Mr Cottons Clearing Doubts Concerning Predestination, Interpretation 2
For an Auctarium, here is laid down a ſhort Survey of the ninth Chapter to the Romans, ſo farre as it treateth of the Doctrine of Predeſtination: the better to clear ſome paſſages of the former Diſcourſe.
THe whole Chapter from the firſt verſe to the 23. is taken Analyſis.up in the anſwering of objections, each latter ariſing from the anſwer to the former: for the Apoſtle having taught in the laſt verſe of the former Chapter, that nothing can ſeparate us from the love of God in Chriſt giveth occaſion of this doubt that may ariſe.
Queſt. What think you of the Jews, are not they the Elect people of God, and yet are not they ſeparate from Chriſt?
Anſw. The Apoſtle doth not plainly affirm it, that they are ſeparate from Chriſt, but with much compaſſion bewailes it, yea, and proteſteth, that hee would wiſh himſelf rather ſeparate from Chriſt for their ſakes: The grounds of which hee rendreth to bee for his kindreds ſake, ver. 3. for their priviledges ſake, ver. 4, 5.
This coherence I could brook well enough, onelyonly I ſay it is deviſed at pleaſure: and I finde it is a generall courſe to feign Exam.coherences, and ſometimes onelyonly to ſhape thereby ſome conformation of the Apoſtles meaning to their interpretation of him. The Apoſtle I am ſure makes none, and accordingly Ludovious Leoburgenſis profeſſeth, ſaying, Prorſus nova diſputatio inſtituitur, in qua tametſi doctrinam de Juſtificatione alicubi repetit & intertexit, tamen duas alias materias principales tractat: videlicet, quis ſit vere populus Dei, ſeu quae ſit vera Eccleſia, & de vocatione Gentium. Judaei contendebant, ſe eſſe Eccleſiam, ſe eſſe populum; ad ſe ſolos pertinere promiſſiones. Paulus reſpondet Elector eſſe populos Dei. The diſputation here inſtituted by the Apoſtle, is altogether new, wherein although hee doth ſometimes repeale and inſert the Doctrine of Juſtification; yet hee handles two other principall matters, to wit, who are the people of God in truth, and which is the true Church; and of the calling of the Gentiles. The Jews contended that they were the Church, they were Gods people, and that to them alone pertained the promiſes. Paul anſwers that the Elect alone are Gods people.
Analyſis. What is then the word (the word of promiſe of inſeparable conjunction with Chriſt) to them of none effect?
Anſw. No, all are not Iſrael which are of Iſrael: nor are all the children of Abraham, that are of the ſeed of Abraham, but in Iſaac are his ſeed called, viz. Not the children of Abrahams fleſh are the children of God, but the children of promiſe, ver. 6, 7, 8. which hee proveth by a twofold inſtance, or example.
Firſt, of Iſaac the ſeed of Abraham by Sarah, who was given unto him as his ſeed by the word of promiſe, ver. 9.
Secondly, of Jacob the ſeed of Iſaac by Rebekah, of whom another promiſe was given, that the elder brother ſhould bee to him a ſervant, ver, 11.
Which promiſe touching Jacob is amplifyed by,
Firſt, the freeneſſe of it, all cauſe of different acceptation being removed from the two brethren, and in regard, firſt, of parentage, ver. 10. ſecondly, of perſonall condition and indowments, ver. 11. which freeneſſe is alſo further ſet forth by the end of it, that the purpoſe of God might ſtand firm, as not depending on any condition in the Creature, ver. 11.
Secondly, A parallell promiſe ſuiting to it, preferring Jacob before Eſau in Gods affection, when they were both conſidered onelyonly as brethren, ver. 13.
