews to be caſt into the River; like as God anſwered him moſt congruouſly in his works; firſt cauſing the waters of Aegypt to bee turned into blood; and in the laſt place making the waters of the red Sea, the grave of Pharaoh and of his Hoſt: was this horrible ſin any leſſe then a conſequent to more then ordinary obduration… for even heathen men are ſeldom expoſed to ſuch unnatural courſes. So that if this obduration were an effect of Gods hatred, but not immediate; ſuppoſing ſin according to the manner of your Diſcourſe; then you muſt be put to deviſe ſome other ſin as precedent to this obduration. And whereas that ſin alſo cannot be denyed to be a conſequent to Gods denyall of effectuall grace to abſtaine from ſin, we ſhall never come to an end, till the cauſe of all theſe obdurations be at length reſolved into originall ſin; And what ſhare I pray you hath the world of mankind therein, which Gods elect have not? When you tel us the hardening is a puniſhment of ſin, it were very fit you ſhould deal plainly, & tel us in what operation of God this work of hardening doth conſiſt, which I make no doubt, would cleare all. All confeſſe that God is not the cauſe of hardneſſe of heart in any man, but man being borne in hardneſſe of heart, Ezek. 36. 3. 1. God is ſaid to harden, not infundendo malitiam, ſed non infundendo gratiam: By leaving him thereunto, whereby it comes to paſſe that naturally it is increaſed, eſpecially in caſe a man bee moved to courſes contrary to his corrupt humours, whether by Gods word, or by his workes, and God doth not by grace correct thoſe corrupt humours, which are ſo contrariant to good motions; good motions, I mean ſuch as have their courſe onelyonly in the way of inſtruction and perſwaſion; In this caſe thus to move and to deny grace is to harden. But when God doth forbeare thus to move, and gives men over to follow the ſwing of their own luſts, this I confeſſe is to harden in greater meaſure, and properly a puniſhment. But this was not the manner of Pharaohs hardning. For long after the ninth Chapter of Exodus wee read how God continued to admoniſh Pharaoh by his ſervant Moſes to let his people goe; neither ceaſed hee this Diſcipline till the ten plagues or nine of them at the leaſt were fulfilled. And like as to ſhew mercy is not to move onelyonly to obedience, but effectually to work men to obedience, ſo the hardning of man in oppoſition thereunto, conſiſts not in not moving unto obedience, but rather in not working unto obedience, although they bee moved thereunto both in the way of inſtruction and exhortation. As for the puniſhing of ſin with ſin, in the hardning of the creature, let us underſtand our ſelves aright, and not confound our ſelves when wee need not. Is it a ſober ſpeech to ſay that God puniſheth his denyall of grace, with denyall of Grace? or that God puniſheth the ſins of the heathen with the denyall of that grace, which they never injoyed?
But as for the puniſhing of ſin with ſin, this is a large field of Gods providence conſiſting in divers kindes, and it is no way fit to conſider them without diſtinction. God made the unnaturalneſſe of Senacheribs Sons, a ſcourge to chaſtiſe Senacheribs unnaturalneſſe towards God; one mans ſinfull act to bee the puniſhment of anothers. Here is one kinde utterly diſtinct from that you treat of.
Again, ſome ſay, (and I think juſtly) and Auſtin acknowledgeth it, that every mans ſin may bee a juſt puniſhment unto him in reſpect of a former, as Rom. 1. 25. When men for their Idolatry were given over to vile affections, to defile themſelves in abominable manner, it is ſaid that herein they received in themſelves, ſuch recompence of their error, as was meete. So 2 Theſſ. 2. 10, 11. Becauſe men received not the truth of God with love, God is ſaid to ſend them ſtrong deluſions, that they ſhould beleeve lies. Now ſeeing this concerneth the providence of God in evill, which is very ſecret, it were very fit that you ſhould declare your opinion hereabout, and ſhew what operation of God it is, wherein conſiſts the adminiſtration of this providence. When firſt, the one committed Idolatry contrary to the light of Nature, and the other received not the truth with love contrary to the light of grace: neither the one nor the other had any ſaving grace; and therefore, it is not decent to ſay that God expoſed the one to doe things inconvenient, the other to beleeves lies, and herein puniſhed them for their former miſdemenour, by denying unto them that which they never injoyed. For to puniſh is either to inflict evil, which formerly they ſuffered not, or to withdraw ſome good which formerly they injoyed. Now how God doth expoſe