A TREATISE OF Mr. Cottons, Clearing certain DOUBTS Concerning PREDESTINATION.  
Together with AN EXAMINATION Thereof; written by William Twisse, DD. Pastor of Newbury.  Prov. 19 21. 
There are many devices in man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord that shall stand.  2 Cor. 4. 3. 
If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.  
LONDON, Printed by J. D. for Andrew Crook, and are to be sold at his Shop at the Sign of the Green Dragon in Paul's Churchyard. 1646.   

The Author's Epistle unto the Reader.  
IT was my purpose and resolution at the first, to let this piece, in answer to Mr. Cotton, pass without a preface; for it was put into a Stationer's hand ere I was aware: Neither did I see the man's face until the whole book was printed. And for certain years I knew not what was become of it, which I imputed to the confusion of these times. But so it was, that a Knight of our County, sent over unto me the Minister who lived in his house, to entreat me to communicate unto him my answer to a book, entitled, God's love to mankind: which I condescended unto; willing to satisfy so noble a friend as Sir Francis Pile. The Minister perceiving this answer of mine to Mr. Cotton lying with it, desired that he might take that also along with him, that Sir Francis might have a sight of that together with the other: whereunto I yielded, upon promise made, that both pieces should be returned into my hands very shortly, within a month or two.  
But evil times followed not long after; and for a whole year we were full of distractions in the Country. My chiefest care was, for the preservation of my manuscripts, which I brought with me to London at the first: But this piece in answer to Mr. Cotton was wanting; I had utterly forgotten what was become of it. Sir Francis removed to South-hampton, and took care of my copies to have them along with him. It was somewhat long ere they were brought to London; but in good time they arrived here safe and sound. And Mr. Gilbert, who brought me the first word of it, showed me withal that he was well acquainted with a Stationer, who would undertake for the setting forth my Answer to God's love to mankind: Only his desire was, he might begin with the printing of my answer to Mr. Cotton, because that was a small piece. And thus ere I was aware, I came to understand, that my stray sheep, which I gave for lost, was found.  
And since that, considering certain passages of divine providence, causing some interruption in the proceedings of bringing forth this Treatise unto the light of the press: I have been moved thereby to prefix this preface, partly on mine own behalf, and partly on the behalf of Mr. Cotton: For men may perhaps conceive me to be well pleased with an adversative dispotion, and to affect a course of opposition, as well to the friends of the Bridegroom, as to his enemies: As if I were like Ishmael in part, of whom it was said, that his hand was against every ones; which is enough to make me like unto him in the other part also, and provoke every one to have his hand against me. Truth it is, all my writings, both printed and manuscript, that have an eye towards the press, are of a responsorious nature; but the original motive cause unto me was merely mine own satisfaction; and that in the points of grace and predestination. In arguments of this nature, I promised to myself more comfort than I could expect in studying Transubstantiation, or Purgatory. And because truth is never sufficiently known in a scholastical way, unless we are able to master the strongest oppositions that are made against it; therefore I gave myself to take notice of the greatest sticklers in their oppositions against that doctrine, which is maintained by our Divines: and all this merely for mine own better progression in the investigation of truth, without the least thought at that time of publishing aught. And for the same cause I set myself upon those passages, which seemed to contain the greatest difficulty: And therefore in examining Arminius, I began in the midst of his answer to Mr. Perkins, to ponder well his digression and discourse about divine permission; for in that argument I had found no small difficulty; and I made trial, whether by that discourse of his I could find satisfaction; but I found no satisfaction at all from him; neither was I able to work out sufficient satisfaction to myself: about that matter was the first digression I began with, but it was one of the last that I finished.  
Other discourses of mine, many of them, yea, most of them, were written by me only at the instance of others. My answer to Mr. Hordes discourse (which since is printed with Mr. Simsons additions, and set forth under the specious title of God's love to mankind;) was performed by me at the request of Sir Nathaniel Rich. My answer to the Synod of Dort, after reduced to practise, was penned by me to satisfy friends, two copies thereof manuscript being sent unto me from scholar friends in Oxford: but especially I was glad, that I had so good an opportunity thereby to quiet the spirit of my lord Say; his honour being not a little moved with the scoffing carriage of Tilenus, the Author of that piece (who died shortly after as I was advertised) and by his lordship's honourable care it was brought forth to light. I could give the like account of many other pieces written by me, and employed therein by others; many of them being as mean in condition as myself. This very piece of Mr. Cottons, the answer whereunto is now put forth, I undertook merely upon the motion of Mr. Bets, a young Minister, who at that time lived at Broughton, in the house of my lord Say: he entreated me to take it into consideration, and show my judgement concerning it: And to gratify him I undertook it; and my lord Say himself liked well of it, and communicated it unto Mr. Cotton, who carried it with him into New-England; whereby I was put to my shifts to get a copy of it as I could for mine own use.  
Now concerning Mr. Cotton, it may be his reputation will seem to be touched in this; but let the indifferent Reader consider what I say in my observation. Both Austin and other great Divines have written freely and largely of Election, but very sparingly of Reprobation; the reason whereof I conceive to be this, There appears more seeming offensive harshness in the doctrine of Reprobation, then in the doctrine of Election. Secondly, I am persuaded, they manifestly perceived, that by stating the doctrine aright in the point of Election, the truth, by just analogy and proportion, did there-hence necessarily follow in the point of Reprobation, to all judicious Divines. Now Mr. Cotton, as I have heard, is very sound and orthodox in the point of Election; and comes to this work with a gracious intent, to clear the doctrine of Predestination (and that in the special of Reprobation) from such harsh consequences as seem to be derived there-hence; which do very frequently break forth, as I have observed, when the order of God's decrees is not stated aright: And by experience I have found the manifold odious imputations of strange harshness laid upon God's proceedings, and represented by the Remonstrants in their Antisynodalia Dordracena, in number 10. as I remember; but they all vanish and come to nothing upon the right ordering of God's decrees: wherein, if any Divine fail, it may be his failing is only in a point of Logic, provided that he be orthodox in the point of grace; but if he be corrupt in that, than the more corrupt his Logic is, the better it may serve his turn for the countenancing of his erroneous ways in matter of divinity.  
Lastly, I have been given to understand by Mr. Simson, one of the reverend Divines of the Assembly, that Mr. Cotton upon the receiving and perusing this treatise of mine, seemed to be moved therewith not a little; and that in such a way, as not to be provoked thereby, but rather to incline to the receiving of satisfaction! Mr. Cotton is a Divine whom I never saw; but so much I have heard of his piety and parts of learning, that his name shall ever be of reverend remembrance with me. Nevertheless, because this discourse of his, whereunto I address my answer, is in the hands of many, and some of them may be strengthened in their erroneous ways, by this writing of his; and I have heard, that certain Arminians have taken advantage, to justify them in their ways, from some passages in this very discourse of Mr. Cottons: Others, though orthodox, may hereby be misled into error, in such sort, as to corrupt both themselves and their brethren into such opinions (too pleasing unto flesh and blood) as may shake the orthodox doctrine of God's free grace, in the precious points of Election, Predestination, & Regeneration. This danger I desire to prevent; and upon my knowledge, my labour and pains herein have been taken in very good part, by those who are the very good friends of Mr. Cotton; and some not his good friends only, but great and right well approved of by Mr. Cotton himself; they have deserved no less at his hands. The God of all grace, bring all his into an unity of faith, in the acknowledgement of his grace, which is the only sure way unto glory.   

Faults in Printing correct thus.  
Page 6. line 15. if read of. p 10. l 1. thus, r. this. p. 12 l. 25. contradictions, r. contradictious. p. 27. l. 28. Apostle, r. Epistle p. 33. l. 1. r. what was Gods. p. 38. l. 29. Question the 2. it should be Doubt the third: the want whereof made us suspect that the whole and entire Answer to the third Doubt was missing. p 39 l. last save one, hen, r. when. p. 40. l. last save one, confesseth, r. confess. p. 43 l. 21 bought, r. brought. p. 52. l. 15. decrees to save, r. decree was to save. p. 57 l. the last, distinct, r. disjunct. p. 61. l. 33. distinct, r. disjunct. p. 76. l. 18. grants, r. grant. p 87. l. 9 after the word feign there should be such a disjunction as this [3]. p 98. l. 12. objects, r. objection. p 114. l. the fourth from the end, controversies but; read it thus, controversies; but. p. 117. l. 16. manner, r. nature. p. 131. l. 18. rash, r. harsh. l. 19 rash, r. harsh. p. 182. l. 9 in his his purposes, r. in God's purpose. p. 190 l. 27. r. obduration. p. 194. l. 17. like, r. life. p. 199. l. 26. objection, r. Objector. p 207. the fifth Doubt, Question the fifth, line the sixth and seventh seems to be obscure; but yet compared with the former, and well considered, the mist will break up, and the sense of the Author appear. p. 209. l. 4. man's, r. man. p. 225. l. the fourth from the end, serves, r. seems. p. 227. l. 30. leave out the word and. p. 234. l 30. effectual, r. and effectual. p. 236. l. the last, r. inform him. p. 137. l. 29. that without, leave out the word that. p. 239. l. 6. short of, r. short of them. p. 250. l. 3. special, r. specials. l. 13. Genius, r. genus. p. 254 l. 15. it, r. in. p. 255. Quest. 7. l. 10. of a grace, r. of grace. p. 267. l. 17. naturals should, r. naturals right, should. p. 283. l. 20. agate, r. aget. p. 284. the last line save five, sounding, read soundness.   

AN EXAMINATION of a Treatise written by Master Cotton, for the clearing of certain doubts concerning Predestination.  

QUESTION. 1.  
HOw may it appear that there was any thought of the incarnation of the second person, or advancement of the man Christ, before the presupposal of the fall of man, and his own humiliation.  
God doth not propose one thing before another in time, all things are at once present with him: But the things purposed by God, God 
Answ.  doth order them one for another, and so is he rightly said to purpose one thing in order before another. Now in order of things, God hath first purposed the glorifying of himself, yea, and the glorifying of himself in Christ too, before he presupposed the fall of man, and humiliation of Christ; as may appear, etc.  
1. I will first take into consideration the doubt proposed. Here are four things mentioned: and the Question is made touching 
Exam.  the priority of the two first in respect of the two latter, and that in the thoughts (or intention) of God. And withal I conceive the incarnation of the Son of God is considered in reference to the fall of man. And the advancement of the man Christ in reference to his humiliation. Of the Priority of each in respect of his correlative proceeds the doubt. I think good to consider them apart. As touching the first couple, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the fall of man: I should answer at the first dash, that there is no order between them at all: My reason is this, All order in intention hath course only between the means and the end: But between these two there is no such reference as between the means and the end. The proposition is without question; the assumption I prove thus: It belongs to the same Author to be the Author, as of the end, so of the means tending to the end. (All experience justifies this.) But God (though he be the Author of the incarnation of his Son, yet) could not be the Author of the fall of man, as he cannot be the Author of sin. But it is not sit so weighty a question should be strangled unius verbi praejudicio, with the prejudice of one word; therefore let the question proceed (with a little alteration) in comparison of the incarnation of the Son of God, and the permission of the fall of Adam, which undoubtedly was God's work as well as the former. Some think the decree of the incarnation of the Son of God presupposeth the fall of man; or rather (to speak more accurately in a scholastical discourse) the consideration of Adam's fall, and consequently (though this be not always considered) the decree of God to permit Adam's fall. This order, though very generally received; yet it is contrary to manifest reason, according to the rule in this Treatise mentioned, and which I take to be most sound. For, if the permission of Adam's fall were first in intention, than it should be last in execution, and consequently the Son of God should be first incarnate, and after this Adam should be permitted to fall. Others it seems (though very few that I have ever been acquainted with) take another course, and presuppose God's purpose touching the incarnation of his Son to precede his purpose touching the permission of Adam's fall; yet not so much for the former reason, as for the honour of Christ. But this will be found upon true scanning, to be as contradictions to manifest reason as the former, and that upon the same ground. For, if God did purpose the incarnation of his Son before he purposed the permission of the fall of Adam, much more did he purpose the incarnation of his Son, before he purposed to permit the sins of all men, and particularly the sins of them that crucified the Son of God, Act. 2. 36. I say much more; only to signify that this is much more evident. But this is a thing impossible upon the former ground, and upon the former rule. For, if the incarnation of the Son of God were first in intention, than it should be last in execution; and consequently Christ should first be permitted by God to be crucified, and after this he should be incarnate. 2. Again. Did God decree that his Son should take humane flesh upon him indefinitely in respect of place where, and time when? Or definitely at such a time, and in the womb of the Virgin Mary? Indefinite decrees are generally thought to be nothing becoming God. If definitely, how could this be without the consideration of Adam's fall? 3. If the decree of incarnation be advanced before the decree of permitting Adam to fall, why not before the decree of the creation also, and that not only of men, but of Angels? Certainly it could not be before the decree of creating Angels: For priority in intention is only of the end, in reference to the means; and certainly the creation of Angels, was no means for the incarnation of the Son of God. Now if the decree of incarnation were not before the decree of the creation of Angels, surely it was not before the decree of the creation of mankind: For the decree of the creation of Angels was in no moment before the decree of the creation of man: which I prove thus: If the creation of Angels were first in intention, it should be last in execution, and consequently man should be created before Angels. Now if the incarnation of the Son, were not in intention before the creation of mankind in Adam, I will here-hence manifestly deduce, that the same incarnation of the Son of God was not any moment of nature in intention before the permission of man's fall; for certainly creation of mankind in Adam was not: as I prove thus; If Adam's creation were in God's intention before the permission of his fall, then should it have been last in execution; that is, man should be permitted to fall into sin, before God created him.  
Thus, look by what reason it may appear, that the permission of Adam's fall was not in God's intention before the incarnation of the Son of God; by as good reason doth it appear, that the incarnation of the Son of God was not in God's intention before the permission of Adam's fall: whence it followeth, that the incarnation of the Son of God, and the permission of Adam's fall, together with his creation are not subordinanda, to be subordinated in God's intention (as if any of these were the end which God intended, and the rest means ordained to that end) but co-ordinanda, to be co-ordinated, as joint means tending to a further end: and that is the manifestation of God's glory in a way of mercy mixed with justice: Which end doth equally be speak all the three former as means tending thereunto. For, no declaration of God's glory can be without creation, nor in the way of mercy without permission of sin and misery: nor of such a mercy as is mixed with justice, without the incarnation and passion of the Son of God.  
2. As for the order of the other two, to wit the advancement of the man Christ, and his humiliation, thereof we are now to speak. And first I confess willingly, that his humiliation could not be intended before his exaltation, lest, being first in intention, it should be last in execution. I will further prove that his advancement or exaltation could not be intended before his humiliation. And first, this may be made evident as touching his greatest advancement, which was by incarnation; all advancement following was far inferior unto this. Now this advancement was not intended before his humiliation; for had it been first in intention, it had been last in execution, and consequently Christ had been first humbled, and afterwards his nature taken into an hypostatical union with the Son of God. Secondly I prove, that the advancement of his humane nature after his passion, was not in God's intention before his humiliation. For I have already proved that the taking of the humane nature into an hypostatical union with the Son of God, was not before his humiliation: and you will not say that the advancement of the man Christ you speak of, was in God's intention before his incarnation, therefore neither was it in God's intention before his humiliation.  
What remains then, but that all these, to wit, the incarnation of the Son of God, his humiliation in the flesh, together with his succeeding advancement, are not subordinanda, to be subordinated in God's intention, (as if onewere the end, and the other means tending to that end) but rather Co-ordinanda, to be co-ordinated; if not as joint means tending to one and the same end throughout, yet as different means tending to different ends; or partly the one, partly the other: Still holding up this truth, that no order is to be found in intention between any but such as have the reference of end and means amongst themselves. As for example, The incarnation of the Son of God is a sole and single means tending to the manifestation of the greatest free grace of God that ever was or can be showed to the world; his humiliation respects both our good and his own. As it respects ours; together with his incarnation, it is a means to manifest the glory of God in saving us in despite of sin, and that in the way of justice. In respect of his own good, together with his advancement, it is a joint means for manifesting the remunerative justice of God, in rewarding him according to his deserts: in conformity to that of the Apostle, Therefore hath God exalted him. But neither 
Phil. 2.  this advancement of his, is the end of his humiliation, nor either of these the end of his assumption into an hypostatical union with the Son of God: Nor his hypostatical union with the second person in Trinity the end of any of these; and therefore they are to be accounted rather coordinate then subordinate in the intention of God.  
2. Now I come to examine how this doubt is cleared. Here we have first a rule, than the accommodation of this rule. Touching the rule I acknowledge it, and I add something to the clearing of it. Granting that there is no order in God's decrees, but such as is grounded upon this, that God purposeth one thing for another. This one thing and another are only the end and the means; between which we say, in the intention of God there is only prioritas rationis, priority of reason; which in my judgement is well expounded thus: when ratio unius petitur à ratione alterius, the reason of the one is taken from the reason of the other; as ratio mediorum petitur à ratione sinis, the reason of the means is taken from the reason of the end. And therefore we say, The end is first in intention, and then the means.  
As for the accommodation of the rule, it seems to me to be nothing at all to the purpose; for the doubt proposed was not how it might appear that there was any thought of the glorifying of God, before the presupposal of Adam's fall, and of Christ's humiliation. We willingly acknowledge the glory of God was thought on before them all, both before the incarnation, advancement of the man Christ, man's fall, and Christ's humiliation: I say, before them all, prioritate rationis, by priority of reason; for, undoubtedly, both the incarnation of the Son of God, That is, the hypostatical union of Christ's manhood to the second person in the Trinity, and the advancement of the man Christ, was to the glory of God as the end thereof, as well as aught else. And this glory of God hath been specified at least in part. And as for the glorifying of himself in Christ, this still denotes the glory of God as the end, though it adds withal the matter wherein it shines, to wit, the man Christ. And to prevent the error of equivocation, that usually lurks under generals. This glorifying of God in Christ consists either in several, or in common, with the glorifying of himself in man also; to wit, in the elect, considered in several. I confess there is a double glory of God, manifested in Christ: The one is the glory of his pure grace in conferring the greatest good and honour that the creature is capable of, as namely in the hypostatical union of the manhood of Christ to the second person in the Trinity.  
Secondly the glory of God's remunerative justice in the highest degree possible, both in respect of the reward, the greatest that possibly could be deserved (for that hypostatical union could not be deserved) and that is the glorisication of the humane nature of Christ, both in respect of his glory absolute, and of his glory relative, as by whom salvation is procured to others: as also in respect of the desert, the greatest I think that possibly could be, to wit, the humiliation of the Son of God to the death of the cross in way of obedience to his Fathers will. There is also a glory of God that appears in Christ, not in several, as a sole means thereof, but in common with other means jointly concurring thereunto: and that is the glory of God in the way of mercy mixed with justice, in saving sinners for the obedience of Christ. The glory of God in all these several ways was in the first place intended by God before aught else, prioritate rationis, in priority of reason; and afterwards the congruous means to these several ends, as the ends themselves did bespeak, were intended by him: for ratio mediorū petitur à ratione sinis; the reason of the means is taken from the reason of the end. But all this is nothing to show that the incarnation of the second person, or advancement of the man Christ, should be before the consideration of man's fall, or Christ's humiliation. Yet let us examine that which followeth, delivered by way of proof of that which no man, that I know, makes question of.  
Because Christ was ordained before the world was, therefore before the consideration either of Creation or Fall. For, in scripture 
Answ. 1.  phrase, when God is said to do one thing before another, he meaneth before the existence or being of it in his consideration, as an inducement leading him unto it, as well as before the existence of it by nature: As when God is said to have loved Jacob rather then Esau before they had done either good or evil. Rom. 9 11. He meaneth before they had done it in his consideration, as a cause or condition leading him to love, or hatred, as well as in actual performance in their own persons.  
I pray consider, why was Christ ordained, and to what end, before the world was? Was he not ordained to be incarnate in 
Exam.  the womb of the Virgin, and to be a Lamb for a burnt offering, to make satisfaction for sins? And was it possible that this ordination could have course without consideration of the creation and fall? And though this be confessed, yet will it not here hence follow, that the decree of creation and permission of man's fall, was before the decree of the incarnation of the Son of God: which alone, as I conceive, casteth some men's inventions upon the platform of a new course. And consequently it will not follow, that, in this case, the consideration of creation and fall should precede as motives to God to send his Son: For first, I say, the considerations hereof are not all precedent, but conjunct and concomitant, like as are the decrees. Secondly, if they did precede, yet should they not precede as motives. Good or evil works are fit motives, I confess, of election and reprobation, if it were possible their considerations could precede the one or the other: But creation and fall are no fit motives of ordaining Christ, (for they were found in Angels as well as in men) though the consideration of them could precede this ordination. 2. Election is as expressly said to be before the foundation of the world, as the ordination of Christ. And was not reprobation in opposition to election in the same moment of time and nature also? Doth not election connotate reprobation? But it will be said that this phrase, before the world, signifies not any measure of duration when that work was done, but a negation of any consideration had of the creation or fall. This seems a very strange construction; therefore it deserves to be discussed.  
3. Before Abraham was I am; would you interpret it thus: Before the consideration of Abraham, I am? Before the Child shall have knowledge to eschew the evil, and to choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings, is the meaning hereof, before the consideration of the Child's knowledge to eschew the evil and to choose the good?  
4. Is not this a manifest course to overthrow our best evidence of the eternity of election and Christ's ordination? For what evidence doth the word of God afford comparable to these? And we know that out of ourselves some have risen, denying the eternity of God's decrees: and shall we do them such acceptable service, as in blasting such evidences as these that make against them? Then let us go and interpret accordingly the Apostle, where he speaks of some thing promised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and say the meaning is, before the consideration of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, times consisting of many ages, or some thing in them, I know not what. 
2 Tim. 1. 9   
5. I grant, before they had done good or evil, Rome 9 is as much as before the consideration of any good or evil done by them. The text itself doth bespeak this meaning. But will it follow that, because before they had done good or evil, Rom. 9 is as much as before the consideration of their good or evil works; the text bespeaking that sense, therefore, 1 Pet. 1. 20. where Christ is said to be ordained before the world, it is as much as to say, Christ was ordained before the consideration of the creation and fall; the text bespeaking no such interpretation, but rather resisting it, by the comparison made betwixt the ordination of Christ, and the declaration of Christ; the one said to be made before the foundations of the world, the other said to be made in these last times? as much as to say the one before all times, the other not till these last times: Times with times compared, not consideration of the creation and fall with these last times.  
6. Again, the consideration of works, good or evil, are fit motives (as hath been said) unto election and reprobation if they could precede them; but the consideration of the creation and fall, though preceding, yet is no fit motive to the ordination of Christ; we well know they were found in Angels as well as in men. By the way, where I pray is it said, that God loved Jacob rather then Esau? I find it said Rom. 9 that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. But if you take liberty to interpret it thus, He loved Jacob rather then Esau; why may not I as well take liberty to interpret it thus, God hated Esau rather then Jacob? yet I confess the former interpretation is made by Cornelius de lapide the Jesuit.  
God chose us before the world in Christ our head, Eph. 1. 4. Therefore he chose Christ also to be our head before the 
Answ. 2.  world was. For if we be chosen in him, it implieth that he, as our head, was chosen before us in order, and we in him, Now if we who were chosen in Christ, and so after Christ in order; if we (I say) were chosen before the world, and so before the consideration either of creation or fall, how much more Christ, who was chosen before us?  
In the allegation of Saint Paul's text, I find something left out that pertains to the completing of the sentence: for the sentence 
Exam.  is this, Who hath chosen us in Christ, that we should be holy: Here the latter part of one entire sentence is quite left out. And by your dismembering it, the sentence is made causelessly obscure, and so the fitter to serve for advantages. This is Arminius course, Exam. Pag. 31. Apostolus ait, nos in Christo electos esse; The Apostle saith, we are elected in Christ. And as something in the text is left out: so something besides the text is put in, God chose us before the world in Christ our head. This likewise Arminius insists on, Exam. Pag. 158. And mark I pray you how he works upon each; To be elect in Christ, is with him, to be elect being in Christ: for, nos in Christo, with him is, nos existentes in Christo. And seeing we are not in Christ but by faith, hereupon he makes the object of election to be fideles, the faithful; or in Christum credentes, such as believe in Christ. We answer: first, We may take as great liberty to interpret it, for explication sake, by supplying a participle of the future tense, thus, elegit nos futuros in Christo, he chose us hereafter to be in Christ: (like as it follows, who hath predestinated us to be adopted. Now we are adopted by faith, Gal. 3. 26.) as he takes liberty to supply a participle of the present tense, esspecially, considering that when we were elect, to wit, before the foundation of the world, we were not at all, and consequently were not fideles, believers. Secondly we answer, that the complete sentence, considered at full, doth manifest in what sense this phrase [in Christ] is taken. He chose us in Christ, that we should be holy: This shows to what we were chosen, to wit, to obtain holiness, and how; to wit, in Christ, that is, for Christ's sake; Like as v. 3. 'tis said, God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Heavenly things in Christ Jesus: that is, for Christ his sake. And like as 1. Thes. 5. 9 'tis said, God hath ordained us to obtain salvation through Jesus Christ: So here in a conformable exposition, when it is said, God hath chosen us in Christ, that we should be holy; a fair meaning may be this, God hath ordained us to obtain holiness through Jesus Christ; especially considering that grace is called salvation 2. Tim. 1. 9 as well as glory; And thus Arminius himself falls upon Exam. Pag. 31. Apostolus inquit, nos in Christo electos esse tanquam in mediatore, cujus sanguine nobis salus parta est. And thus the danger is fairly avoided of making Christ the cause of our election quoad actum eligentis, which not one of our Divines, that I know, maintains, save Rolloc. But Arminius, I confess, labours for it tooth and nail, to no other end, but that so he may somewhat plausibly bring in faith also, if not as a cause, yet as a pre-requisite at least of our election. And yet for all the noise he makes in this kind, calling Christ the foundation of our election, nevertheless the issue is to confess that all comes to this, that Christ is therefore the foundation of our election because he is the meritorious cause bonorum electione praeparatorum, of good things which are prepared by election; such as he specifies to be grace and glory, as appears both in his public and private disputations. Now, if in this sense we are said to be elect in Christ, that we should be holy, than it is clear, we are not elect in Christ tanquam in capite; for, ratio capitis non est ratio causae meritoriae, as Arminius himself acknowledgeth, Exam. Pag. 3. Apostolus inquit nos electos esse in Christo tanquam in mediatore, cujus sanguine nobis salus parta est & vita: there a way hath causa meritoria, his course. And then he adds, & ut in capite, ex quo ista bona ad nos derivantur. So that ratio capitis with him is ratio causae efficientis; not moraliter, but physicè: and therein he saith truth. Secondly, observe what he marks out of this, that we are all elect in Christ, tanquam in capite, for here-hence he will deduce, that we are elect in Christ tanquam mortuo & resuscitato, because Christ was not made the head of his Church till after his resurrection, building as it seems upon that we read Ephes. 1. 20. Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his right-hand in heavenly places. 21. far above all principalities and powers, and every name that is named, not in this world only, but also in that that is to come: 22. And hath made all things subject under his feet, and hath given him over all things to be the head of the Church. But these discourses, if I be not deceived, have taken their original from a saying of Austin, namely that Christus est praedestinatorum caput, Christ is the head of the predestinate. Therefore I have taken paints to consider the doctrine of Arminius hereabouts, consisting of three members. First, Christ is the head of the elect or predestinate. Secondly, our election made in Christ, is made in him as in our head. Thirdly, Christ is not our head but as he is dead, and raised; which, because it is much pertinent to the present purpose, I will not spare to set down, though in another dialect: Ratio illa altera de Christo considerato ut capite his membris, niti videtur etc. See my vindicia gratiae Dei, lib. 2. crim. 24. digress. 10. Pag. 74. col. 2. lin. 50. which was not set forth when I wrote this, but since it is.  
2. But be it granted that we are chosen in Christ as our head; it follows not here-hence, that Christ Jesus was chosen in order before us. He was ordained to be a Lamb for a burnt offering to save us, and we were ordained to obtain salvation through him. What colour is here, why the former ordination should be conceived to go before the latter, and not rather the contrary; seeing our salvation is plainly intimated to be rather the end of his mission, incarnation and passion, than his mission, incarnation and passion to be the end of our salvation? So Joh. 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son; where the love of God to us men is designed as a motive with God for the giving of his Son; yet I do not maintain any such order, I have other reasons to overthrow that, and to bring both these ordinations to be coordinate, and not subordinate in the intentions of God. And indeed, as I have said, if the incarnation of the Son of God were in God's intention, before the permission of the sins of the world, it would follow, that the permission of the sins of the world, even in crucifying Christ, should be first in execution, that is, Christ should be crucified before he was incarnate.  
Christ is said in all things to have a pre-eminence, and God is said to dispose and carry his Counsels and ways towards the Church, 
Answ. 3.  that it might appear, Christ in all things to have the pre-eminence. God dealeth with us according to the Image of his dealing with him. 
Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29.  And therefore in the Counsel of God, Christ had the pre-eminence to be first purposed, and the elect in him, and both them, and the other creatures for him, that so he might be the first borne among many brethren. It's accounted somewhat a monstrous and unnatural conception, the feet to be conceived in the womb before the head: so were it alike unmeet and preposterous course, the members of Christ to be first thought upon, and conceived in the womb of the Counsel of God's predestination, before the head Christ. If God should have had no thought of the advancement of Christ man to the fellowship of the second person to become man, till upon the presupposal of the fall of Adam; then were we not created for Christ, but Christ for us, contrary to that of the Apostle; And so Christ 
Col. 1. 16.  shall be brought into the world, as it were, ens per accidens, a thing by accident, upon occasion of the fall.  