Theſe words of the Apoſtle are I confeſſe the key of the whole Exam.Chapter, for opening the meaning, or at leaſt making way to a faire underſtanding of all that follows. If the Jews are rejected as the Apoſtle preſuppoſeth (to wit, as touching the moſt of them) in the former words, then it may ſeem that Gods word is of none effect, which conſequence, (the Apoſtle ſuppoſing ſuch a conſequence likely to bee made) by his denying of it doth imply, that there was ſome Word of God that ſeemed to bee made of none effect by this Doctrine concerning the rejection of the Jews. This word therefore is to bee inquired into, the inveſtigation whereof will give light to all the reſt. Now this word can bee no other then the word of ſome promiſe made by God for the taking of the ſeed of Abraham to bee his people, to bee his Church. For ſuch a promiſe alone ſeems to ſtand in contradiction unto our Chriſtian Doctrine, concerning the rejection of the Jews. And indeed ſuch a promiſe God made to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between mee and thee, and thy ſeed after thee, for an everlaſting Covenant, To bee a God to thee and to thy ſeed after thee. This I conceive to bee the Word of God, which the Apoſtle had before his eyes when hee delivered this, and denyed that this word and promiſe of God can bee of none effect; although it bee granted, that moſt part of the Jews bee rejected, provided that all are not. And hee gives this reaſon, to wit, becauſe this word and promiſe of God concerning Abrahams ſeed to bee taken into his Covenant of Grace, did not comprehend all his ſeed: for all are not Iſrael, that are of Iſrael, &c. ſeeing then wee doe not maintain that all Iſrael are rejected (for as it followeth, Rom. 11. 1. I demand then; Hath God caſt away his people? God forbid, For I am alſo an Iſraelite. God hath not caſt away his people whom hee knew before, ver. 5. Even ſo then at this preſent there is a remnant according to the Election of grace. Withall the Apoſtle ſignifyeth that not one of Gods people is rejected: to wit, not one of them whom hee did foreknow, which Rom. 9. 8. are called children of promiſe, in oppoſition to the children of the fleſh: alluding to Iſaac, who was begotten beyond the power of nature, and by vertue of Gods promiſe made to Abraham for a Son, when both hee and Sarah were dead as touching any naturall power to beget, or conceive a Childe. But God to make his promiſe good, inabled them with power hereunto above nature. And conformably hereunto alluding alſo to the condition of Gods children begotten unto him, not by power of nature, but above nature, by vertue of a promiſe likewiſe, even that which hee made unto Abraham, that in his ſeed (that is, in Chriſt) all the Nations of the earth ſhould bee bleſſed. That is, the Elect of God amongſt all Nations. And to make this good by the power of his grace and his holy Spirit, hee begets them unto himſelf, each in his appointed time according to their generations.
Queſt. Is there not then unrighteouſneſſe with God to deale ſo unequally with perſons equall? ver. 14.
Anſw. God forbid, which denyall the Apoſtle proveth by a double teſtimony of Moſes, both of them declaring the abſolute Soveraignty of God over the creatures, and thereby his liberty to deale diverſly or unequally with perſons equall.
Firſt, the one by ſhewing the independency of his mercy, ver. 15. wherein hee inferreth a Corollary denying the obtaining of mercy to the means which the creature uſeth who findeth mercy, ver. 16.
Secondly, by declaring and ſetting forth the right God challengeth to himſelf, to ſtirre up a ſinfull Creature to this purpoſe, to ſhew his power on him, though it bee in his juſt hardning and overthrow, ver. 17. Where hee inferreth another Corollary ariſing from both theſe places, aſcribing as well the hardning of the creature that is hardned, as the ſhewing mercy to him that obtaineth mercy, both to the abſolute Soveraignty of Gods will, ver. 18.
This objection ariſeth from the conſideration of the equality Exam.of Eſau and Jacob, before they were born, and whileſt they were in their mothers wombe.
The Anſwer is rightly conceived, as freeing God from injuſtice, by reaſon of the ſoveraignty hee hath over his creatures and liberty thereupon to deale, not onelyonly as here it is expreſſed in generall, diverſly, or unequally with perſons equall (for ſo hee deales even with his Elect) giving a greater meaſure of grace to one, as even to Saul a perſecutor and leſſe to another though never ſo morall, and free from ſuch as the world accounts foule ſinnes before their callings, but ſo unequally as to ſhew mercy unto one, and to deny mercy unto the other. For the more full explication whereof wee are to conſider, that righteouſneſſe or Juſtice is taken in a double notion. The one is, when things are carried towards men according to their works: The other is, when a man doth no other thing then hee hath power to doe; as in executing the power that God hath given them over inferiour Creatures, wee are juſt though wee doe kill Sheep, or Oxen, &c. Not in reference to any works of theirs, but onelyonly in reference to our own neceſſary uſe, and unto that lawfull power which God hath given us to ſerve our own turns of them. And thus God is not unjuſt or unrighteous, but righteous and juſt, in ſhewing mercy on ſome, and not on others, when there is no difference between them.
But whereas it is ſaid, ver. 16. that the Apoſtle inferreth a Corollary, denying the obtaining of mercy to the means, which the Creature uſeth to finde mercy; implying that when the Apoſtle ſaith, it is not of him that willeth, and of him that runneth, this of willing and running are the meanes to obtaine mercy.