unconſcionable Chriſtians unto errors of Faith, is eaſily comprehended. For whereas unconſcionable Chriſtians apprehend the truth which they doe injoy, but in a naturall and carnall manner, they may eaſily bee withdrawne from it, either by perſecution or by ſeduction: Now it is in Gods power to ſend perſecutors or ſeducers amongſt them, and thereby expoſe them to the embracing of lies, for not imbracing his truth with love; or by withdrawing good Paſtors and conſcionable teachers from them: and then men being naturally more prone to errour then to truth, eſpecially in matter of Salvation; wee ſee hereby apparently how God can puniſh ſin with ſin in this kinde, not by denyall of grace which they never injoyed, but by denying ſome outward means of grace which formerly they injoyed. And withall it appears that this is nothing to our preſent purpoſe, who treate of obduration, as it conſiſts in, or is joyned with the denyall of ſaving Grace, in proper oppoſition to the ſhewing of mercy; or affording ſaving grace. As touching the other examples wherein the adminiſtration of Gods providence is more obſcure, while hee puniſheth ſin with ſin; I ſay alſo that Gods puniſhing conſiſts in denying, or not maintaining ſome kinde of grace, or rather not ſo much to bee called grace as a naturall reſtraint, not from ſin in generall, (for that cannot bee but by ſaving grace) but from ſome ſins in ſpeciall, which are foule in the judgement of a naturall mans conſcience; ſuch as are thoſe unnaturall defilements the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Rom. 1. Now God in a naturall manner reſtraines men from ſuch exceſſe, either for feare of ſhame of the world, or by reaſon of ſome naturall detriment that may ariſe thereby, or by the miniſtery of his Angels reſtraining the temptations of Satan in this kinde; And it is found by experience that Nemo repente fit turpiſſimus, but they grow to extreams by degrees, and the longer a man lives, the worſe hee grows, if grace correct not the courſe of corrupt nature, according to that ſaying, Nemo ſenex metuit Jovem. Now if God ſhall forbeare this reſtraint, and give them over to the power of Satan, they ſhall bee expoſed to the commiſſion of ſuch abominable things, and therein they ſhall receive in themſelves a juſt recompence of their former errors. And therewithall wee ſee how this caſe is as extravagant from our preſent purpoſe in diſcourſing of obduration as the former. And you confeſſe that the hardning of Pharaoh is referred by the Apoſtle to the will of God; but withall you adde, that it is referred thereto, by him, as to the firſt cauſe thereof, whereas no ſuch diſtinction or limitation ſutable is expreſſed or implyed by the Apoſtle; but onelyonly for the advantage of your own opinion, you are pleaſed thus to ſhape it. And it is very ſtrange that the Apoſtle ſhould utterly omit ſuch a cauſe as is of a moſt ſatisfying nature, and give himſelfe to the pleading of that, which affords ſo little ſatisfaction in the judgement of fleſh and blood, ſuch as it ſeems they reliſh moſt of, with whom the Apoſtle enters upon this his Dialogue; neither doth the Apoſtle referre this to Jacob and Eſau onelyonly, as you faſhion it (to hold up the difference you put between Gods hatred of Eſau before hee was born, and his hatred of Pharaoh;) but to the obduration of Pharaoh alſo, nay, more properly to that, his obduration alone being expreſſed, and the Apoſtle being upon an anſwer to an objection ariſing from the Apoſtles Doctrine concerning Gods ſoveraignty and liberty to harden whom hee will.
Beſides this, you doe not well to qualifie the difference God puts between Jacob and Eſau, as if it conſiſted onelyonly in making Eſau Jacobs ſervant, and Jacob Eſaus Lord; according to your opinion it extends further then this, even to the granting of ſuch grace to Jacob as ſhould bee accompanied with ſalvation, and denying of the ſame to Eſau, whereupon infallibly followed condemnation. It is true, God is juſt in dealing with Eſau, and God is as juſt every whit, in dealing with Jacob; for hee deales with each according to the Law himſelf made. But God ſhewed mercy alſo unto Jacob in providing a Saviour to die for him, and in circumciſing his heart, and making him to perform the condition of life, hee ſhewed no ſuch mercy unto Eſau.
You ſee well how incongruous it were to plead the ſin of Eſau, why hee ſhould bee ſo dealt withall, ſeeing Jacob at that time deſerved no better. But why doe you not obſerve, that this Diſcourſe of the Apoſtle, hath every way as pregnant a reference to the obduration of Pharaoh, or of any one that is hardned, as to Gods dealing with Eſau?