When once we have conceived an opinion, we are very prone to take hold of every thing that carrieth any show of favouring it, howsoever 
Exam.  it proves in the issue. Be it that he hath a pre-eminence in all things and a priority; but will you extend this to such things as are not capable of priority? Is it not confessed that God doth not purpose one thing before another in time? Is not the predestination of Christ, and of the elect all one act in God? only as God ordereth one thing for another, so God purposeth one thing for another. Now which hath the pre-eminence in God's predestination, whether that which is purposed for another, or that for which another thing is purposed? I presume you will say, that for which another thing is purposed. why, then consider, whether the salvation of the elect be purposed for the incarnation & passion of the Son of God, or the incarnation & passion of the Son of God purposed for the salvation of Gods elect.  
2. The pre-eminence the Apostle speaks of is the pre-eminence of Christ's person, not of the priority of predestination. Now the pre-eminence of a person always presupposeth the being of a person; for, to say a thing had a pre-eminence before it had any being, is a strange phrase, and contradictions. Therefore pre-eminence of any person is not to be looked for in predestination, which is rather in ordaining to pre-eminence, then containing pre-eminence: for we commonly say, that Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato, Predestination puts nothing in the person predestinated.  
3. But come we nearer to the Apostle, Col. 1. 18. that he might have the pre-eminence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indefinite, and may be applied two ways, as Calvin observs; vel in, omnes creaturas, vel in omni re, either over all creatures, or in every thing. You take it as in omni re, in every thing, and indeed so the English translation renders it; but if we find in scripture itself this indefinite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that which is equivalent thereunto defined, and that in speaking of the pre-eminence of Christ, why should we not comply with scripture in the accommodation of it in this place? Now, in the other place alleged, Rom. 8. 29. its defined not to things but to persons, that Christ might be the first begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, among many brethren; why may we not then in like sort render it here, that he might have the pre-eminence among all the children of God? So Luke 1. 28. Blessed art thou among women: So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Inter omnes: So Piscator, Ex cujus sententiae collatione patescit, illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recte hic redditum esse, inter omnes. Phrasis graeca est, ne quis putet vertendum esse, in omnibus, scilicet rebus; and Beza, Miminerimus de Christi in ecclesia regno coepisse ab hoc versiculo disserere, quod nemo negabit qui verba ipsa vel levissimè considerarit, ac proinde universali particula non aliud comprehendi quam omnes omnium temporum fideles. And so Anselm also, Christus primus est resurgentium, ut in omnibus sanctis, tam prioribus quam sequentibus, teneat primatum dignitatis, potentiae, sanctitatis. And Lyra, ut sic in omnibus primatum tenens, non solum respectu hominum, sed etiam omnium Angelorum.  
4. But let it run in the neuter gender, of all things, as Beza confesseth it may be so taken, potest quidem hoc accipi neutro genere, quum in proximo versiculo scribat; yet what meaning doth he make of it but this, vera est (saith he) haec universalis sententia, Christum inter omnia sine ulla exceptione eminere? making it signify still pre-eminence above or amongst all things, but not in all things.  
5. Taking it as in all things, Ambrose interprets it thus, ut semper in omni vita sit primus & Princeps: in gratia & gloria (saith Aquinas:) In genesi & resurrectione, (saith Cajetan:) Tamburlaine in visibilibus quam in invisibilibus creaturis, (saith Hierome.) Some practical Divines extend it far, interpreting it according to our English translation; as, first in time, first in order, first in the dignity of the person, first in degree, first in government, first in acceptation with God, first effectively as the cause of all the respect, order, and excellency in others, none extending it to predestination.  
6. Nay, consider whether the text itself be not against it, He is the head of the body of the Church, the beginning, the first begotten of the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. Now consider, was Christ made the head of the body of the Church; was he the first begotten of the dead, to this end, that he might have the pre-eminence in predestination?  
When it is said, that the other creatures were for him, that so he might be the first borne among many brethren; I find want of convenient proportion: for what did the being of other creatures for him further his primacy or eldership amongst many brethren?  
It is true, all things were for him: but take the rest along with this; all things are created by him and for him: which clearly hath reference to his Godhead, one with the Father and holy Ghost, as Rom. 11. From him, and by him, and for him are all things: and Heb. 2. 10.  
It is, I confess, Master Baynes his conceit, that it is as unmeete and preposterous for the members of Christ to be first thought upon in the womb of God's counsel in predestination, as it is accounted monstrous and unnatural for the feet to be conceived in the womb before the head. And is it not as unnatural to have the feet brought forth before the head? Yet we know many thousands of Christ's members were brought forth, both into the world of nature, and into the world of grace, before the man Christ. Yet am not I of their minds that think that any was elect before the predestination of Christ. I say with Aquinas, si consideretur praedestinatio Christi & nostra, quantum ad actum praedestinantis, sic una non est causa alterius, quia idem non est causa sui ipsius; sed eodem actu divino praedestinatus est Christus & nos: ergo praedestinatio Christi non est causa nostrae praedestinationis. Si verò consideretur quoad effectum & terminum, cum effectus nostrae praedestinationis sit gratia, & gloria, & adoptio siliorum; sic dicendum, quod utraque praedestinatio Christi causa est praedestinationis nostrae & efficiens & exemplaris. And I hope 'tis nothing unmeet that God should at once think of Christ and his elect; as at once he thought of Angels & worms; especially considering that Christ and his elect are correlatives; as he the head and they his mystical body. Nay at once God did from everlasting both know himself, and know all things in himself. Yet I am persuaded the chiefest motive to devise a priority of Christ's predestination before others, was only this conceit, that if it be not prior, it must needs be posterior. But I have endeavoured in brief to show here (as elsewhere more at large) that the predestination of Christ is neither prior nor posterior to the predestination of the elect. And indeed most are so puzzled about devising a right place for the predestination of Christ amongst the decrees of God, that usually that is left quite out, because they know not where to find a fit place for it: and all because they presume he must be predestinate either before the decree of creation and premission of sin, or after; neither of which can hold water, but they are both equally removed from the truth.  
Where we are said to be created for Christ, it is jointly said, we were created by Christ, which undoubtedly proceeds of Christ as God. And if Adam had not fallen, but the world of mankind stood in integrity, what glory had redounded to the man Christ more by our creation, then by the creation of Angels?  
Though God had decreed the advancement of the man Christ upon presupposal of Adam's fall (which yet I hold to be impossible) yet this had not hindered but we had been created for Christ, and that divers ways: 1. To reap benefit by him after our fall. 2. To be of the number of those over whom the man Christ should one day rule, if not in grace (for thousands were out of that state before Christ man had any being) yet in glory. 3. As also to glorify him both in this world (though this is verified of those only who were brought forth after his incarnation, for Christ man had no being before, and consequently could not be glorified before) and in the world to come. Yet it cannot be denied, but that Christ also was both incarnate, and lived, and died for us and for our salvation, though that of the Apostle which you mention is nothing to this purpose, as spoken of Christ God, and not of Christ man.  
Undoubtedly, Christ came into the world upon the occasion of man's fall, for he came into the world as a Physician, and to call sinners unto repentance; which had been merely in vain, had not sin entered into the world by Adam.  
It doth not follow, that if we were not created for Christ, but Christ for us, than Christ should be brought into the world as Ens per accidens; for the heavens and the earth, together with the fights of the one, and herbs and trees of the other, and bruit beasts, were created for man and not man for them; yet neither of them all were brought forth as Ens per accidens: yet, had they been brought forth per accidens, never-a-whit the more had they been Entia per accidens; Entia per se may be brought forth per accidens: to be Ens per accidens is one thing, and to be brought forth per accidens is another thing.  
It had been more tolerable to argue thus; If Christ had been brought forth into the world only upon occasion of Adam's fall, than he had been brought forth per accidens; yet no truth had been found in it; for upon occasions wisemen do work, and proceed deliberately and with counsel, not temerariously; only man, not overseeing the events of things, doth many times (upon emergent occasions which himself could not foresee) alter his former counsels, and cast himself upon new deliberations. It is otherwise with God, as who infallibly forseeth all things, and not only forseeth them, but ordaineth they shall come to pass as well as he ordaineth causes and effects. For, not the things themselves are ordained by God, but also the very order of them; some to be effects, some causes, some occasions. And so the very fall of Adam was both fore-seen and fore-ordained by God to come to pass; but how? Not as good things which he ordaineth to come to pass, ipso faciente, himself working them; but as all evil things which are ordained also to come to pass, but Deo tantummodo permittente qua mala sunt, God only permitting them as they are evil; according to that of Austin, Non aliquid fit nisi Omnipotens fieri velit, vel sinando ut fiat, vel ipse faciendo. Enchirid. 95. And according to the 11. article of Ireland, God did from all eternity ordain whatsoever in time should come to pass.  
That which is first in the intention of every agent, is last in execution. Now the glory of Christ is last in execution (save only the 
Answ. 4.  glory of the Father;) And therefore surely it was Gods first and chiefest intendment, after the glorifying of himself, to glorify Christ, before the consideration of glorifying us, either in the first or second Adam, Psal. 2. 9, 10, 11. It is true, in fullness of time Christ was first humbled, that he might be glorified; but yet in God's counsel (wherein the end in order is first purposed, before the means leading to that end) the glorious advancement of Christ was first purposed, before the presupposal of his humiliation, which made way for it. The Apostle describing the subordination of things one to another, in the order wherein God hath set them; the world to be for the Church, and the Church for Christ, and Christ for God; he thereby gives us to understand, God first intended his glory, for which are all things, and then Christ's, for whom the Church is, and then the Church, for which the world is, and then the world last of all.  
Here we have an argument, and a place of scripture wherewith it is backed: I will consider them severally. 
Exam. 1.   
1. As for the argument; that is grounded upon such a rule as I desire no better direction for the right ordering of God's decrees, which is the matter we have in hand; but in the prosecuting of the argument in hand, upon this rule, I find no soundness, no truth, neither in the matter nor in the method. For first, though the rule be proposed only of two, the first and last; yet in the exemplification there is mention made of three, as if the rule did not only extend to first and last; but also to former and latter, how many ways soever they are in subordination; that look what subordination they have in execution, the contrary subordination they should have in intention; which will be found contrary to all reason: As for example, the last of the good of man is his glory, but how? Both of body and soul in the resurrection. But before this there was a glory of the soul in departure from the body, or a blessed condition of it, accordingly as they are called the spirits of just men perfected, Heb. 12. and they enjoy Christ's presence, 2 Cor. 5. Now shall we say, that in God's intention was the glory of body and soul, jointly first, and secondly the glory of the soul in departure from the body? Come we to the state of grace, there we have in execution, first effectual calling unto faith, and repentance, after this perseverance final in both; shall we therefore say, God did first intend to give them perseverance in faith and repentance, and then intent to give them faith and repentance? Or that God did first intend to give them repentance, secondly intent to permit them to sin? After this manner, I confess, Piscator had sometimes ordered God's decrees, wherein upon due examination I have scarce found one member sound: But see the issue of it; upon latter thoughts he fell quite off from this order, and embraced the contrary in every particular, and so recompensed his extreme rashness with extreme looseness. And no marvel, for truth alone is stable; as for error, it is a slippery thing, there is no stability in it. Secondly here is nothing but miserable confusion throughout: First in the word glory; for the glory of the Father is delivered in one sense, our glory in another sense. And as for the glory of Christ, in what sense that is delivered, is utterly uncertain; as whether in conformity to the glory of the Father, or in conformity to our glory, or in conformity to both, which will be so much the more equivocal: by that which goes before, it may seem to be spoken in conformity to the glory of God the Father; as when it is often inculcated, that all things were made for him: by that which cometh after, it may seem to be spoken in conformity to our glory; as when it is said, the glorious advancement of Christ was first purposed. Again, the glory of God the Father is in very great variety; and therefore it behoved to be specified in what kind the glory of God herein specified is to be understood: as I will show in the first place, when I come to oppose it particularly.  
Secondly the glory of Christ is very ambiguous, both in respect of his person, as whether it be spoken of him in respect of his Godhead, or of his manhood; and it is nothing sit these should be confounded: as also in respect of the word glory itself; for it is to be doubted (as before I said) whether it be spoken in conformity to the glory of the Father, or in conformity to our glory. And out of such a mass of confusion what satisfaction can be expected in any distinct and particular truth? 3. I see no reason why the glory of Christ only should be considered as the means of advancing the glory of God the Father. I conceive the glory of God is as much seen in the abasing of his Son, as in his exaltation; and if this very abasing of himself be called his glory, as indeed it may; for even on the cross he spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, and triumphed over them, Col. 2. then this discourse shall labour with a new aequivocation. In like sort, Is nothing but our glory a fit means to advance the glory of Christ, and of God? Is not God glorified as well in the martyrdom of his Saints? This is my confidence (saith Paul) that God shall be glorified in my body, whether by life or by death, Philip. 1. yea and Christ also; Even when we bear about us the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus might also be made manifest in our bodies. 2 Cor. 4. 10 If our glory also be extended unto martyrdom, this is a very sore aequivocation, especially considering how the scripture doth distinguish them: first to suffer, then to enter into glory, Luk. 24. 26. and if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him, 2 Tim. 2. 12. 4. But as it lieth, let us discuss it as well as we can. Therefore I say, first, God's glory is not only last in execution, but first also; even from the very first creation, even then when the stars of the morning praised him, and all the Sons of God rejoiced, Job 38. 7. And I will deal plainly, and show what glory of his was manifested herein, to wit, the glory of his power, Revel. 4. 11. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy wills sake they have been and are created. Yea and his wisdom also, Psal. 130. 5. which by his wisdom made the heavens. Jeremiah puts them both together, He hath made the earth by his power, and established the World by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. And as in the creation, so the same glory of God doth send forth ' its beams in the preservation and governance of all things. In the meanest creatures we behold the glory of God; neither are we able to comprehend the wisdom of God therein; every thing therein, as in a Bee or silkworm, coming to pass by course of nature; yet who is able to give a reason of it? I think, if Solomon had continued to this day, and his wisdom with him, yet had he not been able to find it out; for although the spirit of man be as the lamp of God, 
Vers. 10, 27.  which searcheth all inwardness, and God hath set the world in man's heart, yet is he not able to find out the work that he hath 
Eccles. 3. 11.  wrought from the beginning to the end. I behold the flowers of my garden, in great variety of colours; yet wonder at their uniformity; each single one hath five leaves, each most uniform in the colour, in the shape, rising, and spreading, and indented alike in their edges; all together make a most comely proportion of the whole round in form, only indented in the edges, which is as bonelace to set it forth, some of one colour throughout the pageant, speckled, having strakes like lines, so direct and proportionable in all, that it represents unto me some curious Mathematical circle cut thorough with lines, the matter of many curious demonstrations. And what a curious speculation would it appear to represent the causes of all this variety? In the mean time, our contemplation is broken off, and loseth itself, and turns into admiration at the wisdom of God, which confounds us in the contemplation of a flower, which is worn in the breast at morning, and trodden under foot at night. But to return, you will say, Another kind of glory is seen in the advancement of Christ; but than you should have specified it: which had you done, I doubt not but it would have afforded good matter to have wrought upon in the investigation of truth. 2. As the glorifying of God the Father was the very first, even from the creation, before either Christ man was, or we; so I say, it is not so last, as if it should be after Christ's glory, and our glory shall cease to be; for certainly, the glory of Christ, and the glory of the elect shall continue for ever; and the glory of God cannot continue any longer than for ever.  
3. Come we to the consideration of the glory of Christ: There is a glory of Christ which he receiveth from man, and there is a glory of Christ which he receiveth from God: That glory which he receiveth from man, he hath received in greatest part long before we were born; for it is the Father's pleasure, That all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father, Joh. 5. 23. There is the Rule: here followeth the Example; Worthy is the Lamb that was killed to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and praise. And all the creatures which are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I, saying, Praise, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for evermore, Revel. 5. 12, 13.  
As for the glory which he receives from his Father, that he hath already received above 1500. years ago. I have overcome, and am sat with my Father in his Throne, Revel. 3. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him, Joh. 13. 32. So that every way the glory of Christ, is afore ours, not after ours; for when the elect are once glorified, their glory shall continue for the time to come as long as Christ's glory: but for the time past, certainly, Christ's glory and his advancement, you here speak of, (noting thereby what you mean by Christ's glory in this place) was long before ours. Whereas you say, that Christ, as man, was first humbled, before he was glorified; if we consider the greatest advancement of Christ, it is untrue; for his greatest advancement was the assuming of his nature into an hypostatical union with the Son of God, and this was afore his humiliation in the sense you speak of, to wit, in humbling himself to the death, even to the death of the Cross: though I willingly confess, the humiliation of the Godhead went jointly along with the advancement of the manhood, even to this hypostatical union. You say, His advancement was purposed before his humiliation. I deny it: You will say, that was the means tending to his advancement, as the end (for so I take your meaning to be, leaving the consideration of the phrase mentioned of making way; which if it be delivered in any other sense then to signify the means of his advancement, will make your cause worse, and nothing better.) For now I deny that Christ's humiliation was the means of Christ's advancement; and I prove it: Those only are to be accounted means to such an end, quorum ratio petitur a ratione finis designati, that is, the means are only such as the nature of the end, duly considered, doth bespeak: But the advancement of Christ doth not bespeak any such means; for, undoubtedly, God could advance Christ without any such humiliation: nay, having taken his manhood into an hypostatical union with his Son, even in this respect his advancement was far more requisite, than in respect of his humiliation. You will say, God purposed to advance him no other way then this. I grant it: and if you consider it well, you shall find the reason of it, by considering the right ends hereof in the counsel of God: And these are different; one was in respect of others, to wit, that he might be a fit Saviour of Gods elect: not that their salvation was the end of his humiliation; but the glory of God, in a certain kind, the end of both, to wit, both of his humiliation and our salvation; namely, the glory of his free grace, in the way of mercy mixed with justice. This end required satisfaction, as without which it could not be procured. But here, I confess, the advancement of Christ hath no place: but in another consideration it shall find place, and that as a joint means together with his humiliation; for another kind of glory would God the Father manifest in Christ: (And, indeed, the Nation of mankind is as a glass, wherein a very complete body of God's glory doth appear, in very great variety:) and that was, the manifestation of his glory in the way of remunerative justice, in the highest degree remunerating obedience: I say, in the highest degree, both in respect of the reward deserved, and also in respect of the desert itself: the reward being the sitting in the Throne of his Father, and to have all judgement committed unto the Son; the desert being the obedience of the Son of God, one and the same God with his Father, humbling himself to death, even to the death of the cross, for the salvation of Gods elect. But perhaps you may further say, It is not necessary that the means should be only such as the end doth naturally require; For, God could have brought man to salvation the same way he brought Angels, without faith and repentance; yea, he could have made them, and immediately have translated them into glory: yet we commonly say, Faith and Repentance are the means of salvation. I answer, granting not only that we commonly say so, but that we truly say so, in respect of ourselves; namely, that as salvation is the scope and end we aim at, so faith and repentance are the only means to bring us thereunto; but in respect of God it is utterly untrue; for neither is our salvation the end of God's actions, but his own glory: He made all things for himself, Prov. 16. 4. And if it were his end, he could have brought it about divers other ways besides this: but in that he brings it to pass this way, there is good reason for it, as we shall well perceive, if we take the end of God aright, namely, to manifest his glory in doing good to man in the highest degree, and that in the way of mercy mixed with justice. This end doth necessarily require a permission of sin; again, it doth require satisfaction, as by the death of Christ; and thirdly, it doth require faith and repentance, that so he may do him good, by way of reward; and lastly, a glorious salvation, which is the doing of him good in the highest degree. And as man's salvation is not the end of God's actions, so neither is the glory of Christ, as he is man, the end of God's actions; for such a glory inherent can but be a created glory, and no created thing can be the end of God's actions; but only God himself: For, as he is the chief efficient of all, so must he be the supreme end of all: and as he is most lovely, and most good; so must he necessarily love that most which is most lovely, even himself, and aim at his own glory in all.  
2 Now I come to the Apostles Text, wherewith this Argument is backed, 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23. All are yours, and ye Christ's, and Christ Gods: that is, say you, The world for the Church, and the Church for Christ, and Christ for God: thereby giving us to understand, That God first intended his glory, for which are all things; and than Christ, for whom the Church is; and then the Church, for which the world is; and then the world last of all. But, I pray you, consider whether this Interpretation, and Collection thereupon, be not more superficiary than sound: First, when he saith, All are yours, is the world only to be understood by all? Is not the world expressly named but as a member of this universal? Are not Paul, Apollo's, and Cephas also joined with it; together with life, and death, and things present, and things to come, and jointly comprehended under the word all? Verse 21. Let no man rejoice in men, for all things are yours, Verse 22. Whether it be Paul, or Apollo's, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death; whether they be things present, or things to come, even all are yours, 23. And ye Christ's, and Christ Gods. As he was persuaded, Rom. 8. 38. That neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, should be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; and therefore we need not fear them: So here he goes further, and tells us, that all are put, as it were, in subjection unto us, to work for our good; and therefore we should not rejoice in them, but rather in Christ, and in God, who hath wrought this, and ordered all this for our good, through the merits of Christ: not only Apostles and Pastors, but even the very Angels also, who pitch their tent about us, and have charge given them, to keep us in all our ways; and all of them are sent forth for the good of them that are heirs of salvation: Yet this subjection is only of a spiritual and gracious nature, nothing prejudicing their advancement above them whom they thus serve in love; and that for this their service performed for God's sake, to whom rather they are in subjection then unto us; yet so far in subjection to work our good, that it becomes us not to rejoice in any of them, but rather in God, who hath thus ordered them for our good, and Christ for whose sake they are thus ordered: An Argument, like to that the Lord useth, Deut. 4. 19 Take heed lest thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, with all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them. Now mark the reason whereupon the Lord dehorts them from this, which the Lord thy God hath distributed to all people under the whole heaven: as much as to say, God hath made them to do you service, therefore do not you make them your gods: So Pastors, and Apostles, and Angels, are made by God to do us service, therefore set not us make them our gods. Thus we see plainly by All, in this place, not the world only, but the Church of God is signified; every one of them being made to do service unto the Church, that is, one unto another; For, are they not all members of one body, though some perform more honourable service than others? like as in a natural botly, some members are more honourable, and for more honourable uses than others. Unless we thus understand it, we shall exclude the Apostles out of the Church. And when it is said, We are Christ's, this seemeth not to admit the same sense with the former; for, undoubtedly, Christ is as much for our good as any, nay more than all the world, the Apostles, and Angels, and all; for unto us he was born, unto us he was given, Esa. 9 6. given by the Father, Joh. 3. 16. given by himself, and that for us, Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 2. 20. and that to die for our sins, and rise again for our justification, Rom. 4. and, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purge us a peculiar people unto himself, zealous of good works, Tit. 2. 14. and that by his blood, 1 Joh. 1. 7. Revel. 1. 5. We are therefore his, not so much in respect of any good we bring to him, but in respect that he hath bought us; And so we are Gods too, as, Who sent his Son to redeem us unto God his Father, Revel. 5. 9 Ye are bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your bodies, and in your spirits, for ye are Gods, 1 Cor. 6. 20. And Christ is Gods in special manner; as touching his Godhead, the natural Son of God; as touching his Manhood assamed into an hypostatical union with his natural Son: in both, the Chief Servant of God, for the work of mediation and redemption, for Gods elect, given by the Father unto him, that he might bestow eternal life upon them, Joh. 17. 2. according to the good pleasure of his Father, Mar. 10. 40. Thus I have been bold to deliver my judgement touching the Interpretation of this place, without consulting any Interpreter; only the native genius of the Text itself seemed to afford sufficient light, and evidence, to discern the meaning thereof; which I willingly submit to the judgement of any.  
It is no part of my meaning to dispute, much less to determine, whether Christ should have been incarnate, if Adam had never 
Answ.  fallen: I conceive it a question no less frivolous, then curious. The purpose of glorifying Christ, though it presuppose not the creation or fall of man, as making way for such an intention in God, yet doth it enforce the creation and fall of Adam, as making way for this purpose.  
Nothing, usually, doth cause more perturbation and hindrance in the inquisition of truth, than incommodious expressions: The 
Exam.  purpose of glorifying Christ (say you) presupposeth not the creation and fall. No marvel, for the creation and fall are things temporal; but God's purposes are eternal. Again, such a purpose (you say) doth not make way to any such intention: This phrase, such intention, is spoken in reference to the creation and fall; as if they were intentions, which indeed they are not; but rather executions of intentions: it should run thus, As making way for the intentions of such things in God. Purpose and Intention signifying the same, it is good to keep ourselves in one sentence to the use of one of them, lest we expose our Readers to distraction, possibly suspecting they may have different significations. Your meaning, questionless, is this, God's intention of glorifying Christ doth not presuppose the intention of creation or fall of Adam: And I am of your mind in this. But your meaning contains two things more, whereof the first is this, God's intention of the creation and fall, doth presuppose his intention of glorifying Christ: The second is this, God's intention of glorifying Christ, doth infer the intention of creation and fall of Adam. As in both these I differ from you, so I will endeavour to disprove your opinion in both. And first, I prove that the intention of glorifying Christ, was not before the intention of creation, and permission of Adam's fall. For although this may seem plausible, for as much as thus the glorifying of Christ, as it is first in intention, so also shall it be most congruously last in execution; yet according to this very rule, the issue will fall more foul than you are aware of; For, to begin with the Creation; if the glorifying of Christ were before creation, than also was it much more before the generation of all mankind: but this will appear to be most untrue, by the same rule; for, if in comparison of the glorifying of Christ, with the generation of all mankind, the glorifying of Christ was first in intention, then accordingly it should be last in execution, which is most untrue; for that of the Apostle, Heb. 9 2. We see Jesus crowned with glory and honour, was delivered above 1500. years ago, and yet the generation of all mankind is not in execution. Again, if the glorifying of Christ were first in intention, than was it the end, and the generation of all mankind should be as the means tending to the furthering of that end; but what, I pray, doth the generation of a little child of mine tend to the furtherance of the glory of Christ, wherewith he was crowned above 1500. years ago? Come we to the permission of Adam's fall: I say, the glorifying of Christ was not in intention before this, though it seems never so plausible in respect of congruity in execution; for, by reason of incongruity, in the very same kind, I disprove it thus; If the glorifying of Christ were in God's intention before the permission of Adam's fall, then much more was it before the permission of other men's sins in God's intention; but this is most untrue, upon the very same ground: For, if in comparison between the glorifying of Christ, and the permission of all men's sins to the end of the world, the glorifying of Christ were first in God's intention, then should it be last in execution; which is most untrue: for the glorifying of Christ was accomplished above 1500. years ago, as hath been showed; but the permission of all men's sins, to the end of the world, is not yet in execution. Again, if the glorifying of Christ were first in intention, then should it have rationem finis, and the permission of all men's sins, to the end of the world, should be a congruous means to that end: but to aver this were most unreasonable; for what furtherance doth my sins this day and hour afford to the glorifying of the Son of God, which was accomplished 1500. years ago? If it be replied, that this glorifying of Christ is spoken in reference to a glory of Christ which is yet to come, to wit, the kingdom of Christ which we look for, 2 Tim. 4. 1. I answer, there is no reason why it should have any particular reference unto that; for as much as that glory shall have an end: For that kingdom shall continue but for a while; He must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. 25. And, When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son himself be subject to him that did subdue all things under him, that God may be all in all, Verse 28. Again, if the glorifying of Christ were in God's intention before the permission of Adam's fall, than were it before the permission of reprobates to fall in Adam, as well as of Gods elect, and consequently before the permission of all sins of the reprobates, unto the end of the world, and before their generations; and all these should be first in execution, as means tending to the furthering and promotion of the glory of Christ Secondly, I deny that the intention of glorifying Christ doth infer either the creation of Adam or his fall; yet, by the way, I am glad to see you acknowledge, that the intention of the end doth infer the intention of congruous means: But seeing, by that I have already showed, it must infer as well the generation of all mankind, to the end of the world; therefore, I pray, what colour of reason can be devised, why it should infer the generation of such a number of men as shall be, precisely, rather than more or less? So in respect of permission of Adam's fall, I have already proved, that the glorifying of Christ must be before the permission of men's sins, to the end of the world, as well as of Adam's fall, and consequently infer that as well as the other: And what colour of reason can be given, why it should precisely infer the permission of just so many men's sins, and just so many sins of such men as shall be to the end of the world, neither more nor less? Again, if the intention of glorifying Christ doth infer Adam's fall, then seeing by denying the Consequents the Antecedent must be as justly denied, it followeth manifestly, that if Adam had not sinned, Christ had not been glorified, and consequently, had not been advanced to an hypostatical union with the second person in Trinity: And yet to make question thereof, you profess to be no less frivolous than curious. I confess, it is rather frivolous than curious to draw that into question, the negative whereof doth evidently follow upon that which is positively received. Again, others, of the same opinion with you, are driven to take notice of this Question, for to derive this opinion of yours from a more ancient original than Mr. Baynes upon the ●p●stle to the Ephesians, Petrus Alphonsus Mendoza, a Spaniard, maintains the same; A Doctor of the Chair in the University of Salamanca, not of Moses Chair, nor of Paul's Chair, no nor Augustine's Chair, nor of Aquinas Chair, but of Scotus Chair; whose opinion is to be seen in his first Theological Controversy, printed 42. years ago; and what his opinion was, appears by these conclusions:  
1. Omnium quae Deus ab aeterno in ment sua facere excogitavit, primum fuit, unio hypostatica verbi divini: Secundum, praedestinatio omnium electorum: Tertium, naturae rerum conditio. Ac proinde priora sunt supernaturalia quam naturalia, & ordo naturae praesupponit ordinem gratiae.  