I no way like this, for if it bee underſtood of willing and running in a naturall manner, ſuch willing and running are no means to obtain mercy: Or if it bee to bee underſtood of willing and running in a gracious manner; whoſoever thus willeth and runneth hath obtained mercy: as the Apoſtle ſignifyeth when hee ſaith, I found mercy that I ſhould bee faithfull. And to obtain mercy in the Apoſtles phraſe, Rom. 11. 30. 1 Cor 7▪and 31. is clearely to obtain faith and repentance; So that according to this expoſition, the meaning of the Apoſtle is this; though man is hee who beleeveth and repenteth, yet the glory of all is to bee given unto God, as who ſheweth mercy to whom hee will, when as freely hee denyeth it to others, and ſo hardneth them. And that this is the Apoſtles meaning in this place, it appeareth by the Antitheſis which the Apoſtle makes, between ſhewing mercy on the one ſide, and hardning on the other.
Again, whereas the right of God in ſtirring up a creature to this purpoſe to ſhew his power on him, though it bee in his hardning, and overthrow; this right I ſay, or rather the exerciſe of this right in God, is confined to a ſinfull creature, this is quite beſides the Apoſtles Text; For albeit the creatures hee ſpeaketh of (as Pharaoh and the rebellious Iſraelites) were ſinfull creatures, yet it doth not follow that the Apoſtle in the Doctrine which here hee delivereth, taketh any notice of their ſinfulneſſe; As indeed it is apparent that hee doth not juſtifie Gods courſes here mentioned upon the conſideration of their ſinfulneſſe, but only upon the conſideration of Gods Soveraignty over his creatures. And indeed it is plain, that of two ſinners God can give the grace of raiſing from ſin to whom hee will, and deny it unto the other: ſo it is manifeſt that of two creatures ſtanding in the eſtate of grace; God can maintain the one in that eſtate by his corroborating grace, and by denying the ſame grace, permit the other to fall from that eſtate of innocency wherein hee ſtood; As it is clear in the difference that God put betwixt the Angels that ſtood, to wit, his elect Angels,) and thoſe that fell; they that ſtood being amplius adjuti, more ſuccoured then the other, as Auſtin profeſſeth, De Civ. Dei, lib. 12. cap. 9. And Coquaeus at large upon him. So that in this reſpect the denying of corroborating grace to thoſe Angels that fell, while before they were without ſin, was juſt with God; not in any reference unto their works, as if they had deſerved that God ſhould permit them to fall into ſin, it being impoſſible that any creature ſhould deſerve this. For in this caſe there ſhould bee acknowledged a ſin to precede the firſt ſin, which cannot bee avouched, without manifeſt contradiction. But it is juſt in reſpect of Gods Soveraignty to keep from ſin whom heo will, and to permit whom hee will to fall into ſin.
Queſt. Thou wilt further ſay unto me, Why doth hee yet find fault, for who hath reſiſted his will?
Anſw. To this the Apoſtle returneth anſwer in foure materiall points.
Firſt, Hee checketh the petulancy of the creature, by ſhewing that though God ſhould harden the creature by his irreſiſtible will, yet it is not for the creature to reply thus to God; this hee doth by a compariſon, arguing Gods Soveraignty over the creature, ſuitable to the power which the potter hath over the clay, ver. 20.
Secondly, hee admitteth a deny all or at leaſt a mitigation of the rigour of that word objected in the manner of Gods hardning by his irreſiſtible will, inſtead whereof the Apoſtle implyeth, hee doth rather harden by his ſuffering and long patience. What if God ſuffer in long patience, &c. ver. 22.
Thirdly, Hee cleareth the juſtice of God in hardning the creature, by ſhewing the conditions of thoſe perſons, whom hee thus hardneth, not creatures that have done neither good nor evill; but, 1. veſſels of wrath, which men are not, till firſt conſidered as ſinners: 2. fitted, or as it were perfected and ripened unto deſtruction, which Epheſ. 2. 23. men are not till after the refuſall of the means of grace, Epheſ. 2. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 15, 16. or elſe after groſſe and unnaturall iniquity, Gen. 15. 16. compared with Levit. 28. 27, 28, 29.
Fourthly, hee declares the holy ends which God aimes at in all this his dealing with veſſels of wrath after this manner; which ends are the manifeſtation, firſt, of his power and wrath toward the wicked, ver. 22. ſecondly, of the riches of his glorious grace toward the elect, in dealing far otherwiſe with them, v. 23. Rom. 11. 33. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wiſdome, and of the power of God! how unſearchable are his judgments, and his wayes paſt finding out! To him bee glory for ever, Amen.