Again, ſuppoſe ſome are not ſo bad as Pharaoh was, when God hardens Pharaoh, and doth not harden others, but rather ſhews them mercy, will you ſay the reaſon hereof is becauſe theſe deſerved better at the hands of God then Pharaoh? Doe you not perceive how this Doctrine carryeth you ere you are aware, to trench upon the freeneſſe of Gods grace in mans effectuall vocation? Suppoſe Nicodemus who ſought to our Saviour by night were converted, and Saul had not been at all converted, but ſtill hardned; would you have ſaid that Paul was hardned becauſe of his ſin in perſecuting the Church of God, but Nicodemus deſerved better at the hands of God then Saul? Yet wee are ſure that Saul in ſpight of all his perſecution was converted, when in all probability many a morall Jew, and nothing factious in oppoſing the Goſpel of Chriſt, yea and many a Gentile too were not converted, but periſhed in their ſins, and in the blindneſſe of their minde.
If it bee urged thereupon that God doth harden the creature Anſwer.and alſo hateth him with a poſitive hatred, without all reſpect of ſin in the creature out of his abſolute will.
I anſwer, in theſe deep counſels and unſearchable wayes of God, it is ſafe for us to wade no farther then wee may ſee the light of the Scriptures clearing our paths, and the grounds thereof paving our wayes, and as it were chalking it out before us. The Scripture telleth us, That God hardens whom hee Rom. 11. 1. 8. 9 10. compared with Pſal. 69. 21, to 28. See alſo Rom 1. 26 27, 28 Pſal. 81. 11, 12.will.
And again, ſin is the cauſe in which, and for which God doth harden any: both which will ſtand together.
That as God ſheweth mercy on whom hee pleaſeth; ſo hee hardneth whom hee pleaſeth, out of his abſolute will. Yet hardneth none but with reſpect of ſin going before. For,
Firſt, when wee ſpeak of the reprobate with compariſon of the elect, they are both alike ſinners: And therefore if the queſtion bee, why God hardneth the reprobate, and doth not harden, but ſhew mercy on the Elect? Here no cauſe can bee rendred of this different dealing, but onelyonly the will and good pleaſure of God; ſin is alike common to both, and cannot bee alledged as the cauſe of this diverſity. Idem qua idem ſemper facit idem. But when wee ſpeak of the Reprobates alone conſidered in themſelves: If the queſtion bee, why God is pleaſed to harden them; The anſwer is alway truely, and ſafely given; It pleaſed God to harden them for their ſins. And which is yet more, when God is ſaid to harden a wicked man for his ſin, it is not ſin that moved God primarily to harden him; but his abſolute will it was to harden him for his ſin; for what ſin could God ſee in the creature to provoke him to harden it, but what hee might have prevented by his providence, or healed by the blood of Chriſt, if it had ſo ſeemed good to his good pleaſure? When therefore God doth harden a creature for his ſin, it is becauſe it is his good pleaſure, even his abſolute will ſo to harden him. To will a thing abſolutely, and yet to will it on this or that condition, may well ſtand together in many a voluntary agent, when the condition is ſuch, as that the will might eaſily help, if it ſo pleaſed. As if a man ſhould caſt off a ſervant for ſome diſeaſe hee hath, which hee might eaſily heale if it pleaſed him: or break his veſſell for ſome ſuch uncleanneſſe which hee could eaſily rinſe out; Both theſe may well bee ſaid of him at once, that hee caſt off his ſervant for his diſeaſe, and brake his veſſell for its uncleaneneſſe, and yet might hee caſt out his ſervant and break his veſſell, and both out of his good pleaſure, and out of his abſolute, and his free will.
It is true; the Word of God is a Lantborn unto our feete, and a Light to our paths, and it is fit wee ſhould reſt contented herewith Exam.for diſcovering unto us the whole counſell of God. Now this Word of God plainly teacheth us, that God bardneth whom hee will. Now I preſume you doe not doubt, but that Rom. 9. 18.God out of his abſolute will, ſhews mercy on whom hee will. Nay, I can hardly beleeve but that your opinion is, that like as God out of his abſolute will granted ſaving grace to Jacob: ſo out of his abſolute will he denyed ſaving grace to Eſau. And ſtill doth to thoſe whom you account the world of mankinde.
And I have already ſhewed that the deniall of this grace can bee no puniſhment; For as much as puniſhment conſiſteth, either in inflicting evill, or in denying ſome good which formerly was granted them. But in denying ſaving grace to the world of mankinde, hee doth not deny them any thing which they formerly injoyed.
I have already ſhewed, what that hardning is which is for ſin, and wherein it doth conſiſt, not in denying ſaving grace, which they never injoyed, but in denying that naturall reſtraint from ſome foule ſin, which formerly they injoyed, as I exemplifyed it in that, Rom. 1. 27. That in Rom. 11. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. is nothing for you, where there is no mention of ſin as the cauſe of their obduration. As for that in Pſalm. 69. 21. Their blinding is referred to their giving unto Chriſt Gall in his meate, and in his thirſt vinegar to drink. I pray conſider: Were they not even then blinded, when they perſecuted Chriſt unto death? And yet notwithſtanding ſome of theſe were converted, Act. 2.
