Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination, Interpretation 1 · Question (1 of 3)

Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination · Interpretation 1 · Question (1 of 3)

p. 38QUESTION ….

How and by what demonſtrative reaſons, may it appeare that there is a neceſſity of a departing from the doctrine delivered in our Church.

The reaſons, which moved me a little, and but a little to depart Anſw.from the forme of words uſually received in delivering the doctrine of Reprobation, are ſuch as to me ſeeme, if not demonstrative, yet convincing. And though I have learned to ſuſpect mine owne judgement where I differ never ſo little from my godly and p. 39reverend loarned Brethren; yet I conſider, we are taught to trie all things likewiſe, and to hold fast that which is good; and as wee believe, ſo to ſpeake, ſubmitting our ſelves to the feare of God. But before I come to the ground, wherupon I have beene led to believe, and ſpeake ſomewhat otherwiſe of this point, then is commonly received; let me firſt ſhew you how farre I conſent with the received opinon, even in all uſefull truthes; and how little it is then wherin I diſſent. In the doctrine of election, I conſent wholly with Auguſtine, Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Zanehy, Perkins, Paraeus, and others, who have taught us, by plaine evidence, and that from ſcripture:

1. That, before the world was, God out of his free will hath choſen the elect by name, by an unchangeable decree, unto grace and glory in Chriſt Jeſus, to the ſhewing forth of the riches of the glory of his grace.

2. That to reſtore them, who were loſ… in Adam, he ſent forth the Lord Jeſus, to be obedient to the death for them, and by his death, to redeeme them as effectually, as if they themſelves had ſuffered in their owne perſons.

3. That in the fulneſſe of time, he calleth each one of them, by an effectuall and invincible drawing, even by ſuch an almighty worke of his quickning ſpirit, as he did put forth in raiſing Chriſt from the dead.

4. That thoſe, whom he ſo calleth, he preſerveth by ſome powerfull worke of his ſpirit to himſelfe in Chriſt, ſo as they never fall from him totally, or finally: Only herein take it not amiſſe, if I place the ſubject of Election in Perſons conſidered in Chriſt, before the world, or themſelves were, and not in maſſa corrupta, with the late venerable Synod. For though herein they follow Auguſtine, and Zanchy, and ſome others; yet have they diſſented from the chiefe inſtruments, of the reformation of our Religion. And, with reverence I ſpeake it, as I am led to conceive, that it need not trouble any, if, taking Chriſt to be the head of the elect, I conceive him to be firſt thought upon, and choſen, and we in him. Mr. Baynes, followeth the ſchoole in ſo expreſſing it; and the reaſons delivered above in the firſt point, have carryed me with them: and the difference lyeth in opening the purpoſe of Reprobation. But ſee here how farre I goe with the ſtream…, and, …hen I goe aſide, how little, and upon what ground.

p. 40How convincing, or demonſtrative, the reaſons are, I addreſſe my ſelfe to conſider: It is good to make progreſſe in the inveſtigation Examin.of truth. Auſtin profeſſeth himſelfe to be of the number of thoſe qui proficiendo ſcribunt, & ſcribendo proficiunt: only our care muſt be, that we goe not backward, and make things worſe then wee found them; which comes to paſſe (eſpecially with good men) many times, not ſo much by falling into error, as by confuſion of method; for hereby it comes to paſſe, that the paſſages opening the way to the inveſtigation of truth, are ſtopt up, and we find our ſelves in a brake, and ſee no way out. To prevent them, I am perſwaded, it is a profitable conſideration, to thinke with our ſelves, that different opinions, eſpecially amongſt godly Divines, may be no other then the dividing of the truth betweene them.

About the object of predeſtination there hath bin a triple difference in opinion: ſome ſtanding for maſſa nondum condita; others for maſſa pura, that is condita but nondum corrupta; others for maſſa corrupta: yet both Junius did endeavour: but very obſcurely; and Piſcator hath endeavoured very perſpicuouſly to reduce them into one. If he failed therein, eſpecially in ſome one particular, his failing, rightly obſerved and diſcerned, may open a way for the diſcovery of the entire truth. But let the iſſue therof commend it ſelfe. Your phraſe of uſefull truths I do not like; amongſt Arminians, I often meet with ſuch a courſe of arguing truth, by the uſefulneſſe of it; which is like the giving of the larger coat to him that is bigger, becauſe it is fitter for him, when in the mean time he had no right unto it.

And though we can judge aright of a coats fitneſſe to a body; yet it is a dangerous courſe for us, to preſume ſo farre of our judgements in the uſefulneſſe of opinions, as thereupon to conclude what are true, and what are falſe.

1. To chooſe before the world, is to chooſe before the creation, or Adams fall, according to your owne expoſition, formerly mentioned: but in this ſenſe, your ſelfe confeſſeth in the 4. place, that Auſtin and Zanchy doe not concurre with others in this; was there no more in Gods intention, when he elected ſome, then the manifeſtation of the riches of his glorious grace? Did not God purpoſe to manifeſt alſo the glory of his remunerative juſtice? Is it not undeniable, that God will beſtow ſalvation upon all his p. 41elect (of ripe yeares, before their departure out of this world) by way of reward, and crowne of righteouſneſſe, which God the righteous Judge ſhall give at that day to all that love his Sonnes 2 Tim 4.2 Tim 4appearing? It being a righteous thing with God, as to recompence tribulation to them that trouble his Children; ſo to his Children that are troubled, reſt with his Apoſtles: when the Lord Jeſus ſhall ſhew himſelfe from Heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming 2 Theſſa. 1.fire, rendring vengance &c. When he ſhall come to be glorifyed in his Saints, and be made marvellous, in all them that beleeve &c. It is great pity this is not conſidered (as uſually it is not) eſpecially for the momentous conſequence thereof, in my judgement, ſufficient (if I miſtake not) to have ſtifled this opinion following, touching Reprobation, in the firſt conception of it.

2. Touching the Second, I have nothing to ſay; for if you have any opinion concerning ſome benefit that redounds to the Reprobate by the death of Chriſt, it is more then hitherunto you do diſcover.

3. Touching the Third, it were to be deſired you did expreſſe, whether no leſſe powerfull motion, would ſerve to the drawing of them to faith and repentance.

4. Likewiſe touching the Fourth, whether this powerfull worke being denyed to any, it is poſſible for ſuch a one to beleeve, and repent unto ſalvation. Concerning the order here mentioned, though my opinion be, that the object of predeſtination is maſſa nondum condita, yet in no moment of nature, or reaſon, was the decree of God concerning Chriſts incarnation, and our ſalvation by him, before the decree of creation, and of permiſſion of Adams fall, and conſequently Election unto Salvation had the conſideration of maſſa corrupta concomitant with it, though not precedent; only the conſideration of maſſa nondum condita being antecedentall to all theſe decrees. Likewiſe, in my opinion, they doe miſtake, who take the Synod of Dort to maintaine the conſideration of maſſa corrupta, as precedent to Election, though they beginne with ſignifying what God purpoſed to bring to paſſe, upon the fall of mankind, in Adam. And Galvin in his anſwere to Pighius confeſſeth, that the ſafeſt courſe is to treate of predeſtination, upon the conſideration of the corrupt maſſe in Adam. As touching what you have delivered, touching Election in Chriſt our head, in the firſt place, that I have already examined.

Our Divines commonly conceive, a double act of Reprobation, p. 42Anſw.as Bellarmine, and others of the Papiſts doe.

1. Negative, as they call it, a non-election, or Reprobation, unto which ſome adde a purpoſe of forſaking the creature, excluding it from glory, and from ſufficient meanes of grace in Chriſt.

2. Poſitive, ordaining it to condemnation.

The former, they conceive to be abſolute, as being an act of Gods ſoveraigne Lordſhip over the creature, without all reſpect to ſinne.

The latter they conceive, as being an act of vindicative juſtice, to preſuppoſe originall ſinne at the leaſt, and ſome of them (as Bellarmine) actuall ſinne alſo, whom Paraus in this point ſeemeth to give way unto.

1. To the firſt of theſe acts I wholly aſſent ſo farre as it reſteth in a non-election, or preterition of the creature, according to the libertie of Gods abſolute ſoveraignety. That which is added to it, of a purpoſe of forſaking the creature, and to exclude it, from glory, and from ſufficient meanes of grace in Chriſt, before all reſpect of ſinne, I want warrant from ſcripture to condeſcend unto. But this Negative act, I would rather expreſſe in ſuch words as the holy Ghoſt hath uſed before me, and ſo diſtinguiſh it into two branches.

That before all reſpect of good or evill in the creature:

1 God did not ſo love the world, (I meane the world of mankind diſtinguiſhed from the elect:) this is plaine from the Apoſtles compariſon, of Jacob and Eſau. Rom. 9. 11. 12, 13.

2. God did not give the world to Chriſt, by him of grace to be brought to ſalvation, as he did the elect, for they are not ſaid to be written in the Lambs book of life, from the beginning of the world. Revel. 13. 8, 17, 18. And indeed all who were given to Chriſt, doe, in fulneſſe of time, come unto him. Joh. 6. 37. Gods hatred of Eſau, before he had done good or evill, reacheth to this act alſo. Rom. 9. 13.

2. Touching the poſitive act, which they conceive, I wholly agree with them, that God ordaineth none to condemnation, but upon ſinne preſuppoſed. Annihilate the creature God may without preſuppoſall of ſinne; for annihilation is an act of Soveraignetie, ſuteable to creation; but condemne it he may not, without preſuppoſall of ſinne. For condemnation is an act of justice, and preſuppoſeth a rule of juſtice tranſgreſſed, and thereby wrath, or just revenge p. 43provoked: onelyonly this poſitive act of Gods counſell about the world of mankind ſevered from the elect, upon ſerious conſideration of ſundry paſſages of Scripture, I would rather diſtinguiſh into a double act.

1. Whereby, without all reſpect of good or evill in the men of this world, God ordained them unto judgment, according to their works. Ezech. 33. 20. to judgment, I ſay, not of condemnation, which preſuppoſeth ſinne in the creature to be condemned; but judgment (I meane) of juſt retribution, whereby God is willing to deale with them, according to their works in juſtice; juſtice I ſay, aſwell diſtributive, to reward them with life, if they continue in obedience; as vindicative, to puniſh them to death, if they provoke him by careleſſe and wilfull diſobedience.

Hitherto, even to this act, the hatred of God to Eſau reached.

2. Whereby, upon the preſuppoſall of the careleſſe or wilfull diſobedience of the world, either in refuſing the meanes of grace in Chriſt, or abuſing other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature, God rejecteth, or reprobateth them from all hope of life, and purpoſeth to condemne them for their ſinnes, to the glorifying of his power, juſtice and wrath.