By this objection ariſing out of the former Doctrine, namely, Exam.that God hath mercy on whom hee will, and hardneth others: hee doth evince that by ſhewing mercy, is ſignifyed Gods giving the grace of obedience; by hardning, his denying the ſame grace of obedience; And withall that by denying this grace it comes to paſſe, that men cannot obey the will of God, ſeeing hereby is manifeſted, that Gods will is not, they ſhould obey, but rather continue in their hardneſſe of heart uncured, and conſequently in their diſobedience, whereupon it ſeems unreaſonable that God ſhould complain of mens diſobedience, as oftentimes hee doth, as Eſa. 1. Hear, O Heavens, and hearken O Earth, I have nouriſhed and brought up a people, and they have rebelled againſt mee. Again, Eſa. 65. All the day long have I ſtretched out my hands unto a people that walk in a way that is not good, even after their own imaginations, And Jer. 8. 7. Even the Stork in the aire, knoweth her appointed times, and the Turtle, and the Crane, and the Swallow obſerveth the time of their comming, but my people knoweth not the judgements of the Lord, and ver. 6. I hearkned and heard, but none ſpake aright, no man repented of his wickedneſſe, ſaying, what have I done? Every one turneth into their race, as the horſe ruſheth into the battle. And Hoſe. 7. 14. Though I have bound and ſtrengthened their arm, yet they have rebelled againſt mee. And Exod. 10. 2. Thus ſaith the Lord God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuſe to humble thy ſelf before mee? Let my people goe that they may ſerve mee, ver. 4. But if thou refuſe to let my people goe, behold, to morrow I will bring Graſhoppers into thine houſe, &c. ver. 20. But the Lord hardned Pharaohs heart, and hee did not let the children of Iſrael goe. Now this I ſay ſeems moſt unreaſonable in the judgement of fleſh and blood. Namely, both to harden a mans heart, and yet to complain of, and finde fault with the hardneſſe of his heart, with his rebellion and diſobedience, conſidering that no man can reſiſt his will.
To this the Apoſtle anſwereth in certain notable particulars.
Firſt, ſhewing that when the Scripture doth manifeſt this to bee Gods courſe, namely to harden, and yet to complain of a mans hardneſſe and diſobedience, it becommeth not the creature to quarrell with God, or diſpute with God hereabout, becauſe his weak capacity is not able to comprehend the reaſonableneſſe thereof. As for hardning by a will irreſiſtible, implying that there may bee a kinde of hardning by a will reſiſtible, as Arminius interpreteth the Apoſtle, it is to put upon the Apoſtle the conceits of man, for hee maketh no ſuch diſtinction.
Secondly, Hee proceeds to ſhew how that God as the Creator, hath power over the creature to diſpoſe of him as he thinks good, in two notable particulars. Firſt, in making him, of what faſhion hee will, ver. 20. Secondly, in making him to what end hee will, and that without controll from the creature (the one being anſwerable to the other) in theſe words: Shall the thing formed ſay unto him that formed it, why haſte thou made mee thus? Now theſe different conditions, as different faſhions of a veſſell, are to bee conceived in congruous reference to the double act of God formerly mentioned. Firſt, the one was in ſhewing mercy on whom hee will, whereby a man is made a veſſell of grace fit for honour. Secondly, the other was in hardning whom hee will, whereby a man left deſtitute of grace, is expoſed to rebellion and diſobedience and conſequently made a veſſell fit for diſhonour.
Secondly, to what end hee will, to wit, either to honour or diſhonour, that is, either to become finally a veſſell of mercy, or a veſſell of wrath, like as the potter diſpoſeth of clay in making veſſels thereof; anſwerable hereunto in each particular, according to the meere pleaſure of his will.
Thirdly, hee ſheweth that the end of all this is threefold.