But upon this their oppoſition unto Chriſt, God did proceed to blinde them more and more, but how? Not by denying ſaving illumination, for this they never injoyed, it was denyed them, from the firſt to the laſt.
But by withdrawing from them the meanes of illumination more and more, as namely the preaching of Goſpel, and the working of miracles, and the giving them over unto the power of Satan. This alſo is to give them over to their own hearts luſt, Pſal. 81. 11, 12. by ceaſing to admoniſh them of the error of their waies, either by his word, or by his judgements and chaſtiſements in his works. That God doth harden out of his abſolute will, and yet hardens none but for ſin, cannot bee avouched in my judgment without manifeſt contradiction. If they are not contradictions; Then thoſe alſo are not, God hath mercy on whom hee will, yet God hath mercy on none, but in reſpect of their good works going before.
Secondly, by the ſame reaſon it may bee ſaid, that God condemnes men out of his abſolute will, and yet hee condemnes none but for ſin, yet you ſhall never read that God condemnes whom hee will.
Thirdly, if God doth harden out of his abſolute will, then alſo hee did purpoſe to harden of his abſolute will. Whence I infer that then God did not purpoſe to harden for ſin. For Gods purpoſe to harden only in reſpect of ſin, is commonly accounted (and that by your ſelf) a will conditionate, and a will conditionate is oppoſite to a will abſolute.
Laſtly, I deny that God doth harden for their ſins, as hardning denoteth a denyall of ſaving grace; For to harden for ſin is to puniſh, but to deny ſaving grace to them that never had ſaving grace, is not to puniſh them; to leave a man in the ſtate wherein hee findes him, is not to puniſh him. And therefore when Epaminondas ran his Javelin through a Sentinell whom hee found in ſleepe, ſaying, I did but leave him as I found him, becauſe ſleep is uſually ſaid to bee Mortis Imago, the Image of death, had hee no better Apologie for his fact then this, hee had no way freed himſelf from injuſtice. If God may harden man for ſin, and yet ſin ſhall not bee a primary cauſe moving God to harden him, by the ſame reaſon, though God condemnes man for ſin, it is not neceſſary, that ſin ſhould bee a primary cauſe moving God to condemn him, which is directly contrary to your tenet in the point of reprobation. And this conſideration of your own, if you hold your ſelf unto it attentively, may bring you into the right way, from which you have erred, and the want of it hath been a means I fear to confirm many in their errors. Wee acknowledge it to bee Gods abſolute will to condemn for ſin, but withall wee ſay it is his abſolute will to permit whom hee will to ſin, and continue in ſin by denying ſaving grace to raiſe them out of ſin. And this deniall of grace cannot bee for ſin, as I have already proved. To harden a man, in oppoſition to Gods ſhewing mercy on him: wee take to bee nothing elſe then his refuſall to cure him. Now let any man judge whether it bee a decent ſpeech to ſay, that becauſe a man is ſick, therefore God will not cure him.
In the caſes propoſed by you, of caſting a ſervant off for a diſeaſe which hee can cure if hee liſt, or breaking a veſſell for ſome filthineſſe which one may cleanſe if hee will; whether this bee not to bee reſolved into the abſolute will of the Maſter, I am content to appeale to every ſober mans judgement: although the compariſons are not congruous to the caſe wee have in hand; for as much as the caſting of a ſervant off, is diſtinct from the not curing of him; the breaking of a veſſell is diſtinct from the cleanſing of it. But the hardning of a man, in oppoſition to Gods ſhewing mercy on him is nothing diſtinct from Gods refuſing to cure him. If the queſtion were propoſed thus; Why will not a man cleanſe his veſſell when hee is able to cleanſe it? why will hee not heale his ſervant when hee hath power to heale him? Is it a good reaſon to ſay, therefore hee heales him not, becauſe hee is ſick? therefore hee cleanſeth not his veſſell, becauſe it is unclean? Neither is it a more ſober ſpeech to ſay, therefore God hardens a man becauſe hee is a ſinner; For it is as much as to ſay, therefore hee refuſeth to cleanſe him from his ſin, becauſe hee findes him unclean by reaſon of his ſin.