Non-election, abſolute is an act of ſoveraignitie, you grant; which alſo you call preterition. Let us ſpeake diſtinctly, that the Examinfairer way may bee opened, to the diſcovery of truth and error. Preterition may be in time; as when, in giving grace to ſome, God paſſeth by others: or it may have place as well in not purpoſing to give grace to ſome, when he doth purpoſe to give grace to others, which purpoſe of his was from everlaſting; and preterition in this ſenſe, is all one with non-election. Now this non-election is either a negation of election unto grace, or a negation of election unto glory; It is here propoſed indefinitely, and I conceive it is underſtood of both. Now it is true, that John Scot, and Francis Mayro after him, did ſometimes ſhape the order of Gods decrees in this manner: In the firſt inſtant of nature, Peter and Judas being offered to the divine conſideration, Deus volebat Petro gloriam, nihil volebat Judae; in the ſecond inſtant, Deus volebat Petro gratiam, nihil volebat Judae; In the third inſtant, Deus volebat utrū que exiſtere in maſſa corrupta; wherehence it followeth in the laſt place, (ſayeth hee) that the one ſhall infallibly be ſaved, the other damned. This ſometimes ſeemed plauſible to me, and I did preferre p. 44it, and ſtill doe, before the perverſe orders of Gods decrees, deviſed by many: For, est quiddam prodire tenus: we have the ſhorter way to our jorneys end. But in what inſtant ſhall God velle Judae damnationem? not till after all this? If it be laſt in intention, ſhall it not be firſt in execution, according to your owne rules, ſo much inſiſted on in the firſt place? The Dominicans and particularly Alvarez profeſſeth in oppoſition to theſe negative decrees of Scotus, that the decree of reprobation is poſitive; and one reaſon amongſt others is this, becauſe if reprobation were meerly negative, then all men and Angels poſſible, though never exiſtent, might be juſtly ſaid to be reprobate as well as the reprobate men and Angels that are or ſhall be exiſtent. For it is moſt true, that they are non electi, in as much as one of contradictions is verified de omni ente, & non ente; therefore certainly there goes more to reprobation then a meere negation of election. And, in my judgment, this reaſon of his is a weighty reaſon. Therefore they profeſſe plainly, that God did not only not purpoſe to give Judas glory, but he did purpoſe to deny him glory, that is, ordaine that he ſhould be without glory: Secondly, that he did not only not purpoſe to give him grace, but alſo did purpoſe to deny him grace, or ordaine, that he ſhould be without grace, at leaſt without ſuch grace as ſhould bring him to ſalvation. And indeed if God doth purpoſe that Judas ſhall exiſt in the corrupt maſſe, and withall doth not purpoſe to give him grace and glory, doth it not manifeſtly follow, that he ſhall exiſt without grace and glory? for how ſhall he come by glory or grace, if not from God? Or how ſhall God deny him one or other, but according to the Counſell of his will, ſeeing he workes all things according to the counſell of his will? Therefore God did not only not purpoſe that he ſhould have grace and glory, but did poſitively purpoſe that he ſhould be without both: and it is Bradwardins opinion, that no pure negative act can be attributed unto God, but ſuch as is aequivalently reſolved into an act poſitive, thus, If Deus non volebat gloriam Judae, then Deus volebat illi non glorium; that is, that he ſhould not have glory, ſo of grace, ſo of exiſtencie; if God did not will the exiſtency of more Angels then are, it followes that God did will that more Angels then are ſhould not exiſt; and that this poſitive act doth better become the nature of God, then the former negative, by reaſon of his moſt perfect actuality. And as p. 45for the purpoſe of forſaking the creature, and excluding it from glory; that is no other then Gods purpoſe not to give certaine creatures any ſuch grace, as whereby they ſhall be brought to glory: And ſeeing this is acknowledged by you, I ſee no cauſe why you ſhould ſtick in acknowledging a purpoſe of God to forſake ſome creatures, and exclude them from glory. It is pity, that the prejudice of phraſes, whereby it is expreſſed, ſhould ſtrangle any doctrine, when there lyes no juſt exception againſt it, as untrue in the ſubſtance thereof. When you confeſſe, that God did not ſo love the world, as the elect (which is no more, then to acknowledge a non-election of ſome) if you expound it in reference unto his purpoſe of not giving grace and glory unto them, as to the elect; Aquinas himſelfe acknowledgeth, that odiſſe in Scripture phraſe is no other then non velle alicui gratiam & gloriam. And it is well knowne that Mr. Moulin doth as eagerly oppoſe this abſolute reprobation negative, as abſolute reprobation poſitive: For he manifeſtly perceives, that damnation follows as infallibly, and unavoidably upon that doctrine of reprobation negative, as upon this of reprobation poſitive.

If you conceive, that God did give the world to Chriſt, by him of grace to be bought to ſome kind of grace, though not to ſalvation, as he did the elect; I doubt you are not able to bring any ſufficient reaſon to juſtifie this; wherehence it will follow, that Chriſts death was meritorius unto them, but not ſatisfactorie; or if ſatisfactorie, yet onelyonly for ſome ſinnes of theirs, but not for all.

As touching the act poſitive of reprobation, I truſt, when all things are rightly ſtated, there will appeare to be as litle reaſon, why there ſhould be any difference between us in this act, as in the former. For what, I pray, is the meaning of this, God ordaines none to condemnation, but upon ſinne preſuppoſed? Is there any other meaning of the words then this; God hath ordained that no man ſhall be condemned, but for ſinne? who ever denyed this? What one of our Divines, or Papiſts, or of any Sect, ever called this into queſtion? But herehence it only followes, that ſinne is the cauſe of condemnation, and that by the ordination of God: it follows not, that ſin is the cauſe of Gods ordination; although I confeſſe the confuſion of theſe is moſt frequent amongſt our Divines, amongſt Papiſts, though otherwiſe very learned, and chiefly among the Arminians, for the advantage of their cauſe; p. 46yet ſee not a farre greater advantage to their cauſe then any yet hath been taken hold of by any one of them: And this confuſion alone is that which ſets our Divines together by the eares, not conſidering the dangerous conſequence here-hence, utterly overthrowing the Orthodox doctrine of our Churches, in the very point of Election, and bringing in Arminianiſme entire and whole; not in Reprobation only, as Maſter Moulin doth, and you ſeeme to doe; but in Election it ſelfe unavoidably, though hitherto, I confeſſe, the Arminians have not been ſo happy as to diſcerne it. I doubt not but your meaning is, in that Propoſition, That ſinne is not only the cauſe of damnation, but of Gods decree alſo of ordaining thereunto. But to affirme this, ſeemed ſo foule to Aquinas, (namely, that there ſhould be conceived a cauſe of Gods will, or Gods decree) that hee profeſſeth, never any man was ſo madde as to affirme it. But becauſe the ſaying of Aquinas moves you little; why ſhould it, ſeeing it little hindered not onelyonly Valentianus the Jeſuite from ſaying as you doe, but Alvarez alſo the Thomist, and a great Thomist? therefore I will proceed further: What ſhould move you to affirme, That, to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative juſtice? Condemnation, I grant, is an act of vindicative juſtice, like as remuneration is an act of juſtice remunerative; but will it follow here-hence, that to ordaine to condemnation is an act of vindicative juſtice? I will not preſſe you with the authority of Maſter Baynes, who denyes Reprobation to be an act of juſtice; but thus I diſpute: If Gods purpoſe to condemne to death, be an act of juſtice vindicative; then alſo Gods purpoſe to remunerate with eternall life, is an act of juſtice remunerative: And if Gods purpoſe of condemnation preſuppoſe ſinne, it followes, that Gods purpoſe of remunerating with eternall life muſt alſo preſuppoſe obedience; even obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; for all theſe God doth remunerate with eternall life. Here appeareth the foule tayle of Arminianiſme, in the doctrine of Election, which this plauſible doctrine of yours and of Maſter Moulins, in the point of Reprobation, drawes after it. The conſequence is manifeſt, though few or none conſider it, even of them that are both Orthodox in Election, and moſt verſed in the examining and diſcerning of juſt conſequences. Now becauſe this conſequence, I preſume, is unexpected, I imagine men may bee moved to caſt about, and conſider how they may wind themſelves p. 47out of this dangerous inconvenience. And perhaps it may come to their mindes to affirme, that they doe not conceive Election under this forme; namely, to bee the decree of God to remunerate with everlaſting life. And I verily believe they doe not; for if they did, it were not poſſible they ſhould continue Orthodox in the point of Election; but miſerably betray their cauſe, by giving way to a doctrine (plainly contradictory) in the point of Reprobation. But why then doe they not conſider Election as they ought? Is it not generally confeſſed, that Election and Reprobation are contrary? why then ſhould they not be ſhapen under contrarient formes? and what act, I pray you, is contrary to the act of juſtice vindicative, but the act of juſtice remunerative? But perhaps you may ſay, Though this bee true, yet there is no place for ſuch an oppoſition here; for as much as though a man may merit damnation by ſinne, yet hee cannot merit ſalvation by obedience. I anſwer therefore, that this onelyonly ſhewes there can be no oppoſition between them in a ſpeciall kind of retribution, to wit, in the way of retribution according to deſert on both ſides; yet this hinders not, but that there may be, and indeed is, an oppoſition in the generall of retribution: For it is well knowne, that God will reward every one according to his works; and that he means to beſtow ſalvation upon every one of ripe yeares by way of reward, and, tanquam coronam juſtitiae, as the Arminians urge; and juſtly, though with no juſt advantage to their cauſe, but according to their ſhallow and unlearned conceits; as if therefore God ſhould firſt fore-ſee their obedience, before hee ſhould ordaine them to a reward: which yet will follow, if on the other ſide wee grant them, that God firſt fore-ſeeth mans finall impenitency, and thereupon ordaines them to condemnation. Perhaps you may ſay, Is not the contrariety between Election and Reprobation ſufficiently maintained, by ſaying, the one is Gods purpoſe ordaining to ſalvation; the other Gods purpoſe ordaining to condemnation? I confeſſe, it ſeemes ſo, and is generally reputed to be ſo: and this I take to bee the principall cauſe of this error; one confuſion drawing on more and more after it. But, I ſay, there is no congruous oppoſition between ſalvation and damnation; for, to damne is either finally to puniſh, or to adjudge to puniſhment. Now, as the Negative oppoſition hereunto is onelyonly not to puniſh, or to adjudge to puniſhment; ſo the contrary oppoſition hereunto p. 48is to reward, or to adjudge to a reward: So that Election, as it is Gods purpoſe ordaining to ſalvation, by way of reward, is onelyonly oppoſite contrarily to Reprobation, as it ſignifies Gods purpoſe ordaining to condemnation. More fairly, and voyd of all equivocation, thus: Like as Reprobation is Gods purpoſe to puniſh with everlaſting death; ſo Election is Gods purpoſe to remunerate with everlaſting life. And thus the contrariety of theſe acts being rightly ſtated, it followes as evidently, that Election muſt preſuppoſe, not obedience, but the fore-ſight of obedience; as Reprobation preſuppoſeth not ſinne, but the fore-ſight of ſin. And thus are wee tumbled into the very gulfe of Arminianiſme, over head and eares, before wee are aware. But it may bee this diſcourſe of mine may raiſe ſuch a Spirit as will not eaſily bee laid; and hereupon ſome may the more profuſely bee carryed to embrace Arminianiſme, in the very point of Election alſo; becauſe, as Reprobation ſeemes to bee an act of juſtice vindicative; ſo Election alſo, as here it is ſtated, ſeemes to bee an act of juſtice remunerative. And I willingly confeſſe, I never found any Arminian that diſcernes the advantage which our Divines doe afford them, by ſhaping the doctrine of Reprobation as they doe: Therefore I will endeavour to quiet this Spirit that I have raiſed, firſt, by diſcovering the Sophiſtry that bleares our eyes in this; and ſecondly, by cleare demonſtration I will prove, that no fore-ſight of ſinne and obedience can precede the purpoſe of God ordaining to ſalvation and damnation. As for the diſcovering of the Sophiſtry which hath place herein, conſider; firſt, It is agreed between Vaſquez and Suarez (though otherwiſe much at odds about the nature of juſtice in God) that there is no juſtice in God towards his creature, but upon the preſuppoſition of his will: whence it followeth manifeſtly, that the purpoſes of God, being the very acts of his will, are no acts of juſtice, but onelyonly the executions of theſe purpoſes may bee acts of juſtice; to wit, upon the preſuppoſition of ſome act or purpoſe of his will. And the reaſon hereof (not to inſiſt wholly upon any humane authority) is manifeſt, for as much as in remunerating it is cleare, that God is not bound to remunerate any creature, but upon preſuppoſition of his will; for hee may convert him into nothing, if it pleaſe him: But if hee hath determined to reward them according to their obedience, it muſt needs bee ſo; for as much as the Divine nature is without variableneſſe p. 49or ſhadow of change. So likewiſe, neither is God bound to puniſh any ſinner; for hee may pardon him, if it pleaſe him; but upon ſuppoſition that hee hath determined not to leave a ſinner unpuniſhed: in this caſe onelyonly is hee bound to puniſh. Further, I will ſhew, that in ſuch acts, the condition whereof doth not depend upon the will of God, the act may be of one condition, and yet nevertheleſſe the purpoſe of God to performe ſuch an act is of another condition: As for example; the act of creation is an act of Gods almighty power; but Gods purpoſe to create the world is no act of power, but of will rather. So likewiſe, Gods act of ordering all things unto their end, in wonderfull manner, is an act of infinite wiſedome; but his purpoſe to order all things, in ſo admirable manner, is no act of his wiſedome, but of his free-will. Now I will demonſtrate, that the fore-ſight of ſinne cannot be the cauſe of Gods purpoſe to condemne: For if it be the cauſe of Gods purpoſe; then either by neceſſity of nature, or by the free conſtitution of God: not by neceſſity of nature; for hee is naturally more prone (as Piſcator confeſſeth upon Exod. 24. 6.) to remunerate obedience, than to puniſh for ſinne: but no man will ſay, that hee doth remunerate by neceſſity of nature; therefore neither doth hee puniſh ſinne by neceſſity of nature: therefore it muſt be onelyonly through the voluntary conſtitution of God, that ſinne is the cauſe of ordination unto condemnation. But marke, I pray, the foule abſurdity hereof; for here-hence it followes, that God did purpoſe that upon the fore-ſight of ſinne hee would purpoſe that men ſhould be damned. So that the purpoſe of God is made the object of his purpoſe; and that upon a certaine condition: whereas nothing can be the object of Gods purpoſe, but ſome temporall thing or other; and conſequently, one purpoſe of God ſhall be in time precedaneous to another purpoſe of God; which is impoſſible: firſt, becauſe no purpoſe of God begins in time: ſecondly, there is no priority between the purpoſes of God, but priority of nature and reaſon; and that onelyonly in ſuch a caſe as when one is of the end, and the other of the meanes tending to that end; which hath no place in this matter wee now treat of. By the way, when you ſay, God cannot condemne the creature without ſinne, though hee may annihilate him; what doe you meane by condemnation? doe you take it for puniſhment? If ſo, then the formality of it, expreſſed at full, is this; Affliction for ſinne. Now p. 50conſider, is it a ſober ſpeech to ſay, God cannot afflict for ſin, without the preſuppoſall of ſin? I doubt not but you deliver your mind, of what God cannot do, in the way of juſtice: But it is utterly impoſſible that any man ſhould bee afflicted for ſinne without the preſuppoſall of ſin: I preſume your meaning is only this, (though incommodiouſly expreſſed) God cannot excruciate or afflict a creature without the preſuppoſall of ſinne. But in whom? I doubt not but your meaning is, in the perſon afflicted. But what thinke you then of the Sonne of God, how was hee afflicted, and without any preſuppoſall of ſinne in him? And I pray you tell mee, hath not God as much power over us as over him? Againe, conſider I pray, what power doth God give unto man over inferiour creatures? But let this paſſe: Can God annihilate us without any reſpect to ſinne, and can hee not afflict us? Alas! what affliction would moſt men bee content to endure rather then to dye, much more rather then to bee turned to the gulfe of nothing, from whence wee came? If it be ſaid, that God may afflict in ſome degree, but not in the higheſt; or for a time, but not for ever; ſuch as wee conceive that torment to bee which wee ſignifie by the word Condemnation: I pray remember, wee are made after the image of God, and endued with the light of reaſon, and let us not caſt our ſelves in a brutiſh manner upon conceits without all evidence of reaſon. Now tell mee, what reaſon can bee deviſed why God ſhould bee able, without all prejudice of his juſtice, to inflict paine in one degree, in two degrees, in three or foure degrees, in five, ſix, and ſeven degrees, without all reſpect to ſinne onelyonly, if in the eight degree hee ſhould inflict it in this manner, he ſhould bee unjuſt? Againe, if without injuſtice hee may inflict paine on an innocent creature for a thouſand yeares, or ten thouſand yeares, or ten times ten thouſand, what reaſon why hee cannot afflict a creature for ever, without injuſtice? yet if no finite time can be ſet which hee cannot exceed, why not for ever? Nay, if a creature ſhould be put to his choyce, whether he would chooſe to bee annihilated, or to bee in eternall torment, yet preſerved without ſinne, which of theſe two would an holy creature make choyce of? ſhould he not preferre his being without ſinne (though in eternall torment) before annihilation?