1. The manifeſtation of his wrath or juſtice on the one.
2. The riches of his glory, that is, of his glorious grace on the veſſels of mercy.
3. His power and ſoveraignty in making whom hee will veſſels of wrath, or mercy.
Fourthly, hee ſhews withall, that before the execution of his wrath comes, hee ſuffers theſe veſſels of wrath with long patience; implying both by this, and by this wrath, that the liberty of the creature in ſinning, is nothing prejudiced in all this, and in the courſe of his patience, way is opened for his complaints and admonitions, and that in patheticall manner, unto theſe veſſels of wrath to move them to repentance. For that God doth complain, and expoſtulate, and reprove for theſe their ſinfull courſes is moſt evident. And it is no leſſe evident that when they goe on in their obſtinate courſes, not profiting by Gods Word and Works unto Repentance, the cauſe is (though no culpable cauſe) that God hath not given them a heart to perceive, and eyes to ſee, and ears to heare, from the firſt unto the laſt, Deut. 29. 4. That is, that both man runneth on wilfully in his ſinfull courſes, and that moſt culpably, and alſo that without grace it cannot bee otherwiſe. Though the reconciling of both theſe bee very obſcure and difficult as indeed the providence of God eſpecially in evill, and generally in working what hee will, by the free wills of the creature, is of a moſt myſterious nature. This patience of God comprehends not Gods bare ſuffering the wicked only, but his proſpering of them alſo, Jer. 12. 1. Why are all they in wealth that rebelliouſly tranſgreſſe? 1. As for the firſt materiall point of the Apoſtles anſwer, I agree with you, in the explication thereof. 2. But as concerning the ſecond, in my judgment there is nothing ſound.
For firſt, you feign the rigour of that which was objected to conſiſt in a certain manner of Gods hardning: to wit, by his irreſiſtible will; As if the Apoſtle did give us to underſtand, that there is a double kinde of hardning, that is imputed unto God. The one by his irreſiſtible will; the other is not expreſſed by you, but intimated to conſiſt in hardning by his will reſiſtible, whereas no ſuch diſtinction is either expreſſed or inſinuated by the Apoſtle, neither doe you once goe about to prove it. And the diſtinction it ſelf is very abſurd; both in bringing in a will of God reſiſtible, whereas the Apoſtle ſuppoſeth the will of God in hardning to bee irreſiſtible, without all diſtinction; neither doth hee give any the leaſt intimation of a twofold hardning uſed by God, or imputable to him. Hee plainly profeſſeth, that as God hath mercy on whom hee will, ſo hee hardneth whom hee will, without all diſtinction. And you may as well diſtinguiſh Gods ſhewing of mercy, as if that were twofold; one by his will reſiſtible, another by his will irreſiſtible; For ſhewing mercy and hardning are made oppoſite by the Apoſtle. And it is a well known rule in Schooles, that Quot modis dicitur unum oppoſitorum, tot modis dicetur & alterum, of two oppoſites, look how many wayes the one is taken, ſo many wayes may the other bee taken. And upon this Doctrine of the Apoſtle, ariſeth the objection to this effect. That ſeeing Gods will is irreſiſtible in hardning a man; it ſeems unreaſonable that God ſhould complain of ſuch a mans rebellion and diſobedience whom himſelfe hath hardned, ſuppoſing that they cannot obey God who are hardned. And throughout this objection alſo, there is no colour of any ſuch diſtinction as you introduce at pleaſure, concerning Gods will, as either reſiſtible or irreſiſtible, and accordingly as concerning the different manner of Gods obduration, to wit, either by his reſiſtible will, or by his irreſiſtible will.
Secondly, you feign at pleaſure in like manner, a denyall, or at leaſt a mitigation of the rigour of St. Pauls former Doctrine, whence roſe this objection (for ſo I had rather expreſſe it, then as you doe, when in very obſcure manner you call it the rigour of the word objected) And I wonder you would adventure to deviſe a deniall, or any colour of deniall made by the Apoſtle of that, which formerly hee delivered in ſaying, Hee hath mercy on whom hee will, and whom hee will hee hardneth; when your ſelfe have not hitherto manifeſted any minde to deny ought delivered by him, as it is not fit you ſhould. But it may be the rigour mentioned by you, is not conceived to conſiſt in Pauls former Doctrine of Gods hardning whom hee will, but rather in complaining of their diſobedience whom God himſelf hath hardned, his will being irreſiſtible. Now this, though amplified as a rigorous thing, the Apoſtle may ſeem to deny, or at leaſt mitigate. But firſt it ſeems to mee, that the objection chargeth God