Anſw. The want of conſidering this point, hath as I conceive it, intangled the Doctrine of predeſtination with needleſſe difficulties, and expoſed it to raſh and hard cenſures in the mindes of gain-ſayers. Then it may bee ſaid there was no cauſe of that objection, Why complaineth hee, and who can reſiſt his will? or at leaſt of that anſwer to, why doth hee yet complaine? Rom. 9. 20, 21, 22.
I anſwer, that objection propounded by the Apoſtle, Why doth hee yet complain? for who hath reſiſted his will? doth not ariſe upon occaſion of Gods preferring Jacob before Eſau, but upon the latter part of the Corollary going immediately before, v. 18. Whom hee will hee hardneth; for if it bee God that hardneth the creature, and that according to his abſolute will, then might the hardned creature ſay, what fault is there in mee to bee ſo hardned? Why doth God complain of mee for my hardneſſe and impenitency? Who hath reſiſted his will?
To make this objection colourable, wee need not ſay as you ſeem to imply, that the Apoſtle gave occaſion of it, by aſcribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods abſolute will, and without all reſpect to ſin; yet the creature hardned, is wont to plead with God about it, Eſa. 63. 17. you ſhall there ſee Gods own people to erre, and upon their error, to have their hearts hardned from Gods feare, and both done by God, and yet the people expoſtulate with God about it, which if Gods own people may doe reverently, is it any wonder if the reprobates doe the ſame upon the ſame occaſion petulantly and profanely?
But the anſwer of the Apoſtle to the objection propounded, cleareth the whole matter; For, as a man would juſtifie the ſevere proceedings of a Maſter of a Colledge, in refuſing to elect an unworthy perſon, and in ſtead thereof expelling him the Colledge by pleading, firſt, the liberty or authority of his negative voyce: Secondly, the deſert of the perſon refuſed and expelled. So the Apoſtle beateth down the inſolency of the objection, and pleadeth the juſtice of Gods proceedings againſt Reprobates hated and hardned, from, firſt, the Soveraignty of God over his creature, ver. 20, 21. ſecondly, the due deſerts of perſons being veſſels of wrath, and fitted for deſtruction, ver. 22.
What theſe needleſſe difficulties are, wherewith the Doctrine Exam.of predeſtination is intangled, by the Doctrine of them whom you impugne, you doe not expreſſe, nor the hard and harſh cenſures which are paſſed upon it, that by due comparing of the one to the other, wee might examine how juſtly ſuch cenſures are pronounced.
But of what nature your opinion is, how inconſiſtent in it ſelf; on how little reaſon it is grounded; what conſequences it draws after it, as alſo what cauſeleſſe fears you raiſe unto yourſelf; and above all, and which is worſt of all, how you deal with Scripture in this argument, to ſerve your turn, I leave it to your conſcience to judge, not to mention how this Diſcourſe of yours is found to harden many in the way of error, and to offend others in the way of truth.
Indeed there were no cauſe of any ſuch objection as that, Rom. 9. 29. if ſo bee God hardens no man but for ſin, and withall it is juſt with God to harden men in their ſine, and leſſe cauſe of ſuch an anſwer, Rom. 9. 20, 21, 22. No man, I think, makes any doubt but that the objection, Why doth hee complain? for who hath reſiſted his will? ariſeth from the 18 ver. where it is ſaid, that God as hee hath mercy on whom hee will, ſo hee hardneth whom hee will, even as hee hardned Pharaoh; but yet you doe not ſhape the objection right, when you ſhape it thus; What fault is there in mee to bee hardned? which is in effect as if you would ſhape it thus; Wherein then have I deſerved to bee hardned? For the negative to this, namely, that God doth not harden upon deſert, is that which the Apoſtle avoucheth; Like as neither doth hee ſhew mercy upon deſert. But like as upon the meere pleaſure of his will, hee ſhews mercy on ſome: So, according to the good pleaſure of his will, hee hardneth others. But well might hee ſay, why then doth hee complain of the hardneſſe of my heart, and my impenitency; or rather the Apoſtle propoſeth it, in reference to the fruits of mans hardneſſe of heart and impenitency, ſuch as God complains of, Eſa. 1. I have nouriſhed and brought up a people, and they have rebelled againſt mee. And Eſa. 56. All the day long have I ſtretched out mine hands to a rebellious people, that walk in a way which is not good, even after their own imaginations. Or as if Pharaoh, hearing of this miniſtry of Gods providence, ſhould ſay, Why doth hee complain of the hardneſſe of my heart in not letting Iſrael goe, when hee hath hardned my beart that I ſhould not let Iſrael goe, and who hath reſiſted his will?