2. Nullius futuri praescientia praesupponitur in ment Dei ad praedestinationem, sed omnia ex ipsa sequuntur: atque adeò nihil prorsus ab aeterno decrevit Deus facere, vel in tempore facit, nihil permittit, sive intendit, sive naturale, sive supernaturale, sive res sit magni ponderis, sive minimi & fere nullius, quod non inde perveniat, sitque effectus & medium praedestinationis electorum & Christi. Atque adeò omnia cadunt sub ordine divinae praedestinationis, tanquam media ad Christi & sanctorum gloriam ordinata.  
3. Non est aliqua alia providentia in Deo antecedens praedestinationem, ex qua, scil. providentia, proveniant res naturales & quidam alij effectus supernaturales; sed unica est duntaxat providentia, ipsaque est praedestinatio, ex qua omnia in universum nullo prorsus excepto, habent sequi. Atque adeò juxta hanc conclusionem totum universum ut complectitur, naturalia & supernaturalia, bora & mala, substantias & accidentia, & omnes in universum modos essendi & operandi, non solùm in general, said in specie & individuo, sunt consideranda, tanquam unicam objectum total divinae praedestinationis, ita ut nihil omnino sit quod subterfugiat illius objecti latitudinem, & quod non cadat sub actu illo praedestinationis.  
4. Si electorum praedestinatio futura non esset, nihil esset omnino in rerum natura. Itaque statuo tanquam certum, quod nisi Christus futurus esset in mundo, nulla fuisset à Deo facta electorum praedestinatio, non existente autem praedestinatione, ex cujus vi secuta sunt omnia, non esset coelum, non terra, non reliqua elementa, non viventia, non homines, non Angeli, non peccata, non daemons, non reprobi, & demùm, ut uno totum verbo absolvam, solus Deus esset, & nihil aliud esset à Deo, neque naturale neque supernaturale, neque bonum neque malum; loquimur secundum communem rerum legem & ordinem, & juxta eos sines quos probabiliter suspicamur Deum habuisse in creaturarum conditione. Nam nequaquam intendimus divinae potentiae majestatem sic nostrae imbecillitatis captui alligare, ut negemus potuisse Deum quae sua est absoluta potentia, naturam rerum independenter à gratia & gloria, & gratiam independenter à Christo Domino facere & ordinare.  
Then he proceeds to show, how many, seeming to favour this opinion of his, yet take quite contrary courses in the maintenance thereof, such as tend rather to the destruction of it; and they are in number five.  
Hence he proceeds to the justification of his own Tenet: and his first confirmation is derived from that of Paul, 1 Cor. 3. 13. All are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is Gods. Ecce ubi (saith he) qua ratione Christus dicitur esse Dei, & praedestinati dicuntur esse ipsius Christi; eadem ratione omnia naturalia, sive praesentia, sive futura, sive vita, sive mors, dicuntur esse praedestinatorum: Sed sic est, quod ideò dicitur Christus esse Dei, & electi dicuntur esse Christi, quia Deus est finis Christi, & Christus electorum, id est, quia Christus ordinatur in Deum tanquam in finem, & electi in Christum tanquam in finem: & nisi esset ille primus finis, id est, Deus, vel manifestatio gloriae Dei, non esset Christus; & nisi esset Christus, non essent electi: ergo omnino eadem ratione creature ideò dicuntur esse electorum, quia sunt propter electos, & electi sunt fines earum; & sic nisi essent futuri electi, non essent naturae creaturarum, etc.  
His second proof is taken from that Ephes. 1. 4. Elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem. Loquitur vero de Christo homine, viz. de Christo capite, ut expresse ibi dicit Hieronymus, & ex contextu apertissimè liquet. Certè, aut ego fallor, aut D. Paulus non id tantum intendit, quod, viz. nos Deus in Christo elegerit ante veram & realem mundi constitutionem, quae fuit abhinc sex mille annis in tempore facta. Quod enim nos in Christo elegisset ante illam temporariam rerum creationem, non erit quid magnum & tanto calamo dignum; Sic enim etiam boves & lapides elegit: i Decrevit & praevidit ante temporariam rerum creationem, quand●quid●m priusquam in tempore quidquam faceret, jam illud ante mundi constitutionem & ab aeterno excogitaverat ac decreverat ut faceret; aliquid ergo altius & divinius Paulus intendit, nempe, quod in sua Deus aeternitate cum excogitavit de constituendo mundo, jam prius ordine rationis excogitaverat de electione electorum, jam (inquam) Christum intenderat & praeviderat, & in ipso praedestinatos elegerat.  
Other places he draws to the same purpose, and concludes with the Argument of Scot, which in his judgement is ratio efficacissima; Omnis ordinatè volens prius vult finem, & ex mediis ea prius quae sunt fini propinquiora: Sed Christus & praedestinati, ac proinde omnia supernaturalia sunt fini, id est, manifestationi divinae bonitatis, propinquiora quam omnia naturalia, ergo prius quam naturalia volita sunt à Deo supernaturalia, & his prius manifestatio ipsa divinae bonitatis, quam confideramus ut horum omnium finem, etc.  
And withal, he shows that himself is not alone in this opinion, but that the same is maintained by Jacobus Naclantus, upon the 1. Ch. of Eph. in a digression, Quo ordine & ratione de rebus definitum fuerit apud Deum. Albertus' Pigh. lib. 8. de lib. Arb. cap. 3. & lib. 1. in initio. Ambrose Catarinus lib. 1. de eximia Praedest. Christi. Petrus Galatinus lib. 7. de Arcanis Cathol. veritatis, à cap. 3. ad 9  
But withal, he observes a doubt, the solution whereof must not be pretermitted; that is, whether this opinion can be maintained according to the doctrine of Aquinas; for, saith he, pag. 16. S. Thomas existimat, minimè Christi praedestinationem futuram si homo non reccasset. Ex quo fieri videtur consequens, prius visum à Deo fuisse peccatum, & volitam ejus permissionem, quam volita fuisset incarnatio Verbi: atque adeò non apparet quomodo in via Thomistarum stare possit, quod primum omnium decretorum Dei fuerit incarnatio seu praedestinatio Verbi, si jam praecessit peccati visio atque permissio. Si verò priusquam peccatum videretur fuit Christus praedestinatus, jam ergo etiam non existente peccato, Christus, qui ante visum peccatum praedestinatus fuerat, veniret: Quod directè pugnat cum doctrina S. Thomae.  
By the way, I observe a vain supposition to be the ground of all this perturbation, and conflictation of contrary opinions, in this Argument: And the presupposition is this, That the decree of Christ's incarnation and of our predestination, as also of creation, and of the permission of sin, cannot be coordinate and simultanea, but must needs be subordinate and one before another. And so he carrieth himself in the confirmation of the priority of those decrees which he fancieth to be before the other, as chiefly to oppose the priority of the others. And this I account a very vain supposition, (though, I confess, for many years I was carried away with the common error, and therewithal still found myself in a brake or labyrinth, without hope of extricating myself) as I have here proved in part, but elsewhere more at large. But as for the solution of the doubt proposed, his answer is this, Prius Deum voluisse unionem hypostaticam & incarnationem Verbi, quam vellet permittere peccatum, & quam vellet condere naturam hominis & totius universi. But I have already demonstrated the falsity of this. But he proceeds, Quia tamen non est volita incarnatio sine peccato, imo dependenter est volita à permissione peccati, & à natura rerum tanquam à mediis; idcirco non sequitur, futurum esse Christum si peccatum non esset, aut si universum non esset. Two things he constitutes media tendentia ad incarnationem Christi; and indeed, if the incarnation of Christ were first in intention, as the end, all other things intended after, must be intended as means: But I have already showed how absurdly the creation of mankind is constituted as a means of Christ's incarnation: and is it not strange, that the making of every worm, or a gnat, should be a means tending to the incarnation of Christ? In like sort, I have showed the absurdity of conceiving the permission of sin to be a means of Christ's glorification, much more of his incarnation.  
He proceeds to remove some other rubs out of the way, but in such a vain manner, that it were the wasting of time to make relation thereof; neither can I well give account for proceeding so fatre as I have done, only I desired to show the Authors of this opinion, which here I confute: And I have entertained sometimes a thought of taking occasion to discuss this whole dissertation of Alphonsus; but more necessary businesses have hitherunto taken up my meditations.  
And I hope that which I have here delivered may suffice to the cutting off of the very sinews of that discourse: if not, I shall not be averse from taking further pains, as I shall see cause, and opportunity, and God shall enable me.  
Much less is it my meaning to disparage, or undervalue the 
Answ.  love of God toward the elect, in that I set forth Christ as not first thought upon by God for the elect sake; for though I do not prefer his love to us before the love of Christ, yet is the love of God to us unspeakable and glorious; not only in preferring us before the world of other men, and the rest of the creatures, but also in thinking upon us in Christ, upon whom Christ should show forth the riches of his gracious love and tender mercy. 
1 Tim. 1. 16. Exam.   
I confess, there is no colour of disparaging Gods love to us by giving the precedency of God's love to Christ, especially when both are acknowledged to be eternal, and to be toward both the man Christ and us, before we or the world had a being; most of all, when in the issue the priority seems to be for us, rather than for Christ: for it is confessed, that priority in God's decrees consists only in purposing one thing for another. And again, it is without question, that all priority in this case is on the part of that for which another thing is purposed. Now albeit we are Christ's servants, and he our Lord; yet, undoubtedly, Christ was ordained rather for our good, than we for his good: yet I do not hence collect, that our predestination was before Christ's; much less, that God's love was less towards him then towards us; but I willingly acknowledge, that albeit thousands had tasted of God's love, both in the way of nature, and grace, and glory, before Christ-man had any being at all; yet was the love of God to the manhood of Christ infinitely beyond his love towards us, measuring the love of God by the effects thereof: and that in two respects; first, for as much as the fruit of God's love to him was the taking of his humane nature into an hypostatical union with the Son of God: secondly, in making him the Captain of our salvation, Heb. 2. 10.  
Lest of all is it my meaning to extenuate the heinous nature of sin, by setting forth the purpose of God, concerning the incarnation 
Answ.  of Christ, before the consideration of the fall of Adam: It is enough to make sin out of measure sinful, that God in his wisdom saw no means so sit, as by the sin and fall of Adam, to make way for the humiliation of Christ, and thereby for the manifestation of his justice, and riches of his mercy, and both in Christ; although we grant, so far as to conceive, that God had never thought of humbling the Godhead, or advancing the manhood of Christ, but upon consideration of sin fore-seen.  
Ex magnitudine remedii, magnitudinem cognosce periculi, saith Bernard; this hath place, in what order soever Christ was ordained 
Exam.  a Sacrifice for sin; neither is there any colour of remitting aught of the heinousness of sin, by the priority or posteriority of Christ's predestination, in comparison to God's decree, concerning the permission of sin. Sin, and the heinousness thereof is amplified according to the quality of the transgression, in reference to God's law, so honourable a rule of man's perfection, and to God's deserts at our hands, and plentiful motives from consideration both of rewards and punishments, wherewith it is estadlished. It is a common and just aggravation of sin, that it caused the Son of God to be humbled; but to aggravate it in making way for Christ's humiliation, is a very odd conceit, in my judgement. Neither do I comprehend, how the manifestation of justice in punishing sin, or of mercy in pardoning it, doth aggravate the heinousness of sin: This, I say, I comprehend not.   

The second DOUBT.  
WHere have we, in Scripture, ground for this, That the Lords first and primary intention, in his decree of Predestination, was to set forth Grace and Justice? That the declaration of his justice was intended, is not doubted, but by the Apostle it seemeth, his primary aim was the declaration of the sovereignty, freedom, and dominion of God over the creature, in that he purposeth grace and power.  
The Apostle throughout his whole discourse of Predestination, 
Answ.  doth no where oppose grace and power; for God showeth as much power, freedom, and dominion over the creature, in his grace toward the elect, as in his justice toward the world: The Apostle sets forth the like power and sovereign will of God, as well in showing mercy on whom he will, as hardening whom he pleaseth. Do not think he opposeth God's power and sovereignty over Pharaoh, to his grace and love unto Jacob: for the power he there speaks of, is not sovereignty, but ability, might, and power, showing itself forth in the hardening and overthrow of Pharaoh; in Moses called the power of his wrath. Power natural is one thing, power civil, which we call sovereignty, another: the first is, ability to do a thing; the second is, liberty to do what naturally he can do, without sin. Undoubtedly, the power of God showed in Pharaoh, was in his overthrow, and answerable to the power of God's wrath.  
I like well that the power of God showed in Pharaoh, is extended also to the hardening of his heart; only, this is not so congruously 
Examine.  applied to the power of God's wrath, for as much as wrath hath always reference to something in man, as the cause of it; so hath not hardening: in that of Paul, Rom. 9 18. He hardeneth whom he will, like as, he hath mercy on whom he will. But withal, I confess, hardening in this place seems to consist only in denying of mercy: But Pharaohs hardening was much more; for, undoubtedly, mercy was no more showed him when his heart relented to the letting of Israel go, then when he detained them. So likewise, when God hardened him to follow after them, to bring them back, this was more than a bare denying of mercy, even a secret impulsion of him to take such courses as should precipitate him unto destruction: and this may well be accounted a fruit of the power of God's wrath; and accordingly I am verily persuaded, that God's power or sovereignty over Pharaoh, are not opposed to his grace and love to Jacob: Only, freedom, in my judgement, doth not so well consent with the execution of justice, whether justice be taken in rewarding or punishing. Neither do we ever read of Gods rewarding or punishing whom he will; freedom and sovereignty is seen only in giving or denying good, according to common account: Albeit, there is a further freedom and sovereignty of God, over his creatures, in doing evil unto them; as in annihilating the most righteous, which Arminius acknowledgeth, and in exposing his holy Son to suffer strange pains and sorrows, for other men's sins, when he had none of his own. Not to speak of the sovereignty wherewith God hath endued man over his fellows, though inferior creatures.  
That God in his decree of Predestination did show forth the declaration 
Answ.  of his sovereignty, freedom, and dominion over the creatures, I easily grant; yet that it was his primary aim, rather than the declaration of his justice and grace, I cannot believe, without better proof.  
My opinion is, That all the variety of God's glory, to be manifested in the creature, was intended at once; and if they that are 
Examine.  otherwise minded come to a particular expression of what glory was intended first, and what next, and so in order, I am persuaded the incongruity of that order will soon appear.  
It is granted on all hands, that God first aimed at the declaration of his own glory: Now, wherein doth God delight principally 
Answ.  for to manifest his glory? God himself declared it to Moses, who desired him to show him his glory; The Lord, saith he, merciful, and gracious, and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting iniquity: 
Exod. 34. 6, 7.  Where God declareth, and proclaimeth his chief glory to stand partly of attributes, and the work of grace in the one hand and of justice in the other; for God in like sort declareth wherein he delighteth chiefly to glorify himself, viz. in the exercise of loving kindness, and righteousness, and judgement, Jer. 9 24.  
I should think whatsoever is in God is equally glorious, even his strength as well as his mercy, wherewith the Lord begins, in 
Examine.  the 
* Exod. 34 6.  place alleged, though here pretermitted: Neither doth it follow, that because these only are here mentioned therefore the glory of God doth principally consist in these. And besides, there is the glory of his sovereignty expressed, even then when the promise of this revelation (here mentioned) was made to Moses; to wit, in showing mercy, and having compassion on whom he will. I beseech thee, show me thy glory: And he answered, I will make 
Exod. 31. 28, 29.  all my good go before thee, and I will proclaim the Name of the Lord before thee; for I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. And this is it the Apostle doth most insist upon, Rom. 9 yet I make no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the various wisdom of God, is as glorious as any of the rest; and this appeareth in the incarnation of the Son of God, and in the complete execution of his office, as in nothing more. But, I conceive, that glory of God represented to Moses, Exod. 34. 6, 7. was expressed to a special end unto his people, namely, to compose them to a greater reverence of his Majesty; which reverence is a quality consisting of a mixture of love and fear, a moral gesture. Not to speak how the execution of mercy and justice are competent unto the creatue, nor to mention that wherein Vasquez and Suarez concutre, otherwise much different, about their conceptions of God's justice, namely, that there is no justice in God toward the creature which is not grounded upon the determination of his will; and so, undoubtedly, is the execution of his mercy also; only with this difference, God hath revealed unto us rules, according to which he will proceed in the execution of his justice; no such rules hath he revealed to us, or prescribed to himself, according to which he will proceed in the execution of his mercy.  
It is well observed by others, that those virtues which grace the Will, are more honourable than those which grace the Understanding, 
Answ.  or other parts: It is a greater honour to a Prince to be gracious and just, then to be wise and powerful; power and wisdom may be found in a vicious Prince, not grace and justice: If then grace and justice do more set forth the glory of their sovereignty, surely God (who aimeth at his highest glory) in the highest and first place, he aimed chiefly at the manifestation of his grace and justice, above the manifestation of his power and dominion.  
1. First concerning the instance itself, I answer 1. It is not to be expected, I confess, that virtue should be found in a vicious 
Examine.  person; but yet Princes commonly make more account of their absoluteness, then of their virtue. 2. And the most capital crime against them, consists rather in the derogation to their power, then to their virtue. 3. And virtue is common to all; and if all were as they ought to be, what glory were it to a King to be virtuous? 2. But as for the accommodation of it, though all were granted, yet it concludes nothing. To be virtuous is honourable to a man, because he is indifferent to execute his power, in the way of vice, as well as in the way of virtue: But there is no such indifferency found in God. God's gracious disposition ties him to do good to none, but to whom he will. Had he never made the world, nor purposed to produce any creature, he had been notwithstanding the same he now is; yea the very execution of justice in God, doth presuppose the determination of his own will: whereupon it is that Bradwardine distinguisheth between meritum aptitudinale, & meritum actuale. Aptitudinale meritum is the merit of such good, as God can bestow in the way of reward, if he will; or such evil as God can inflict in the way of punishment, if he will. Actuale meritum is the merit of such good or evil, as God hath determined to bestow, or inflict; Answerable hereunto Gerson professeth, that when a sin is committed, it is merely at the pleasure of God to inflict what punishment he will. And withal he professeth, that God doth actually remunerate every good work ultra condignum, and punish every evil work citra condignum; all which I hold to be Orthodox, and sound. And let me entreat and prevail with you, in this, that you will not think any thing in the nature of God to be less glorious than another, howsoever, to our apprehension, some attributes, may seem more glorious than others.  
Consider what you find last in the execution of God's decree, and from thence gather, what was first in his intention. Now at 
Answ.  the last judgement, as likewise in the course of his providence in this world, God doth chiefly manifest the glory of his grace to the elect, and the glory of his justice upon the world. When God in his ways towards the elect, blesseth them with all spiritual blessings in Christ, what doth he rather aim at, than the praise of the glory of his grace? When God destroyeth the wicked in their flourishing estate, and causeth the righteous to flourish, in their weak and decayed age; what doth be rather aim at, then to show that the Lord is upright, and there is no unrighteousness with him? When Christ shall come to judgement at the last day, what will he rather show forth, than the righteous judgement of God upon the world of the ungodly, and the admirable glory of his grace to the Saints? Since then, all the ways of God do finally work to this issue, the setting forth of his grace, and justice; surely we are so to conceive it, as his primary aim and intent to be, to glorify rather his grace and justice, than his power and sovereignty.  
1. That God doth manifest the glory of his grace to the elect, and the glory of his justice upon the world, both in this life, and 
Examine.  at the day of judgement, I grant; But that he doth chiefly manifest this, is not proved: save only there is a propension in the phrase, to signify as much, as properly, and then it is true indeed. His grace properly on the one, his justice properly on the other; whereas the glory of his power, and sovereignty, and wisdom, is promisevously showed on both, yet there is not taken so distinct a consideration of justice, as seems fit: For whereas justice is as well remunerative, as vindicative; as this hath place only on the wicked, so the other on the good; I mean those, that departed the world after they came to years of discretion: yet consider, I pray you, what think you of them that perish in no other sin but original, derived unto them by the fall of Adam, which Adam we believe to be saved? In the condemnation of these what glory of God doth appear more, either of his justice, or of his sovereignty?  
2. But be it granted, that these glories do appear chiefly at such times; yet if other glories do appear also in the same last execution, how will you deduce herehence, that only those glories you mention were first in intention? Will it not rather follow, that seeing other glories, as well as these, did appear in execution though not chiefly, therefore other glories, as well as these, were first in intention, though not chiefly?  
3. When God blesseth his elect, with all spiritual blessings in Christ, we need not say, he aims rather at somewhat else then the praise of the glory of his grace: when out of mere grace he made his glorious self known unto us, he made not only his grace known unto us, but all his attributes more or less, which to our understanding are equally glorious in themselves, though we take more comfort in the speculation of his grace; which yet is more wonderful, when we consider his sovereignty over us his creatures, and that it was indifferent to him to make us vessels of wrath, as well as vessels of mercy: and in this very consideration, the very damnation of reprobates shall improve our glorious joys in the apprehension of God's free love to us at the day of judgement, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 9 22. You are to look to it, how you make your Tenent good, who maintain that God doth rather aim at the one, then at the other.  
4. As for the wicked, the righteousness of God's judgement upon them, we can in some measure conceive at this present: But as for the power of God in executing such judgements, maintaining the creature, in the suffering of eternal sorrows, we are not able to conceive, and therefore the glory hereof is far more admirable than the other. So likewise, what shall be the fruits of the grace of God towards us at that day and after, neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, etc. nor that glory contained in seeing the face of God. If God should but reveal unto us the wisdom whereby he hath managed his providence towards us before he called us, and since the calling of us, immediately by himself, mediately by the ministry of good Angels, contending with, and crossing the counsels and practices of wicked Angels; what a body of glory would appear unto us, and how should we be ravished with the contemplation of it? How much more with the contemplation of his providence throughout, both in managing the whole course of nature, and the whole course of grace?   

QUESTION ●.  
How and by what demonstrative reasons, may it appear 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 form of words usually received in delivering the doctrine of Reprobation, are such as to me seem, if not demonstrative, yet convincing. And though I have learned to suspect mine own judgement where I differ never so little from my godly and reverend loarned Brethren; yet I consider, we are taught to try all things likewise, and to hold fast that which is good; and as we believe, so to speak, submitting ourselves to the fear of God. But before I come to the ground, whereupon I have been led to believe, and speak somewhat otherwise of this point, then is commonly received; let me first show you how far I consent with the received opinion, even in all useful truths; and how little it is then wherein I descent. In the doctrine of election, I consent wholly with Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Zanehy, Perkins, Paraeus, and others, who have taught us, by plain 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 showing 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 redeem them as effectually, as if they themselves had suffered in their own persons.  
3. That in the fullness of time, he calleth each one of them, by an effectual and invincible drawing, even by such an almighty work of his quickening spirit, as he did put forth in raising Christ from the dead.  
4. That those, whom he so calleth, he preserveth by some powerful work of his spirit to himself in Christ, so as they never fall from him totally, or finally: Only herein take it not amiss, 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 chief instruments, of the reformation of our Religion. And, with reverence I speak 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 school in so expressing it; and the reasons delivered above in the first point, have carried me with them: and the difference lieth in opening the purpose of Reprobation. But see here how far I go with the stream●, and, ●hen I go aside, how little, and upon what ground.  
How convincing, or demonstrative, the reasons are, I address myself to consider: It is good to make progress in the investigation 
Examine.  of truth. Austin professeth himself to be of the number of those qui proficiendo scribunt, & scribendo proficiunt: only our care must be, that we go not backward, and make things worse than we found them; which comes to pass (especially with good men) many times, not so much by falling into error, as by confusion of method; for hereby it comes to pass, that the passages opening the way to the investigation of truth, are stopped up, and we find ourselves in a brake, and see no way out. To prevent them, I am persuaded, it is a profitable consideration, to think with ourselves, that different opinions, especially amongst godly Divines, may be no other than the dividing of the truth between them.  
About the object of predestination there hath been 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 thereof commend itself. Your phrase of useful truths I do not like; amongst Arminians, I often meet with such a course of arguing truth, by the usefulness 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 fitness to a body; yet it is a dangerous course for us, to presume so far of our judgements in the usefulness 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 Adam's fall, according to your own exposition, formerly mentioned: but in this sense, yourself confesseth in the 4. place, that Austin and Zanchy do not concur with others in this; was there no more in God's intention, when he elected some, than 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 elect (of ripe years, before their departure out of this world) by way of reward, and crown of righteousness, which God the righteous Judge shall give at that day to all that love his Sons 
2 Tim 4.  appearing? It being a righteous thing with God, as to recompense tribulation to them that trouble his Children; so to his Children that are troubled, rest with his Apostles: when the Lord Jesus shall show himself from Heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming 
2 Thessa. 1.  fire, rendering vengeance etc. When he shall come to be glorified in his Saints, and be made marvellous, in all them that believe etc. 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 than hitherunto you do discover.  
3. Touching the Third, it were to be desired you did express, whether no less powerful motion, would serve to the drawing of them to faith and repentance.  
4. Likewise touching the Fourth, whether this powerful work being denied to any, it is possible for such a one to believe, 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 Christ's incarnation, and our salvation by him, before the decree of creation, and of permission of Adam's 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 do mistake, who take the Synod of Dort to maintain the consideration of massa corrupta, as precedent to Election, though they begin with signifying what God purposed to bring to pass, upon the fall of mankind, in Adam. And Galvin in his answer to Pighius confesseth, that the safest course is to treat of predestination, upon the consideration of the corrupt mass 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, 
Answ.  as Bellarmine, and others of the Papists do.  
1. Negative, as they call it, a nonelection, or Reprobation, unto which some add a purpose of forsaking the creature, excluding it from glory, and from sufficient means of grace in Christ.  
2. Positive, ordaining it to condemnation.  
The former, they conceive to be absolute, as being an act of Gods sovereign Lordship over the creature, without all respect to sin.  
The latter they conceive, as being an act of vindicative justice, to presuppose original sin at the least, and some of them (as Bellarmine) actual sin also, whom Paraus in this point seemeth to give way unto.  
1. To the first of these acts I wholly assent so far as it resteth in a nonelection, or preterition of the creature, according to the liberty of God's absolute sovereignty. That which is added to it, of a purpose of forsaking the creature, and to exclude it, from glory, and from sufficient means of grace in Christ, before all respect of sin, I want warrant from scripture to condescend unto. But this Negative act, I would rather express 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 evil in the creature:  
1 God did not so love the world, (I mean the world of mankind distinguished from the elect:) this is plain 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 Lamb's book of life, from the beginning of the world. Revel. 13. 8, 17, 18. And indeed all who were given to Christ, do, in fullness of time, come unto him. Joh. 6. 37. God's hatred of Esau, before he had done good or evil, 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 sin presupposed. Annihilate the creature God may without presupposal of sin; for annihilation is an act of Sovereignty, suitable to creation; but condemn it he may not, without presupposal of sin. For condemnation is an act of justice, and presupposeth a rule of justice transgressed, and thereby wrath, or just revenge provoked: only this positive act of God's counsel 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 evil in the men of this world, God ordained them unto judgement, according to their works. Ezech. 33. 20. to judgement, I say, not of condemnation, which presupposeth sin in the creature to be condemned; but judgement (I mean) of just retribution, whereby God is willing to deal 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 careless and wilful disobedience.  
Hitherto, even to this act, the hatred of God to Esau reached.  
2. Whereby, upon the presupposal of the careless or wilful disobedience of the world, either in refusing the means 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 condemn them for their sins, to the glorifying of his power, justice and wrath.  
Nonelection, absolute is an act of sovereignty, you grant; which also you call preterition. Let us speak distinctly, that the 
Examine  fairer way may be 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 nonelection. Now this nonelection 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 God's 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 utrumque existere in massa corrupta; wherehence it followeth in the last place, (sayeth he) that the one shall infallibly be saved, the other damned. This sometimes seemed plausible to me, and I did prefer it, and still do, before the perverse orders of God's decrees, devised by many: For, est quiddam prodire tenus: we have the shorter way to our journeys' 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 own 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 merely negative, than 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 mere negation of election. And, in my judgement, this reason of his is a weighty reason. Therefore they profess plainly, that God did not only not purpose to give Judas glory, but he did purpose to deny him glory, that is, ordain 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 ordain, 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 mass, and withal 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 Counsel of his will, seeing he works all things according to the counsel 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 existency; if God did not will the existency of more Angels than are, it follows that God did will that more Angels than are should not exist; and that this positive act doth better become the nature of God, than the former negative, by reason of his most perfect actuality. And as for the purpose of forsaking the creature, and excluding it from glory; that is no other than Gods purpose not to give certain 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 lies no just exception against it, as untrue in the substance thereof. When you confess, that God did not so love the world, as the elect (which is no more, then to acknowledge a nonelection of some) if you expound it in reference unto his purpose of not giving grace and glory unto them, as to the elect; Aquinas himself acknowledgeth, that odisse in Scripture phrase is no other than non velle alicui gratiam & gloriam. And it is well known 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 justify this; wherehence it will follow, that Christ's death was meritorius unto them, but not satisfactory; or if satisfactory, yet only for some sins of theirs, but not for all.  