not ſo much with a rigorous courſe, (for who ſhall hinder God to deal with any, as rigorouſly as pleaſeth him, there being no injuſtice in rigour?) as with an unreaſonable courſe. But whether rigorous or unreaſonable in ſhew, the Apoſtle by ſaying God ſuffers them with long patience, doth neither deny, nor any way mitigate the condition of this courſe of his, for complaining of their diſobedience, whom himſelf hath hardned. For albeit God all the day long, yea, and all the yeer long, yea, and many yeers long, ſtretcheth out his hands to a people that walk in a way that is not good, even after their own imaginations, ſuch being the hardneſſe of their hearts, as even in deſpight of Gods ſufferance of them, and gracious proceedings with them, in the miniſtry of his word, and ſparing them in his works alſo, yet if God himſelf continues to harden them, his will being irreſiſtible, Gods complaining of their rebellion and diſobedience, ſeems never a whit the leſſe rigorous or unreaſonable, according to the objection propoſed. For as Auſtin ſaith, Contra Julianum Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Quantamlibet praebuerit patientiam, niſi Deus dederit, quis agat paenitentiam? though God afford never ſo great patience, yet unleſſe God give [grace] who ſhall perform repentance? And to ſay that God doth harden by his long patience, is a ſtrange liberty that you take in interpreting Paul. If to harden, bee to ſuffer with long patience, then to ſhew mercy, being oppoſite to hardning muſt bee not to ſuffer with long patience. And if to ſuffer with long patience bee to harden, then as often as hee ſuffers his own elect with long patience, hee hardneth them. And when St. Peter ſaith, God is patient toward us, the meaning in proportion muſt bee, hee hardens us. Let me tell you, that Julian the Pelagian of old, took the like advantage as you doe of the word Patience in this place to corrupt the Doctrine of St. Paul, lib. 5. contr. Jul. Pelag. cap. 3. Quid eſt (ſaith Auſtin) quod dicis, [cum deſideriis ſuis traditi dicuntur, relicti per divinam patientiam intelligendi ſunt, non per potentiam in peccata compu ſi.] quaſi non ſimul poſuer is haec duo idem Apoſtolus, & patientiam & potentiam, ubi ait. Si autem oſtendere volens iram & demonſtrare potentiam ſuam, attulit in mult a patientia, vaſa irae, quae perfecta ſunt in perditionem: Quid horum tamen dicis eſſe quod ſcriptum eſt. Et propheta ſi erraverit & locutus ſuerit, ego dominus ſeduxi prophetam illum: & extendam manum meam, ſuper eum & exterminabo eum de medio populi mei Iſrael, patientia eſt, an potentia? Quod libet eligas vel utrumque fatearis, vides tamen falſa prophetantis peccatum eſſe paenamque peccati, An & hic dicturus es, quod ait, Ego dominus ſeduxi prophetam illum, intelligendum eſſe deſerui, ut pro ejus meritis ſeductus …rraret? Age ut vis, tamen eo modo punitus eſt pro peccato: ut falſum prophetando peccaret, ſed illud intuere quod vidit Micheas propheta, Dominum ſedentem ſuper thronum ſuum, & omnis exercitus caeli ſtabat circa eum, a dextris ejus, & a ſiniſtris ejus. Et dixit dominus, Quis ſeducet Achab Regem Iſraelis, & aſcendet & cadet in Ramoth Gilead? & dixit iſte ſic, & iſte ſic. Et exiit ſpiritus & ſtetit in conſpectu Domini; & dixit. Ego ſeducam eum. Et dixit Dominus ad cum, in quo? Et dixit, exibo, & ero ſpiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum ejus. Et dixit, Seduces & praevalebis, exi & fac ſic. Quid ad iſta dicturus es? Nempe Rex ipſe peccavit falſis eredendo prophetis. At haec ipſa erat & paena peccati, Deo judicante, Deo mittente, angelum malum. Ut apertius intelligeremus, quomodo in pſalmo dictum ſit, Miſiſſe iram indignationis ſuae, per angelos malos. Sed numquid errando, numquid injuſte quicquam aut temere judicando, ſive faciendo? Abſit. Sed non fruſtra illi dictum eſt, Judicia tua ſicut abyſſus multa. Non fruſtra exclamat Apoſtolus, O altitudo divitiarum ſapientiae & ſcientiae Dei! quam inſcrutabilia ſunt judicia ejus, & inveſtigabiles viae ejus! Quis enim cognovit ſenſum Domini, aut quis conſiliarius ejus ſuit, aut quis prior dedit illi, ut retribuatur ei? And again in the ſame Chapter; Sequitur propter hoc, Tradidit illos Deus in paſſiones ignominiae. Audis propter hoc, & quaeris inaniter quomodo intelligendus ſit tradere Deus, multum laborans, ut oſtendas cum tradere deſerendo: ſed quomodo libet tradat, propter hoc tradidit. Propter hoc deſ…ruit, & vides ejus traditionem, qualem libet, & quomodo libet intelligas, quae conſecuta ſunt. Curavit enim Apoſtolus dicere, quanta paena ſit a Deo tradi paſſionibus ignominiae, ſive deſerende, ſive alio quocunque, vel explicabili, vel inexplicabili modo quo facit hoc ſumme bonus, & ineffabiliter juſtus.