I have already ſhewed that this hardning of Pharaoh, and ſo likewiſe of all reprobates, as it conſiſts in denying of ſaving grace, in congruous oppoſition to Gods mercy, proceeds meerely according to the good pleaſure of Gods will: And the Apoſtle plainly ſignifies as much, when hee ſaith, That like as God hath mercy on whom bee will, ſo hee hardneth whom bee will; Neither doth hee take into conſideration any ſin of theirs as the cauſe of hardning, either in the propoſition delivered by him, or in anſwer to the objection ariſing there-hence. Why then ſhould wee bee moved with your bare word in ſaying, wee need not ſay that the Apoſtle gave occaſion of this objection, by aſcribing the hardning of Pharaoh and other reprobates to Gods abſolute will, and without all reſpect to ſin, as the deſerving cauſe thereof. Neither do you give any reaſon of that you avouch, in ſaying, that albeit God doth not harden but in reſpect of ſin; yet the creature will pleade or expoſtulate; as indeed it is moſt unreaſonable to ask why God doth complain of hardneſſe of heart, and the fruits thereof; when it hath been ſhewed that this hardneſſe of heart hath been brought upon man for his own ſin, and no exception taken againſt it. But when out of Gods abſoluteneſſe men are hardned, then, and not till then may it juſtly ſeem ſtrange that God ſhould complain of the hardneſſe of mens hearts, and the fruites thereof. As for the place of Eſa. 63. 17. Wherein you ſuppoſe Gods people to expoſtulate with God for hardning them, notwithſtanding they ſuppoſe that God hardens them for their ſin, this is to beg the queſtion, and not to prove ought, there being no evidence of any ſuch acknowledgment as you ſuppoſe, namely, that God doth harden them for their ſins. Yet if there were any ſuch acknowledgment, it would not forthwith make for your purpoſe unleſſe they ſhould acknowledge as much of that obduration, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, where hee ſets it in oppoſition to Gods ſhewing mercy. To ſerve your turn, you take liberty to interpret the coherence of theſe parts, to erre from thy waies, and to bee hardned againſt thy feare: as if the former were the cauſe of the other, upon no other ground that I know, but that thus it ſhall ſtand in more congruity with your opinion. Whereas, indeed there is a farre greater probability, that hardning againſt the feare of God ſhould bee the cauſe of the errour of our wayes, then that errour of our wayes ſhould bee the cauſe of our hardning againſt the feare of God; eſpecially taking hardning, not confuſedly hand over head, but diſtinctly in oppoſition to Gods ſhewing mercy in mans converſion; I take them only as ſeverall expreſſions of the ſame things conſiſting of an inward corrupt diſpoſition as the roote, and that I conceive to bee the want of the feare of God; and the fruit hereof, which is aberration from the good wayes of the Lord.
And they expoſtulate with God, for not correcting all this by his grace, as by his Covenant of grace, which hee hath made with them, hee hath ingaged himſelf hereunto, even to keep them from going aſtray, like a good Shepherd, and to put his feare into their hearts, that they ſhall never depart away from him; Jer. 32. 40.Which kinde of expoſtulation is nothing anſwerable to that which the Apoſtle propoſeth to anſwer, Rom. 9. 16. And I may well wonder what you meant to yoke them together: Non bene inaequales veniunt ad aratra juvencae. The children of God doe not expoſtulate with God for his complaining of their diſobedience, unthankfulneſſe, and rebellions againſt him, though they heartily wiſh they had never provoked him, and expoſtulate with him for not preſerving them by his grace, from ſuch courſes of provocation of him, even of the eyes of his glory. The wicked have no ſuch deſire to bee preſerved from ſin and ſinfull courſes, which are unto them as ſweet bits, which they roule under their tongues; Although when they heare of the Doctrine of obduration and his power to harden them, and in hardning they may take advantage thereby to blaſpheme God, and to plead Apologie for themſelves; Belike then you acknowledge that God hath power to harden without reſpect to ſin, for to this purpoſe tends your comparative illuſtration.