But let us conſider the double act of God here deviſed about the world of mankind ſevered from the elect: God, you ſay, did p. 51ordain to judge them according to their workes. I pray conſider, who denyeth this? even they that maintaine Reprobation as abſolute as Election, doe notwithſtanding maintaine, that God doth judge them no otherwiſe then according to their works; for they doe not avouch that God doth ordaine to damne them for ought elſe then for ſinne; yea and that for ſinne actuall, as many as doe dye in actuall ſin unrepented of; and for originall ſinne, as many as doe dye only in originall ſinne. Againe, will you deny the ſame forme of decree to have his courſe concerning the elect, as well as concerning the Reprobate? Doth not God reward them according to their workes? I meane, as many as live unto ripeneſſe of age; for otherwiſe it cannot be veriſied of the Reprobates. And if God doth reward the righteous according to their workes, did hee not alſo ordaine from everlaſting ſo to reward them? Neither is Election, rightly ſtated and in congruous oppoſition unto Reprobation, any other then Gods decree to reward men with everlaſting life for their obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; like as Reprobation is Gods decree to puniſh them with everlaſting death, for their continuance in ſinne, without repentance, unto death; albeit, neither of theſe is Gods complete decree, on either ſide: but the decree of Election, is, Praeparatio gratiae & gloriae, as Auſtin ſaith; that is, a decree to give both the grace of obedience, both in the way of faith, repentance, and good works, and to crowne them with everlaſting life for it. And ſo on the other ſide, Reprobatio, as Aquinas ſpeaketh, includit voluntatem permittendi peccatum, & damnationem inferendi pro peccato: It is the purpoſe of God both to deny the grace of obedience, as afore-ſaid; or, which is all one, to permit them to perſevere in ſinne and finall impenitency, and to inflict damnation for their ſinne. And unleſſe Election on the one ſide, and Reprobation on the other, doe include the parts before mentioned, wee ſhall fall into the Arminians definition of Election and Reprobation, who make them meerly conditionate, either in formall terms, or though they avoid the formality of ſuch expreſſions, yet meerly in effect: as by ſaying, that, Election is Gods purpoſe to ſave them that beleeve and repent; Reprobation Gods purpoſe to damne them that doe not beleeve and repent: as if there were no other purpoſe of God, revealed in Gods word, then theſe; no decree of ſhewing mercy to whom hee will, by giving faith and repentance; no p. 52decree of hardening whom hee will, by denying it. Againe, when I ſay, God doth purpoſe to reward every man according to his workes, let us underſtand it aright; for indeed there neither is, nor can bee any ſuch formall decree of God, and of an indefinite nature: as if God in priority of nature or reaſon did make ſuch a decree, not knowing as yet what would bee the workes of each man in particular: for of ſuch a decree there can be no correſpondent execution, diſtinct from the execution of particular and definite decrees, concerning all men in particular, as I have already ſhewed in ranſacking the abſurd order of Gods decrees deviſed by Arminians, to no other end but to catch the ſimple; there being Vindiciae gratiae 'Dei. lib 3. dig. 2.no common ſenſe nor ſobriety in them throughout. Beſides this, if when God is conceived to make ſuch a decree God did know particularly the workes of all, then there is no reaſon to conceive that hee made any ſuch indefinite decree; but rather that the decree to ſave or damne every one in particular according to his workes, well knowne to him in that very inſtant, not of duration onelyonly, but of nature and reaſon. But God did in the ſame moment foreknow all the particular workes of every man, as already I have made manifeſt, in ranſacking the Arminian order of Gods decrees. But the denomination of ſuch an indefinite decree, as to reward every man according to his workes, ariſeth from the conſideration of other definite decrees in God: As for example, God did decree to have mercy on Peter, in giving him faith and repentance, and accordingly to ſave him; and ſo of every one of Gods Elect, of ripe yeares: On the contrary, God did decree to deny to Judas the grace of faith and repentance; which is as much as to ſay, that God decreed to permit him to continue finally in ſinne, and accordingly to damne him; and ſo every one of the Reprobates: Whence it followeth, that it is true to affirme, that God decreed to reward every one of ripe yeares according to their workes; not that there ever was any ſuch particular decree conceived by God, diſtinct from the former, as the Arminians feigne; but that from the former particular decrees reſulteth the denomination of ſuch a decree as this; as if you ſhould ſay, If God did decree to ſave Peter and Paul, it followeth, that God did decree to ſave ſome: not that God did firſt indefinitely decree to ſave ſome, and then decree that Peter and Paul ſhould be two of them. And to reward men according to their workes, is no more a worke of p. 53hatred then of love; but as it is indefinite, ſo it is indifferent to prove in the iſſue either a worke of hatred or of love; as that God, Who worketh in us every thing that is pleaſing in his ſight through Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. 13. 21. ſhall worke in ſome that which is pleaſing in his ſight through Jeſus Chriſt, and not in others.

Neither will it follow here-hence, that God rejecteth and reprobateth ſome upon preſuppoſall of diſobedience, more then that hee electeth and predeſtinateth others upon preſuppoſall of their obedience; for undoubtedly God purpoſed as well to reward the godly according to their workes, as the ungodly according to theirs; though, I confeſſe, there is a great difference betweene the condition of evill workes and good workes; evill workes being meritorious of puniſhment, good workes no way meritorious of reward: but this nothing hinders the courſe of remuneration in generall: And againe, what is wanting of merit on the part of Gods Elect, is abundantly ſupplyed by the merit and ſatisfaction of Chriſt. It followeth, I confeſſe, that upon diſobedience on the one ſide (provided it be finall, not otherwiſe; for, undoubtedly, abuſe both of means of grace in Chriſt, and other talents and helps of the knowledge of God in nature, is found alſo in the Elect, though not finall; for, Novimus, ſaith Auſtin, that God hath converted non modo averſas à vera fide, ſed & adverſas verae fidei voluntates) God damneth ſome for diſobedience; and it is no leſſe true, that upon obedience on the other ſide, God ſaves the others. But this opinion, I confeſſe, was heretofore ſhaped by Doctor Overall, and perhaps taken from Caterinus, but with a little variation, and, if I be not deceived, firſt deviſed by the Author of the two bookes, De vocatione Gentium; all which notwithſtanding are orthodox in the point of Election throughout, excepting Caterinus, whoſe orthodoxy therein is onelyonly in part. But, in few words, I will diſprove this latter poſition of yours, by your owne rules: For thus I diſpute, If God did firſt fore-ſee mans diſobedience, and then ordaine them to condemnation, then God did firſt decree to permit this diſobedience, before hee did decree to damne them for it. Whence it followeth, that the permiſſion of this ſinne was firſt in intention, and conſequently, laſt in execution: that is, God muſt firſt damne them, and afterwards permit their diſobedience, whereby they deſerve damnation. Yet, p. 54I pray, conceive not hereupon that I maintaine, that God doth firſt purpoſe to damne men, and ſecondly purpoſe to permit their diſobedience; both orders, in my opinion, are very diſſolute; though I confeſſe it is commonly ſo received, that by denying the one wee muſt neceſſarily fall upon the other.