Thirdly, as touching the third, there is as little ſounding in that alſo, for already you have confeſſed, that the Apoſtle in anſwering this objection, to juſtifie God, hath recourſe to Gods ſoveraignty over his creatures, as great as the potter hath over the clay, who maketh veſſels of what faſhion hee will, and to what end hee will. But in the laſt place you feign moſt unreaſonably, a juſtification of Gods courſe in hardning whom hee will, from the conſideration of the perſons hardned, as being ſinners. I ſay this is moſt unreaſonable.
Firſt, becauſe when the creature is dealt withall according to his deſerts, this alone is moſt ſufficient and ſatisfactory to every one that acknowledgeth it, for the juſtification of any courſe taken with ſuch. And it is meerly in vain to fly to any other courſe of juſtification, eſpecially when it is leſſe ſatisfactory then this. And how ſtrange were it, that the Apoſtle ſhould inſiſt ſo fully and directly upon that other courſe of ſatisfaction, upon the conſideration of Gods ſoveraignty, and ſhould onelyonly intimate this, and that obſcurely, when this doth afford farre better ſatisfaction then the former.
Secondly, in this caſe, there were no ground for any ſuch objection, nor any colour of unreaſonableneſſe; if God did but deale with them according to their deſerts, as often as hee hardneth them.
Thirdly, the objection ariſeth not upon Gods hardning a man ſimply, but upon the hardning of whom hee will, and that in a conjunct conſideration, with his ſhewing mercy therewithall on whom hee will. In which caſe if God bee juſtifyed from the conſideration of their conditions with whom hee deales, like as hee dealeth differently with them, in ſhewing mercy on ſome, and hardning others, ſo there ſhould bee acknowledged a different condition, in the perſons with whom God dealeth in ſo different a manner. But it is confeſſed by you, that the perſons here in St. Pauls conſideration are equall, with whom nevertheleſſe God deales very unequally.
Fourthly, though this bee a plauſible courſe in the judgement of man, eſpecially of the Arminians, for the ſmothering of the light of Gods truth in this place, yet when it is well conſidered, in the proper nature of it, I preſume it will bee very diſſonant unto common reaſon. For what I pray you is hardning in this place, ſtanding in oppoſition to the ſhewing of mercy, but onelyonly the denying of the grace of Faith and Repentance to them that heare the Goſpel; like as to ſhew mercy is to give the grace of Faith and Repentance, as appeareth manifeſtly, both by the ſame phraſe uſed, Rom. 11. 30, 31. and alſo by this very place cleering it ſelf? For it is ſuch an operation whereupon it will follow, that God ſhall have cauſe or occaſion to complain, as appeareth by the objection moved hereupon. Now I ſay, to deny Faith and Repentance is not of the nature of a puniſhment, neither can it bee ſaid with ſobriety, that man by ſin doth deſerve that God ſhould deny him faith and repentance, like as it cannot bee with ſobriety affirmed, that man by being ſick, hath deſerved that the Phyſitian ſhould not cure him: or that man being dead, hath deſerved thereby that God ſhould not raiſe him from death; whereas indeed a man could not bee raiſed from death, unleſſe hee were firſt dead, nor cured unleſſe firſt ſick, neither were there any need of Faith in Chriſt crucifyed, and of repentance, unleſſe man were a ſinner.