As touching the act positive of reprobation, I trust, when all things are rightly stated, there will appear to be as little 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 ordains none to condemnation, but upon sin presupposed? Is there any other meaning of the words then this; God hath ordained that no man shall be condemned, but for sin? who ever denied this? What one of our Divines, or Papists, or of any Sect, ever called this into question? But herehence it only follows, that sin is the cause of condemnation, and that by the ordination of God: it follows not, that sin is the cause of God's ordination; although I confess 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; yet see not a far 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 ears, not considering the dangerous consequence here-hence, utterly overthrowing the Orthodox doctrine of our Churches, in the very point of Election, and bringing in Arminianism entire and whole; not in Reprobation only, as Master Moulin doth, and you seem to do; but in Election itself unavoidably, though hitherto, I confess, the Arminians have not been so happy as to discern it. I doubt not but your meaning is, in that Proposition, That sin is not only the cause of damnation, but of God's decree also of ordaining thereunto. But to affirm this, seemed so foul to Aquinas, (namely, that there should be conceived a cause of God's will, or God's decree) that he professeth, never any man was so mad as to affirm it. But because the saying of Aquinas moves you little; why should it, seeing it little hindered not only Valentianus the Jesuit from saying as you do, but Alvarez also the Thomist, and a great Thomist? therefore I will proceed further: What should move you to affirm, That, to ordain 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 ordain to condemnation is an act of vindicative justice? I will not press you with the authority of Master Baynes, who denies Reprobation to be an act of justice; but thus I dispute: If God's purpose to condemn to death, be an act of justice vindicative; then also God's purpose to remunerate with eternal life, is an act of justice remunerative: And if God's purpose of condemnation presuppose sin, it follows, that God's purpose of remunerating with eternal life must also presuppose obedience; even obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; for all these God doth remunerate with eternal life. Here appeareth the foul tail of Arminianism, in the doctrine of Election, which this plausible doctrine of yours and of Master Moulins, in the point of Reprobation, draws 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 be moved to cast about, and consider how they may wind themselves out of this dangerous inconvenience. And perhaps it may come to their minds to affirm, that they do not conceive Election under this form; namely, to be the decree of God to remunerate with everlasting life. And I verily believe they do 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 do 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 forms? 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 be true, yet there is no place for such an opposition here; for as much as though a man may merit damnation by sin, yet he cannot merit salvation by obedience. I answer therefore, that this only shows there can be no opposition between them in a special 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 general of retribution: For it is well known, that God will reward every one according to his works; and that he means to bestow salvation upon every one of ripe years 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 foresee their obedience, before he should ordain them to a reward: which yet will follow, if on the other side we grant them, that God first forseeth man's final impenitency, and thereupon ordains 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 God's purpose ordaining to condemnation? I confess, it seems so, and is generally reputed to be so: and this I take to be the principal 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 damn is either finally to punish, or to adjudge to punishment. Now, as the Negative opposition hereunto is only not to punish, or to adjudge to punishment; so the contrary opposition hereunto is to reward, or to adjudge to a reward: So that Election, as it is God's purpose ordaining to salvation, by way of reward, is only opposite contrarily to Reprobation, as it signifies God's purpose ordaining to condemnation. More fairly, and void of all equivocation, thus: Like as Reprobation is God's purpose to punish with everlasting death; so Election is God's purpose to remunerate with everlasting life. And thus the contrariety of these acts being rightly stated, it follows as evidently, that Election must presuppose, not obedience, but the foresight of obedience; as Reprobation presupposeth not sin, but the foresight of sin. And thus are we tumbled into the very gulf of Arminianism, over head and ears, before we are aware. But it may be this discourse of mine may raise such a Spirit as will not easily be laid; and hereupon some may the more profusely be carried to embrace Arminianism, in the very point of Election also; because, as Reprobation seems to be an act of justice vindicative; so Election also, as here it is stated, seems to be an act of justice remunerative. And I willingly confess, I never found any Arminian that discerns the advantage which our Divines do afford them, by shaping the doctrine of Reprobation as they do: Therefore I will endeavour to quiet this Spirit that I have raised, first, by discovering the Sophistry that blears our eyes in this; and secondly, by clear demonstration I will prove, that no foresight of sin 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 only the executions of these purposes may be 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 clear, that God is not bound to remunerate any creature, but upon presupposition of his will; for he may convert him into nothing, if it please him: But if he hath determined to reward them according to their obedience, it must needs be so; for as much as the Divine nature is without variableness or shadow of change. So likewise, neither is God bound to punish any sinner; for he may pardon him, if it please him; but upon supposition that he hath determined not to leave a sinner unpunished: in this case only is he bound to punish. Further, I will show, that in such acts, the condition whereof doth not depend upon the will of God, the act may be of one condition, and yet nevertheless the purpose of God to perform such an act is of another condition: As for example; the act of creation is an act of Gods almighty power; but God's purpose to create the world is no act of power, but of will rather. So likewise, God's act of ordering all things unto their end, in wonderful manner, is an act of infinite wisdom; but his purpose to order all things, in so admirable manner, is no act of his wisdom, but of his freewill. Now I will demonstrate, that the foresight of sin cannot be the cause of God's purpose to condemn: For if it be the cause of God's purpose; then either by necessity of nature, or by the free constitution of God: not by necessity of nature; for he is naturally more prone (as Piscator confesseth upon Exod. 24. 6.) to remunerate obedience, than to punish for sin: but no man will say, that he doth remunerate by necessity of nature; therefore neither doth he punish sin by necessity of nature: therefore it must be only through the voluntary constitution of God, that sin is the cause of ordination unto condemnation. But mark, I pray, the foul absurdity hereof; for here-hence it follows, that God did purpose that upon the foresight of sin he would purpose that men should be damned. So that the purpose of God is made the object of his purpose; and that upon a certain condition: whereas nothing can be the object of God's purpose, but some temporal 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 only in such a case as when one is of the end, and the other of the means tending to that end; which hath no place in this matter we now treat of. By the way, when you say, God cannot condemn the creature without sin, though he may annihilate him; what do you mean by condemnation? do you take it for punishment? If so, than the formality of it, expressed at full, is this; Affliction for sin. Now consider, is it a sober speech to say, God cannot afflict for sin, without the presupposal 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 be afflicted for sin without the presupposal of sin: I presume your meaning is only this, (though incommodiously expressed) God cannot excruciate or afflict a creature without the presupposal of sin. But in whom? I doubt not but your meaning is, in the person afflicted. But what think you then of the Son of God, how was he afflicted, and without any presupposal of sin in him? And I pray you tell me, hath not God as much power over us as over him? Again, consider I pray, what power doth God give unto man over inferior creatures? But let this pass: Can God annihilate us without any respect to sin, and can he not afflict us? Alas! what affliction would most men be content to endure rather than to die, much more rather then to be turned to the gulf of nothing, from whence we 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 we conceive that torment to be which we signify by the word Condemnation: I pray remember, we are made after the image of God, and endued with the light of reason, and let us not cast ourselves in a brutish manner upon conceits without all evidence of reason. Now tell me, what reason can be devised why God should be able, without all prejudice of his justice, to inflict pain in one degree, in two degrees, in three or four degrees, in five, six, and seven degrees, without all respect to sin only, if in the eight degree he should inflict it in this manner, he should be unjust? Again, if without injustice he may inflict pain on an innocent creature for a thousand years, or ten thousand years, or ten times ten thousand, what reason why he cannot afflict a creature for ever, without injustice? yet if no finite time can be set which he cannot exceed, why not for ever? Nay, if a creature should be put to his choice, whether he would choose to be annihilated, or to be in eternal torment, yet preserved without sin, which of these two would an holy creature make choice of? should he not prefer his being without sin (though in eternal 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 ordain to judge them according to their works. I pray consider, who denyeth this? even they that maintain Reprobation as absolute as Election, do notwithstanding maintain, that God doth judge them no otherwise then according to their works; for they do not avouch that God doth ordain to damn them for aught else then for sin; yea and that for sin actual, as many as do die in actual sin unrepented of; and for original sin, as many as do die only in original sin. Again, will you deny the same form of decree to have his course concerning the elect, as well as concerning the Reprobate? Doth not God reward them according to their works? I mean, as many as live unto ripeness of age; for otherwise it cannot be verified of the Reprobates. And if God doth reward the righteous according to their works, did he not also ordain from everlasting so to reward them? Neither is Election, rightly stated and in congruous opposition unto Reprobation, any other than God's decree to reward men with everlasting life for their obedience of faith, repentance, and good works; like as Reprobation is God's decree to punish them with everlasting death, for their continuance in sin, without repentance, unto death; albeit, neither of these is God's 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 crown 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 aforesaid; or, which is all one, to permit them to persevere in sin and final impenitency, and to inflict damnation for their sin. And unless Election on the one side, and Reprobation on the other, do include the parts before mentioned, we shall fall into the Arminians definition of Election and Reprobation, who make them merely conditionate, either in formal terms, or though they avoid the formality of such expressions, yet merely in effect: as by saying, that, Election is God's purpose to save them that believe and repent; Reprobation God's purpose to damn them that do not believe and repent: as if there were no other purpose of God, revealed in God's word, than these; no decree of showing mercy to whom he will, by giving faith and repentance; no decree of hardening whom he will, by denying it. Again, when I say, God doth purpose to reward every man according to his works, let us understand it aright; for indeed there neither is, nor can be any such formal 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 be the works 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 showed in ransacking the absurd order of God's 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 works of all, then there is no reason to conceive that he made any such indefinite decree; but rather that the decree to save or damn every one in particular according to his works, well known to him in that very instant, not of duration only, but of nature and reason. But God did in the same moment foreknow all the particular works of every man, as already I have made manifest, in ransacking the Arminian order of God's decrees. But the denomination of such an indefinite decree, as to reward every man according to his works, 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 God's Elect, of ripe years: 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 sin, and accordingly to damn him; and so every one of the Reprobates: Whence it followeth, that it is true to affirm, that God decreed to reward every one of ripe years according to their works; not that there ever was any such particular decree conceived by God, distinct from the former, as the Arminians feign; 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 works, is no more a work of hatred then of love; but as it is indefinite, so it is indifferent to prove in the issue either a work 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 work 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 presupposal of disobedience, more than that he electeth and predestinateth others upon presupposal of their obedience; for undoubtedly God purposed as well to reward the godly according to their works, as the ungodly according to theirs; though, I confess, there is a great difference between the condition of evil works and good works; evil works being meritorious of punishment, good works no way meritorious of reward: but this nothing hinders the course of remuneration in general: And again, what is wanting of merit on the part of God's Elect, is abundantly supplied by the merit and satisfaction of Christ. It followeth, I confess, that upon disobedience on the one side (provided it be final, 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 final; 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 less true, that upon obedience on the other side, God saves the others. But this opinion, I confess, 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 books, De vocatione Gentium; all which notwithstanding are orthodox in the point of Election throughout, excepting Caterinus, whose orthodoxy therein is only in part. But, in few words, I will disprove this latter position of yours, by your own rules: For thus I dispute, If God did first foresee man's disobedience, and then ordain them to condemnation, than God did first decree to permit this disobedience, before he did decree to damn them for it. Whence it followeth, that the permission of this sin was first in intention, and consequently, last in execution: that is, God must first damn them, and afterwards permit their disobedience, whereby they deserve damnation. Yet, I pray, conceive not hereupon that I maintain, that God doth first purpose to damn men, and secondly purpose to permit their disobedience; both orders, in my opinion, are very dissolute; though I confess it is commonly so received, that by denying the one we must necessarily fall upon the other.  
Herein two things are granted by common consent of our Divines: 
Answ.   
1. That the end of God's purpose in his positive Reprobation of the world, is to glorify his justice, power, and wrath in their just overthrow and condemnation.  
2. That he doth not purpose to condemn them but for sin.  
But two other things you see there be, wherein, I confess, I descent 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 do not acknowledge any unwillingness 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 do 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 means, either of grace in the second Adam, or of the knowledge of God in nature, by some acts of careless or wilful disobedience.  
These two things above mentioned are granted not only by 
Examine.  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 sin is apparently made the cause only of condemnation, but not of God's purpose; whereas hitherto you have carried the matter so, as if sin were the cause not only of condemnation, but also of Reprobation; as much as to say, of God's purpose to condemn. But to say, that God for sin did purpose to condemn for sin, is so harsh an expression, that in all my reading I never found any adventure thereupon. Come we to your proper opinion: You do not acknowledge any unwillingness 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 only denying unwillingness, but acknowledging a willingness, as afterwards you do; not a willingness only which may have place though joined with a will to the contrary, as in all mixed 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 he believes and reputes: And on the other side, neither is there any unwillingness in God, but a willingness rather, yea and that a resolute will to damn any man in case he dyeth in infidelity and impenitency. For we have the clear word of God to justify us herein, professing most evidently, that, Whosoever believeth shall be saved; whosoever believeth 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 aim.  
2. As touching the second act, either you must profess that no Infants perish in original sin; or you must, according to your Tenet, consider them only 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 means, either of grace in the second Adam, or of the knowledge of God in nature, by some acts of careless or wilful disobedience. As for their opinion, who think the consideration of all men in massa Adae sufficient to justify God in decreeing the condemnation of all, I take it to be a very rude and undigested conceit; for undoubtedly, if the consideration of sin be at all prerequired to the decree of condemnation, it must be the consideration rather of that sin for which they are chiefly damned: For, shall the consideration of that sin only, which deserves the least degree of damnation, justify God in the decreeing the greatest degree of condemnation? what colour of justice is found in this? Shall the consideration of telling an officious lie, justify a Magistrate in decreeing to inflict such a punishment as is due only 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 we cannot decently attribute to God: but God considered all men tanquam in massa Adae futuros; and as many as should die in infancy, God considered them in no other state of sin, tanquam futuros, but in that. As for as many as should survive to the use of reason, God considered them, tanquam futuros, not only in massa Adae, but guilty of their own personal transgressions; and whom he so considered, and withal as finally persevering therein, all them he decreed to damn. So likewise whom he considered tanquam fideles futuros, & resipiscentiam acturos, & in fide & resipiscentia perseveraturos, he decreed to save. But take heed that herehence you infer not, Therefore foresight of perseverance in sin was the cause or prerequisite of Reprobation; lest you be driven by just proportion to confess, that foresight of faith also and perseverance therein was the cause, or prerequisite at least, of Election. Yet do not hereupon fall into the contrary extreme, as to think that then the decree of Salvation and Damnation precedes the foresight of faith on the one side, or of final 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 Logic, in discerning the right order in intention of the means tending to a certain end: For, both creation and permission of sin in Adam, and final perseverance in sin, and damnation for sin, are but joint means tending to one end; to wit, the glory of God, in the way of justice vindicative: and consequently the intention of all those means 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 be said of all other proceedings, according to the order of media and finis. So on the other side, creation, permission of sin, deliverance from sin by the grace of faith and repentance, and finally salvation, are all but joint means tending to one and the same end; to wit, the glory of God in the way of mercy mixed with justice; and consequently, all at once in intention, though not all at once in execution. But to disprove that which here you affirm, as if some wilful disobedience, in God's foresight, was before the decree of condemnation, I dispute thus, according to your own rules; If the foresight of disobedience did precede the decree of condemnation, than God did first decree to permit this disobedience, before he did decree to damn any man for it: which is as much as to say, Man's disobedience was first in God's 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 willingness to glorify 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 God's Oath; As I live (saith the Lord) I have no pleasure in the wicked man's death; but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live. The usual answer made to this place seems to once to strain the word beyond his native simplicity.  
1. Some say that God speaks not of all the wicked, but of some of the elect only, who in time are brought on to repentance: but the truth is, he speaketh of such wicked men, whereof some dye in their sins, 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 sin: but plain it is, he speaketh of men now wicked, defiled with original and actual sin.  
3. Others say again, God speaks not of the secret will of his good pleasure, but of his revealed will: but though I know there be sundry parts of God's secret will which are not revealed, yet I know no part of his will by oath, doctrine, or historical 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 historical narration; but by a word of command.  
2. I say, it is a part of his secret will too; I mean, 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●●●● axiom is always consonant to his secret will, and never frustrated.  
4. 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 means of the manifestation of his justice. I answer, It is true; but the manifestation of his justice stands, as he expresseth himself, in the removal of the cause of their destruction from his own will to their will: As I live (saith the Lord) I desire not the death of a sinner: Turn ye, turn ye; why will ye die, O house of Israel?  
First, here is some Philosophical error in distinguishing between 
Examine.  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 we have an anxious discourse to prove that which no man denies, as before hath been showed: And on the other side, it is equally as true, that God hath a willingness to glorify his vindicative justice, as well as remunerative; to punish with death any one of his Elect, upon condition of final disobedience and impenitency, as well as to reward with life, upon condition of obedience and repentance.  
3. But it appears by the Proof, that some further Point is intended then is yet manifested; and such a one as you seem rather to insinuate then express. For whereas hitherto you have proposed a will of God only conditionate, the place of Scripture alleged mentions no such conditionate will, which is indifferent to pass either upon the life or death of a man accordingly as he 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 man's death, but rather that he 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 pass 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 man's death than life. Thirdly, most of all, in case it be such as that the condition of life is never performed, and the condition of death always performed; and the event hereof well known to God when he made this conditionate decree.  
4. But whereas you would (I guess) insinuate, that God doth will the life of the wicked (distinguished from God's Elect) rather than their death, the place alleged is nothing to this purpose; as not signifying what God doth rather will to come to pass, but what God doth take most pleasure in, when it doth come to pass, whether it doth come to pass or no; for certainly, the life and repentance of the world doth never come to pass, according to your opinion.  
5. Junius renders the place so, as that God's 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 he 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 persuasive means 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 eyes, 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 general, both of Elect and Reprobate, (yet only 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 reputes, 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 own mouth may be convinced, seeing that God affords not any Reprobate such an effectual grace as he foresee will bring them to repentance; but reserving that for the Elect alone, unto all others he vouchsafeth only such a grace as he knows full well will never bring any of them unto repentance. And if God would bring any man unto repentance, who should hinder him? shall the will of man? how doth it hinder him in working the repentance of his Elect? cannot he omnipotenti facilitate convertere, (as Austin speaks) whom he will, & ex nolentibus volentes facere? Again, doth God continue to will their repentance after they are damned, or no? If no: then is he changed if ever he willed their repentance.  
7. Certainly, he speaks of men defiled with original and actual sin; for he speaks of such whom he exhorts to repentance: yet this hinders not but that it may proceed of his antecedent will; for nothing but final impenitency makes way for God's consequent will concerning damnation.  
8. Saint Paul, of all his labours, tendered to the good of all sorts, professeth, that he suffered them for God's Elect: How 
〈…〉, 10.  much more in God's intention was the Ministry of his Prophets for the Elect sake? The question is not so much about God's 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 than Gods Elect.  
9 The third Answer, though it seems to me not congruous enough in respect of life; because revealed will, in this distinction, is usually taken only for God's commandment; 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, he 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 terms, secret and revealed, and not applied to the usual acceptions of this distinction, which is only to signify God's will of commandment, which we 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 God's good pleasure, in the acception of all that ever I read, is only of that which God will have come to pass; and consequently, of what shall come to pass; not of what should come to pass, to wit, of man's duty; that is generally accounted voluntas signi, in distinction from voluntas beneplaciti; and in special, we may call it voluntas praecepti, and distinguish it from voluntas propositi; this is, What God will have to be done; that is, what God will have to be our duty to do: And thus far it may be accounted the will of God's good pleasure (as you call it.) But then, God's 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 do repent. That distinction tends to mere confusion. Neither yet do I like this expression, shaped never so congruously: rather it should run thus, God is well pleased when men do repent, and most displeased when they do not repent; which is most true, but least to the present purpose, as touching the distinction ventilated between us, concerning voluntas signi, & voluntas beneplaciti.  
Your second instance, of voluntas beneplaciti, is no less 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 commandments, backed with promises and threats, effectual to the working of repentance, this is a secret; and this we commonly account voluntas beneplaciti. When you add, saying, Thus the will of God revealed in a distinct axiom, is always consonant to his revealed will, and never frustrated; You continue still in a miserable confusion, worse rather then better: as when you talk of a disjunct axiom, in reference to that which went before, when no disjunct axiom at all went before, but certain conditionate axioms; 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 axioms are consonant to God's secret will, is a wild expression; whereas indeed they are neither consonant nor dissonant, save only 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 sin 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 the cause thereof, as a Judge, in the way of a cause naturally efficient; but not in the way of a cause meritorious. And as clear it is, that only the meritorious cause is the chief cause in this kind; for as much as by the rendering thereof alone, satisfaction is made to him that demands the reason, why such a one suffereth death. But I wonder what you mean to change the former Translation of the Text, thus, I have no pleasure in the wicked man's death, into another, thus, I will not the death of a sinner; For, is it not God that inflicteth death? and doth he not do all things according to the counsel of his will? Ephes. 1. 11. Yet if it were so to be rendered, it will nothing advantage you. And in no other sense can it be said, that he doth not will it; then in that in which he is said, not to punish willingly, Lam. 3. according to the Latin phrase, when he doth not punish, Animi causa, but by reason of some provocation, the sin of man urging and moving him thereunto; as is fairly 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 Works you may see, as in a glass, 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 mirror, what the purpose of God is, in manifesting his mercy upon the Elect: For as it is in men renewed after the Image of God; so likewise it is in God himself: 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 Works, 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 God's 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 he elected not,) because he offered them life upon such condition which he knew was impossible for them to keep: for, first, in Adam they were enabled to keep it; neither impotency in Adam, nor efficacy of God's decree did put upon Adam any necessity of breaking it. Again, 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 stir them up to seek 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 do, God and his Covenant are blameless, in offering them life, and the means of it; their destruction is of themselves.  
That Proposition of yours, As it is in men renewed after the Image of God, so likewise it is in God himself; had need of much 
Examine.  limitation and qualification, lest it prove as often false as true, or rather more. That which follows; 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 be conditional, 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 God's operation with man: For, as God works in all things agreeable to their natures; so in man he useth to work agreeable to his nature. And therefore, albeit his Purpose be absolute to bring them to grace and glory, to faith, repentance, and salvation; yet he allures them to faith and repentance by promises and threatenings. 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 believe and repent; and more congruously a great deal; 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 seems you desire to shape the Promises of God in the Covenant of Grace, and in the Covenant of Works, in so different a manner, that the one may seem to be absolute, the other conditional; whereas they are of the same nature in both: And as God doth withal intend to give the grace of obedience to the Elect; so doth he as absolutely intent to deny it to the other. And I wonder you make not mention of the Reprobate in the latter, as of the Elect in the former: Undoubtedly, the Covenant of Works concerns all to whom it is preached; as well the Elect as the Reprobate. And the Covenant of Grace likewise concerns all to whom it is preached; as well the Reprobate as the Elect. To all it is preached, Whosoever believeth shall be saved; as well to the Reprobate as to the Elect: To all it is preached indifferently, Whosoever believeth not shall be damned; as well to the Elect as to the Reprobate: only, God shows mercy on whom he 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, concerns the Elect as well as the Reprobate; For they are a part of Adam's 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 years ago hath ceased to have any thing to do with any such Covenant. Therefore this is for some special purpose, in joining 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 be no place for continuance in obedience required of all Adam's 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 we please ourselves with such confusion? Let us consider them apart; and say, that, God did covenant with Adam that if he continued in obedience to his Law; or if breaking his Law he did return again to him by repentance, he 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 entertain 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 die the death. How could this be verified, if God 
Gen. ●.  made any such Covenant with Adam? For, if he were under such a Covenant, he could not be said to violate it by sinning, but only by refusing to repent after he had sinned. And I verily believe you have no such meaning, as if you conceived any such Covenant to be made with Adam before his fall; and therefore you clapped 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 Adam's posterity, as touching this part, of turning unto God by repentance after sin 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 infer, that, Surely the purpose of God's just retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their obedience, or of their repentance. As before we were troubled with confusion, so here we are again troubled with an unhappy distinction: For, what do you mean to distinguish Obedience from Repentance, as if Repentance were not Obedience? Doth not God say as well unto us, Repent, and believe the Gospel; as, If you consent and obey, you shall eat the 
Esa. 1.  good 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 bars of a Palace; yet, as Brethren, they are all the Children of the same Father, or Mother, or both. But take we your meaning; and that by Obedience is to be understood, such a state or condition of obedience as is without all sin; then let your Position run plainly thus, Surely, the purpose of God's just retribution is to give life to the world of mankind, upon condition of their being without sin, or of their repentance after obedience. To this I answer, That, there never was any such Covenant of God with man; I mean, 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 speak for themselves, by their own 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 sin, there is no place for such a Covenant, as touching the first part of the condition, which is, of being without sin. 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: only the confusion of these two states, before the Fall and after the Fall, hath brought forth this wild conceit of such a Covenant. By that which followeth, it seems that all these conceptions tend to no worse end, then to justify God's disposition towards the Reprobate. And it is great pity that so good an end, as the justifying of God, should be brought about by no more congruous courses then these. But I would fain know, what blemish should redound to the nature of God, if he should intend nothing but death to the world of mankind? yet yourself will acknowledge, that he 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 prefer 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 years, why should it be any blemish to his reputation, to intend to the world of mankind nothing but everlasting sorrow? Yet whom do 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, do not affirm this of the world of mankind, but only of the Reprobates; if they do affirm 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: He did intend to them all life as well as death; but withal, that all the posterity of Adam should be borne, or at least conceived, in sin; and also that many thousands should perish in that sin 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 own Son. As for others, he intended to expose them to actual sins of infidelity and impenitency, by denying to them that grace which alone would preserve them from such sins; as yourself spare not to profess: 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 only, but their life also: whereas God is nothing at all advantaged hereby in his reputation, but only in words, which is no real relief to his honour, but the adding of another injury (if that be an injury unto him, as you conceive;) namely, to mock him also. And if we shall nothing pleasure him by a lie, lying for God, as man doth for man, to gratify him; surely we shall do him no pleasure by thus mocking him. I would you had tried your strength in oppugning their opinion to the uttermost, who maintain God to carry himself 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 transfer the case to the Angels; were not they also enabled to keep the condition of life, as well as their fellows? yet, did not God grant his Elect Angels such a grace as whereby he knew they would stand; denying such a grace unto the others; and that as absolutely as he granted it unto the other? And could he not as absolutely have granted this grace unto them 〈…〉 and denied 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 prejudicated 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 speaks) than the other? For the absoluteness of God's Election of Angels, is seen by the absoluteness of his giving them such a grace as to keep them from sin. And if he doth as absolutely deny others the same grace, as he must needs; (for before the first sin of Angels there could be no cause moving God to deny them grace;) it will follow, that their Reprobation was as absolute as the others Election. Yet what a poor relieving of God's reputation is this, to say, that Judas had power in Adam to keep the condition of life proposed to him; though since his Fall he hath not: yet we believe that Adam is saved, who bereft Judas of his ability; and Judas damned, for not keeping that whereunto he had no ability; and that through the Fall of Adam. Further, observe I pray you the miserable consequents of this your Argument, as it runs 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. By the same reason I may dispute thus: In Adam they were enabled to break the condition of life; therefore, Say not that God intended nothing but life to his Elect. But as he intended salvation, and not damnation only, to the Reprobates; In like sort he intended damnation, and not salvation only, to the Elect: Especially considering, that not in Adam only, but in themselves also, they are able enough to break 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 be discerned; or being discerned, men should be so little moved with them. But these are days of vengeance; and when a good man errs, 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 ways, which are advantageous to flesh and blood; and therefore they delight in them, and thereby become the more worthy to be given over to illusions, to believe lies. Let me touch upon that also, as where you say, It was not the efficacy of God's decree that did put upon Adam any necessity of breaking it. This, I confess, is a plausible speech now adays, and apt to be taken up; especially coming from good men's mouths, to choke others withal, who fear not to give God the glory of his power, with as much truth, and with a greater distinction and plainness; we say with Aquinas, that, Gods will is so efficacious, as to cause all things to come to pass after such a manner as they do come to pass; to wit, necessary things necessarily, and contingent things contingently, or freely, whether in good or evil. And if you spare to speak with the Holy Ghost, yet we will not; but profess, that, Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gathered together to do that which Gods hand and Gods counsel 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 pass, by his working of them; evil things he will have come to pass, by his suffering of them. Nay, otherwise it were impossible he should foreknow them; for unless they are future, they are not knowable to be future. But how can it be, that things contingent, and in their own nature indifferent, as well to be not future as future; how, I say, is it possible that they should pass out of this indifferent condition into a condition determinate; and things merely possible in their own 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 himself: and in God himself, 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 Jesuits and Arminians, and all that oppose the absoluteness of God's proceedings, do, and must rely; either wittingly or unwittingly, and whether they will or no; unless they will directly turn Atheists, and with Cicero deny that God foreknows 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 he 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 sinful act, but such as is joined 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 confess, there is an absolute necessity of sinning, in general, laid upon man by the Fall of Adam; whereby it comes to pass, that whether a man commits a sinful act, then questionless he sinneth; or whether he omit a sinful act, yet therein he sinneth also; in as much as he doth not abstain from it in a gracious manner. I come to the second Reason: Again, 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 stir them up to seek for help and strength, and life in him, where it is to be found; which if they neglect and despise, as the Pharisees did, and all impenitent sinners do, God and his Covenant are blameless, in offering them life, and the means of it; their destruction is of themselves. I have read such manner of discourse as this often in Carvinus, that busy 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 the justifying of God; as when you say, Their destruction is of themselves. But so do Arminians also pretend; to wit, the justifying of God in the way of Reprobation: but the issue is, to justify themselves, and glorify themselves in the way of Election. But, I pray you, what think you of Infants that perish in Original sin; how is their destruction of themselves? Is it of themselves that they are borne in sin? Yet I presume you will not say, with Arminians, that all Infants that die in their infancy, whether they be the Children of Turks and Saracens, yet are saved, as well as the children of believing Parents. Again, was not Pharaohs destruction of himself also, for not letting Israel go? yet, will you deny that God hardened his heart, that he should not let Israel go? Sihon King of Heshbon, was not his destruction of himself, in that he would not suffer Israel to pass by him, though they promised to go by the highway, and to turn neither to the right hand nor to the left, and to pay for all that they received of them, both meat and drink? nevertheless it is said, that, The Lord hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, because he 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 evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, that the cruelty against the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, and their blood, might 
Judg. 9  come and be laid upon Abimelech their brother, which had slain them; and upon the men of Shechem which had aided him to kill his brethren. But to proceed: The face of your discourse seems to tend to the maintenance of a sufficient grace in the Reprobates themselves; whereof there is much question: but yet you express only a sufficient grace without them, whereof there is no question. For, undoubtedly, in God's 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 yourself will not avouch this. And the Pelagians of old acknowledged a sufficiency of grace in the way of doctrine and instruction. Only you say, There is sufficient grace given them to bring them to see their impotency. But how do you prove this? The natural man commonly is too preiant of his ability; Dicere solet humana superbia (saith Austin) si scissem, fecissem. What was Paul's meaning when he said of himself, 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 he that is dead in sin, is nothing sensible of this his sinful condition. But howsoever, surely grace revealed only hath no congruity to such a work, as to bring a man to see his impotency; for what greater grace in the kind of revelation than the word of God? let this word testify, that a man is shaped in wickedness, and in sin conceived; and that he is dead in sin. Is this sufficient to make him see his impotency? Is the hearing of God's word sufficient to make him believe it? why then is it not sufficient to take away men's blindness? and why then doth not every one that hears it, cease to be blind; and consequently, cease to be lame, and deaf; yea, and cease to be dead also? Nay, which is more, suppose a Physician discovers a man to be in a dangerous estate, when he dreams of nothing less, and suppose the party believes it upon his word; yet here-hence it followeth not, that he seeth the dangerous estate wherein he is, until he hath some feeling of it. So likewise, if he should believe the word, telling him that he is unable to do any thing that is good; yet he shall not be said to see it, till he hath some feeling of it: and whence can this feeling proceed, but from some principle of life that must be shed into his soul, that he may have a feeling of that miserable estate wherein he is by nature; otherwise though upon supposition he should believe it in God's word, yet he should not see it in himself. Further, you say, It is sufficient to stir him up to seek for help, and strength, and life, in him where it is to be found. A strange conceit, that a man should seek for life, whereas if he hath not life he is dead; and was it ever known that a dead man sought for life? well Martha might seek for the restoring of life to her dead brother Lazarus, but surely Lazarus himself, being dead, neither did, nor could seek for life. A man that hath life, may be said to labour for life; that is, to hold it, when he is in danger of losing life: but for a dead man to seek for life is more than miraculous; for it is utterly impossible. When the Angel came down into the Pool of Bethesda, the poor cripple had never a whit the more sufficiency to enter in, had his heart been as lame to desire as his body to go, notwithstanding that he saw so good an opportunity, he should make no more haste to desire the benefit, than his body could to enjoy it. Again, no man seeks for that he desires not; neither can he desire aught, unless he 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 think you? But, by that which follows, it seems 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 he loves, and accounts precious: Therefore this stirring up seems to be nothing but persuasion and exhortation. Now this, as Austin long ago delivered, Doctrinae generalitate comprehenditur; and we willingly grant, that the word preached doth equally exhort all that hear 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 performs its part, in exhortation to faith, to repentance, to prayer: but the Pharisees despised this, and so do most; and God is blameless. But of any power that they have to believe, repent, and pray, upon the doing whereof they should obtain life, yourself are content to say nothing at all; but keep yourself unto general phrases, which are very apt to deceive us; and this is the course not only of them that are in love with their own errors; but with good men also, when out of a desire to justify God, and not content with that simplicity of satisfaction which is laid forth unto us in holy Scripture, and seems harsh to flesh and blood, making them cry out, Durus est hic sermo, they shape unto themselves other courses, more convenient (as they think) to give satisfaction; yet not so much unto themselves, as unto others: but all in vain; for flesh and blood will receive no satisfaction in the plain 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 he declares himself, to offer means 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 sin, and to peace. To the Gentiles God gave the works of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts; to reveal the knowledge of God to them, to teach them to do the things of the Law, to judge of them that do amiss, and thereby be brought to condemn 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 withal that cometh into this world. From whence also it was, that God vouchsafed heavenly dreams and visions even to the Gentiles, That he might withdraw them from their sins, and hide their pride, and save their souls from the pit. But because this light alone did not prevail with the Gentiles, as to bring them to the knowledge of God in Christ, therefore it pleased God in the fullness of time to send the preaching of the Gospel amongst them; and in the mean time, not to judge them nor condemn them for their not believing in Christ, of whom they had not heard; nor for transgressing the Law of works, which they had not received; but only for sinning against the law of nature, which was written in their hearts, and expounded to them daily by the works of Creation and Providence, and sealed up to them by particular amplification, partly by their Consciences accusing or excusing, Rom. 2. 15. partly by dreams and visions, Job 33. 15, 16.  