But then you muſt bee driven to deny that obduration is a puniſhment; ſeeing it is impoſſible that juſt puniſhments can have courſe but with reſpect to ſin, as a meritorious cauſe thereof. That God beateth down the objectour, and pleadeth the juſtice of Gods proceedings againſt Reprobates, from the ſoveraign authority of God over his creatures is moſt true, ver. 20, 21. But that hee pleads the due deſert of the perſons, ver. 22. thereby to juſtifie God in hardning whom hee will, as poſitively avouched, but ſo farre from truth, as that it involves plain contradiction; no leſſe then if the Apoſtle after hee had ſaid that God hath mercy on whom hee will, ſhould afterward take a courſe to juſtifie God herein, by ſaying that God hath mercy on none, but in reſpect to their former good works. Nay, much more contradictions, for as much as no good works in the ſtate of nature or grace, can bee meritorious of reward. But ſins may bee and are truely meritorious of puniſhment. In the 22 verſ. there is not the leaſt mention of obduration, much leſſe any mention of the cauſe thereof, leaſt of all, any reverſing of the former cauſe (expreſſed ver. 18. and juſtifyed ver. 20. from the authority of God the Creator, having power to make his creatures of what faſhion hee will,) and ſubſtituting a new in the place thereof. And although all that are veſſels of wrath are ſinners, and conſequently deſerve puniſhment, yet obduration, in oppoſition to ſhewing mercy, conſiſting in the deniall of ſaving grace, is no puniſhment, for as much as God doth not thereby withdraw any ſaving grace from them, which formerly they injoyed; and as for inflicting evill, that hath no place in obduration, for as much as all confeſſe that God doth not obdurate any man, infundendo malitiam, but non infundendo gratiam. Neither is it ſin either originall, or actuall, that which conſtitutes a man a veſſell of wrath, as a veſſell of wrath is oppoſite to a veſſell of mercy. For ſin both originall and actuall is incident to the Elect as well as to the Reprobate: but like as Gods ſhewing mercy makes a man a veſſell of mercy: ſo Gods denyall of mercy, finally conſtitutes a veſſell of wrath, expoſing him to finall infidelity or impenitency, which ſin alone is not found in any of the elect. It ſeems you think they are fitted to deſtruction by themſelves, as if vaſa the veſſels did ſeparate, and not Herus the Maſter rather. Sin alone makes a man obnoxious to condemnation as deſerving it, and ſo there is ſin in the beſt of Gods children, to drive them to confeſſe, that if the Lord ſhould bee extream to mark what is done amiſſe, none were able to abide it: Yet the ſin of the Reprobates you confeſſe God could prevent, and not preventing it, yet could cure it by the blood of Chriſt, ſo that though ſin bee granted to bee a cauſe hereof, yet a more originall cauſe (though nothing culpable) muſt bee acknowledged to bee the deniall of Grace; as our Saviour budgeth not to profeſſe to the faces of ſome; Yee therefore heare not my words, becauſe yee are not of God, and Joh. 12. 40. Therefore they could not beleeve, becauſe Eſaias ſaith, Hee hath blinded their eyes, and hardned their hearts, that they ſhould not ſee with their eyes, and underſtand with their hearts, and ſhould bee converted, and I ſhould heale them.
All this while have I maintained, the ſafeneſſe of that expoſition Anſwer.which interpreteth Gods hatred of Eſau, of a leſſe degree of love, and the ſame word is alſo uſed in the ſame ſenſe; But yet ſo underſtand mee, I conceive this leſſe degree of Love, to have ſomewhat in it of the true nature of Hatred. For as the nature of Love ſtandeth in affecting communion with one, and communicating good unto him: So likewiſe the nature of hatred ſtands in the contrary to this, either in affecting ſeparation from one, or inflicting evill on him, or at leaſt in not vouchſafing communion, or communicating good unto him. So is a man ſaid to hate his brother, that will not vouchſafe him ſuch an office of brotherly communion, as that hee will communicate a kindly reproofe to him for his ſin.
Now I would eaſily grant, that before Eſau had done good or evill, God ſo hated him, as that hee did not communicate to him that fellowſhip with Chriſt, which by Gods election and donation the members of the body have with him their head in Gods account, even before the world was. Neither did God vouchſafe that plentifull communication of his free grace unto him, as might in time by a reall actuall power draw him to Chriſt and to live by him: Yea God was pleaſed to ſet him in a ſtate further remote, and ſeparate from him then his elect brother: Even in the eſtate of a ſervant to the elect: and in ſtead of communicating free grace, hee purpoſed to deale with him rather according to his works, by a covenant of Juſtice; For both theſe are implyed in Gods putting of Eſau into the ſtate of a ſervant.
Firſt, the denyall of ſuch grace and fatherly love to him as is reſerved for children.
Secondly, the (not) refuſing of him to juſt dealing, ſuch as is due to ſervants according to their works.