Herein two things are granted by common conſent of our Divines:Anſw.

1. That the end of Gods purpoſe in his poſitive Reprobation of the world, is to glorifie his juſtice, power, and wrath in their juſt overthrow and condemnation.

2. That hee doth not purpoſe to condemne them but for ſinne.

But two other things you ſee there bee, wherein, I confeſſe, I diſſent from them; but with ſubmiſſion of my ſpirit to the guidance of the word, and the ſpirit of my brethren.

1. In the firſt act of poſitive Reprobation, that I doe not acknowledge any unwillingneſſe at all in God to reward the men of this world with life, upon any condition whatſoever.

2. In the ſecond act of poſitive Reprobation, that I doe conceive the decree of Reprobation to be converſant about the world, not as conſidered in maſſa primitus corrupta, as in the firſt fall of Adam; but as afterwards voluntarily falling from the meanes, either of grace in the ſecond Adam, or of the knowledge of God in nature, by ſome acts of careleſſe or wilfull diſobedience.

Theſe two things above mentioned are granted not onelyonly by Examin.the common conſent of our Divines, but by the common conſent alſo of all Chriſtians, as I conceive, whether Papiſts or Arminians: yet obſerve, I pray, as touching the ſecond, that ſinne is apparently made the cauſe onelyonly of condemnation, but not of Gods purpoſe; whereas hitherto you have carryed the matter ſo, as if ſinne were the cauſe not onelyonly of condemnation, but alſo of Reprobation; as much as to ſay, of Gods purpoſe to condemne. But to ſay, that God for ſinne did purpoſe to condemne for ſin, is ſo harſh an expreſſion, that in all my reading I never found any adventure thereupon. Come wee to your proper opinion: You doe not acknowledge any unwillingneſſe in God to reward the men of this world with life, upon any condition whatſoever. I know no reaſon why you ſhould conceive any of our Divines to differ from you in this, although you had ſpoken out your meaning never ſo plainly and fully: not onelyonly denying unwillingneſſe, but p. 55acknowledging a willingneſſe, as afterwards you doe; not a willingneſſe onelyonly which may have place though joyned with a will to the contrary, as in all mixt actions, which yet are not incident to God, though they are to a creature, as who ſometimes doth ſome thing volens nolens: for certainly, God will ſave any man upon condition hee beleeves and repents: And on the other ſide, neither is there any unwillingneſſe in God, but a willingneſſe rather, yea and that a reſolute will to damne any man in caſe hee dyeth in infidelity and impenitency. For we have the cleare word of God to juſtifie us herein, profeſſing moſt evidently, that, Whoſoever beleeveth ſhall be ſaved; whoſoever beleeveth not ſhall be damned. So that I wonder not a little whereto theſe expreſſions tend, ſave that commonly, ſuch is the iſſue of imperfect conceptions, all preparations to the juſtifying of them fall miſerably ſhort of that whereunto they aime.

2. As touching the ſecond act, either you muſt profeſſe that no Infants periſh in originall ſinne; or you muſt, according to your Tenet, conſider them onelyonly in maſſa primitus corrupta; for as much as they, dying before they came to the uſe of reaſon, were never guilty of any voluntary falling off from the meanes, either of grace in the ſecond Adam, or of the knowledge of God in nature, by ſome acts of careleſſe or wilfull diſobedience. As for their opinion, who thinke the conſideration of all men in maſſa Adae ſufficient to juſtifie God in decreeing the condemnation of all, I take it to be a very rude and undigeſted conceit; for undoubtedly, if the conſideration of ſinne be at all prerequired to the decree of condemnation, it muſt bee the conſideration rather of that ſinne for which they are chiefly damned: For, ſhall the conſideration of that ſinne onelyonly, which deſerves the leaſt degree of damnation, juſtifie God in the decreeing the greateſt degree of condemnation? what colour of juſtice is found in this? Shall the conſideration of telling an officious lye, juſtifie a Magiſtrate in decreeing to inflict ſuch a puniſhment as is due onelyonly to high treaſon? I ſay rather, that God conſiders none in maſſa Adae, before they are in maſſa Adae; for thus to conſider, is not conſiderare, but errare, or fingere; which wee cannot decently attribute to God: but God conſidered all men tanquam in maſſa Adae futuros; and as many as ſhould dye in infancy, God conſidered them in no other ſtate of ſinne, tanquam futuros, but in p. 56that. As for as many as ſhould ſurvive to the uſe of reaſon, God conſidered them, tanquam futuros, not onelyonly in maſſa Adae, but guilty of their owne perſonall tranſgreſſions; and whom hee ſo conſidered, and withall as finally perſevering therein, all them hee decreed to damne. So likewiſe whom hee conſidered tanquam fideles futuros, & reſipiſcentiam acturos, & in fide & reſipiſcentia perſeveraturos, hee decreed to ſave. But take heed that herehence you inferre not, Therefore fore-ſight of perſeverance in ſin was the cauſe or prerequiſite of Reprobation; leſt you be driven by juſt proportion to confeſſe, that fore-ſight of faith alſo and perſeverance therein was the cauſe, or prerequiſite at leaſt, of Election. Yet doe not hereupon fall into the contrary extreme, as to thinke that then the decree of Salvation and Damnation precedes the foreſight of faith on the one ſide, or of finall impenitency on the other; though ſuch deluſions have had their courſe, and paſſed in the world a long time; and all for want of a little Logick, in diſcerning the right order in intention of the meanes tending to a certaine end: For, both creation and permiſſion of ſinne in Adam, and finall perſeverance in ſinne, and damnation for ſinne, are but joynt meanes tending to one end; to wit, the glory of God, in the way of juſtice vindicative: and conſequently the intention of all thoſe meanes is at once, neither before nor after other, howſoever they are not at once in execution, (which perhaps is the rock of offence whereat many ſtumble ere they are aware:) As for example, To the curing of a diſeaſe a Phyſician diſcerneth that many operations are neceſſarily requiſite, theſe are at once intended, the nature of the diſeaſe beſpeaking them all; but they are not, nor cannot be executed at once: The like may bee ſaid of all other proceedings, according to the order of media and finis. So on the other ſide, creation, permiſſion of ſin, deliverance from ſinne by the grace of faith and repentance, and finally ſalvation, are all but joynt meanes tending to one and the ſame end; to wit, the glory of God in the way of mercy mixt with juſtice; and conſequently, all at once in intention, though not all at once in execution. But to diſprove that which here you affirme, as if ſome wilfull diſobedience, in Gods fore-ſight, was before the decree of condemnation, I diſpute thus, according to your owne rules; If the fore-ſight of diſobedience did precede the decree of condemnation, then God did firſt decree to permit p. 57this diſobedience, before hee did decree to damne any man for it: which is as much as to ſay, Mans diſobedience was firſt in Gods intention; and conſequently, it muſt be laſt in execution: that is, men muſt firſt be damned for their diſobedience, before God permits them to become diſobedient. But let us conſider your grounds, in the next place.

That God hath ſome willingneſſe to glorifie his diſtributive Anſw.juſtice, as well as vindicative, in rewarding the world with life upon condition of obedience and repentance, as well as with death upon condition of diſobedience and impenitency, appeareth from Gods Oath; As I live (ſaith the Lord) I have no pleaſure in the wicked mans death; but rather that hee ſhould turne from his wickedneſſe and live. The uſuall anſwer made to this place ſeems to once to ſtraine the word beyond his native ſimplicity.

1. Some ſay that God ſpeakes not of all the wicked, but of ſome of the elect onelyonly, who in time are brought on to repentance: but the truth is, hee ſpeaketh of ſuch wicked men, whereof ſome dye in their ſinnes, as is evident by the parallel place.

2. Others ſay, that God ſpeaketh of his antecedent will, going before all cauſes in the creature, not of his conſequent will, following the creature in ſinne: but plaine it is, hee ſpeaketh of men now wicked, defiled with originall and actuall ſin.

3. Others ſay againe, God ſpeakes not of the ſecret will of his good pleaſure, but of his revealed will: but though I know there be ſundry parts of Gods ſecret will which are not revealed, yet I know no part of his will by oath, doctrine, or hiſtoricall narration, that is diſcrepant from his ſecret will as all.

Object. If you ſay, Yes: Gods revealed will is that all ſhould repent.

Reſp. 1. I anſwer: It is not a part of Gods will revealed by hath, doctrine, or hiſtoricall narration; but by a word of command.

2. I ſay, it is a part of his ſecret will too; I meane, of his good pleaſure, that all men ſhould repent: and it is his diſpleaſure if they repent not.

3. But there is another part of his good will alſo, that if they repent they ſhall not periſh; and this alſo revealed in his word: And thus the will of God revealed in a diſt… axiome is alwayes conſonant to his ſecret will, and never fruſtrated.

p. 584. Finally, others ſay, that God delights not in the death of a ſinner, as it is the deſtruction of the creature, but as it is a meanes of the manifeſtation of his juſtice. I anſwer, It is true; but the manifeſtation of his juſtice ſtands, as hee expreſſeth himſelfe, in the removall of the cauſe of their deſtruction from his owne will to their will: As I live (ſaith the Lord) I deſire not the death of a ſinner: Turne yee, turne yee; why will yee dye, O houſe of Iſrael?

Firſt, here is ſome Philoſophicall error in diſtinguiſhing betweene Examin.juſtice diſtributive and juſtice vindicative; which are no more to be diſtinguiſhed than a genus is to be diſtinguiſhed from his ſpecies: Juſtice commutative is only oppoſite to juſtice diſtributive; but juſtice diſtributive comprehends under it as well juſtice vindicative as juſtice remunerative.

2. Here wee have an anxious diſcourſe to prove that which no man denyes, as before hath been ſhewed: And on the other ſide, it is equally as true, that God hath a willingneſſe to glorifie his vindicative juſtice, as well as remunerative; to puniſh with death any one of his Elect, upon condition of finall diſobedience and impenitency, as well as to reward with life, upon condition of obedience and repentance.

3. But it appeares by the Proofe, that ſome further Point is intended then is yet manifeſted; and ſuch a one as you ſeeme rather to inſinuate then expreſſe. For whereas hitherto you have propoſed a will of God onelyonly conditionate, the place of Scripture alledged mentions no ſuch conditionate will, which is indifferent to paſſe either upon the life or death of a man accordingly as hee ſhall be found to repent or not to repent; but rather intimates a will of God inclining to affect rather the life of man then his death: as it is manifeſted in theſe words, I have no pleaſure in the wicked mans death, but rather that hee repent and live. Now this is nothing congruous to a conditionate will; as before premiſed; Firſt, becauſe a conditionate will, at the beſt, is but indifferent, to paſſe either upon life or death according to the condition propoſed. Secondly, if the condition of life be ſuch as whereunto man is not ſo well diſpoſed, and the condition of death ſuch as whereunto man is moſt prone; it will follow here-hence, that ſuch a conditionate will is more propenſe to affect a mans death than life. Thirdly, moſt of all, in caſe it be ſuch as that the condition of p. 59life is never performed, and the condition of death alwayes performed; and the event hereof well knowne to God when hee made this conditionate decree.

4. But whereas you would (I gueſſe) inſinuate, that God doth will the life of the wicked (diſtinguiſhed from Gods Elect) rather then their death, the place alledged is nothing to this purpoſe; as not ſignifying what God doth rather will to come to paſſe, but what God doth take moſt pleaſure in, when it doth come to paſſe, whether it doth come to paſſe or no; for certainly, the life and repentance of the world doth never come to paſſe, according to your opinion.