To the Jews 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 carnal Israel; nor to leave them without excuse; but to purge them, to humble them, and to prove them, and to do them good in the latter end. And when these ends were not attained, he complains he had used these means in vain: which plainly argueth his first and chiefest intent was to heal, and not to harden. In fullness of time God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn it, or any thing in it; but that the world might be saved through him: implying, that even that part of the world which is condemned for refusing of Christ, it was not God's chiefe intent to send Christ to procure their condemnation, but their salvation rather. If they should plead their condemnation to be unjust, for unbeleese; because they were not able to believe, 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 darkness rather than light: men chose rather to cleave to their sinful estates and ways of darkness, than to follow the light of the means of grace, which might have brought them on forward to believe in Christ. Again, when Christ lived here in the world, and was the Minister of Circumcision, and so might speak and do some thing as man; yet as man he went not to do his own will, but the will of his Father who sent him: and yet, how willing and earnest was he to gather Jerusalem under his wings; even his wings in which lay healing and salvation? A sign 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 do belong unto thy peace! doth he not intimate, that God had even to that day carried thoughts of peace unto them; and accordingly to send them means 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 believed not in Christ: Which argueth, that the Spirit did not only persuade them to believe in Christ; but did convince them also that it was their sin, that they did not attain to believe on him. Now, the Spirit of God moveth to nothing, but what he knoweth to be according to the will of God: And therefore the Spirit bears witness, the will of God is, the world of unbelievers shall not be shut out from Christ, if they shut not out themselves through unbelief.  
Still you proceed to prove that which no man denies: namely, 
Examine.  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 God's purpose. Otherwise it were a very wild expression to say, that, God ordained that obedience and repentance should be the condition of God's ordination: Or, that God purposed that obedience and repentance should be the condition of God's purpose. Yet, by the way, I desire to know whether you exclude faith? If you do, what ground have you to prove that God ever purposed that any of Adam's posterity, coming to ripeness 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 years, should not believe 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 believeth and repenteth, shall be saved; Whosoever believeth not and repenteth not, shall be damned. One thing I had almost forgotten: In the former Section you spoke 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 turn 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 own opinion. Howsoever, your third reason is drawn from the end which God aimed at in offering means 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 sin, and to peace. I am content, first, to consider what you say; secondly, how you prove, who ever said, that God offered means of salvation to any to this end, that he might harden them? Means of grace were never (that I know of) called means of obduration. Hardening followeth hereupon by accident; but means of grace harden not. But when means of grace are offered, the corruption of man's heart, uncorrected by the spirit of regeneration, is apt to suggest carnal considerations, such as are apt to make a man obstinately stand out against them. The motion that Israel made to Sihon, to pass through his Country, hardened him not; but the fear 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 fear, but moving him according to that projecting disposition wherein he found him. And mark how Cajetan commenteth upon these words, Utramque hominis partem (spiritum & cor, hoc est, superiorem & inferiorem) malè dispositum à Deo, intellige negative penes dona gratuita, positiuè 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 go; this was not that that hardened him; but his own pride, superstition, and covetousness: Neither did God's judgements harden him; for it is divers times signified, that when he found himself eased, than he hardened 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 God's judgements; yet, notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, but that when God offers the means of grace to many, he doth it with a purpose to harden their hearts; if so be he entertains any such purpose at all, as yourself grants he doth; for God's purposes are eternal and immutable. As for your qualification of it, by saying, He doth not offer means of grace, in the first place, to harden; It is a strange expression, whereof, I am persuaded, you are not able to give any account; but, hand over head, cast out such a phrase as seems agreeable to your Tenet. For, consider I pray, this first place you speak 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 means: but, neither obduration is a sit means to salvation, nor salvation a sit means to obduration. Neither can it be in execution; for, in execution salvation is not found at all, but only obduration, in the men of the world you speak 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 Proofs come near the making of this good, as we shall see in due place. In the mean time, I disprove it thus; No wise man doth chiefly intend that which he means not to bring to pass at all: Now, God doth purpose to harden them, as yourself confess, though not chiefly: but God doth not purpose to save them; for, if he did, who could hinder him? This is the foul blemish of your opinion; plainly denying God's omnipotency, as Austin long ago 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 himself of this imputation; I would gladly be acquainted with any other man's inventions also. As for the other end, impugned by you, to wit, to leave them without excuse; that, indeed, we grant may more commodiously be accounted an end intended by God than the former: neither do you deny it to be intended by God, only you say, it is not chiefly intended by him; yet this is such a thing as God brings to pass, to wit, their unexcusablenesse; but their repentance he never brings to pass: and is it fit to say, that God chiefly intends that which shall never come to pass, as he well knows, rather than that which infallibly shall come to pass, and that by his procurement, as himself well knows? 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 works of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts, to reveal the knowledge of God to them, to teach them to do the things of the Law, to judge them that do amiss, and thereby to be brought to condemn themselves doing the same things; to lead them to repentance, to move them to seek after the Lord. Like as it were not fit to say, that God giveth us his word to this end, that he might reveal himself unto us, (for so I had rather say, than to say he reveals the knowledge of himself unto us; because, the very giving of his word is the revealing of himself unto us:) In like sort, it is not fit to say, that, To the Gentiles God gave the works of Creation and Providence, and his Law written in their hearts, to reveal himself unto them; for, like as the word in its kind, so the works 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as afterwards he did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as chrysostom hath observed long ago. 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 God's intention, to signify what God did intend in the first place, or chiefly; and what in the next, or not chiefly. Again, all this, as touching his not revealing himself unto the world, is rather subservient to the end, impugned by you, to wit, the leaving them without excuse, then opposite thereunto; for, had not God in some sort revealed himself unto them, they had not been left without excuse; neither had there been any place for hardening them to resist God's 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 we are not wel-grounded in the way that we take, no marvel if we multiply expressions, that when some fail us, we may take hold of other. Sure I am, it is apt to confound the judgement of him that, in the search of truth, shall address himself to examine it. Now, that God did not at all intent their repentance, I have already proved; for had he intended it, it should come to pass, he would have given it them, seeing it cannot be had without God's gift, as the Scripture testifies, 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Acts 5. 31. & 11. 18. and as Austin long ago hath expressed it, contra Julian. lib. 3. cap. 4. Quantam libet praebuerit pationtiam, nisi Deus dederit, quis aget poenitentiam? But we 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 carried, as if it were nothing less 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 he intends it shall be man's 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, he brings none to repentance but his Elect, according to that of Austin, contra Jul. Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Istorum neminem (saith he, 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 Jews than of the Gentiles; and Acts 17. 20. the Apostle doth clearly signify, 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 he admonisheth all men every where to repent. And in reason, faith and repentance are 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 moral conversation, and for the politic government of the world, lest otherwise all things should run to disorder and confusion? And, as Austin saith, that the means of grace are granted to some, ut proficiant thereby, ad exteriorem vitae emendationem, quo mitiùs puniantur.  
Secondly, Gods leading to repentance, in that place, is attributed to the goodness of God, which is showed in his patience and long-suffering; as if it signified no more than giving way unto repentance.  
Thirdly, take it as rigorously as you will, it cannot signify more than God performs by his word, and preaching of the Gospel: For, can you imagine that God performs more by his works in leading men unto repentance, than by his word? Now, Gods leading to repentance by his word, is but his admonishing them to repent; Acts 17. 30. Now he admonisheth all men every where to repent. And here-hence it follows not, that God doth will their repentance any otherwise then voluntate praecepti, not voluntate propositi, or beneplaciti; for if he did, then must he needs give them the grace of repentance. Yet, I confess, in this voluntas praecepti is included voluntas propositi, in some sense; which yet nothing serves your turn, though some equivocation makes it seem plausible, taking it hand over head in the general; for it signifies withal, that it is the will of God's good pleasure that they ought to repent, and it is their duty to repent: But there is much difference between these two Propositions, It's my good pleasure that it shall be your duty to repent; and, It is my good pleasure that you shall repent, and therefore I will give you the grace of repentance. As for the second place of importance, drawn out of Job 33. vers. 15, 16, 17. of God's providence in vouchsafing heavenly dreams and visions unto the Gentiles, that he might withdraw them from their sins, and hide their pride, and save their souls from the pit: This likewise, in two respects, is nothing for the purpose: For, first, this is spoken of such a time as wherein there was no partition-wall, as afterwards was erected, between the Jews and Gentiles; and therefore you do not well to apply this unto the Gentiles, in distinction from the Church of God: for, was not Job, and such like, in those days, of the Church of God? doth not God send his friends unto him, that he might sacrifice for them, God himself promising to accept it? Secondly, you are to prove, that God doth intend the repentance of those in whom he doth not effect repentance: But Elihu, in Job, speaks of God intending the repentance in those in whom he doth effect repentance; as it appears, Vers. 16, & 23, 24, 25. and yet I deny not but God may intend a kind of repentance even in the wicked; to wit, exteriorem vitae emendationem, as Austin speaks; and so deliver them from judgement temporal, and make also their damnation more tolerable. Here you pass over from God's natural providence to a more gracious providence, but not with a right foot; as when you say, that because this light alone did not so far prevail with the Gentiles, as to bring them to the knowledge of God in Christ; Therefore it pleased God, in the fullness of time, to send the preaching of the Gospel amongst them: You should have said rather, Because this light alone could not prevail: but so, perhaps, you had much prejudiced your own Tenet. I say, you should have rather said so; seeing you undertake to give the cause of this interchange of the providence of God: For, to say only, It did not prevail; is not to allege any tolerable cause thereof; especially, considering that you make the blame hereof wholly to lie upon man's wilfulness: for by the same reason you might introduce a further course of Gods more gracious providence to bring men unto repentance, than any he hath undertaken yet; for even the preaching of the Gospel, thereby admonishing men to repent, doth not prevail with most. There is another incongruity, as when you say, This light of nature alone did not prevail; as if you would imply, that the light of grace alone doth prevail: which, I presume, you will confess, is notoriously untrue; and that not only illumination of the mind, but the affection of the heart by the finger of God is necessarily required to bring men unto repentance. As for that which followeth therein, I do most willingly and freely concur with you, acknowledging that God condemns none for not believing in Christ, of whom they had not heard; nor for transgressing the Law of Moses, which they had not received; but only for sinning against the Law of nature, which was written in their hearts: For I verily believe, that where there is no Law, there is no transgression. But, I presume, you deliver this only in reference to men of ripe years, and do not concur with Arminians, in maintaining that all infants dying in their infancy are saved. Thus, from God's providence concerning the Gentiles, I come unto his providence concerning the Jews.  
2. Of the sufficiency of outward means of grace granted unto the Jews, to bring them unto repentance, no man makes question: yet seeing that among them, all were not precious, but many were found vile enough, and reprobate silver, according to that, Rom. 9 6. All are not Israel which are of Israel; and that of the Prophet, Esay 10. 22. Though the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, yet but a remnant shall be saved: and how few were those represented by the basket of good figs, Jer. 24. 2. in comparison to those other naughty figs, which could not be eaten they were so evil? That God did intend the salvation and repentance of those to whom he never gave repentance and salvation, I hold it as impossible for you or any man to prove, as to pull God down from the throne of his omnipotency, or disrobe him of his immutable perfection: For, unless God continues to intend their repentance and salvation, even when they are damned, he must be mutable; and if he did will and desire their salvation, the reason why they failed of salvation must needs be, because God was not able to procure it. I never met yet with any other then vile shifts, to avoid these consequences, both in Arminius, and others that follow him. But consider we your proofs: nay, what proof do you bring to prove the point you undertake, namely, that God doth not only intend their repentance, but that in the first place; and yet you cannot deny but that this, which you say God intends in the first place, never comes to pass: whereas the other, which God intends (you confess) though in a latter place, doth come to pass. But because I think it were absurd to conceive, that God intends their repentance whom he purposeth to harden, lest they should convert, and God should heal them; therefore I am willing to consider what you bring to the contrary. Your first place is out of Deut. 8. 16. Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, to humble thee, and to prove thee, and that he might do thee good in thy latter end. That of humbling thee, Junius and Piscator reads thus, ut affligeret te; belike, partly in reference to that which followeth, and to prove thee; (for as much as temporal humiltation hath more congruity to the proving of them, than spiritual; as whereby they humble themselves, and which followeth the proving of them, rather than goeth before it;) partly in reference to the third Verse, going before, where it is said more at full, Therefore he humbled thee, and made thee hungry, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know it; that he might teach thee, that man liveth not by bread only. By which words we may gather a fair interpretation of that you allege: If it be spoken of humiliation spiritual, thus, He fed thee with manna to humble thee; that is, to teach thee to humble thyself: and so indeed his providence, providing alike to them all, did equally teach them all to humble themselves. But did God intend that every one should, de facto, humble himself? why then did he not give them eyes to see, and ears to hear, and an heart to perceive, as Deut. 29. 4. Moses tells them plainly, saying, Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. I deny not but God did manifest, by the course of his providence towards them, what he did require and deserve at their hands, namely, that they should humble themselves to walk with the Lord their God; and the phrase, to humble thee, applied even to the most carnal, may have a fair construction, that thou shouldst be humbled, or, humble thyself, understanding it ex officio; for hereby he did manifest that this was their duty, answerable to God's proceedings with them: and yet further, considering that he representeth his own gracious proceedings with them, by the proceedings of an earthly father with his children, Verse 5. Know therefore in thine heart, that as a man nurtureth his son, so the Lord thy God nurtureth thee; no marvel if he expresseth his affections and desires towards them, suitable to the desires and affections of an earthly father, who being not able effectually to procure their amendment, yet desires it. And this is God's usual course, to express himself in such language, per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But, shall we hereupon take liberty to build doctrines, as touching the nature of God, as if that which is figuratively uttered were properly delivered? He proved them all, I confess, and upon the probation some proved good silver, and others no better than dross; and thereupon he did good to the one in their latter end, and not unto the other: Neither did he ever purpose, that good in their latter end should redound unto any, but as they should be humbled: wherein, humiliation is made the condition of doing them good, not of God's purpose or intention: And withal, God gave unto those that were truly mortified, that is, truly humbled, hearts to perceive, eyes to see, and ears to hear; but he gave not the like grace unto all. And look what is said of God's intention to humble them, the same may be said of God's intention to purge them, according to that Ezek. 24. 13. Because I would have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness, till I have caused my wrath to light upon thee: I would have purged thee, voluntate praecepti, represented by the means used in his word; which failing, he resolveth to take another course, even by judgements in his works, meaning to go on in avenging the quarrel of his Covenant, Levit. 26. 25. until their uncircumcised hearts were humbled, Levit. 26. 41. purposing so at length to effect it; as he professeth, Ezek. 22. 15. saying, I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the countries, and will cause thy filthiness to cease from thee. Yet this is not so much by the power of afflictions, as by the power of his Spirit, Esay 57 17. For his wicked covetousness I was angry with him, and have smitten him: I hid me, and was angry; yet he went away and turned after the way of his heart: I have seen his ways, and I will heal them. But, when these ends are not attained, God complains (you say) He had used these means in vain. Indeed, Jer. 2. 20. he saith, Of old have I broken thy yoke, and burst thy bonds, and thou saidst, I will no more transgress; but, like an harlot, thou runnest on all high hills, and under every green tree. But this is rather a conviction of their unfaithfulness, in not keeping Covenant with him, than a complaint: But be it a complaint, as such complaints are attributed unto God, like as men complain when they cannot help; but take heed we do not here-hence infer, that God is like man, not able to prevent cross events contrary to his expectation. Neither doth he there say, He had used these means in vain; for, before he used them, he knew at least (you will not deny it) what would be the issue; and no wise man, I think, will set himself to do that which he knows will prove vain, in respect of the end intended by him. But Jer. 10. 30. the Lord saith thus, I have smitten your children in vain, they have received no correction; and this plainly argueth (as you say) his first and chiefest intent was to heal, and not to harden. It is true, upon a superficial scanning of the place, it seemeth that God intended to heal them; but of any comparison made between two ends intended, the one chiefly, the other secondarily, not the least glimpse of evidence. But I deny that he intended healing at all in this case; for, if he did, that being his own work, why did he not heal them? Will you say, Because they would not receive instruction, but went after the way of their own hearts still? This is a vain answer; for this is no impediment unto God; as I prove first by clear evidence of Scripture, Esay 57 17. I have smitten him, and yet he went after the way of his heart; nevertheless mark what follows, I have seen his ways, and I will heal them. Secondly, by clear demonstration of reason; to heal them, is to bring them to repentance: Now, will you say that God is ready to perform this, provided that they do repent? If they repent already, what need is there of God's grace to bring them to repentance? and what is it to prerequire repentance on man's part, to this end that God may give them repentance? as if man must first repent, and then God will give him repentance. But some will say, What then is the meaning of the Lord, saying, I have smitten your children in vain, they have received no correction? I answer, we are to conceive God's corrections to tend to this, according to that of Peter, knowing that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation: or, God speaks this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the manner of earthly parents, seeking their children's amendment by correction, but not obtaining it. And this being an end of correction in God's children; in the wicked this end is not obtained. And what difference is there between means natural and means moral, but this, means natural have power to effect their ends, means moral are to admonish moral agents of their duty to do this or that? and so the ends of God's punishment is, that by them we should learn to amend our lives; as is signified in the Collects of our Church. In a word, natural means tend to ends that shall be thereupon; moral means tend to ends that should be; and each are usually said to be in vain, when the end, according to each kind, is not obtained. God sent his Son into the world, not that he should condemn the world, but that the world should be saved by him. Most true; for he sent his Son into the world, to die for the world; and to die for them is to save them, and not to condemn them. But, for whom did he send his Son into the world, to die? Surely, for the world of Elect; even for those whom God the Father had given him: Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to all them that thou hast given him, Joh. 17. 2. And if we consider the world, in distinction from those whom God hath given him, he plainly professeth, that as he did not pray for them, Joh. 17. 9 so he did not sanctify himself for them, Verse 19 that is, offer himself up upon the Cross; as Maldonate acknowledgeth to be the joint interpretation of all the Fathers whom he had read: And yourself have but erst confessed, that God did not (Joh. 3. 17.) give the world unto Christ, by him of grace to be bought (or brought) unto salvation. Undoubtedly, he sent not Christ into the world at all to procure any man's condemnation: neither doth Christ procure any man's condemnation; although infidelity and disobedience to the word of Christ procures the condemnation of many. And I wonder what moved you so to speak, as to imply it was God's intent (though not chief intent) to send Christ into the world to procure the condemnation of any. At length we are come to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the point controverted between us, in the words following; If they should plead their condemnation to be unjust, for unbelief, because they were not able to believe, 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 darkness rather than light; men chose rather to cleave to their sinful estates, and ways of darkness, than to follow the light of the means of grace, which might have brought them on to believe in Christ. First, let us consider the Text itself, than your interpretation and accommodation thereof. Our Saviour doth plainly derive the cause of their unbelief, or disapprobation of the Gospel, signified in these words, They loved darkness rather than light; I say, the cause of this our Saviour refers to their works of darkness, expressed in these words, Because their deeds were evil. The full meaning whereof, I take to be this; The works wherein they delight are evil; that is, works of darkness; and therefore no marvel if they hate the light, and prefer darkness before it: 
— Pulchra Lavernae, Da mihi fallere, da justum sanctumque videri.  
Noctem peccatis, & fraudibus objice nubem.   
But give me leave to make an honest motion: As it becomes us to take notice of this cause mentioned here, so it becomes us nothing less to take notice of other causes mentioned in other places. Now, another cause of unbelief is mentioned Joh. 5. 44. and that of the same general nature with this, but expressed in more special manner by our Saviour, thus, How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Yet this is not all the cause of unbelief which the Scripture commends unto us; for the Apostle also takes notice of Satan's illusions, in this work of unbelief, 2 Cor. 4. 3, 4. If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: Whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded, etc. And because it is in the power of God to correct this delight we take in evil works, and to deliver us from the illusions of Satan, if it please him to show such mercy towards us; and when he doth not, he is said to harden us; The hand of God in this our Saviour takes, notice of, as the cause of unbelief in man, Joh. 12. 39, 40. Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias saith again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. Like as Moses of old told the Jews, saying, Deut. 29. 2, 3. Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land: The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And this he doth even then when his purpose was to reprove them for their natural incorrigibleness; for men sin never the less obstinately, because God denies them grace, but rather so much the more obstinately; because (as Austin well saith) Libertas sine gratia non est libertas, sed contumacia: and, consequently, they are never a whit the less faulty, though it be not in their power to correct that corruption of their hearts, whence this faultiness proceeds. And hereupon the Apostle gives way to the same objection, in effect, which you propose; for, having concluded that God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, he gives place to such an objection; Thou wilt say then, Why doth he yet complain? for who hath resisted his will? and answers it not as our Saviour doth; for our Saviour proposed no such objection to be answered, as you feign, the Apostle doth plainly, and in express terms. Our Saviour discovers the immediate cause of unbelief, to wit, because their hearts were set on evil; as it was sometimes with the Colossians, Col. 1. 21. yet because it was not in their power to change their hearts, but God alone; who will change them, through mercy, in whom he will; and will not change them in others, but harden them. Hereupon the Apostle gives way to an objection, in a matter more sublime than yours, as before mentioned, and answers it in this manner, O man, who art thou that disputest with God? Shall the thing form say to him that form it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power, etc. which is an answer to such a question as this, Why doth God complain of us for that which proceeds from the hardness of our hearts, which God alone can cure, but will not; but rather, by denying us mercy, continues to harden us?  
But now, let us consider the interpretation and accommodation of this place, to the plea devised by you: The reason, you say, why men loved darkness rather than light, is, because men chose rather to cleave to their sinful estates, and ways of darkness, than to follow the light of the means of grace, which might have brought them on to believe in Christ. It is great pity that by our own phrasiologies we should raise unto ourselves a mist, whereby we should be the more unable to discern the truth of God. Suppose the Paraphrase were both sound in itself, and congruous to the Text; yet give way, I pray, to such a question in the second place, What was the reason that they chose rather to cleave to their sinful estates, and ways of darkness, than to follow the light of the means of grace? If you answer any thing but that of our Saviour, Joh. 12. 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias saith again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them; I will not cease to pursue you, until you come to this; and withal, put you to give a reason, why you should not take hold of this answer of our Saviour Joh. 12. 39 as of that Joh. 3. 19 especially, considering that if a question were moved, Why some chose rather to follow the light of the means of grace, than to cleave to their sinful estates, and ways of darkness? I doubt not but you would forth with answer, Because God had mercy on them, and gave them hearts to know Christ, and to believe in him, 1 Joh. 5. 20. Phil. 1. 29. And seeing God doth not show the like favour to others, to show them the like mercy, which is, in Scripture phrase, to harden, Rom. 9 18. and Rom. 11. 7. or, not to give hearts to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, Deut. 29. 4. why should we not say plainly, that whereas the one takes a right way, it is because God shows mercy towards them, to give them so much grace; and whereas the other takes not the right, but the wrong way, it is because God hardens them, in denying the like mercy and grace to them? like as our Saviour expressly signifieth also, Joh. 8. 47. He that is of God heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. But if any man shall inquire, What then moved our Saviour to give this reason why men loved darkness rather than light, to wit, this, because their deeds were evil? I answer, he gives the immediate cause why they loved not the light; that is, they had no mind to hear the doctrine of our Saviour: and that was, in respect of the convincing nature of it, and therein, like unto light, which makes every thing to appear and be manifest, according to its proper hue; whereas in darkness all things are confounded; according to that Ephes. 5. 13.  