Laſtly, conſider, as there is a grace of raiſing from out of ſin, ſo there is a grace of pieſerving from ſin. This grace God granted to the elect Angels, hee denyed to the reſt, meerly out of his own free pleaſure, according to the Soveraignty hee hath over his creatures, and not with any reference unto ſin preceding. For how was that poſſible? namely, that there could bee any ſin found in Angels before their firſt ſin? yet were the one, (to wit) the elect Angels amplius adjuti, more ſuccoured then the other, as Auſtin expreſtely profeſteth, lib. 12. De Civ. Dei. cap. 9. Indeed I finde Epheſ. 2. 3. That wee are born children of wrath, in reſpect of ſin, but that ſin makes a man a veſſell of wrath, or that hee is not a veſſell of wrath till ſin comes, the Apoſtle ſaith not; nay, the Apoſtle intimates the contrary, when hee repreſents the power of God over his creatures, by the power of the Potter over the Clay, in making therehence one veſſell to honour, and another to diſhonour. It is true, ſince the fall of Adam; man in his generation hath no being without ſin; (for wee are even conceived in ſin) yet it is not that ſin, that makes a man a veſſell of wrath, for if it did, then all ſhould bee made by God veſſels of wrath. But albeit the Apoſtle ſignifies that wee are all born children of wrath, which is verifyed in reſpect of the deſert, even of ſin originall, yet neither Apoſtle nor Prophet doth any where give us to underſtand, that all men are made veſſels of wrath. This phraſe includes, firſt, the intention of God like a Potter, to make ſuch uſe of them, as to make his juſt wrath appeare upon them, and this purpoſe of God was everlaſting, not onelyonly as old as every mans generation, but as old as the creation of all, yea, and from everlaſting before the Creation. Secondly, it includes alſo a fitneſſe in the veſſell for ſuch an uſe, not fitneſſe in the way of deſert only; (ſuch fitneſſe being found in all the naturall ſons of Adam) but fitneſſe in reſpect of Gods purpoſe to ſhew wrath. Now like as in proportion hereunto, the making of a man fit for mercy, is the giving of him grace; ſo the denying of grace finally makes him fit for wrath in this ſenſe, for as much as God will damn none but ſuch as die in their ſins. Here I ſpeak of wrath and mercy, as they conſiſt in giving ſalvation, or inflicting damnation.
Laſtly, if none are ripened for deſtruction, till the refuſall of meanes of grace, or the committing of groſſe and unnaturall iniquity, then it followeth, that no Infants of Turks and Sarecens are veſſels of wrath; No, nor men of ripe yeers amongſt the heathen, many of whom never having either refuſed the means of grace (for as much as they never injoyed them) and having lived civilly and morally all their dayes, Philoſopherlike, free from groſſe and unnaturall iniquity. And though all this bee granted you; yet if God to that end refuſe to ſhew mercy on them, in giving them Faith and Repentance, and continues to harden them by denying ſuch grace, look how rigorous or unreaſonable ſoever the objection pretended Gods courſe to bee, in complaining of them for their diſobedience, when God himſelf hath hardned them, in the ſame degree of rigour and unreaſonableneſſe, it continues ſtill without all mitigation, notwithſtanding all that you have ſaid hitherto to the contrary.
Fourthly, as for the fourth, I have no deſire to quarrell with you thereabout; Gods judgements indeed, Rom. 11. 33. that is, his agendirationes (as Piſcator interpreteth it) are unſearchable, and his wayes paſt finding out. But you take a courſe quite contrary, to make them nothing unſearchable, but eaſie to be found out. For if obduration bee in reſpect of ſin, ſurely there is no unſearchable depth in this. And in my opinion, the chief wayes of God, which the Apoſtle aimes it in the place alledged, conſiſts in having mercy on whom hee will, and hardning whom he will, and in generall thus in proportion to that which goeth before; There was a time when God had a Church without diſtinction of Jews and Gentiles, as before the Flood, and after, till the bringing of the children of Iſrael out of Aegypt: Again, there was a time after this, for about 1600. yeers, that God had a Church of the Jews in diſtinction from the Gentiles. And ſince that for the ſpace of about 1600. yeers, God hath had a Church among the Gentiles in diſtinction from the Jews. And we look for a time to come when God ſhall have a Church, and that here on earth, conſiſting both of the Nation of the Jews, and of the Nations of the Gentiles. Three of theſe ſtates are ſignifyed by the Apoſtle immediately before, Rom. 11. 30. For even as yee in foreign paſt, have not beleeved God, yet have now obtained mercy, through their unbeleef, there have wee two of them; one paſt, another then preſent: Then follows the third, ver. 31. Even ſo now have they not beleeved by the mercy ſhewed unto you; (this is part of the ſecond) that they alſo may obtain mercy. This is the third, which wee look for, ver. 32. For God hath ſhut up all in unbeleefe, that hee might have mercy upon all. Then follows the exclamation, ver. 33. O the deepneſſe of the riches both of the wiſdome and knowledge of God (for hee knows all courſes poſſible to bee taken, both wiſe and unwiſe, and out of the depth of his wiſdome makes choyce of what hee thinks fit) O how unſearchable are his judgements, (for out of all theſe different courſes, reſults ſuch a ſplendor of the glory of God, as no creature (till it bee revealed) can project, nor deviſe any courſes countervailable thereunto, when it is revealed) and his wayes paſt finding out!
FINIS.