5. Junius renders the place ſo, as that Gods delight is ſignified to be placed in the repentance of a ſinner; Ne vivam fi delector morte improbi; ſed delector cum revertitur improbus ut vivat. And indeed God is glorified by our obedience, as whereby hee is acknowledged to be our ſupreme Lord; not ſo by our diſobedience. And indeed, did God take pleaſure in the death of a ſinner, what ſhould move him to wait for his repentance, and uſe all perſwaſive meanes to bring him to repentance? And it is propoſed to take them off from a deſperate condition, propoſed in theſe words, Quia defectiones noſtrae & peccata noſtra incumbunt nobis, ideò ipſis nos tabeſcimus ecqui viveremus. To take them off from this, the Lord ſends his Prophet, charging him and ſaying, Dic eis, ne vivam ego, dictum Domini, ſi delector morte improbi, ſed cum revertitur improbus à via ſua ut vivat. Revertimini, revertimini à viis veſtris peſſimis; cur enim moreremini, domus Iſraelis?

6. Be it ſpoken in generall, both of Elect and Reprobate, (yet onelyonly is it directed to them to whom the Prophets of God are ſent;) it followeth not, that God doth will or deſire the repentance of any Reprobate; (though to the confirmation hereof you chiefly tend:) certainly, whoſoever repents, God takes pleaſure in his repentance; and the Scripture ſaith no more: But that he doth not will it or deſire it, out of your owne mouth may bee convinced, ſeeing that God affords not any Reprobate ſuch an effectuall grace as hee fore-ſees will bring them to repentance; but reſerving that for the Elect alone, unto all others hee vouchſafeth onelyonly ſuch a grace as hee knowes full well will never bring any of them unto repentance. And if God would bring any man p. 60unto repentance, who ſhould hinder him? ſhall the will of man? how doth it hinder him in working the repentance of his Elect? cannot hee omnipotenti facilitate convertere, (as Auſtin ſpeakes) whom he will, & ex nolentibus volentes facere? Againe, doth God continue to will their repentance after they are damned, or no? If no: then is hee changed if ever hee willed their repentance.

7. Certainly, he ſpeaks of men defiled with originall and actuall ſinne; for hee ſpeakes of ſuch whom he exhorts to repentance: yet this hinders not but that it may proceed of his antecedent will; for nothing but finall impenitency makes way for Gods conſequent will concerning damnation.

8. Saint Paul, of all his labours, tendred to the good of all ſorts, profeſſeth, that hee ſuffered them for Gods Elect: How …, 10.much more in Gods intention was the Miniſtry of his Prophets for the Elect ſake? The queſtion is not ſo much about Gods delight in the death of the wicked, as about his delight concerning their repentance and life; and this hath no parallel, Ezech. 18. applying it to other then Gods Elect.

9. The third Anſwer, though it ſeemes to mee not congruous enough in reſpect of life; becauſe revealed will, in this diſtinction, is uſually taken onelyonly for Gods commandement; and life is no precept: yet is it congruous enough in reſpect of repentance; for it is generally commanded; and conſequently, Gods will of life, if it be called his will revealed, may be reduced to congruity, as conſequent to repentance, which God commands to all; and conſequently, hee may be ſaid, by his revealed will, to will the ſalvation of all. The Anſwer to this is nothing to purpoſe, as ſticking upon the termes, ſecret and revealed, and not applied to the uſuall acceptions of this diſtinction, which is onelyonly to ſignifie Gods will of commandement, which wee all know to be revealed; and Gods will of purpoſe, which moſtly is not revealed.

10. It is untrue, that it is Gods good pleaſure that all ſhould repent; for the will of Gods good pleaſure, in the acception of all that ever I read, is onelyonly of that which God will have come to paſſe; and conſequently, of what ſhall come to paſſe; not of what ſhould come to paſſe, to wit, of mans duty; that is generally accounted voluntas ſigni, in diſtinction from voluntas beneplaciti; and in ſpeciall, wee may call it voluntas praecepti, and diſtinguiſh p. 61it from voluntas propoſiti; this is, What God will have to bee done; that is, what God will have to be our duty to doe: And thus farre it may be accounted the will of Gods good pleaſure (as you call it.) But then, Gods diſpleaſure following hath no congruous oppoſition hereunto; as when you ſay, It is his diſpleaſure if they repent not: the contrary whereunto is not as you ſhape it, It is his good pleaſure that all men ſhould repent; but rather thus, It is his good pleaſure if they doe repent. That diſtinction tends to meere confuſion. Neither yet doe I like this expreſſion, ſhaped never ſo congruouſly: rather it ſhould runne thus, God is well pleaſed when men doe repent, and moſt diſpleaſed when they doe not repent; which is moſt true, but leaſt to the preſent purpoſe, as touching the diſtinction ventilated betweene us, concerning voluntas ſigni, & voluntas beneplaciti.

Your ſecond inſtance, of voluntas beneplaciti, is no leſſe extravagant; as when you make the object thereof thus; If they repent, they ſhall not periſh: If they repent not, they ſhall periſh: for promiſes and rewards are but adjuncts to voluntas ſigni, and nothing ſecret, but plainly revealed. But to whom God will make his commandements, back'd with promiſes and threats, effectuall to the working of repentance, this is a ſecret; and this wee commonly account voluntas beneplaciti. When you adde, ſaying, Thus the will of God revealed in a diſtinct axiome, is alwayes conſonant to his revealed will, and never fruſtrated; You continue ſtill in a miſerable confuſion, worſe rather then better: as when you talke of a disjunct axiome, in reference to that which went before, when no disjunct axiome at all went before, but certaine conditionate axiomes; as theſe, If they repent, they ſhall not periſh: If they repent not, they ſhall periſh: whereas disjunct oppoſitions are ſuch as theſe; They ſhall repent or no: They ſhall periſh or no: And to ſay ſuch axiomes are conſonant to Gods ſecret will, is a wild expreſſion; whereas indeed they are neither conſonant nor diſſonant, ſave onelyonly in enuntiating that in an indeterminate manner, which Gods will hath made determinate; and in that reſpect it is diſſonant enough.

Of the cauſe of the death of a ſinner there needeth not to be any queſtion; for undoubtedly, the ſinne of man is the cauſe thereof, in the way of a cauſe meritorious; but not in the way of a cauſe naturally efficient. And as undoubted it is, that Gods will is p. 62the cauſe thereof, as a Judge, in the way of a cauſe naturally efficient; but not in the way of a cauſe meritorious. And as cleare it is, that onelyonly the meritorious cauſe is the chiefe cauſe in this kind; for as much as by the rendring thereof alone, ſatisfaction is made to him that demands the reaſon, why ſuch a one ſuffereth death. But I wonder what you meane to change the former Tranſlation of the Text, thus, I have no pleaſure in the wicked mans death, into another, thus, I will not the death of a ſinner; For, is it not God that inflicteth death? and doth hee not doe all things according to the counſell of his will? Epheſ. 1. 11. Yet if it were ſo to be rendred, it will nothing advantage you. And in no other ſenſe can it be ſaid, that hee doth not will it; then in that in which hee is ſaid, not to puniſh willingly, Lam. 3. according to the Latine phraſe, when hee doth not puniſh, Animi cauſa, but by reaſon of ſome provocation, the ſinne of man urging and moving him thereunto; as is fairely intimated in that, Hoſ. 11. 8. How ſhall I give thee up, Ephraim? how ſhall I deliver thee, Iſrael? And, Eſay 3. They provoke the eyes of his glory.

For a ſecond ground: In the Covenant of Workes you may ſee, as in a glaſſe, what the purpoſe of God is, in the manifeſting his Anſw.Juſtice upon the world of mankind; as in the Covenant of Grace you may ſee, as in a mirrour, what the purpoſe of God is, in manifeſting his mercy upon the Elect: For as it is in men renued after the Image of God; ſo likewiſe it is in God himſelfe: Such as his Covenant or Promiſe is, ſuch is his Purpoſe. God doth covenant and promiſe in the Covenant of Grace to give life to the Elect, out of his grace in Chriſt: So here doth God covenant and promiſe, in the Covenant of Workes, to give life to Adam and all his poſterity, if they continue in obedience of his Law; or if, breaking this Law, they return again to him by repentance; as it is deſcribed at large, Gen. 4. 7. Levit. 18. 5. Ezek. 18. 5. & 20. 11. & 40. 21. Gal. 3. 12. Surely then, the purpoſe of Gods juſt retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their obedience, or of their repentance after diſobedience. Say not, Surely God purpoſed nothing but death to the world of mankind (whom hee elected not,) becauſe hee offered them life upon ſuch condition which hee knew was impoſſible for them to keep: for, firſt, in Adam they were enabled to keep it; neither impotency in Adam, nor efficacy of Gods decree did put upon Adam any neceſſity of breaking p. 63it. Againe, in Chriſt they have ſo much knowledge and grace revealed to them, and offered, as is ſufficient to bring them on to ſee their impotency in themſelves, and to ſtirre them up to ſeeke for help, and ſtrength, and life, in him where it is to be found: which if they neglect or deſpiſe, as the Phariſees did, and all the reſt of impenitent ſinners doe, God and his Covenant are blameleſſe, in offering them life, and the meanes of it; their deſtruction is of themſelves.