Now they who brought ill consciences along with them, no marvel if they were quickly weary of our Saviour's company: A pregnant example whereof we have Joh. 8. 7. For when our Saviour said unto them who brought unto him a woman taken in adultery, Let him that is among you without sin cast the first stone at her. Ver. 9 When they heard this, being accused by their own conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even to the last. So that, indeed, the reason given by our Saviour Joh. 3. 19 is not so much a reason why they believed not, as why they liked not to hear him. Many did endure the hearing of him, yet were not brought to believe in him. Austin sometimes proposed such a question as this; Why do not men do this or that? As for example, Why do they not facere quod justum est? and he answers, Quia nolunt. But if you ask me, Quare nolunt? Imus in longum, saith Austin. Yet, sine prejudicio diligentioris inquisitionis, he takes upon him to answer it thus, Vel quia latet, vel quia non delectat. But mark what he brings in upon the back of this; Sed ut innotescat quod latebat, & suave fiat quod minime delectabat, gratia Dei est quae hominum adjuvat voluntates. But the face of your discourse tends to this, as if you were of opinion, that every natural man hath so sufficient grace, as to choose to follow the light of the means of grace, rather than to cleave to his sinful estate, and ways of darkness: and that not only if he will, for if he will, the greatest part of the work is done already; but that his will is indifferently of itself inclinable to the one as well as to the other: which is so dangerous an opinion, and so opposite to the doctrine of God's word, representing the miserable corruption of man's heart, and the peculiar power of God's regenerating grace, that you are loath to break out in plain terms to profess as much. Lastly, whereas you say, The light of the means of grace, had it been followed, might have brought them to believe in Christ; You will not say, upon the following hereof they had been brought, but they might have been brought to believe. By following the light of the means of grace, I understand a continuing to hear the word of God: Now, it is well known that many, nay most, in all probability, though they continue all their days to be hearers; yet, as the Apostle speaks of some, so may we say of them, They are ever learning, and never come to the knowledge, at least to any saving knowledge, of the truth. On the contrary, Saul persecuting the Church of God, even in the way, marching furiously, Jehu like, against the Professors of the Gospel, it pleased God to call him, and convert him. We know, saith Austin, that God hath converted the wills of men, not only aversas à verae side, said & adversas verae sidei. So that even opposition to grace God can cure, if it please him; and regenerate a man to bring him to faith and repentance, if it please him; and if he doth not, certainly the reasons can be no other, then because he will not; and that to his own glorious ends, which is reason enough for the Creator to do what he will; his wisdom in referring all to congruous ends, being his justice; as Aquinas acknowledgeth. Christ was willing and earnest to gather Jerusalem under his wings; and no marvel, he was bound to do all he could, as the Minister of Circumcision, to save his brethren; for he was made under the Law, and was bound to love not only his brethren, but his enemies also, as well as we are bound to show the like love to all: But to infer here-hence, that therefore it was the will of God to have healed and saved that part of Jerusalem that would not, is a liberty which affection to a cause may take, but no reason doth justify it. Like as our Saviour in his ministry, so the Prophets in theirs, desired to do as much good as they could to all: but here-hence it followeth not, that it was the will of God to convert all whom the Prophets desired to convert. And as our Saviour by his tears, so the Prophets by their tears, did manifest their desire to bring them to repentance, 
Jer. 13. 17.  to do the uttermost of their power to bring them hereunto: but will you infer here-hence, that God also did desire to bring them to repentance? As for the phrase of carrying thoughts of peace towards them, that is general, and therefore ambiguous; and to what specialty you do refer it, I know not: Yet, according to the Scripture sense thereof, it is nothing correspondent to your opinion. For God's thoughts of peace, in Scripture phrase, towards his people, consist not only in affording means, but in making them effectual also to the procuring of such a gracious disposition in his people, as to make them fit for the mercies which God hath resolved to confer upon them; as Jer. 29. 10. But thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babel, I will visit you, and perform my good promise towards you, and cause you to return to this place. Verse 11. For I know the thoughts that I have thought towards you, saith the Lord, even the thoughts of peace, and not of trouble, to give you an end, and your hope. Verse 12. Then shall ye cry unto me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hear you. Ver. 13. And ye shall seek me, and find me, because ye shall seek me with all your heart. Ver. 14. And I will be found of you, saith the Lord, and I will turn your captivity. And as for the former phrase, in saying, It was the will of God to have healed them: In proportion to the place now alleged out of Jeremy, it may be granted, that God would have healed them; to wit, in case they would have converted unto God with all their heart, and with all their soul; as our Saviour signifies, Joh. 12. 40. and that out of Esay 6. and like as God himself expressly professeth, Deut. 4. 29. If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. But is it, think you, in any unregenerate man's power to seek God with all their heart, and with all their soul? I think this is no more in the power of a man unregenerate, than it is in his power to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul: Now this is expressly attributed to the circumcision of the heart wrought by God, Deut. 30. 6. When you add, that the will of God is, the world of unbelievers shall not be shut out from Christ, if they shut not out themselves through unbelief: This assertion of yours is such as no man, that I know, denies: And it is as true of the Elect as of the Reprobate; namely, that they should be utterly shut out of Christ, if they should shut out themselves by small unbelief; for, undoubtedly, the word of God is true, that saith, Whosoever believeth, shall be saved; whosoever believeth not, shall be damned. But lest we should seem to be pleased with our own errors, let us speak distinctly, and keep ourselves from confusion: To be shut out of Christ, is, to be shut off from some benefit that is to be obtained by Christ. Now, if we speak of the benefit of forgiveness of sins, and of salvation; the truth is plain and distinct, that no man is bereft of salvation and forgiveness of sins by Christ, but through unbelief; and whosoever believeth not, is excluded from pardon and salvation by Christ. But is there no other benefit we obtain by Christ, besides forgiveness of sins and salvation? What think you of the gift of faith and repentance? are not those spiritual blessings which we obtain in Christ, and for Christ's sake? Ephes. 1. 3. If it be so, I pray consider, Is it handsome to say, that none is shut off from the gift of faith, but through unbelief? Certainly, unbelief is no tolerable cause why God should deny them the gift of faith, seeing all are in anbeleefe till God bestows upon them the gift of faith; neither can it be expected a man should believe, till God gives him the gift of faith, if so be faith be indeed the gift of God, and not the work of man's freewill without any gift of God. As for your discourse, though it tends to a conclusion, which, rightly understood, no man denies in one sense; nor will any wise man affirm in another sense: I think fit to consider that also. The Spirit, you say, convinceth the world of sin, because they believed not in Christ; but the Spirit of God moveth to nothing, but what he knoweth to be according to the will of God. Let all this be granted; yet nothing followeth here-hence but that it was the will of God that the world should be convinced of sin, in not believing in Christ; which no intelligent man will deny. But yet, by your leave, it is no good consequence to infer here-hence, that, therefore it is the will of God that the world of unbelievers shall not be shut out from Christ, if they shut not out themselves by unbelief. Therefore, we grant both the antecedent and the consequent: yet, by the way, as touching that which you affirm, that God sent his Spirit to convince the world of sin, because they believe not in Christ; this is a truth, we confess; but, perhaps, we may be to seek of the right accommodation hereof: for, where is the world convinced of sin, in not believing in Christ? or, to whom? I grant, to all believers the world of unbelievers is by the Spirit of God convinced of sin, in not believing in Christ; but are they convinced hereof to themselves, and in their own consciences? I grant this also, as often as it pleaseth God to convert them by the power of his Spirit; then they are convicted of the sinful nature of their own unbelief: Yet be it granted, that an unbeliever continuing in unbelief may be, and is, sometimes convicted of the sinful nature of his unbelief; because the Apostle saith of an heretic, that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ yet, that is not till after one and another admonition: nevertheless, this makes nothing for you, unless you maintain that God's Spirit convicts them also of this, that it is in their power to believe; which power of believing you seem to attribute to a man unregenerate, though you are loath to speak plainly, in expressing so much. And you seem to intimate such an Argument as this; They sin in not believing; therefore it is in their power to believe: But you may as well infer, that we sin in not keeping God's Law; therefore it is in our power to keep it. Or, if you dispute thus, The world is convicted of sin in not believing; therefore they have power to believe: You may as well dispute thus; The regenerate are convicted that they sin, in that their flesh lusteth against the Spirit; therefore it is in their power to keep the flesh from lusting against the Spirit.  
Besides, when men quench the motions of the Spirit, and persecute 
Answ.  the Ministers of the word, how can they be said, in so doing, to resist the Holy Ghost, if the Holy Ghost went not about such a work, as to bring them to Christ, and to life by him? Could they be said to resist the Holy Ghost, if the works of the Holy Ghost had never striven with them to work this work in them? Thus than you see, those three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they all from heaven bear witness of this point in hand, concerning the truth hereof: The Father, by the end of the creation of his works and providence; the Son, by his end of enlightening the world, and of his coming into it to die for it; the Holy Ghost, by his inward wrestling in the hearts of men, do all of them really proclaim, that it is the will and good pleasure of God, as to save the Elect, not according to their own works, but his grace; so likewise to save the world of mankind, if their works hinder not his good will towards them. Thus you see also a sweet harmony between the Purpose, and the Covenant or Promise, and the Providence of God: This Purpose willeth life unto the world, upon the condition of their obedience and repentance: the Promise, in the Covenant of Works, offereth life unto them likewise upon the same condition: the Providence of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, provideth and applieth several means of life unto the world, upon the same terms. And there is in every godly man, renewed after the Image of God, a just concord betwixt his Purpose, his Covenant or Promise, and his Performance: So is there here the like in God. You may read what Gods purpose is toward the world, by his Covenant made with the world; and you may see both what his Covenant with them, and purpose of them is, by his performance and axecution of them both, in his actual providence, in the fullness of time. If you ask how God may be said to purpose any thing that is not effectually accomplished? I answer, the act of Gods will, which he is pleased to put forth, is always accomplished: There is no good thing possible to be, though it never come to pass, (as that all men should in all things obey the word of God) but God passeth upon it some act of his will; he at least approveth it to be good, and good it is, though it never come to pass: This act is not disappointed; for as he will prove it, so likewise doth he approve it. Doth God command this or that good duty to be done, which is not done? Yet that act of his will which he puts forth is done: as he willed to command it, so he did command it. Doth God purpose to give life to the world upon condition of obedience, and accordingly give means to help them to the performance of this obedience, so far as it is meet for them to do? Surely God performeth it on his part, although men perform it not on their part: their salvation is indeed disappointed, but not Gods will; who never willed to give salvation to them, but upon that condition.  
The motions of the Spirit which are quenched, are godly motions, in the way of admonition, persuasion, exhortation; and they 
Examine.  are quenched not only in the men of the world, but too often in the children of God; the flesh too often prevailing in their lustings against the spirit, whereby are quenched for a time the motions of the Spirit; that is, the regenerate part lusting against the flesh; and consequently, the motions also of the Spirit of God admonishing and inviting unto good, either by the hearing of the word, or by the observation of God's works. This work of moral motion and invitation is wrought sometimes with a purpose to work obedience conformable thereunto; sometimes with no such purpose; as often as God doth not make them effectual to the working of obedience, whether in the unregenerate or regenerate, for even these sometimes (yea, too oft) err from God's ways, and have their hearts hardened against his fear: for, if God had a purpose to make them effectual, who should hinder him? Who hath resisted his will? cui nullum humanum resist it arbitrium (saith Austin;) for, ex nolentibus volentes facit. Undoubtedly, moral invitations, if they be not yielded unto, are justly said to be resisted, to what end soever they be made, whether to convert them, or to leave them without excuse; even such an excuse as Austin speaks of, when he saith, Dicere solet humana suporbia, Si scissem, fecissem. I see no reason why you should deny the Elect to be saved according to their works; our Saviour doth manifest, Mat. 25. that they are so: Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you, etc. For I was an hungered, and you fed me, etc. and can it be denied, but that God rewardeth every man according to his works? I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the 
2 Tim. 4.  faith, saith Paul; Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. God is not unrighteous, to forget the labour of 
1 Thes. 1.  your love, etc. Look to yourselves, saith John, that we may not lose the things that we have done, but we may receive a full reward. Piscator, a precise Divine, spareth not to profess, that fides is causa salutis: They are not, I confess, causa meritoria, as sin is causa damnationis; but they are causae dispositivae, according to the Apostles phrase, God hath made us meet partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. Neither do I see any reason why you should oppose grace and good works, in the point of salvation, howsoever they are opposed in the point of justification: The place you point unto for proof, treats not of the salvation of glory, but of the salvation of grace, consisting in effectual 
2 Tim. 1 9  calling; as the Text itself manifesteth. Had you spoken plainly, as you might, and as sometimes you do, even in this Section, more than once; as when you say, God's Purpose willeth life to the world, upon the condition of their obedience and repentance, it would manifestly appear, that there was no reason to distinguish the Elect from the Reprobate, in this Purpose of God, seeing it equally passeth upon them both. For, undoubtedly, God's Purpose is not to give the Elect life, but upon condition of their obedience and repentance. And likewise, his Purpose was to condemn all, one as well as another, upon the condition of their disobedience and unrepentance. But, had you dealt thus plainly, than you would be driven to acknowledge another decree, which alone puts the difference between the Elect and the Reprobate; and that is, the decree of God to show mercy, in giving the grace of obedience and repentance unto the one; and of hardening, in denying the grace of obedience and repentance unto the other. But this plain-dealing had utterly marred the state of your present discourse, in this particular. Yet, to touch something by the way; How, I pray, doth God the Father, by the end of the Creation of his works and Providence, bear witness to this Point, that it is the will and good pleasure of God to save the Elect, not according to their own works, but his grace? Secondly, if God the Son died for the whole world, Reprobate and Elect, how doth this testify that only a few, called the Elect, should be saved by God's grace? Is there any greater grace than the grace of Redemption by the blood of Christ, which is both of a satisfactory nature for all sin, and of a meritorious nature to purchase all grace and all glory? And shall not God deal with Christ according to the exigence of his merits and satisfactions? whether they were meritorious and satisfactory so far of their own nature, or by the constitution of God, all is one. Last of all, as touching the motions of the Spirit, if they are no other than moral invitations, they tend to no other end then to bring all men alike unto salvation, in case they are obeyed; and to expose all alike unto condemnation, in case they are disobeyed. If we speak of other motions making the former effectual unto obedience and repentance, these being found only in the Elect, are documents of Gods will and purpose to save them to whom they are granted; and as manifest a document, that Gods will and purpose is not to save them to whom they are denied.  
As for the harmony you speak of, between God's Purpose and Covenant, herein is your error twofold: First, in that you apply this wholly to the world, to Reprobates; whereas it concerns, as I have showed, the Elect as well as the Reprobate; the reason whereof is, because it respects only the collating of salvation, and inflicting of condemnation, which have their course upon condition. But there is another work of God's Providence, concerning the giving or denying of grace for performing the condition of life: And this work is not performed upon any condition, but merely according to the good pleasure of God, in showing mercy to whom he will, and hardening whom he will. And, the Purpose of God for the execution of these is clearly absolute, without all colour of condition. And whereas you conceive this Purpose of God, thus absolute, concerns only the Elect, that is your second error: For, God doth not more absolutely grant the gift of obedience and repentance unto his Elect, than he doth deny it unto Reprobates; as I doubt not but will be made clearly to appear, if you should come to a Collation hereabout. But I do not think you have any purpose to deal upon this, but carry yourself in a way of your own, not exactly considered, wherein confusion, of things that are to be distinguished, doth afford you the best service. As for the third, which this harmony you speak of comprehends, to wit, the Providence of God, I left that out, because you shape to yourself such a Providence of God, as whereby God did provide for all men, in all ages, sufficient means of grace, to bring them to obedience and repentance: which seems to be the opinion of the Author who wrote the two books De vocatione Gentium. For the justification of which conceit, though Arminians nowadays rely much upon that Author, in this particular, I freely confess, I know no reason, nor colour of reason. As for the comparison you make between a godly regenerate man and God, you might as well have shaped it between many an honest heathen man and God. But you consider not a most momentous difference; man purposeth to do things upon conditions, the performance or not performance whereof he is not able to foresee, much less able to dispose of efficacy to perform the condition to whom he will, and to deny it to whom he will; all which is incident unto God, and casts us necessarily upon the acknowledgement of an absolute Purpose in God to perform this, as he thinks good; which is not to be found in man. Again, you conceive this Purpose and Covenant of God to be made only with the world, who will never perform it: Man enters upon no such Purposes and Covenants; but rather such, the conditions whereof are as soon performed as not performed. And I wonder you should swallow this comparison, as exact, not considering the foul disproportion that is found therein between God and man: But affection to our own opinion, I confess, is apt to abuse us, and make us take notice only of that which makes for us, not of that which makes much more against us.  
As for the Objection here inserted, in the Answer whereunto, you trouble yourself not a little, you might well have spared your pains, and answered in brief, that though it were very strange that any thing should not be accomplished which God doth will absolutely; yet, surely, it is nothing strange, that that should not be accomplished which God doth will to come to pass only upon a condition; for, the condition failing, there is no reason why we should expect the accomplishment thereof. And such is the will of God which here you propose concerning the world, namely, in willing that they shall be saved, on condition of their obedience and repentance; damned, in case of their disobedience and impenitency. Yet, it is not amiss to consider what you let fall in your Answer, to an Objection very needless, and which no wise man, amongst them who are adverse to you in this opinion, would frame; That act of Gods will (you say) which it pleaseth God to put forth, is always accomplished: I demand then, as touching this will of God whereby he wills life to the world upon their obedience and repentance, whether it be accomplished or no? If it be, than it is accomplished in their condemnation; for, certainly, it is not accomplished in their salvation. And to this effect, I presume, tends your answer in the next Section. That which follows, when you say, There is no good thing possible to be, though it never come to pass, (as that all men in all things should obey the word of God) but that God passeth upon it some act of his will; This, I say, is nothing to the purpose; and that for two reasons: First, because it proceeds of moral good; whereas the object 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rising from the consideration of God willing salvation to the world, upon their obedience and repentance, had not its course of good moral, which is man's duty; but of some good natural, which he should receive by way of reward. Secondly, accomplishment of a thing willed, consists not in the approving of it, but in bringing of it to pass; as all men know, by common notion. When as you say, as touching Bonum, that God as he will prove it, so he doth approve it; as if approving of it were for the present, and proving of it were for the time to come, is so wild an expression, that I cannot comprehend it. We use by proving a thing, to approve it as good; and not first approve it, and then prove it. As little to the purpose is that which followeth, as when you say, When God commands a duty, his will of command is accomplished: But, whereas God is said to will the thing that he commands, here ariseth a question, how that can be said to be willed by God, which most commonly is not accomplished? For, albeit the will of command is accomplished, by the commanding of this or that, yet Gods will of the thing commanded seems not to be accomplished, unless the thing willed by God be sometimes brought to pass. The truth is, your opinion seems to be, That God not only willeth the salvation of the world, upon the condition of their repentance, (for that is no more to will their salvation, than their damnation) but that God willeth and desireth their salvation absolutely, in as much as he willeth and desireth their repentance. I confess you do not in express terms profess as much; namely, that God willeth and desireth the repentance of Reprobates; yet hitherto you seem to tend, in this discourse of yours, though concerning this you say no more than this, That God gives means to help them to the performance of this obedience, so far as is meet for him: which while you profess, I doubt you understand not your own meaning; and therefore no marvel if others do not understand it: For, how far he doth help them, you express in a very uncertain manner; which is rather to conceal, than to discover and express your meaning. But I will endeavour to bolt it out. These means you speak of are either moral only, consisting in instructing them wherein this obedience doth consist, and urging them by persuasion thereunto; or, in affording, besides this, some efficacious operation of God's Spirit, to work them to this obedience. Now, this latter cannot be your meaning; for if this were afforded them, their obedience, certainly, would be wrought: but the world, of whom you speak, do never perform this obedience. Now, in granting the other, there is not so much evidence of God's will that they shall perform this obedience, as by the denying of this we have evidence, that his will is not that they shall perform this obedience. Again, in respect of means moral, can any be saved without the means of true faith and true repentance? I think you will not say they can: Then consider, have all men sufficient instruction unto the performance of true faith and true repentance? How will you be able to make this good? Hand over head, you say, God gives means to help them to the performance of this obedience, so far as is meet for him to do: yet, I am persuaded, you are not able to make this good, taking it according to the confuse generality wherein you express it. For, is it not meet for God to afford any Nation or particular persons his word and Gospel, as well as it is meet for him to afford it us? Nay, is it not as meet for God to afford any other person both the outward means, and the inward efficacious operation of his holy Spirit, to work them unto faith and true repentance, as well as by these means he hath been pleased to work us hereunto? This meetness, what is it but that which Schoolmen call, Justitia condecentiae, and which they profess doth accompany every action of God? So that had God afforded the same grace to others which he hath afforded unto us, he had carried himself therein meetly, that is, justly, justitia condecentiae. Again, had he denied the same grace to us which he hath denied unto others, he had herein also carried himself meetly, or decently, that is, justly, justitia condecentiae. I am sorry to observe from such good men's pens such illusions to have their course, to the obscuring of the grace of God, and his sovereignty of dispensing it to whom he will. This very air I find breathed forth in the writings of others, and it seems to me very probable, that they have derived it from hence.  
Besides, to clear this point more fully, the will of God towards 
Answ.  the world is put forth in a disjunct axiom; viz. either to give life unto the world, upon the condition of their obedience; or to inflict death, upon the condition of their disobedience. Now, as in a disjunct axiom the whole proportion is true, if either part be true; so the will put forth in a disjunct axiom is always accomplished, if either act be accomplished.  
But if it be objected, how may it appear this will of God to give life to the world, upon condition of their obedience, is serious and not pretended; since if he would he is able to give them such hearts as would cause them to obey him?  
I answer; That God willeth it seriously, appears manifestly by the declaration of his will already mentioned; viz. his Oath, his Covenant, yea, and the works of each Person in the Trinity, tending to this end, to give life to the world: all which it were blasphemy to think they were not done seriously. Doth the living God swear, and not swear in earnest? God forbid. Doth God enter into Covenant with his creature, and intent no performance of promise according to his Covenant? far be it from the just and holy God to do it, and from us to imagine it. Shall we think each Person in the Trinity slighteth the work of the salvation of mankind, because mankind slighteth to work out their salvation with the Trinity?  
But, besides the declaration of God's will, thus seriously expressed, I produce the tears of our Saviour over Jerusalem, lamenting their careless neglect of the day of their peace: which argued, not only in Christ as man, a serious compassion of their affected ignorance and misery; but also, as God, a tender consideration of their peace, and of providing the means for it. Moreover, what shall we think of those passionate exclamations? Oh, that there were in this people an heart to fear me, and to keep my commandments always, that it may go well with them, and with their children for ever! Oh, that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! Oh, that my people had harkened unto me, and that Israel had walked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries. Do not all these speeches express an earnest and serious affection in God, as concerning the conversion and salvation of this people, whereof sundry died in their sins? It is true, God might have given them such hearts as to have feared and obeyed him; which though he did not, yet his will that they had such hearts was serious still. To clear it by a comparison: The father of the family hath both his son and servant dangerously sick of the stone; to heal them both, the father useth sundry medicines, even all that art prescribeth, except cutting: when he seeth no other remedy, he persuades them both to suffer cutting, to save their lives: they both refuse it; yet his son he taketh, and bindeth him hand and foot, and causeth him to endure it, and so saveth his life. His servant also he urgeth with many vehement inducements, to submit himself to the same remedy; but if a servant obstinately refuse, he will not always strive with him, nor enforce him to such breaking and renting of his body. But yet, did not his Master seriously desire his healing and life, though he did not proceed to the cutting asunder of his flesh, which he saw his servant would not abide to hear of? So in this case, both the elect and men of this world are dangerously sick of a stony heart; to heal both sorts the Lord useth sundry means; promises, judgements, threatenings, and mercies: when all fail, he persuades them to break their hearts and the stone thereof, with cutting and wounding of their consciences: when they refuse, he draweth them both; the one with his almighty power, the other with the cords of man, (viz. such as are resistible) to this cutting and wounding, that their souls might live: and the elect are brought to yield; and the men of this world break all cords asunder, and cast away such bonds from them. Shall we now say, God did not seriously desire the healing of such men's hearts, because he procured not to bind them with strong cords, to break them with such wound as they will not abide to hear of? Thus having laid down the grounds of my judgement touching the first Point, That there is a will and purpose in God for to reward the world as well with life, upon condition of obedience; as with death, upon condition of disobedience; I come now to the grounds of the second Point.  
You proceed in clearing a difficulty devised and shaped without 
Examine.  all ground; as if any sober man would find it strange, that a conditionate will of God should not be accomplished as often as the condition fails. And to this purpose you make use of the nature of a disjunct axiom. All-along I savour others that have graed here, yet have not rested themselves contented with this, but proceeded further to more erroneous opinions.  
A second objection you propose, in the second place, the solution whereof you seem to travel with, much more than of the former: and yet the objection is altogether as causeless, and without all just ground, as the former. I have now been something more than ordinarily conversant in these Controversies, for the space of seventeen years; I never yet met with any of our Divines, or any other, that made any question whether Gods will, being granted to pass on any object, were serious yea or no: I should think, there is no intelligent man living that makes any doubt of this; but puts it rather out of all question, that whatsoever God wills, he wills it seriously. I confess, the Arminians do usually obtrude some such things on our Divines, yet not altogether such; for they do not obtrude upon us, as if we said, God doth not will seriously that which he willeth; but rather, that he doth not seriously exhort and admonish all those whom he doth admonish to believe and repent: as if he made show only of desiring their obedience and salvation, when indeed he doth not. Yet, you seem to sweat not a little in debellating this man of straw. Upon these terms I might easily dispatch myself of all further trouble, in examining your elaborate Answer to so causeless an Objection: but I will not; for it may be you insperse something by the way of opposition to that which you do profess; which is this, That God doth not at all will the obedience and repentance of any but those who are his Elect. And I would not pretermit any evidence you bring to countenance your cause, in opposition to our Tenent, unanswered. That God's Oath, or Covenant, or the works of any Person in the Trinity tends to the end by you mentioned, namely, to give life to the world; is utterly untrue. Likewise, it is utterly untrue, that you have hitherunto proved any such thing; For, that which you here deliver as God's end in giving life, is proposed simply and absolutely; but that which hitherunto you have endeavoured to prove, is only this, that Gods will was to give the world life conditionally: to wit, upon their obedience and repentance: and that, as, in the last place coming to the point, you have expressed it in a disjunct axiom, thus, To give life to the creature, upon his obedieace; or to inflict death upon his disobedience: Now let any sober man judge, whether in this case the will of God be more to give life, than to inflict death; more passing upon the salvation of the creature, than upon his eternal condemnation? Could you prove, that God doth will at all the salvation of any other save his Elect, I would forthwith grant he wills it seriously: I should think it no less than blasphemy to think, that God doth either will, or swear, or covenant, or do that which he doth, not seriously; as blasphemy consists in attributing that to God which doth not become him. I nothing doubt but that if all and every one should believe and repent, all and every one should be saved: and none other thing hitherto have you so much as adventured to prove, in this particular whereupon now we are. But then, it behoves you to look unto it, on the other side, how you clear yourself from blasphemy in the same kind, while you maintain that God doth will the salvation of those which shall never be saved: which not in my judgement only, but in the judgement of Austin, of old, doth mainly trench upon God's omnipotency; for, if he would save them, but doth not, he is hindered and resisted by somewhat; and, consequently, his will is not omnipotent, nor irresistible. And more than this, here-hence it will follow, that either God continues still to will their salvation, even after they are damned, or else God is changed. And if these be not blasphemies, and foul ones too, I know not what is blasphemy. I know not what you mean by, slighting the salvation of mankind; but, sure I am, it is your own opinion, that in case man slights the working out of his salvation, God is so far from willing his salvation, that he hath unretractably decreed his everlasting condemnation. As for the salvation of mankind, this being an indefinite speech, we are ready with yourself to maintain, that God hath peremptorily decreed (to wit) the salvation of his Elect; and it is not fair to make use of indefinite speeches, the truth whereof is confessed on all hands, by prejudice of an indefinite truth to draw your Readers to the embracing of your definite Tenet, which is void of truth. And can it be denied by you, that God from everlasting hath decreed the condemnation of them, whose salvation you would not have us think he slighteth?  