I look to receive from you ſome proofe that the word Hatred Exam.is uſed in the ſame ſenſe, to wit, to ſignifie a leſſe degree of Love, for to my judgement, it is a wilde interpretation; for in this ſenſe God might bee ſaid to hate every one of Gods elect excepting Chriſt, for hee loves them all in a leſſe degree then hee loved Chriſt, and one in a leſſe degree then another, according as degrees of Love attributed to God are to bee eſtimated, that is, not quoad affectum, (for undoubtedly there are no degrees to bee found in the nature of God) but quoad affectum, and undoubtedly God alots one degree of grace to one, and another degree to another, and as hee deales with them in communicating of grace, ſo in the communicating of Glory alſo. Love and hatred, undoubtedly are oppoſite contrarily, and not onelyonly contradictorily. And becauſe quot modis dicitur unum oppoſitorum, tot modis dicitur & alterum; as love of complacency conſiſts in delectation, ſo hatred oppoſite is of diſplicency or averſation. And as love of beneficence conſiſteth in wiſhing or doing good: So hatred oppoſite conſiſts in wiſhing or doing evill to another.
Here at length I obſerve the place you ſtand upon to prove that hatred in holy Scripture, doth ſometimes ſignifie a leſſe degree of love, and that ſeemes to bee Levit. 19. 17. Thou ſhalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, thou ſhalt plainely rebuke thy brother, and ſuffer him not to ſin. And to ſerve your turn in this interpretation, you ſhape a correſpondent practiſe of Love conſiſting in vouchſafing communion; which unleſſe it bee a communion of reproofe, is nothing to your purpoſe, who deſire to ſhape hatred in contradiction thereunto. And yet hatred, all conceive to bee much more then not to love. But were all this yeelded unto you, yet doth it fall ſhort of your purpoſe; for albeit hee that forbears to reprove his brother, doth him harm, yet if hee doe not intend him harm, hee cannot bee ſaid to hate him. For in Scripture phraſe hatred denotes an intention to harm, as Deut. 4. 42. Where wee reade that certain Cities were appointed, That the ſlayer might fly unto, which had killed his Neighbour at unawares, and hated him not in times paſt. But if you meaſure hatred by the harm done, why ſhould the ſparing of reproofe to preſerve a brother from ſin, and conſequently from incurring the wrath of God, bee ſo qualifyed as to bee accounted a leſſe degree of love, and not a fruite of hatred: for conſider I beſeech you, is not this farre worſe then to miſchiefe a man by cutting off an arm or limb? So that albeit Scripture did plainely profeſſe that not to reprove a neighbour, but ſuffer him to ſin, were an act of hatred, yet it followeth not hence, that hatred in this caſe ſignifies onelyonly a leſſe degree of love. For certainly, ſuch an act (to wit, in ſparing reproofe) is worſe by far then to give a man a box on the eare; yet I preſume you will not interpret that to bee hatred onelyonly in ſuch a ſenſe, as ſignifying a leſſe degree of Love. For certainly the fruites of love are the communications of good, and not any contumelious inflicting of evill. But by your leave I doe not finde that this is the Scriptures meaning in the place you aime at; but rather in my judgement it ſeems to meet with a corrupt courſe of the world, prone to conceive none to bee their greater enemies, then ſuch as reprove them. To prevent this, the Lord forbids the one, to wit, the hating of our brother, and as expreſſely commands the other, to wit, to reprove our Neighbour, manifeſting thereby that reproofe may bee performed, without any juſt ſuſpition of hatred in him that reproveth. In fine, this interpretation of hatred which here you make, is imbraced by Voſſius in his Pelagion Story; but hee doth not betray that hee is beholding to Cornelius de Lapide the Jeſuite for it, in his Commentaries on the ninth to the Romans. And hee brings other manner of inſtances to prove it then you doe. And ſo doth Junius alſo in Gen. 29. 31. though hee were farre enough off from applying it in the ſame ſenſe to Eſau, as his ſon in law Voſſius doth, and the Jeſuite doth before Voſſius.
In few words your meaning is, God did ſo far hate Eſau, even before hee had done good or evill, that hee did not deſtinate unto him any ſaving grace as hee did unto Jacob. May you not as well ſay that hee did not deſtinate unto him glory, as hee did to Jacob? And even this in Aquinas his language is to hate, where hee interpreteth Gods hatred of Eſau before hee was born. Yet you might bee pleaſed to goe a little further, and to affirm that God did not onelyonly not deſtinate unto him any ſaving grace, but alſo that God was purpoſed to deny him ſuch ſaving grace as hee granted unto Jacob, and conſequently hee purpoſed to deny him glory alſo; if you bee pleaſed to gratifie your ſelf in yeelding to this truth, wee will willingly gratifie you in acknowledging that notwithſtanding all this, God purpoſed to deale with Eſau according to his works.
As for that phraſe of yours of putting him into the eſtate of a ſervant; though it bee of little materiall conſideration in this place, yet I have ſufficiently diſcuſſed it, in examining your Anſwer to the firſt Doubt.