That Propoſition of yours, As it is in men renued after the Image of God, ſo likewiſe it is in God himſelfe; had need of much Examin.limitation and qualification, leſt it prove as often falſe as true, or rather more. That which followes; Such as is his Covenant or Promiſe, ſuch is his Purpoſe: is likewiſe as often falſe as true. If the Promiſes of God are abſolute, ſuch are his Purpoſes; but if his Promiſes bee conditionall, ſuch are not his Purpoſes. Both Piſcator of late, by evidence of Scripture, and Bradwardine long before, by demonſtration of Reaſon, have proved, that no will in God is conditionate, quoad actum volentis; all the conditions are found, quoad res volitas. And indeed, though the Purpoſes of God are abſolute, yet his Promiſes are therefore conditionate, becauſe they are conformed to the manner of Gods operation with man: For, as God workes in all things agreeable to their natures; ſo in man hee uſeth to worke agreeable to his nature. And therefore, albeit his Purpoſe bee abſolute to bring them to grace and glory, to faith, repentance, and ſalvation; yet hee allures them to faith and repentance by promiſes and threatnings. When you ſay, that, God doth covenant and promiſe to give life to the Elect, out of his grace in Chriſt: You might as well have ſaid, that, God promiſeth to give life to them that beleeve and repent; and more congruouſly a great deale; ſeeing the conſcience of our faith and repentance brings us to the aſſurance of our Election; the conſcience of our Election, or of the aſſurance thereof, brings us not unto faith and repentance. But it ſeemes you deſire to ſhape the Promiſes of God in the Covenant of Grace, and in the Covenant of Workes, in ſo different a manner, that the one may ſeeme to bee abſolute, the other conditionall; whereas they are of the ſame nature in both: And as God doth withall intend to give the grace of obedience to the Elect; ſo doth hee as abſolutely intend to deny it to the other. And I wonder you make p. 64not mention of the Reprobate in the latter, as of the Elect in the former: Undoubtedly, the Covenant of Workes concernes all to whom it is preached; as well the Elect as the Reprobate. And the Covenant of Grace likewiſe concernes all to whom it is preached; as well the Reprobate as the Elect. To all it is preached, Whoſoever beleeveth ſhall be ſaved; as well to the Reprobate as to the Elect: To all it is preached indifferently, Whoſoever beleeveth not ſhall bee damned; as well to the Elect as to the Reprobate: onelyonly, God ſhewes mercy on whom hee will, in giving the grace of faith; and hardens whom he will, in denying it. God doth covenant (you ſay) to give life to Adam and all his poſterity, if they continue in obedience to his Law. This then, undoubtedly, concernes the Elect as well as the Reprobate; For they are a part of Adams poſterity. But I wonder not a little at this language, ſpeaking in the Preſent Tenſe, that God doth covenant to give Adam life; whereas Adam many thouſand yeares agoe hath ceaſed to have any thing to doe with any ſuch Covenant. Therefore this is for ſome ſpeciall purpoſe, in joyning Adam and his poſterity together, as perſons covenanted with by God. And I imagine the reaſon of it to be this: Leſt otherwiſe there could bee no place for continuance in obedience required of all Adams poſterity; for that preſuppoſeth them to be in the eſtate of obedience: which was never verified of them all, but as they were in Adam, and that in his ſtate of Innocency. But why ſhould wee pleaſe our ſelves with ſuch confuſion? Let us conſider them apart; and ſay, that, God did covenant with Adam that if hee continued in obedience to his Law; or if breaking his Law hee did returne againe to him by repentance, hee ſhould have life. But what evidence, I pray, have you for this? namely, that God made any ſuch Covenant with Adam in the ſtate of Innocency? who ever was found to entertaine any ſuch conceit before you? why might not you as well deviſe the like Covenant to be made by God with the Angels? Nay, is not the contrary manifeſt? In the day thou ſinneſt thou ſhalt dye the death. How could this be verified, if God Gen. ….made any ſuch Covenant with Adam? For, if hee were under ſuch a Covenant, hee could not be ſaid to violate it by ſinning, but onelyonly by refuſing to repent after hee had ſinned. And I verily beleeve you have no ſuch meaning, as if you conceived any ſuch Covenant to bee made with Adam before his fall; and therefore p. 65you clapt Adam and his poſterity together; to the end, that if that which you delivered might not hold of the one, it might of the other. And though it hold of Adams poſterity, as touching this part, of turning unto God by repentance after ſinne committed; yet of them it holds not, as touching the other part of the condition, to wit, of continuance in obedience; for the poſterity of Adam, through his fall, are quite out of the eſtate of obedience, till God reſtores them. Nay, God in this life never reſtores any to the eſtate of obedience, which was found in Adam before his fall. Out of this confuſion you inferre, that, Surely the purpoſe of Gods juſt retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their obedience, or of their repentance. As before wee were troubled with confuſion, ſo here wee are againe troubled with an unhappy diſtinction: For, what doe you meane to diſtinguiſh Obedience from Repentance, as if Repentance were not Obedience? Doth not God ſay as well unto us, Repent, and beleeve the Goſpel; as, If you conſent and obey, you ſhall eat the Eſa. 1.Isa 1good things of the land? Is it fit to diſtinguiſh the Genus from the Species, ſo as to ſet one in oppoſition to the other? Though the contentions of Brethren are as the barrs of a Palace; yet, as Brethren, they are all the Children of the ſame Father, or Mother, or both. But take wee your meaning; and that by Obedience is to be underſtood, ſuch a ſtate or condition of obedience as is without all ſinne; then let your Poſition runne plainly thus, Surely, the purpoſe of Gods juſt retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their being without ſinne, or of their repentance after obedience. To this I anſwer, That, there never was any ſuch Covenant of God with man; I meane, in ſuch ſort conditionate: and conſequently, there never was any purpoſe in God to make any ſuch Covenant with man; at leaſt for the time paſt: As for the times to come, let them ſpeake for themſelves, by their owne experience, when they come. But that never any ſuch Covenant had place hitherto, between God and man, it is manifeſt: For, ſince the Fall of Adam all being borne in ſinne, there is no place for ſuch a Covenant, as touching the firſt part of the condition, which is, of being without ſinne. And before the Fall of Adam there was no place for this Covenant, as touching the latter part of the condition; as I preſume you will not deny: onelyonly the confuſion of theſe two ſtates, before the Fall and after p. 66the Fall, hath brought forth this wild conceit of ſuch a Covenant. By that which followeth, it ſeemes that all theſe conceptions tend to no worſe end, then to juſtifie Gods diſpoſition towards the Reprobate. And it is great pity that ſo good an end, as the juſtifying of God, ſhould bee brought about by no more congruous courſes then theſe. But I would faine know, what blemiſh ſhould redound to the nature of God, if hee ſhould intend nothing but death to the world of mankind? yet your ſelfe will acknowledge, that hee might have intended nothing but annihilation: And is not annihilation as bad as death? But your meaning is, by death to underſtand ſorrow. And is there not juſt cauſe to preferre ſorrow before death? Yea, but your meaning is, of ſorrow in the higheſt degree, and that everlaſting. Why, but if it be no blemiſh to God to intend nothing but ſorrow in ſeven degrees to the world of mankind, why ſhould it be any blemiſh to him to intend nothing but ſorrow in a degree more? And if it be no blemiſh to God to intend nothing but ſorrow to the world of mankind for millions of yeares, why ſhould it be any blemiſh to his reputation, to intend to the world of mankind nothing but everlaſting ſorrow? Yet whom doe you oppoſe in this? Who ever ſaid, that God did intend nothing but death to the world of mankind? thoſe on whom you obtrude this conceit, doe not affirme this of the world of mankind, but onelyonly of the Reprobates; if they doe affirme any ſuch thing. And why, I pray, ſhould the Reprobates be taken for the world of mankind, rather than the Elect? Neither doth any man ſay, that God did intend nothing but death to the Reprobates: Hee did intend to them all life as well as death; but withall, that all the poſterity of Adam ſhould be borne, or at leaſt conceived, in ſinne; and alſo that many thouſands ſhould periſh in that ſinne wherein they were conceived and borne. And I preſume you dare not deny this: which yet is the harſheſt proceeding of God, above all others, except his dealing with his owne Sonne. As for others, he intended to expoſe them to actuall ſinnes of infidelity and impenitency, by denying to them that grace which alone would preſerve them from ſuch ſinnes; as your ſelfe ſpare not to profeſſe: and yet for all this you would obtrude upon us a ſtrange conceit, and that as very reaſonable; namely, That God did not intend their death onelyonly, but their life alſo: whereas God is nothing at all advantaged p. 67hereby in his reputation, but onelyonly in words, which is no reall reliefe to his honour, but the adding of another injury (if that bee an injury unto him, as you conceive;) namely, to mock him alſo. And if wee ſhall nothing pleaſure him by a lye, lying for God, as man doth for man, to gratifie him; ſurely wee ſhall doe him no pleaſure by thus mocking him. I would you had tried your ſtrength in oppugning their opinion to the uttermoſt, who maintaine God to carry himſelfe as abſolutely in the way of Reprobation, as in the way of Election: I would gladly have conſidered it. But let us conſider your preſent diſcourſe: Firſt, you ſay, They were in Adam enabled to keep the condition; therefore ſay not, God intended nothing but death to them. I pray transferre the caſe to the Angels; were not they alſo enabled to keep the condition of life, as well as their fellowes? yet, did not God grant his Elect Angels ſuch a grace as whereby hee knew they would ſtand; denying ſuch a grace unto the others; and that as abſolutely as hee granted it unto the other? And could hee not as abſolutely have granted this grace unto them … and denyed it to them that ſtood? And what would have … the iſſue, but quite contrary? & verſis luxiſſet curia fatis.

Now let any man, that is not poſſeſſed with a prejudicate conceit, conſider, whether God did not as abſolutely will the damnation of the one, as the ſalvation of the other; making the one amplius adjutos (as Auſtin ſpeakes) then the other? For the abſoluteneſſe of Gods Election of Angels, is ſeene by the abſoluteneſſe of his giving them ſuch a grace as to keep them from ſinne. And if hee doth as abſolutely deny others the ſame grace, as hee muſt needs; (for before the firſt ſinne of Angels there could bee no cauſe moving God to deny them grace;) it will follow, that their Reprobation was as abſolute as the others Election. Yet what a poore relieving of Gods reputation is this, to ſay, that Judas had power in Adam to keep the condition of life propoſed to him; though ſince his Fall hee hath not: yet wee beleeve that Adam is ſaved, who bereaved Judas of his ability; and Judas damned, for not keeping that whereunto hee had no ability; and that through the Fall of Adam. Further, obſerve I pray you the miſerable conſequents of this your Argument, as it runnes thus, in few words; In Adam we were enabled to keep the Condition; Therefore ſay not, that God intended nothing but death to the Reprobate. p. 68By the ſame reaſon I may diſpute thus: In Adam they were enabled to breake the condition of life; therefore, Say not that God intended nothing but life to his Elect. But as hee intended ſalvation, and not damnation onelyonly, to the Reprobates; In like ſort hee intended damnation, and not ſalvation onelyonly, to the Elect: Eſpecially conſidering, that not in Adam onelyonly, but in themſelves alſo, they are able enough to breake it; and the beſt of them have that in them that deſerves damnation, nothing that deſerves ſalvation. As for the Reprobates, there neither was nor is any thing in them that ſits them for ſalvation. It is ſtrange that theſe incongruities ſhould not bee diſcerned; or being diſcerned, men ſhould be ſo little moved with them. But theſe are dayes of vengeance; and when a good man erres, and that in weighty matters, I conſider not any judgement of God upon him, but upon the world rather; that hereby are ſo much the more countenanced in their erroneous wayes, which are advantageous to fleſh and bloud; and therefore they delight in them, and thereby become the more worthy to be given over to illuſions, to beleeve lyes. Let mee touch upon that alſo, as where you ſay, It was not the efficacy of Gods decree that did put upon Adam any neceſſity of breaking it. This, I confeſſe, is a plauſible ſpeech now adayes, and apt to bee taken up; eſpecially coming from good mens mouthes, to choake others withall, who feare not to give God the glory of his power, with as much truth, and with a greater diſtinction and plainneſſe; wee ſay with Aquinas, that, Gods will is ſo efficacious, as to cauſe all things to come to paſſe after ſuch a manner as they doe come to paſſe; to wit, neceſſary things neceſſarily, and contingent things contingently, or freely, whether in good or evill. And if you ſpare to ſpeake with the Holy Ghoſt, yet wee will not; but profeſſe, that, Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Iſrael, were gathered together to doe that which Gods hand and Gods counſell determined before to be done. And with Auſtin, Non aliquid fit, niſi Omnipotens fieri velit, vel ſinendo ut fiat, vel ipſe faciendo.