Our Saviour's tears not only argued in him a serious compassion, as man, but a serious desire also of their salvation; and whom he wept over, out of that love he owed unto them (being made under the Law) he was bound to desire their salvation, as we are bound to desire the salvation of all those to whom we are sent; though this desire on all hands ought to have course (and that by the very Law of God) with submission to his will: But, that it argued in him, as God, a will or desire to save them, your modesty would not permit you to express; although the face of your Tenet is as manifestly set towards this mark, as ever our Saviour's face was set towards Jerusalem. As for the consideration of their peace, which you attribute unto him, were it extant, it were impossible but as God he should consider it; were it to come to pass, it were no less impossible but he should purpose it and effect it: but seeing it was never to come to pass, he could no otherwise consider it then as a thing possible, but such as should never come to pass; and it was equally impossible, as the former, that he should not so consider it. But I do easily imagine what you mean, though you are very loath to speak it out; (which, to deal plainly with you, is nothing fair) save that I am verily persuaded it proceeds not out of any ill mind in you, but partly out of fear (by speaking plainly) to give offence to good men; and partly out of some conscientiousness of your inability to justify it: namely, that Christ, as God, did consider it as a thing possible, with a tender affection desiring it. And indeed, otherwise the word tender added to consideration, attributed to God, comes in very incongruously; for, in proper speech, to consider a thing tenderly, is to consider a thing passionately; which is incident to man, but not to God. As for the other object which you make of God's consideration, namely, the providing of means for their peace; this is brought in too too unseasonably; for the time thereof was at this time out of season, as our Saviour himself signifieth when he saith, But now they are hid from thine eyes: And were it never so seasonable, yet were it little or nothing to the purpose; for what outward means soever he affords them, yet if he afford them not the efficacious operation of his holy spirit, it is a manifest document, that his purpose is to glorify himself in their everlasting condemnation, rather than in their salvation. But whereas hitherto you have but prevaricuted, pleading for that which no man denies, namely, that God's purpose towards them is but in a disjunct manner, either for salvation if they obey, or for condemnation in case they disobey; or, only in a conditionate manner willing life unto them, and that, upon such a condition as he well knows will never be performed by them; all-along concealing your opinion, and sparing to deal plainly, in an open profession thereof: Now, at length, you are come to broach it; and that is, not only that God wills either their salvation or condemnation, according as they shall be found to repent or not repent; or, that he wills life unto them, upon condition of their obedience and repentance; giving hitherto not the least inkling of your meaning to be this, that he wills also and desires their obedience and repentance. Now you take heart to open this mystery of your meaning also, namely, that there is in God an earnest and serious affection, as concerning the conversion and salvation of the world, which never are, nor shall be saved: Yet here also you give cause to complain, that you walk not with a right foot, sparing to express your meaning home; for you apply it only to the people of Israel, which is an indefinite term, and may be applied to the Elect; concerning whom, there is no question of God's earnest and serious affection concerning their salvation: All are not Israel, that are of Israel (saith the Apostle;) So that Israel are Gods chosen, in the Apostles phrase: And there is an universitas electorum, yea, and mundus electorum too; as the Author of the books De vocatione Gentium observeth. Again, that which, in the places alleged by you, is applied to Israel only, you, by your Tenet, do, and must extend to all that are not elect, to the very Turks and Saracens of these days, though you have no such exclamations to serve your turn withal, to prove God's earnest and serious affection concerning their salvation, though this be the most colourable Argument which you have to stand you in stead, in this particular. But, why should a slight and colourable interpretation of holy Scripture cast you, or any sober man, upon such an opinion, the absurdity whereof is evident by the light of nature? For, doth not God know full well that, notwithstanding all the means which he useth to bring them to obedience, they will still continue in the hardness of their heart? Doth he not also know full well, that he could give them such a grace as should break the hardness of their heart, and make them humble and obedient, with upright hearts? And withal, hath he not resolved to deny them this grace, which he knew full well would prove effectual to their conversion, and to grant them only such a grace as he knew would prove ineffectual? Now, in this case, let every sober Reader judge, whether God hath any affection to all (much less earnest) unto their salvation; and whether he meaneth not rather to glorify himself in their utter condemnation? To pretermit here my former Arguments, as namely, That this serious and earnest affection, concerning their salvation, must still continue, even after they are damned, or else God is mutable. And, that if God doth earnestly desire their obedience and repentance, that they might be saved; in case they do not obey and repent, it followeth, that God is not able to effect it. But nevertheless I am willing to consider the strength of your Argument: it is grounded upon a certain Scripture phrase, Oh that there were in this people an heart to fear me! Oh that they were wise! Oh that my people had harkened unto me! etc. Is it not great pity that good men, and good Divines, should be carried away into odd opinions, upon the slight consideration of a phrase? The Hebrew phrase runs thus, Quis dubis ut cor eorum sit hujusmodi (i. e. ità dispositum) illis, ut timeant me omnibus diebus vitae suae? This is, Quis praestabit? Who shall give, or effect, that such an heart were in them, that they might fear me all their days? Now, I pray, consider; if this were spoken properly, might we not answer God according to his own language, and say, O Lord, dost thou ask who shall give or make good unto them such an heart? why who should do such a work as this but thyself? for thou hast made the heart, and thou alone canst change it; we cannot change an hair of our head, much less our heart: and thou in thy Covenant of grace hast undertaken this, even to be our Lord and God, to sanctify us; and to this purpose thou hast given us thy Sabbath, as a signe that thou the Lord dost sanctify us: to this and thou hast given us thy word, which is that truth of thine, according unto godliness, which alone can sanctify us: and thou hast promised to circumcise our hearts, and the hearts of our children, that they shall love the Lord our God with all our hearts; and as to love thee, so to fear thee also; and that, all our days: and to this purpose, to put thy fear in our hearts, that we shall never depart from thee; yea, and to put thy spirit within us, and to cause us to walk in thy statutes, and in thy judgements, and to do them. And, surely, if God desires such an heart to be in us, he will not false to give us such an heart; seeing he alone is able to work such an heart in us. Therefore I conclude, this is not to be understood properly, but figuratively: And you may as well infer out of that of the Psalmist, The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers, that God hath eyes and ears, in proper speech; as out of such places as these to conclude, that humane ineffectual desires and wishes and velleities are found in God. If God transfer upon himself the members of our bodies, in a figure of speech called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, why may he not as well transfer upon himself, by the same figure of speech, the desires and affections of our minds? especially, considering that God hath made us apt to be moved and wrought upon by such passionate expressions; and it is Gods usual course to work in all things agreeably to their natures. And I make no question but such expressions are usually prevalent with true Israelites, with Gods own people; not so much by the force of a passionate expression, which is accommodated to the condition of man's nature, as chiefly by the operation of God's Spirit, whose sword the Word of God is.  
I doubt not but Gods will is serious, what way or course soever it takes; but you are very adventurous upon your Readers credulity, in endeavouring to persuade him, that God willeth such a gracious heart in them, in whom he means not to work; considering, as I presume yourself believe (although this discourse of yours makes me not a little to stagger in this mine apprehension) that God alone is able to work such an heart in any: yet you labour to expedite a facile way unto our faith, or credulity rather, to take hold of your Proposition by a familiar comparison; A father (you say) persuades both his son and his servant to be cut, both being dangerously sick of the stone; but when persuasions will not serve with his son, he taketh him and bindeth him hand and foot, and causeth him to endure it: The servant he continueth to persuade to endure the like course of cure, but proceedeth no further. In this case, you say, the Master doth seriously desire the healing and life of his servant, though he did not proceed to the cutting asunder of his flesh: I grant all this; but I wonder not a little that yourself do not observe the incongruity in this comparison, which on no side is suitable; for the son, in this case, is made to be cut against his will, that he may be healed; but God forceth no man to conversion and repentance against his will, that he may be healed; for, indeed, voluntas non potest cogi, at least in respect of actus eliciti, wherein consists repentance and conversion. On the other side, the servant is no more willing to be cut than the son, for it is not in the power of man to change the will either of servant or of son; but this is in God's power, and with an omnipotent facility, as Austin speaks, Omnipotenti facilitate convertit, & ex nolentibus volentes facit: Now, put the case that the Master should know, that of all the means he could use to make his servant willing to endure the cutting, none but one would prevail with him, and that one would prevail with him to make him willing; should the Master use all other means, which he well knew would prove ineffectual, and purposely forbear the other, which he well knew would prove prevalent? In this case, speak freely, I pray, whether this man did seriously and earnestly desire the cutting and healing of his servant, and not rather the contrary? To put the case home unto you; you know what admonition David upon his deathbed gave to Solomon concerning Shimei, Thou shalt not count him innocent, for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; and thou shalt cause his whore head to go down to the grave with blood: yet withal, Solomon must have a care of David his father's oath; for when Shimei came to meet David at Jordan, David swore unto him by the Lord, saying, I will not slay thee with the sword: Now while Solomon meditated on some course to take with Shimei, suppose God should reveal unto him, saying, If thou proposest such a condition unto him, to wit, of building him an house in Jerusalem, and to stay there, and not pass over the brook Kidron, he will transgress; but if thou proposest any other like condition, he will observe it: and hereupon Solomon should be moved to propose this conditon, which he knew Shimei would transgress; judge, I pray, whether this course proposed to Shimei were an evidence of Solomon's earnest and serious affection, concerning the saving of Shimei's life; and not rather concerning his destruction? In like sort, when God persuades many by his Ministers to make them new hearts and new spirits, and himself alone, by the power of his Spirit, is able to take the stony heart out of their bowels, and give them an heart of flesh; when he resolves to afford this grace unto some, but not unto others; let every one judge hereby, whether God can be said earnestly to desire the changing of their hearts, when he resolves to forbear that course which alone can change them? No, no, this discourse favoureth strongly of a conceit, that it is in the power of an unregenerate man to change his own heart, and of an heart of stone to change it into an heart of flesh: And in this case, I confess, it were very probable that God should earnestly desire it; provided that any ineffectual and changeable desires were incident unto God.  
That when God putteth forth the second act of positive retribution, 
Answ.  viz. the rejection of the world, or decree of their condemnation, God doth behold and consider the world, especially men of riper years, not in massa primitus corrupta, nor as newly fallen in Adam; but as voluntarily falling off, by some act of careless and wilful disobedience. To prove this, I need not produce other reasons than what I have formerly alleged in the fone-going Point; for when God did express, by his oath, his will and good pleasure to be, not for the death, but life and conversion of sinners, was it not after the fall of Adam, and all his posterity in him? then, notwithstanding the presupposal of the fall, God had not yet rejected the creature; but, as he there declareth himself, still retaineth and reserveth thoughts of peace towards them, even a desire of their conversion unto life.  
Again, with whom did the Lord enter into a Covenant of life and death, upon condition of obedience and disobedience? was it not with Adam only, and his posterity in his loins, in the state of innocency, by the law written in their heart? Was it not also after Adam's fall renewed to all his posterity, both Jews and Gentiles? Then, yet God had not cast them away in the fall, though the fall had justly deserved it; but expecteth yet further to see how they will yet keep this renewed Covenant with him, before he cast them off as Reprobates: Even Cain himself, the eldest son of Reprobation, is after the fall offered acceptance of God's hand if he do well. Moreover, is it not after the fall that the Father, by his works of creation and providence, judgements and mercies, etc. the Son by his enlightening the world, by his death and ministry of his servants; and the Holy Ghost by his calling and knocking at the hearts of the wicked, do all strive with men, even to this very end, to turn them to the Lord, that iniquity may not be their destruction? If therefore all the Persons in the Trinity do provide several helpful means for the conversion and salvation of the world; of the world, I say, now after the fall lying in wickedness, surely God did not then upon the fall reprobate the world unto eternal condemnation and perdition. If you say, God might well reprobate the world unto condemnation upon the fall, and yet still after the fall us● means for their conversion and salvation; because those means do but further aggravate their condemnation: I answer, these do indeed further aggravate their condemnation, but it is but by accident only, by their neglect and abuse of them; but the proper end which God himself, of himself, aims at in the use of these means, himself plainly expresseth it to be, not the aggravation or procurement of their condemnation, but the restoring of them to salvation and life; as hath been before declared. So then, to draw all to an head, the sum of this first reason is, If God after the fall do retain a will and purpose to restore life to the world upon an equal condition, than he did not upon the fall, or upon the only consideration of the fall, reject the world of the ungodly unto their utter perdition. But, you see, God retaineth after the fall an holy will and purpose of restoring life unto the world upon an equal condition, as appeareth by his Oath, by his Covenant, and by his Works; therefore the conclusion, which is the point in hand, is evident.  
I marvel what you mean to call God's decree of condemnation his act of retribution; retribution being an act temporal and 
Examine.  transient, the decree of God is an act immanent and eternal: And therefore it is not so handsomely said to be the putting forth of an act, for so much as it is immanent and not transient. 'Tis manifest, I confess, that sin is always precedent to the retribution of punishment; as it is without controversy, that sin neither is nor can be antecedent to God's decree, sin being temporal, but all God's decrees eternal. And I have found it by experience to be an usual course with our Adversaries, to confound condemnation with the decree of condemnation. And Junius himself, very incongruously, in my judgement, calls this decree, Praedamnatio; to make the fairer place, as I guess, for sins precedency thereunto, at least in consideration: But no necessity urgeth us to any such course; and we may well maintain, that God in this decree of condemnation hath always the consideration of that sin for which he purposeth to damn them; for, undoubtedly, he decrees to condemn no man but for sin. It is impossible it should be otherwise; condemnation, in the notion thereof, formally including sin. But I like not your expressions in the distinction you make, saying, God considers men in this sin, not as newly fallen in Adam, but as voluntarily falling off (you mean long after) by some act of careless and wilful disobedience. When God made this decree, they were not newly (that is, a little before) fallen in Adam; for that fall in Adam was temporal, but the decrees of God are eternal: And to consider as newly fallen, when as yet they were not, much less were they fallen, is not so much to consider, as to err or feign. But like as God decreed to suffer all to fall in Adam, and many also to continue both therein, and in bringing forth the bitter fruits thereof even until death; so he purposed to condemn them for those sins: but take heed you do not make an order of prius and posterius between these decrees; lest either you make the decree of condemnation precedent to the decree of permission of those sins for which they shall be condemned, which will be directly contradictory to your Tenet here; or, making God's decree of permitting such sins for which they shall be condemned precedent to his decree of condemnation, (whereunto you do incline unawares) which will cast you upon miserable inconveniences, and that by your own rule already delivered; for if the decree of permitting sin be first in intention, then, by the rules received by you, it should be last in execution; that is, men should be condemned for sin, before they be permitted to sin: But the conjunction of these decrees into one, as in the same moment of nature and reason, will both prevent this inconvenience, and also justify God's decree of condemnation, to proceed upon the consideration of those sins for which he purposeth to condemn them. But then there is another point of great moment, which in like manner must be accorded unto, though you seem to be little aware of it, (though, I willingly confess, this oversight is very general) namely, that God decreeth the salvation of none of ripe years, but upon, or with a joint consideration of their faith, repentance, and good works. For, let us first make the decrees of salvation and condemnation matches: As for example, Reprobation, as it is accounted the decree of condemnation, is a decree of punishing with everlasting death. Now, if you will match Election unto this, as it is the decree of salvation, it must be conceived as a decree of rewarding with everlasting life. Now let any man judge, whether this decree must not as necessarily be conjoined with the consideration of faith, repentance, and good works, in men of ripe years; as the decree of condemnation, or of punishing with everlasting death, must be conjoined with the consideration of those sins for which God purposeth to punish them. And I will further demonstrate it thus: Like as the decree of permitting some men to sin, and to continue therein to the end, and God's decree of condemning for sin, are joint decrees, neither afore nor after other; and consequently, the decree of condemning for sin must necessarily be conjoined with the consideration of sin: In like sort, God's decree of giving some faith, repentance, and good works, and his decree of rewarding them with everlasting life, are joint decrees, neither of them afore or after other; and consequently, God's decree of saving them, and rewarding them with everlasting life, is joined with the consideration of their faith, repentance, and good works. Now that these are joint decrees I prove thus: First, the decree of salvation cannot precede the decree of giving faith and repentance; for if it should, than salvation were the end of faith and repentance; but salvation is not the end, as I prove thus: The end is such as doth necessarily bespeak the means tending thereunto; but salvation doth not necessarily bespeak faith and repentance tending thereunto: for, God intending the salvation of Angels, brought it to pass without faith and repentance; as likewise, the salvation of many an infant he brings to pass without faith and repentance. Secondly, the end of God's actions can be nothing but himself, and his own glory; and therefore salvation itself must have for end the glory of God. Now, examine what glory of God is manifested in man's salvation, and it will forth with appear upon due examination, that the glory of God manifested in man's salvation, is such as whereunto not salvation only doth tend, but divers other things jointly concurring with salvation thereunto. As for example, God's glory manifested on the elect, is in the highest degree of grace, but in the way of mercy mixed with justice: This requires permission of sin, the sending of Christ to make satisfaction for sin, faith and repentance, (for God's justice is seen partly in conferring salvation by way of reward) and last of all salvation. Out of all these results the glory of God in doing good to his creature in the highest degree of grace, proceeding in the way of mercy mixed with justice. Thirdly, if God gave faith and repentance to this end, to bring his elect unto salvation, as to the end thereof, then, by just proportion of reason, God should deny the gift of faith and repentance unto others; that is, to permit them finally to persevere in their sinners, thereby to procure their condemnation as the end thereof: which you will not affirm, neither can it with any sobriety be affirmed. In the next place I will show, that neither can the decree of giving faith and repentance, precede the decree of salvation; for if it should, then should faith & repentance be the last in execution; to wit, if it were first in intention, and consequently men should first be saved, and afterwards have faith and repentance granted unto them. Thus I have showed my readiness to concur with you in opinion in this particular; and that upon other grounds than yours: and whose grounds are more sound, yours or mine, I am content to remit it to the judgement of any indifferent Reader. As for your reason here mentioned, repeating only what you have formerly delivered, as touching the will and good pleasure of God, not for the death, but for the life, not only of the elect, but of all others also; the vanity of this assertion of yours, I think I have sufficiently discovered. And I wonder you should carry it thus, not of the death, but of the life; when most an end you have carried it only thus hitherunto; that Gods willing their life, is only upon condition of their obedience and repentance, not otherwise: Or, in a disjunct axiom, thus, Either of life in case they repent, or of death in case they did not repent; and what should move you to call this a willing to give them life, and not to inflict death? Why should you not rather call it a will to inflict death, and not to give life; considering that God was resolved to deny them such grace, as would effectually bring them to obedience and repentance; and to grant them only such a grace, as he fore-knew full well, would never bring them to obedience and repentance? 1. Cain was of the family of Adam, to whom the promise was made concerning the seed of the woman, that he should break the serpent's head; and although Cain was offered acceptance upon his repentance, yet it followeth not that all were offered the same acceptance, even those that never received any tidings or promise concerning the Messiah. And the Apostle plainly signifies, that the Gentiles were not admonished to repent until Christ was preached unto them, Act. 17. 30. But suppose it were so, yet this hinders nothing at all the precedency of the decree of condemnation, unto the decree of giving such a Covenant and permitting them to despise it. For, because God purposed to damn them for such a sin, therefore he might decree to give them such a Covenant, and permit them, or expose them, (by leaving them destitute of his grace) to the despising of it: Not that I do approve of any such conceit, as before I have manifested; but to show how short your discourse falls of making good that which you undertake to prove. And I am much deceived, if you mistake not their tenet, who make reprobation to proceed upon the consideration of the corrupt masle in Adam: For, undoubtedly, their meaning hereupon is not to maintain that God did purpose to condemn all reprobates only for the sin of Adam, or for original sin drawn from him: this were a very mad conceit. But supposing that by Adam's fall an impotency of doing that which is good is come upon all; as it is free for God to give grace to whom he will, and so to bring them to salvation, the purpose whereof is called God's election; so is it enough for God to deny grace to whom he will, and thereby to expose them to condemnation: the purpose whereof in God, is that which we call Reprobation; which, as Aquinas saith, Includit voluntatem permittendi peccatum, & damnationem inferendi pro peccato. Now of this general impotency of doing good, which cleaves unto all since the fall of Adam, you take no notice at all, though herein consists the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these controversies but carry yourself throughout in such manner, as if, notwithstanding that shipwreck of grace, which all humane souls made in Adam, it were still as much in man's power to obey God, as it was before; or as much in man's power to rise by repentance now after he is fallen, as it was in his power to stand in his integrity, and in obedience unto God before he was fallen. Put the case all were true that you deliver in the next place, namely, that God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost proceed in the way of admonition and exhortation to turn themselves to the Lord, that iniquity might not be their ruin; yet this hinders not but that the decree of condemnation might be precedent to God's decree of taking such a course, and permitting them to resist it. For, upon a purpose to condemn them for such a sin, he might thereupon resolve to expose them to such a sin: And if God should first decree to permit such a sin, and then decree to condemn them for it, the permission of this sin being first in intention, should by your own rule be last in execution; that is, first men should be condemned for such a sin, and afterwards they should be suffered to commit it: Not that I maintain any such order, but only to represent the weakness of your discourse, approaching shrewdly to such a disorderly constitution of God's decrees, and nothing at all preventing the most harsh tenet that can be devised. Again, this that here you deliver, were it granted you, yet doth it nothing hinder the corrupt mass in Adam, to be the object of God's decree of condemnation. For, albeit God the Father, and God the Son fail not of performing all this you speak of, yet if by reason of the general impotency which is come on all, they are nothing able to obey these motions of God's spirit, and withal God purposeth to deny them a further grace to make them to obey; shall not this be sufficient to expose them to condemnation, even for this sin of resisting the motions of God's spirit? But now let us consider your discourse itself, and what weight it carrieth, which only makes a show of much, but comes to nothing in the end. First you please yourself in devising distinct works, applied to the distinct persons in the Trinity, without all ground in my judgement: We commonly say, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisibilia. Were not the Son and the Holy Ghost as active in the creation, and are still in the works of providence, as the Father? How Christ enlightened the world by his death is a mystery to me; his doctrine I confess did, and much more the doctrine of his Apostles: But in this ministry of Christ's servants, were not the Father and the Holy Ghost as operative as the Son? As for the knocking of the spirit at men's hearts, you nothing distinguish it, for aught I found hitherto, from the ministry of Christ's servants in admonishing and exhorting; which work is yet the Fathers and the Sons aswell as the Spirits. But whereas you say, all this is done for this very end, To turn them to the Lord, that iniquity might not be their destruction; I pray you observe your own words well: all the operations you specify are drawn from these two heads, Instruction and Admonition to turn to the Lord; and the end of all this, you say, is to turn to the Lord. Put these together, that you may behold the sobriety of this discourse. God exhorts them to turn to the Lord, to this end, to turn them to the Lord: As much as to say, God exhorts them to turn to the Lord, to this end, that in case they obey his voice, and turn to the Lord which is their part, than God will perform his part also, and turn them to the Lord. But what need, I pray, of God's work in turning them to the Lord, after they have performed their part so well as to turn themselves to the Lord? Again, if God hath a purpose to turn them to the Lord, why doth he not? Is it because they refuse to perform some act, upon the performance whereof God would turn them to himself? Now I would gladly know what act that is, which God expects to be performed, that so he might turn them to the Lord. I am verily persuaded yourself are not willing to be put to design this: Is it the very act of turning to the Lord, or less, or more? If the very act of turning to the Lord, you fall upon a manifest absurdity before specified: if less than turning to the Lord, then 'tis less than a good act; and shall God reward that which is less than a good act with conversion unto him? What is it to confer grace according to the works of nature, if this be not? Yet I would fain know what this act is? Lest of all will you say, 'tis more than turning to the Lord, for that should suppose conversion unto the Lord already wrought; and consequently, no need that God should turn them to the Lord, which supposeth that they were not before turned to the Lord at all. The providing of several helpful means for the salvation of the world after the fall, doth nothing hinder Gods reprobating of the world upon the fall unto eternal condemnation and perdition. For if he purpose to deny them grace to obey these means, this shall be sufficient to expose them to condemnation, even for the despising of those means of grace which God purposeth to provide for them; and accordingly the objection here proposed is sound. And whereas you answer, that these means do aggravate their condemnation by accident only; to wit, through their neglect and abuse of them: I answer, that this their neglect and abuse doth by necessary consequence follow upon God's purpose to deny them effectual grace for the using of those means aright: like as upon God's purpose to harden Pharaohs heart, that he should not let Israel go, it followed by necessary consequence, that Pharaoh, through the hardness of his heart, would not let Israel go. But that God's end is (as you say) the restoring of men to salvation and life; as if God did will and purpose any such thing, is utterly untrue, and nothing proved by you hitherto, but rather flatly contradictory to that you have most an end delivered; partly in making Gods will of their salvation to be only in a disjunct 〈◊〉, and partly of a conditionate 〈◊〉, which is no more to will their salvation, than their damnation, in case they were indifferent to perform either condition. But in case they be found unable to perform the condition of life, and most prone to perform the condition of death, God meaning not to give them such a grace as alone can relieve them, it is (manifestly) an evidence, that God wills their condemnation, and nothing at all their salvation. Not to mention any other arguments against this conceit; the one drawn from God's omnipotency, the other from his immutab litie.  
In the recapitulation of this reason, you help yourself with a phrase, and only with a phrase: God retains a will and purpose to restore life to the world upon an equal condition. Obedience is due to God, though man be not able to perform it. And therefore God, in requiring that which is due unto him, carrieth himself in an equal (I had rather say, in a just) course, though man becoming bankrupt, be not able to perform it. But in this case, namely, if God will not restore life, but upon performance of such a condition which he is utterly unable to perform, and withal purposeth to deny him that grace, which should enable him to perform it; is not this a manifest document, that God hath no purpose to restore life unto him? Yet I confess, the phrase used is advantageous unto you; for, at the hearing of an equal condition, most are apt to conceive the condition to be such as lieth in a man's power to perform. But you have not hitherunto manifested any such opinion of man's ability: If you have entertained any such (as whereunto pastoral Divines, dealing much upon exhortation, are sometimes over-prone, though I see small cause why the opinion of man's impotency unto good should any whit rebate the edge of their exhortation) you should do well to convince your adversaries by argument, and not circumvent them.  
From the condition of those men, upon whom the scriptures pronounce reprobation, or rejection; I no where read of reprobation, 
Answ. 2.  but of such men to whom the means of grace, or at least, of the knowledge of God in some measure or other have been offered in vain. In the Old Testament God pronounceth the house of Judah reprobate silver, rejected by him: But when? Not till they were all become revolters, and corrupters, and till the means he had used to purge and cleanse them had been attempted in vain. The bellows (saith he) are burnt, the lead is consumed in the fire, the founder melteth in vain, and reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. When did God reject all further care of purging the people from their filthiness any more? Not till after he had used means to purge them, and they were not purged. When doth the Son of God, under the name of wisdom, reject the wicked? Not till after he had called upon them earnestly to return, & stretched out his hands unto them, & offered to pour out his spirit upon them; and they after all this, had set at nought his counsel, and despised the means of their own reformation. Prov. 1.  
In the New Testament, the Apostle speaks of reprobates, in case so powerful a ministry as his was, so long a time dispensed unto them, and had notwithstanding been vainly received by them, and that as yet they knew not themselves to be in Christ. Yea, the Gentiles themselves, when did God give them up to a reprobate mind? Was it not after they had disregarded the acknowledging and glorifying of God, according to the means they had received? In a word, when doth God shut up the Sons of Adam, either Jews or Gentiles, under enmity against Christ, and set forth Christ in enmity against them, thereby excluding them from atonement with him, or by him with God? Is it not after they are become the seed of the Serpent? Now, by the seed of the Serpent cannot be meant, all men fallen and corrupted in Adam by original sin (though that fall was wrought by the suggestion and practice of the Serpent) for then all the seed of Adam had been shut up in enmity against Christ, and cut off from all fellowship with him their head. But by the seed of the Serpent I understand, all such men of the world, as have the image of the old Serpent stamped upon them, which is a will set to do the lusts of the devil. Saith our Saviour to the Jews, Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your 
John. 8. John. 3.  father ye will do: or, which is all one, an hatred of the light when it cometh amongst them; and which is a character of the devil, a lover of darkness rather than light. Upon which point it is our Saviour shutteth up the men of this world under condemnation. viz. When by the hatred of the light they have drunk in the venom, and received the image of the old Serpent; till which time, men are counted the seed of Adam: Or, if they be borne in the Church the seed of Abraham, rather than the seed of the Serpent. For our Divines do wisely and justly maintain against the Anabaptists, that the seed of Abraham, as pertaining to the Covenant, are not only his spiritual seed, partakers of his faith, but also his children after the flesh, till by their careless and wilful disobedience they have excluded themselves from the Covenant of Abraham: From whence it is, that all the seed of Abraham, even the carnal seed, are scaled up by Circumcision or Baptism under the Covenant of Abraham. Neither are they excluded from hope of benefit by the Covenant and the seals and ordinances of it, till that, with profane Esau, they despise this their birthright, and sell the pledges of their inheritance for some base and sensual lust. Now if all such are to be accounted the seed of Abraham, till, by despising the Covenant, they have broken off themselves from partaking with him in the fatness of the olive; then surely, even the carnal seed of Abraham are not the seed of the Serpent from their original pollution, but do become afterwards by their actual voluntary rebellion.  
As there is an election eternal, and election temporal, so 
Examine.  in both senses the word is taken in holy scripture. Of election eternal we read, Ephes. 1. 4. where God is said to have chosen us in Christ, that we should be holy, before the foundation of the world. Of election temporal we read, 1 Cor. 1. 26. Brothren, you see your calling, how that not many wisemen after the flesh, etc. But God hath chosen the foolish things, etc. Where Election is taken as all one with vocation, in proportion whereunto we must distinguish of reprobation. And like as Election temporal is all one with effectual vocation, as when men find mercy at the hands of God to obey their callings: So reprobation temporal is all one with obduration, as when men are not, through the mercy of God and power of his grace, brought about to obey their calling, but through the hardness of their hearts, uncorrected by the spirit of God, they stand out, and refuse to obey when they are called. Now like as it followeth not, that because men are not elect, in respect of Election temporal, until they obey their calling, therefore God did consider them as obedient to their calling before he elected them unto life: In like sort it followeth not, that because men are not reprobate in respect of reprobation temporal, until they are found to disobey their calling; Ergo, God did consider them as disobedient to their calling before he reprobated them unto death: albeit there is a vast difference between Election and Reprobation. For if once men be found truly to obey their calling, hereby as they are effectually called, so they may be assured of their eternal Election unto grace, and consequently unto glory also. But although men for a while are found to disobey their calling, though hereby they are obdurated, yet no evidence ariseth here-hence of their nonelection unto grace, and consequently of their reprobation from grace, and as from grace so from glory also. The reason is, because nothing but small obduration and continuance in sin is an evidence of Preprobation eternal; though in this case they may be accounted reprobate two ways: First in a negative opposition to Election temporal; for certainly in this case they are not as yet effectually called, that is, converted unto God. Secondly, they may be called reprobate as it hath the signification of an adjective, and not of a participle; like as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used in holy scripture, 1 Pet. 2. 9 Revel. 17. 14. 2 Joh. 1. 14. And the word Reprobate in those places you take advantage of, is rather an adjective than a participle. As for Reprobation in opposition to Election eternal, that is expressed in holy Scripture by the not writing men's names in the book of life: which signifies God's purpose to deny them both grace and glory; and they are commonly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered, such as perish; 1 Cor. 1. 18. and 2 Cor. 4. 3. And on the contrary, the Elect are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 1. 18. But unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. And Act. 2. last v. God added daily to the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But then, whereas by consequent followeth their continuance in sin and condemnation, there is also in scripture a decree of God called Ordination unto wrath, 1 Thes. 5. 9 And as there is a preparing [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] unto destruction, and a creating unto an evil day; so there must consequently be acknowledged in God a purpose to prepare to destruction, and to create against the day of evil. But let us come to the particular scanning of your discourse.  