So that even thoſe things which God ſinit ſieri, vult ſieri: Enchirid. cap. 95.Good things he will have come to paſſe, by his working of them; evill things hee will have come to paſſe, by his ſuffering of them. Nay, otherwiſe it were impoſſible hee ſhould foreknow them; for unleſſe they are future, they are not knowable to be future. p. 69But how can it be, that things contingent, and in their owne nature indifferent, as well to be not future as future; how, I ſay, is it poſſible that they ſhould paſſe out of this indifferent condition into a condition determinate; and things meerely poſſible in their owne nature, become future without a cauſe? And what cauſe can be deviſed of this tranſition, but the will of God? For, from everlaſting, nothing was extant to cauſe them of things poſſible to become future, but God himſelfe: and in God himſelfe, nothing can be imagined to be the cauſe hereof, but the will of God. This is the inſoluble demonſtration that cuts the throat of Scientia media, whereupon the Jeſuites and Arminians, and all that oppoſe the abſoluteneſſe of Gods proceedings, doe, and muſt relye; either wittingly or unwittingly, and whether they will or no; unleſſe they will directly turne Atheiſts, and with Cicero deny that God fore-knowes things that are to come. So that upon ſuppoſition of Gods will to permit Adam to fall, it was neceſſary that Adam ſhould fall; neceſſary, I ſay, that hee ſhould fall: But how? Not neceſſarily, but contingently, and freely: and no other neceſſity is at this day found in man for the performing of any particular ſinfull act, but ſuch as is joyned with liberty; and that in ſuch ſort, as that the neceſſity is only Secundum quid; the liberty is Simpliciter: ſo called, I ſay, in reſpect of any particular act. But, I confeſſe, there is an abſolute neceſſity of ſinning, in generall, laid upon man by the Fall of Adam; whereby it comes to paſſe, that whether a man commits a ſinfull act, then queſtionleſſe hee ſinneth; or whether hee omit a ſinfull act, yet therein hee ſinneth alſo; in as much as hee doth not abſtaine from it in a gracious manner. I come to the ſecond Reaſon: Againe, you ſay, In Chriſt they have ſo much knowledge and grace revealed to them, and offered, as is ſufficient to bring them on to ſee their impotency in themſelves, and to ſtirre them up to ſeeke for help and ſtrength, and life in him, where it is to bee found; which if they neglect and deſpiſe, as the Phariſees did, and all impenitent ſinners doe, God and his Covenant are blameleſſe, in offering them life, and the meanes of it; their deſtruction is of themſelves. I have read ſuch manner of diſcourſe as this often in Carvinus, that buſie Arminian; I am ſorry to read it in the writings of good men; eſpecially when I find it not one jot mended in them. Yet all this I ſee ſtill tends to a gracious end, even to p. 70the juſtifying of God; as when you ſay, Their deſtruction is of themſelves. But ſo doe Arminians alſo pretend; to wit, the juſtifying of God in the way of Reprobation: but the iſſue is, to juſtifie themſelves, and glorifie themſelves in the way of Election. But, I pray you, what thinke you of Infants that periſh in Originall ſinne; how is their deſtruction of themſelves? Is it of themſelves that they are borne in ſinne? Yet I preſume you will not ſay, with Arminians, that all Infants that dye in their infancy, whether they be the Children of Turkes and Saracens, yet are ſaved, as well as the children of beleeving Parents. Againe, was not Pharaohs deſtruction of himſelfe alſo, for not letting Iſrael goe? yet, will you deny that God hardned his heart, that hee ſhould not let Iſrael goe? Sihon King of Heſhbon, was not his deſtruction of himſelfe, in that hee would not ſuffer Iſrael to paſſe by him, though they promiſed to goe by the high-way, and to turne neither to the right hand nor to the left, and to pay for all that they received of them, both meat and drinke? nevertheleſſe it is ſaid, that, The Lord hardned his ſpirit, and made his heart obſtinate, becauſe hee would deliver him into the hands of the Iſraelites. The deſtruction of Abimelech and of the Shechemites, was it not of themſelves? yet ſurely, God it was that ſent an evill ſpirit betweene Abimelech and the men of Shechem, that the cruelty againſt the ſeventy ſonnes of Jerubbaal, and their bloud, might Judg. 9.Judg 9come and be laid upon Abimelech their brother, which had ſlaine them; and upon the men of Shechem which had aided him to kill his brethren. But to proceed: The face of your diſcourſe ſeemes to tend to the maintenance of a ſufficient grace in the Reprobates themſelves; whereof there is much queſtion: but yet you expreſſe onelyonly a ſufficient grace without them, whereof there is no queſtion. For, undoubtedly, in Gods word (whereof even Reprobates are partakers as well as the Elect) there is grace ſufficient in the way of inſtruction and revelation; no man makes queſtion of this. Undoubtedly, therein is contained all things neceſſary both for faith and manners, and ſo to bring them to ſalvation, if they will obey it. But all the queſtion is, whether they have any ſufficiency of grace to enable them to obey it? I preſume your ſelfe will not avouch this. And the Pelagians of old acknowledged a ſufficiency of grace in the way of doctrine and inſtruction. OnelyOnly you ſay, There is ſufficient grace given them to bring p. 71them to ſee their impotency. But how doe you prove this? The naturall man commonly is too preiant of his ability; Dicere ſolet humana ſuperbia (ſaith Auſtin) ſi ſciſſem, feciſſem. What was Pauls meaning when hee ſaid of himſelfe, Rom. 7. 9. I once was alive without the Law? I ſhould think this impotency cannot be diſcerned without the life of grace. For, like as a dead man naturally is not ſenſible of his death; ſo hee that is dead in ſinne, is nothing ſenſible of this his ſinfull condition. But howſoever, ſurely grace revealed onelyonly hath no congruity to ſuch a worke, as to bring a man to ſee his impotency; for what greater grace in the kind of revelation then the word of God? let this word teſtifie, that a man is ſhaped in wickedneſſe, and in ſinne conceived; and that hee is dead in ſinne. Is this ſufficient to make him ſee his impotency? Is the hearing of Gods word ſufficient to make him beleeve it? why then is it not ſufficient to take away mens blindneſſe? and why then doth not every one that hears it, ceaſe to be blind; and conſequently, ceaſe to bee lame, and deafe; yea, and ceaſe to be dead alſo? Nay, which is more, ſuppoſe a Phyſician diſcovers a man to be in a dangerous eſtate, when hee dreames of nothing leſſe, and ſuppoſe the party beleeves it upon his word; yet here-hence it followeth not, that hee ſeeth the dangerous eſtate wherein hee is, untill hee hath ſome feeling of it. So likewiſe, if hee ſhould beleeve the word, telling him that hee is unable to doe any thing that is good; yet hee ſhall not be ſaid to ſee it, till hee hath ſome feeling of it: and whence can this feeling proceed, but from ſome principle of life that muſt be ſhed into his ſoule, that hee may have a feeling of that miſerable eſtate wherein hee is by nature; otherwiſe though upon ſuppoſition hee ſhould beleeve it in Gods word, yet hee ſhould not ſee it in himſelfe. Further, you ſay, It is ſufficient to ſtirre him up to ſeek for help, and ſtrength, and life, in him where it is to bee found. A ſtrange conceit, that a man ſhould ſeek for life, whereas if hee hath not life hee is dead; and was it ever known that a dead man ſought for life? well Martha might ſeeke for the reſtoring of life to her dead brother Lazarus, but ſurely Lazarus himſelfe, being dead, neither did, nor could ſeeke for life. A man that hath life, may be ſaid to labour for life; that is, to hold it, when hee is in danger of loſing life: but for a dead man to ſeeke for life is more then miraculous; for it is utterly impoſſible. When the Angell came downe into the p. 72Poole of Betheſda, the poore Creple had never a whit the more ſufficiency to enter in, had his heart beene as lame to deſire as his body to goe, notwithſtanding that he ſaw ſo good an opportunity, hee ſhould make no more haſte to deſire the benefit, then his body could to enjoy it. Againe, no man ſeekes for that hee deſires not; neither can hee deſire ought, unleſſe hee know it, and loves it. And is it poſſible that a man ſhould know the precious nature of the life of grace, and be in love with it, and yet without the life of grace? Is the knowledge of the precious nature of the ſtate of grace, and the love thereof, a fruit of the fleſh thinke you? But, by that which followes, it ſeemes this is not your meaning; but you ſuppoſe, that notwithſtanding all the operation of grace mentioned, they may deſpiſe it: In which caſe, they neither love it, nor underſtand the precious nature of it; for no man deſpiſeth that which hee loves, and accounts precious: Therefore this ſtirring up ſeemes to bee nothing but perſwaſion and exhortation. Now this, as Auſtin long agoe delivered, Doctrinae generalitate comprehenditur; and we willingly grant, that the word preached doth equally exhort all that heare it, to faith, to repentance, to prayer, in ſome of which, or in all which, conſiſts the ſeeking of life. And no man makes queſtion, but the word of God ſufficiently performes its part, in exhortation to faith, to repentance, to prayer: but the Phariſees deſpiſed this, and ſo doe moſt; and God is blameleſſe. But of any power that they have to beleeve, repent, and pray, upon the doing whereof they ſhould obtaine life, your ſelfe are content to ſay nothing at all; but keep your ſelfe unto generall phraſes, which are very apt to deceive us; and this is the courſe not onelyonly of them that are in love with their owne errors; but with good men alſo, when out of a deſire to juſtifie God, and not content with that ſimplicity of ſatisfaction which is laid forth unto us in holy Scripture, and ſeemes harſh to fleſh and bloud, making them cry out, Durus eſt hic ſermo, they ſhape unto themſelves other courſes, more convenient (as they thinke) to give ſatisfaction; yet not ſo much unto themſelves, as unto others: but all in vaine; for fleſh and bloud will receive no ſatisfaction in the plaine truth of God.

A third Reaſon then to prove that God purpoſed life to the Anſw.world, upon condition of their obedience and repentance, is taken from the end God aimed at: As hee declares himſelfe, to offer p. 73meanes of ſalvation unto the world: which is not in the first place to harden, and to leave without excuſe; but to bring them to the knowledge of God and of themſelves, to repentance, to the ſeeking after God, to the purging of themſelves from ſinne, and to peace. To the Gentiles God gave the workes of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts; to reveale the knowledge of God to them, to teach them to doe the things of the Law, to judge of them that doe amiſſe, and thereby be brought to condemne themſelves doing the ſame things; to lead them to repentance, to move them to ſeek after the Lord. And thus much light Chriſt enlighteneth every man withall that cometh into this world. From whence alſo it was, that God vouchſafed heavenly dreames and viſions even to the Gentiles, That hee might withdraw them from their ſinnes, and hide their pride, and ſave their ſoules from the pit. But becauſe this light alone did not prevaile with the Gentiles, as to bring them to the knowledge of God in Chriſt, therefore it pleaſed God in the fulneſſe of time to ſend the preaching of the Goſpel amongst them; and in the meane time, not to iudge them nor condemne them for their not beleeving in Chriſt, of whom they had not heard; nor for tranſgreſſing the Law of workes, which they had not received; but onelyonly for ſinning againſt the law of nature, which was written in their hearts, and expounded to them daily by the workes of Creation and Providence, and ſealed up to them by particular amplification, partly by their Conſciences accuſing or excuſing, Rom. 2. 15. partly by dreames and viſions, Job 33. 15, 16.

To the Jewes God revealed his Covenant clearly and fully; ſent his Prophets among them early and late; gave them deliverances; chaſtened them with many wholeſome afflictions; yea, ſent his holy Spirit among them: And all this, in the firſt place, not to harden, no not carnall Iſrael; nor to leave them without excuſe; but to purge them, to humble them, and to prove them, and to doe them good in the latter end. And when theſe ends were not attained, hee complaines hee had uſed theſe meanes in vaine: which plainly argueth his firſt and chiefeſt intent was to heale, and not to harden. In fulneſſe of time God ſent his Sonne into the world, not to condemne it, or any thing in it; but that the world might bee ſaved through him: implying, that even that part of the world which is condemned for refuſing of Chriſt, it was not p. 74Gods chieſe intent to ſend Chriſt to procure their condemnation, but their ſalvation rather. If they ſhould plead their condemnation to bee unjuſt, for unbeleeſe; becauſe they were not able to beleeve, Ver. 18. our Saviour anſwers, by a reaſonable prevention, Ver. 19. This is their condemnation, viz. the juſt cauſe of their condemnation, that when light came into the world, men loved darkneſſe rather then light: men choſe rather to cleave to their ſinfull eſtates and wayes of darkneſſe, than to follow the light of the meanes of grace, which might have brought them on forward to beleeve in Chriſt. Again, when Chriſt lived here in the world, and was the Miniſter of Circumciſion, and ſo might ſpeake and doe ſome thing as man; yet as man he went not to doe his owne will, but the will of his Father who ſent him: and yet, how willing and earneſt was hee to gather Jeruſalem under his wings; even his wings in which lay healing and ſalvation? A ſigne it was the will of God to have healed and ſaved that part of Jeruſalem which would not. And when our Saviour with tears tells Jeruſalem, Oh that thou hadſt known, at leaſt in this thy day, the things that doe belong unto thy peace! doth hee not intimate, that God had even to that day carried thoughts of peace unto them; and accordingly to ſend them meanes of peace, even thoſe that ſhould never from that day forward enjoy the like means of peace?

Finally, God ſent his Spirit into the world, to convince it of ſin; becauſe they beleeved not in Chriſt: Which argueth, that the Spirit did not onelyonly perſwade them to beleeve in Chriſt; but did convince them alſo that it was their ſin, that they did not attaine to beleeve on him. Now, the Spirit of God moveth to nothing, but what hee knoweth to bee according to the will of God: And therefore the Spirit beares witneſſe, the will of God is, the world of unbeleevers ſhall not bee ſhut out from Chriſt, if they ſhut not out themſelves through unbeleefe.

Still you proceed to prove that which no man denyes: namely, Examin.that God purpoſed life to the world, upon condition of obedience and repentance: provided, that you underſtand it aright: namely, that obedience and repentance is ordained of God, as a condition of life; not of Gods purpoſe. Otherwiſe it were a very wild expreſſion to ſay, that, God ordained that obedience and repentance ſhould be the condition of Gods ordination: Or, that God purpoſed that obedience and repentance ſhould be the condition p. 75of Gods purpoſe. Yet, by the way, I deſire to know whether you exclude faith? If you doe, what ground have you to prove that God ever purpoſed that any of Adams poſterity, coming to ripeneſſe of age, ſhould be ſaved upon the condition of obedience and repentance without faith? Laſt of all, on the other ſide, it is as undoubtedly true, that God ordained, that whoſoever, coming to ripe yeares, ſhould not beleeve and repent, ſhould be damned; the very elect not excepted: Not that any ſuch conditionate decrees are agreeable unto God; but upon ſuch decrees as were abſolute in God, ſuch Propoſitions as theſe are naturally inferred; Whoſoever beleeveth and repenteth, ſhall be ſaved; Whoſoever beleeveth not and repenteth not, ſhall be damned. One thing I had almoſt forgotten: In the former Section you ſpake of a Purpoſe of God to ſave the world upon condition of obedience or repentance, in a disjunctive manner: now you are come off from that, and turne your former disjunctive into a copulative, ſaying, that God purpoſed to ſave the world upon condition of their obedience and repentance: This argueth that you are not well grounded in your owne opinion. Howſoever, your third reaſon is drawn from the end which God aimed at in offering meanes of ſalvation to the world, which is not (ſay you) in the firſt place to harden, or leave them without excuſe; but to bring them to the knowledge of God and of themſelves, to repentance, to the ſeeking after God, to the purging of themſelves from ſinne, and to peace. I am content, firſt, to conſider what you ſay; ſecondly, how you prove, who ever ſaid, that God offered meanes of ſalvation to any to this end, that hee might harden them? Meanes of grace were never (that I know of) called meanes of obduration. Hardening followeth hereupon by accident; but meanes of grace harden not. But when meanes of grace are offered, the corruption of mans heart, uncorrected by the ſpirit of regeneration, is apt to ſuggeſt carnall conſiderations, ſuch as are apt to make a man obſtinately ſtand out againſt them. The motion that Iſrael made to Sihon, to paſſe through his Country, hardened him not; but the feare of inconveniencies and dangers, more than enough, upon the paſſage of ſo great an Army through his Country, in all likelihood, was it that hardened him; and God is ſaid to harden him, in not correcting that feare, but moving him according to that projecting diſpoſition wherein hee found him. And mark how Cajetan commenteth p. 76upon theſe words, Utramque hominis partem (ſpiritum & cor, hoc eſt, ſuperiorem & inferiorem) malè diſpoſitum à Deo, intellige negative penes dona gratuita, poſitivè autem quoad judicum inclinationem & proſecutionem boni ſenſibilis. It à quod Deus ſpiritum regis durum (hoc eſt, non cedentem petitionibus) reddidit, & non dando ci gratiam acquieſcends, & cooperanda cidem ad affectum ſecuritatis & boni proprii. When Moſes came to Pharaoh, to require him, in the name of the Lord, to let Iſrael goe; this was not that that hardened him; but his owne pride, ſuperſtition, and covetouſneſſe: Neither did Gods judgements harden him; for it is divers times ſignified, that when hee found himſelfe eaſed, then hee hardned his heart: and in other places, in the way of an adverſative, when 'tis ſaid, that yet Pharaoh hardened his heart; and the like. This alſo doth remove the cauſe of hardening his heart from Gods judgements; yet, notwithſtanding, it cannot bee denyed, but that when God offers the meanes of grace to many, hee doth it with a purpoſe to harden their hearts; if ſo be hee entertaines any ſuch purpoſe at all, as your ſelfe grants hee doth; for Gods purpoſes are eternall and immutable. As for your qualification of it, by ſaying, Hee doth not offer meanes of grace, in the firſt place, to harden; It is a ſtrange expreſſion, whereof, I am perſwaded, you are not able to give any account; but, hand over head, caſt out ſuch a phraſe as ſeemes agreeable to your Tenet. For, conſider I pray, this firſt place you ſpeake of, is it in intention, or in execution? It cannot be in intention; for, in intention there is no order in things, but in reſpect of end and meanes: but, neither obduration is a ſit meanes to ſalvation, nor ſalvation a ſit meanes to obduration. Neither can it be in execution; for, in execution ſalvation is not found at all, but onelyonly obduration, in the men of the world you ſpeake of. Therefore, your meaning muſt not be of primacy in place or order, but in principality; as much as to ſay, Not chiefly to harden, but chiefly to bring to repentance. But none of your Proofes come neare the making of this good, as wee ſhall ſee in due place. In the meane time, I diſprove it thus; No wiſe man doth chiefly intend that which hee meanes not to bring to paſſe at all: Now, God doth purpoſe to harden them, as your ſelfe confeſſe, though not chiefly: but God doth not purpoſe to ſave them; for, if hee did, who could hinder him? This is the foule blemiſh of your opinion; plainly p. 77denying Gods omnipotency, as Auſtin long agoe diſcourſed: and yet you ſwallow this with facility, though a bit as great as a Camel. I know full well Arminius his ſhifts to eaſe himſelfe of this imputation; I would gladly bee acquainted with any other mans inventions alſo. As for the other end, impugned by you, to wit, to leave them without excuſe; that, indeed, wee grant may more commodiouſly be accounted an end intended by God than the former: neither doe you deny it to be intended by God, onelyonly you ſay, it is not chiefly intended by him; yet this is ſuch a thing as God brings to paſſe, to wit, their unexcuſableneſſe; but their repentance hee never brings to paſſe: and is it fit to ſay, that God chiefly intends that which ſhall never come to paſſe, as hee well knowes, rather than that which infallibly ſhall come to paſſe, and that by his procurement, as himſelfe well knowes? Thus I have conſidered what you ſay: Now I come to conſider how well you prove what you have ſaid. To the Gentiles (you ſay) God gave the workes of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts, to reveale the knowledge of God to them, to teach them to doe the things of the Law, to judge them that doe amiſſe, and thereby to be brought to condemne themſelves doing the ſame things; to lead them to repentance, to move them to ſeeke after the Lord. Like as it were not fit to ſay, that God giveth us his word to this end, that hee might reveale himſelfe unto us, (for ſo I had rather ſay, than to ſay hee reveales the knowledge of himſelfe unto us; becauſe, the very giving of his word is the revealing of himſelfe unto us:) In like ſort, it is not fit to ſay, that, To the Gentiles God gave the workes of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts, to reveale himſelf unto them; for, like as the word in its kind, ſo the workes of God in their kind, and the Law written in our hearts, are the revelation of God unto the world: God, in ancient times, teaching the world, foreign, as afterwards hee did, foreign, as Chryſoſtome hath obſerved long agoe. But ſuppoſe all this were granted you, yet is it nothing to purpoſe; for here is not the leaſt intimation of any compariſon between the objects of Gods intention, to ſignifie what God did intend in the firſt place, or chiefly; and what in the next, or not chiefly. Againe, all this, as touching his not revealing himſelfe unto the world, is rather ſubſervient to the end, impugned by you, to wit, the leaving them without excuſe, p. 78then oppoſite thereunto; for, had not God in ſome ſort revealed himſelfe unto them, they had not been left without excuſe; neither had there been any place for hardning them to reſiſt Gods truth, if the truth of God had not been ſome way or other manifeſted to them. That of aiming to bring them to repentance, and the reſt of the ſame nature, is moſt for your purpoſe, if you were able to make it good: But when wee are not wel-grounded in the way that wee take, no marvell if wee multiply expreſſions, that when ſome faile us, wee may take hold of other. Sure I am, it is apt to confound the judgement of him that, in the ſearch of truth, ſhall addreſſe himſelfe to examine it. Now, that God did not at all intend their repentance, I have already proved; for had hee intended it, it ſhould come to paſſe, hee would have given it them, ſeeing it cannot be had without Gods gift, as the Scripture teſtifies, 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Acts 5. 31. & 11. 18. and as Auſtin long agoe hath expreſſed it, contra Julian. lib. 3. cap. 4. Quantam libet praebuerit pationtiam, niſi Deus dederit, quis aget poenitentiam? But wee are apt to be deceived by phraſes of ſpeech, which, carrying many times an ambiguous ſignification, and being plauſible to procure credence one way, is, hand over head, ſo carryed, as if it were nothing leſſe true the other way alſo: As for example, To intend repentance, is a plauſible attribute to be given unto God; but it hath a double ſignification, the one that hee intends it ſhall be mans duty to repent; and in this ſenſe it is not more plauſible than true: the other is, that God doth intend they ſhall repent; and this is no more true than plauſible; for as much as God intends to give repentance to none but to his Elect: like as, de facto, hee brings none to repentance but his Elect, according to that of Auſtin, contra Jul. Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Iſtorum neminem (ſaith hee, ſpeaking of the Reprobate) adducit ad ſalubrem ſpiritualemque poenitentiam, quà homo reconciliatur Deo in Chriſto, ſive illis ampliorem patientiam, ſive non imparem praebeat. As for that of Gods leading to repentance, Rom. 2. 4. I anſwer, firſt, I had thought that had been delivered rather of the Jewes than of the Gentiles; and Acts 17. 20. the Apoſtle doth clearly ſignifie, that the admonition of Gentiles to come to repentance, was reſerved for the time of the Goſpel; The time of this ignorance God regarded not, but now hee admoniſheth all men every where to repent. And in reaſon, faith and repentance p. 79are inſeparable; and therefore, where there was no admonition unto faith, how could there be admonition unto repentance? And who would not rather incline to think, that the Gentiles (taking them in ſeparation from the Church of God) had the knowledge or God and of his Law given them, not to bring them to repentance that they might be ſaved, (for I acknowledge no ſufficiency of inſtruction granted them hereunto) but rather for the ordering of their lives in morall converſation, and for the politique government of the world, leſt otherwiſe all things ſhould run to diſorder and confuſion? And, as Auſtin ſaith, that the meanes of grace are granted to ſome, ut proficiant thereby, ad exteriorem vitae emendationem, quo mitiùs puniantur.