I willingly acknowledge that (as you say) we no where read in scripture of Reprobation, but of such men to whom the means of grace, or at least of the knowledge of God in some measure or other hath been offered in vain. This qualification is brought in to prevent an exception out of Rom. 1. Where the Gentiles are said to be given over into a reprobate mind; who yet had not the means of grace: But they had (you will say) the knowledge of God in some measure; you mean, the means of the knowledge of God, and these means are the world, wherein they are brought forth; for the world contains the works of God, and by them are manifested the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead. And indeed these means of the knowledge of God, all enjoy in equal measure, according to the proportion of the time of their lives. But, to discover unto you the looseness of this your discourse, I pray you consider, the sin of the Gentiles here taxed, is the transforming of the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of corruptible things; contrary unto that knowledge which they did or might attain unto by God's works. Their judgement was their giving over into a reprobate mind, to do things inconvenient, as there it followeth. And do you think indeed, that all such Idolaters were given over into a reprobate mind to do such abominable things, as after are mentioned? Were there not found many moral men among the Heathens, which yet were reprobates as well as the most profane amongst them? Nay, what think you of them, amongst whom this sin of transforming the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of corruptible things, was not found; as Varro writes of the Romans, that for, above an hundred years they had no Images, and that in those days the Gods were worshipped more chastely; and that they who brought in Images were to blame in two respects: First, because errorem auxerunt. The Second, because timorem ademerunt: and were not they, think you, given over into a reprobate mind? Lastly, be it so they were given over, are you indeed persuaded that none of these were the elect of God? Doth not the contrary appear manifestly in the Corinthians? For, were not they, as well as others, in former time carried away after dumb Idols, as they were led? 1 Cor. 12. 2. Were not they also given over into a reprobate mind? Were not they fornicatours, idolaters, adulterers, wantoness, buggers, & c? 1 Cor. 6. 9, 11. Yet they were sanctified in due time; notwithstanding all this, they were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. Therefore I conclude, it is one thing to be a reprobate in that sense we here speak of reprobates; for we speak of reprobates in opposition to Gods elect. But undoubtedly the very elect of God may be for a time, and that for a long time, given over into a reprobate mind. Again, is Reprobation only of those to whom the means of grace have been offered in vain? and is Reprobation pronounced on none but such? Then, belike, Reprobation is not eternal, but temporal; and consequently, nothing pertinent to our present purpose: And I could wish you had expressed wherein this Reprobation temporal, which is pronounced upon men after the means of grace have been offered unto them in vain, doth consist. For, to use words signifying we know not what, maketh all our disputation as much in vain, as to draw water with a bucket that hath no bottom. Sure I am, no receiving of the means of grace in vain is an evidence of that Reprobation we speak of, unless it be final, though well it may be of giving over into a reprobate mind for the present. But devise what you will to be the act of Reprobation temporal you speak of, will it therefore follow that the consideration of this contumacy in standing out against the means of grace, was with God before his purpose thus to reprobate? As for example, because final impenitency and infidelity go before condemnation, will you herence infer, that the consideration of final impenitency and infidelity did precede God's purpose of condemnation? By the same course you may conclude, that because faith, and repentance, and good works, and perseverance in all this, goes before a man's salvation, therefore the consideration of all these was precedent to God's purpose of salvation. And indeed it cannot be avoided, but that this doctrine of yours in the point of Reprobation, must necessarily overthrow your own doctrine concerning God's election; though this is little considered usually. And how can God know man's final impenitency, unless he purpose to permit it? And if the permission of final impenitency be in God's intention before condemnation, then, by your own rules, it must be after it in execution; and so men shall be condemned for their impenitency before they have committed it. It is true, the Jews are pronounced reprobate silver, Jerem. 6. 30. after the Prophet's labour was found in vain; but you do not well to extend this unto Reprobation in that sense we speak of it: For, in your own opinion, nothing but final obstinacy doth make men reprobate; but such was not as yet the obstinacy of those Jews, who are there called reprobate silver. And how uncharitable a thing were it for you, or any man, to think that none of those obstinate Jews were afterwards converted unto God by the ministry of the Prophet Jeremiah. Yet, admit it were final, such I confess precedes condemnation which is temporal: But will you herence infer it precedes also Reprobation, or the decree of condemnation, which is eternal? But there is no tolerable good consequence in this; and you might as well infer, that good works are precedent to election, as I have already showed. And withal, hereby you should constitute a very wild order of things in execution: Yet, I grant, every obstinacy, so long as men continue in it, making a show of godliness, is sufficient to constitute them reprobate silver, and such as are given over into a reprobate mind. Were it so, that after God hath used means to purge the people, and they would not be purged, than he rejects all further care of purging them from their filthiness any more: will you infer therence, that the consideration of this contempt of the means of grace goes before Reprobation, as it signifies the decree of condemnation? And consider you not, that thus the permission of this obstinacy in God's intention, must go before condemnation, and consequently must follow after it in execution? That is, men shall first be condemned, and afterwards suffered to despise the means of grace. Again, doth not faith, and repentance, and good works, in like manner precede salvation? And must not the consideration of all these by like reason go before Election? Besides all this, it is an untruth which you deliver; that after men have refused to be purged when God would have purged them, forthwith he gives off all further care of purging them from their filthiness. How many thousands are there in this Kingdom, who are guilty, and for many years have been guilty, of refusing to be purged when God would have purged them: yet doth not God give over all further care of purging them from their filthiness? and who dares say, that none of them shall be converted unto God ere they die? Doth not Paul warn Timothy to carry himself gently towards them that are without, waiting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if at length God will give them repentance, & c? And why should we despair of any, so long as God suffers them to live, and enjoy the means of grace? Neither doth the Prophet Ezech. 24. 13. express or signify, that God in this case gives over all further care of purging their filthiness, only professeth that he will not spare them any longer: They should not be purged, till he had caused his wrath to light upon them. But might not the lighting of God's wrath upon them be a means of this? Nay, is not this Gods ordinary course, when his word is received in vain, to exercise his people with affliction, and that to this end, even to purge away their dross till it be pure, and take away all their tin? Isai, 1. And did not the Lord promise as much by the mouth of Ezechiel also, and that in reference to the very same wrath of God, as a means of their reformation? What else meaneth that, I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the Countries, and will consume thy filthiness out of thee? Ezek. 22. 15. Your second question is of the very same nature, and admits in every particular the very same answer.  
From the old Testament you come unto the new: That of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 13. 5. you strain miserable to make it serve your turn. For first you serve your turn at pleasure in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is merely the privation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. yet you enforce it to signify a desperate condition, which is utterly repugnant to the genius of the Apostles text: who admonisheth them to prove themselves, whether they were in the faith, to humble them if they found themselves otherwise; not to preach desperation unto them. Nother doth the Apostle infer the condition of reprobates (such as there he speaks of) from the receiving of the grace of God by a powerful ministry (such as Paul's was) offered unto them in vain; but from the not having Christ in them. In this case, whatsoever their minister was, and how little time soever, as well as how long they had enjoyed the Gospel, he pronounced them reprobates: As, indeed, till men are effectually called, there is no necessity that there should be any difference between the Elect and Reprobates considered in themselves: Albeit in respect of the different purposes of God towards them, there is a very great difference. That out of the 1. to the Rom. as concerning the Gentiles given up to a reprobate mind, I have already spoken sufficient. I like Piscator's interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 better than yours: He renders it thus, in mentem omnis judicii expertem. And I pray tell me, do you not think they were given over 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before their transforming of the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of corruptible things? Were it not so, how could they have been guilty of so foul a transformation? It is true, he gave them up also to a reprobate mind, to do things uncomely, and to corrupt their lives also with horrible uncleanness. Yet, I have showed out of 1 Cor. 6. that some of those were afterwards sanctified, and consequently ab origine the elect of God, and not reprobates in such a sense as we entreat of it in this controversy.  
Be it so, that men are not shut up in enmity against Christ till they have the light: For, how could it be otherwise, seeing to be an enemy to the light, and to hate the light, are but one thing, though expressed under different phrases. What is this to the purpose? Say they are not condemned till then; I say nor then neither; 1. Unless they continue finally therein: for were not the very Elect sometimes strangers and enemies? Rom. 5-10. Col. 1. 12. Be it so, hatred of the light goeth before condemnation, therefore the consideration of this hatred goes before God's purpose to condemn them. If this Logic likes you, like this also: Faith, repentance, and good works, go before salvation; therefore they are before God's purpose to save them whom he saves. But, whereas you seem to denote, that after a certain continuance in hatred of the light, a man's case is desperate, which you seem to signify by a phrase of shutting up; besides that it is nothing at all to the present purpose, but matter of another question, I shall believe it, when I find yourself, or any man else, to prove it: In the mean time I continue as I am, and rest contented with the reasons formerly mentioned for the disproving of it. Undoubtedly, by the seed of the serpent, cannot be meant all men fallen and corrupted in Adam by original sin, for they are expressly proposed in opposition to the seed of the woman: Gen. 3. 15. Herein I concur with you, but I concur not with you in the description of the seed of the serpent; for that agrees to all, even to the Elect, as well as to the Reprobate: before the time comes, that God hath appointed for their effectual calling; for till then, they have the Image of the old serpent (as you call it) stamped upon them: for they are in blindness of mind and hardness of heart, which undoubtedly are the chief works of the devil, which Christ came into the world to lose. Their will is to do the lusts of the devil, for the devil works in them, and being taken in his snare, they are led captive by him to do his will; yea Paul himself had an hatred of the light, and loved darkness above it. But assure yourself, no hatred of the light, except it be final, is the cause why our Saviour shuts any man under condemnation. I verily thought with myself (saith St. Paul) that I ought to do 
Act. 26. 9  many contrary things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10. Which things I also did in Jerusalem; for many of the Saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief Priests, and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. 11. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange Cities. I see no reason why the profaneness of Esau should stand in greater opposition unto grace, than the zeal of Paul while he was a persecuter. Esau entreated Jacob kindly in his return from Mesopotamia, but Esau continued finally in his profaneness. Paul continued not in the course of his blind persecuting zeal; and this puts the true difference between them. Though with God there was a difference put between them from everlasting in his counsels, to make the one a vessel of mercy, the other a vessel of wrath. And I see no reason why the reprobates should not be accounted the seed of the serpent from their first conception; not because of their original pollution (for that is common to them with God's Elect) but because God doth not purpose to cure it in them, as he will cure it in the Elect; though this natural corruption cannot break forth into actual hatred of the truth, till they were brought, acquainted with it: and the like actual hatred breaks forth also in God's Elect, as it did in Paul, until the time comes which God hath appointed for the curing of it: But he will never cure it in the Reprobate.  
Against the point I know nothing of worth, besides that in the 
Answ.  Rom. interpreted and opened in the answer to the fourth Doubt following; save only that place in Judas, where it is said of the false teachers (as it is commonly translated) that they were ordained of old to condemnation. The words in the original are; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The sense whereof is given to be, that these false teachers were of old ordained to judgement. viz. As they take it from eternity, and so before themselves were, or had given any former cause of such condemnation: and according to this sense, the subject whereabouts the decree of reprobation is conversant, is not the world as fallen in Adam, much less as fallen from Christ: but as considered in massa pura, before they had done good or evil, yea, before they were. To clear this objection I am to crave leave to depart from the usual translation and interpretation of this place. For first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in the first place signify condemnation, but, as you well know, judgement rather. And so if I should give the sense, they were of old ordained to judgement, viz. according to their works; this would not at all touch the second act of positive Reprobation, the point now in hand; but only confirm the first point touching the former act of positive Retribution, spoken of before; viz. before the world was, God then ordained the men of this world to judgement according to their works. And surely I should have rested in this sense, but that I see the Apostle Judas interposing the Pronounce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth thereby point at some spiritual kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or judgement spoken of by him in the words before. v. 3. He thought it needful to exhort them to contend earnestly for the faith once given to the Saints. In the v. 4. He rendereth a just reason hereof from the antagonists which were crept in amongst them; and whom God himself, as the chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had designed and sent amongst them, to put them to this contention and trial. For so the coherence requires this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be here translated; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies decerno, dimico, to contend in law or war; and then judico, and last of all condemno; doth first signify lis or certamen, contention or trial; and then judgement, and at the last hand condemnation. Thus, Paul takes this word in the first sense with Judas here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for suits or trials, or contentions. There is utterly (saith he) a fault amongst you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that you have contentions, or suits, or trials, one with another. If you take the primitive sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and also consider the coherence of the Apostles words in this place, this will appear to be his native and true meaning; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who were of old designed to this contention: Yet for a little further clearing of the text, let me add a word touching the sense of the other two words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle alludeth to the common course of Judges, and suits in the law; or of wrestle in the Olympian, or of captains in the war, who were wont conscribere, to design aforehand, or set down in writing the names of such adversaries as were to have their causes or trials tried before them. And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies of old, I dare not stretch it so far, as to reach it to eternity; neither doth the place require it, nor any other in scripture to my remembrance. Yea, God himself, in Jeremy, plainly distinguisheth time of old, from eternity; as the lesser from the greater. If you then ask what is that old time Judas here speaks of, wherein God wrought aforehand, and as it were designed; viz. these false teachers to the trial of his Church, and contention with him: I answer, About 4040. years before Judas wrote this Epistle, when God pronounced in ' Paradise that ancient curse upon the serpent and his seed, I will put enmity (saith he) between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, than was that of old, when God did assign and appoint these false teachers under these general words, the seed of the serpent, to this enmity, and contention with the Church, concerning the faith once given to the Saints. And indeed the description which Judas gives of these false teachers, thus set out by God unto this contention, doth plainly decipher them as the seed of the serpent; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into wantonness, denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Thus have I declared how far, or rather how little I have departed, and upon what grounds, not so much from the received doctrine of our Church, as the received manner of the explication of it. In all which I humbly submit my spirit, not only to the judgement of the reformed Churches, whether of England, or of foreign countries (if ever they come to take notice hereof) but also of every learned godly brother, into whose hands this discourse may fall.  
As for that place of Judas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Examine.  the sense hereof (you say) is given to be, that these false teachers were of old ordained to judgement: viz. As they take it from eternity, and so before themselves were, and had given any former cause of such condemnation. This you make the interpretation of the place given by others, and their doctrine accordingly: And the consequent thereof you make to be this; namely, That according to this sense the subject whereabout the decree of Reprobation is conversant, is not the world as fallen in Adam, much less as fallen from Christ, but as considered in massa pura, before they had done good or evil, yea, before they were. Now I have divers things to object against you in this. First, were I of your opinion in the point of Reprobation, I should utterly deny that there is any such consequent, that may be lawfully inferred from the former interpretation and doctrine: For, albeit men are from eternity ordained to condemnation, and consequently before themselves were, or had given any former cause of such condemnation: yet, if when God did ordain them hereunto, he did foresee, not only their fall in Adam, but their final infidelity and impenitency also, and thereupon did proceed to ordain them to condemnation, as it is acknowledged on all hands at this day; both Papists, Arminians, and orthodox Protestants, yourself only (that I know) excepted: then surely herehence it will not follow, that massapura should be the object of Reprobation, but massa corrupta; and that not in Adam only, but with actual sins, and that throughout the whole course of their lives all along, even until death. And I persuade myself, you also will be of the same opinion, if you give yourself to a due and serious consideration of it; which might have saved you all this pains in straining a poor text to serve your turn in a miserable manner, and that most causelessly: For, certainly you fear in this place, where there is no cause of fear at all on your part. Secondly, why should you strain courtesy to acknowledge God's ordination (which is no other than God's decree) of men unto condemnation, to have been from all eternity? For, what Papist, Arminian, Lutheran, or orthodox Protestant (provided that he be learned withal) is found to deny this? Was it not one of the prodigious doctrines of Vorstius, to maintain that God's decrees are not eternal? Whence it should manifestly follow, that God is changeable. For, if God should now begin to will that, which formerly he willed not; this would introduce a change in God, as well as if he should cease to will that which formerly he willed. Can it be denied, but that God did everlastingly foresee whatsoever should come to pass? If he did, than he did from everlasting foresee the final infidelity and impenitency of every one that in such a condition departs out of the world. And why then should it not become God from everlasting to ordain all such unto condemnation? Thirdly, who are they that interpret St. Judas in such a manner as you obtrude upon them? I cannot believe any is found so absurd. What? that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify no more than ordain to judgement! What shall become of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then? a word in this place most significant? I persuade myself you cannot name one, the Author of so loose an interpretation. But let us consider how you carry yourself in the clearing of it as you speak, which indeed is to raise a mist rather in the clear. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you say, in the first place signifies judgement; and, I say, neither do they render it otherwise whom you undertake to confute. Yet, holding the translation here (as it were at bay without specification) it cannot stand with your interpretation; to wit, of Gods ordaining men to judgement (in general) according to their works: a judgement of mercy, in case their works prove good; or of wrath, in case they prove evil, whatsoever you pretend to the contrary, but most improvidently. For, albeit the word judgement be general, and indifferently appliable to either kind, yet, the Apostles phrase here, this judgement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot be understood, and maintained in any such generality and indifferency. And therefore you could not rest in this sense without much oversight as yourself observe, and forthwith confess. Therefore you proceed further to observe, that the Apostle v. 3. thought it needful to exhort them, to contend earnestly for the faith once given to the Saints. That is true, In the v. 4. he adds the reason hereof; that also is true in these words: For there are certain men crept in, of old ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And these men you call Antagonists, hawking thereby after some congruity to your interpretation following. And thirdly, you observe, that God designed them to somewhat: and the better to hold up the congruity of your interpretation, you call God the chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the thing whereunto God designed them, was (you say) to put the Christians, to whom the Apostle writes, to this contention and trial: Where you leave the Greek, as no longer able to serve your turn; for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereunto God ordained them. But yet (which is enough) you positively avouch that the coherence requires this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be so translated. This, I say, were enough if you could as substantially prove it, as you do confidently avouch it. And yet I presume, you well know yourself to have been the first that hath discovered any such pregnancy of the text; to go as it were with child with any such sense and meaning. And therefore it behoves you to bring good cards for the proof of this your interpretation, Now before I come to examine your proof, I say, that this interpretation of yours is far more 〈◊〉 than that is which you impugn, by how much it is far more 〈◊〉 (as Arminius urgeth against Mr. ‛ Perkins according unto truth) to say, that God from eternity ordains a man unto sin, then, that from eternity he ordains men unto condemnation: And Piscator concurreth with you in the issue, though he takes a different way. Ad hoc judicium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. (saith he) ad hanc impietatem, qua impietate commerentur, sibique accersunt judicium Dei, i. e. eternam condemnationem: As much as to say, to this impiety, which is their condemnation; according to that of our Saviour, Joh. 3. 16. This is the condemnation of the world, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil; still holding the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his usual signification of judgement or condemnation. Now we come to the consideration of your proof: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we know, comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies, you say, first decerno, then judico, and last of all condemno. Be it so, hence you infer, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth first signify lis or certamen, and then judgement, and at the last, condemnation; and thus Judas takes it here. If this were granted you, than Judes' meaning must be this, who were of old ordained to this contention: But you render it in much different manner, thus; Who were of old ordained to put them (good Christians) to this contention. Something you plead for the liberty you take in tempering the word, but you do not so much as endeavour to justify the liberty you take in interpreting Paul's phrase, when you say, that to ordain men to this contention, is, to ordain them to put Christians to this contention. If you should dissuade men from impatience, and, giving a reason hereof, should say, For many wicked men there are of old ordained to this impatience; would any of your Auditors understand you? But give we you leave to enjoy your interpretation of the phrase, let us see how you can justify your interpretation of the word. The first reason is, ab origine nominis; as if the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did first signify to contend, and thence you infer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies contention in the first place. But you bring no Greek Grammarian or Dictionary to justify either the one or the other; neither do I think any world of words (as Dictionaries are sometimes called) doth justify any such interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A matter may be determined by deeds (as by dint of sword) as well as by words, and legal debatings; so that judicare and decernere, as comprehended under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall be still of the same moment, and nothing different in the effect, though res prove to be judicata different ways. Secondly you say, that St. Paul takes the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for contentions: I find by my Concordance that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found 28 times in the new Testament. Out of all these you have picked out one to serve your turn, if that doth serve your turn; 1 Cor. 6. 7. There is utterly (saith he) a fault among you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, say you, in that you have contentions and suits or trials one with another. Calvin renders it thus, I am quidem omnino delictum in vobis est, quòd judicia habetis inter vos; keeping the word to his usual signification: you will have it to signify contention, as if by special providence it were here so used. For the better clearing of St. Judas, our English, both the last, and Geneva, thus: Now there is verily a fault among you, that you go to law one with another. Now to go to law, what is it but to seek to civil courts for judgement or justice. Yet I am content to take your own translation, whereby it is apparent, that by this word, is not so much signified contentions in general, as suits and trials in special; like as Piscator renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place, controversias forenses, to wit, by a Metonymy of the effect for the cause; for, where there are judgements forensecall, there must needs proceed controversies forinsecal. And as for contentions in general, I doubt not but you well know, that in the new Testament they are usually denoted under the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now compare we this with that of Judas, when the Apostle exhorts them, v. 3. to contend (under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for the faith once given to the Saints, and that against those seducers and corrupters, the devil's factors no doubt, who goeth about like a roaring Lion, seeking whom he may devour: he doth nothing at all exhort them to such contentions as you call suits or trials, but rather unto a contention of resistance unto the practice of such who would corrupt them; of the same nature with the exhortation of Peter, 1 Pet. 8. 5. Having told them of the devils going about like a roaring lion, etc. Whom resist (saith he) steadfast in the faith: And answerable to that of Paul, Ephes. 6. 12. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, and against powers, and against worldly governor's, etc. For this cause take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to resist in the evil day; and having finished all things, to stand. So that throughout, there is nothing at all that serves your turn for the countenancing of so strained an exposition, which yet (as before I showed) is most causelessly undertaken. You proceed to a little further clearing of the text, or rather to the raising of more mists, especially in the interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for the allusion you find in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the common course of Judges and suits in the law, or of wrestling in the Olympians, or of Captains in the war, who (as you say, but without any proof) were wont conscribere, to design aforehand, or set down in writing the names of such adversaries as were to have their causes or trials tried before them. I have no great edge to oppose it. But Calvin goes no further than scripture, to discover unto us this allusion: Porro (saith he) haec metaphora inde sumpta est quod aeternum Dei consilium, quo ordinati sunt fideles ad salutem liber vocatur. And Revel. 20. we read of another book besides the book of life, wherein the deeds of wicked men are written, and is not there written (think we) their condemnation also? As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old, I confess there is no native force therein to extend it to the signification of eternity: Nay, Mar. 15. 44. it is applied to a very little time before; for Pilate demands of Joseph of Airmathea, that came unto him boldly to ask the body of Jesus, whether he were dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 already; yet it is appliable even to eternity, neither doth it signify any desinite time rising upwards. And, although this phrase of old be distinguished from eternity, Jer. 31. 3. yet it is not Habac. 1. 12. And as the words are different in the hebrew, so neither of them is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek: but we extend not the signification of it to eternity by any force of the word, but from the matter whereof he treats, which is the ordination and decree of God, which every intelligent and orthodox Divine acknowledgeth to be eternal; and I find it wondrous strange so worthy a Divine as yourself should be of any other opinion. And, I pray, why might not this designation be from eternity, as well as 4040. years before, such ungodly men were crept in amongst the people of God? Belike not till then was the devil assigned to be an enemy to the woman; for it is expressly said, God would put enmity between the woman and the serpent, between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Surely, that place only signifies what Gods eternal purpose was in this particular, then breaking out and manifesting itself; not that then the Lord did begin to ordain it: For, nothing in the nature of God is temporal. And, certainly the enmity of the serpent against mankind had broken out before this.  
Amongst others, I am one into whose hand this discourse of yours is fallen at length, having heard some inkling of it in the general before; and truly by accident I lighted upon it, without any enquiring of mine, without any others offering it unto me; and I am sorry to see the scandal and offence that is given thereby unto God's people in the way of truth: and that as I seem to have just cause to suspect, some have been hardened and confirmed in their error; and some, I hear, do boast of this discourse of yours, as no small credit and reputation to their cause: yet, I am persuaded, this is no judgement of God upon you, who are far from any heretical animosity: only we all know but in part, and the best are obnoxious unto error; but the judgements of God that have their course in these days do astonish me, in giving men over to illusions to believe lies, by what means, and after what manner he thinks good; and all because we do not embrace the truth, the precious truth of God with love, thereby making ourselves most unworthy of it. For, when in vouchsafing unto us his holy truth, he doth as it were cram us against our appetite, is it not high time for him to make us fast?  
And amongst them of ourselves, only this let me add; because, 
Answ.  verum & bonum convertuntur, every divine truth is rich in profitable use: I have been confirmed in this truth, by the holy usefulness thereof to all sorts.  
1 To the Elect it maintaineth and cherisheth the freeness and 
Use 1.  largeness of the riches of the grace of God to them, whose salvation he carrieth along in all the ways of it, not according to their works, but according to his purpose and grace given them in Christ before the world was; under whom also are spread the everlasting arms of Gods almighty power and eternal love to guide and preserve them to his heavenly kingdom; which grace to us is so much the more magnified, when we behold the severity, and yet equity, of his justice towards the world of mankind; who though he love them as his creatures, yet he dealeth with them according to their works, which in the end windeth up in their woeful and just destruction.  
2 To the carnal Christian, that sinneth of ignorance or humane 
2.  frailty, and not of profane and wilful contempt of the means and ways of grace, this doctrine offereth a serious exhortation to them to seek after Christ whilst he may be found, and earnestly presseth on him those lively and quickening expostulations of the Prophets, Why will you die, O house of Israel? What could I have done more for my vineyard, that I have not done? Turn ye, turn ye, that iniquity may not be your destruction.  
3 To the prophance and malignant dog and swine, that walloweth 
3.  in sensual and worldly lusts, and snarleth against the means and ways of his own peace, and trampleth the precious ordinances of God under foot; to such this doctrine testisieth to their faoes, that God is just in all that cometh on them, and his way equal: They loved the cursed ways of sin, and are fallen into them; they loved not the ways of blessing, and therefore are they far from them.  
4 To the Lutheran and Arminian, who refuse the excellent and 
4.  heavenly benefit of the sound and comfortable doctrine of Election, by reason of some hard saying which they observed in the usual manner of handling the opposite decree of Reprobation; to them this doctrine removeth such stumbling blocks out of the way, as have hitherto turned them out of the way of truth and peace.  
5 To the cavilling froward spirit, this doctrine cutteth off all 
5.  occasions of reviling and slandering the orthodox truth of God, and against them cleareth the equity of the ways of God.  
6 To all sorts of men, yea, to men and Angels, it ministereth 
6.  much matter of admiring and adoring the wonderful riches of God's grace to Christ the head of the Church, and in him to all the elect his members, the absolute power of his sovereignty in dealing far otherwise with the world, the unsearchable depth of his wisdom in the order and end of all his ways, the unsearchable depth of his patience, bounty and long-suffering towards all men, and manifest equity of his justice, even to those who abuse his patience and bounty to their own perdition.  
I confess this course of justifying, a tenet, by the usefulness of 
Examine.  it, is usually much made of by the Arminians; but I could never brook it in any. This is a fair way to make a rule of faith unto ourselves, and under colour of usefulness, to shape the doctrine of the Gospel after our own fancies: yet, I am willing to examine what here you deliver also in every particular. 1. As touching the first Use, I find, you serve your turn with a manifest confusion of the grace of vocation, with the grace of salvation; Thus: God of free grace saves in the one, in justice damns in the other. But the comparison you make is nothing congruous; For, it is so carried by you, as if in this dealing of God, the case were alike with man's dealing; as when a Judge amongst many malefactors, equally guilty of death, saves some, and damns others. These are nothing equal; for the one die in faith and repentance, the other die void of faith, and in the state of impenitency. Therefore to help this incongruity, you will be driven to fly to effectual vocation: And indeed, before God doth effectually call some by such a grace as he denies others, they whom he calls were no better than others. But, let us make way for the truth to appear in her proper colours, by distinguishing those things which ought to be distinguished, lest we be found to be in love with our own errors.  
As touching Vocation; 1. we acknowledge with you, and you with us, the freeness of God's efficacious grace bestowed on some, and denied to others, and herein magnified; that whereas God might have bestowed it on others, and not on them, he hath bestowed it on them, and not on others; yea, on them who are but few in comparison, permitting a far greater multitude of others, and which is especially to be considered, though you are not willing to take notice of it: Like as God hath mercy on some in giving them this efficacious grace we speak of, merely according to the good pleasure of his own will; so he hardens others, denying them the same grace, and that merely according to the good pleasure of his own will. And thus the freeness of his grace is magnified towards the elect, by his severity and freeness of his will in denying it unto others: whereas you so carry it, as if the freeness of his grace to the one, were magnified in respect of his justice toward the world of mankind, in dealing with them according to their works; which is a plausible speech, and of common course usually admitted, but utterly void of truth. The truth being this: That like as God, in inflicting damnation on men, doth not proceed according to the mere pleasure of his own will, but according to the works of men; so, in denying grace efficacious, he doth not proceed according to the works of men, but merely according to the good pleasure of his own will. For, the Apostle plainly professeth in this case, that look how he hath mercy on whom he will; so likewise he hardens whom he will. And to clear the truth in this point (because as many as vary from the truth of God in this point, are not very prone to hear on this ear) let us consider, that justice hath different acceptions. In a common notion it is no otherwise taken then for justitia condecentiae, as the Schoolmen call it. Thus, whatsoever God doth is an act of God's justice, whether it be an act of power, as in making the world out of nothing, or an act of liberality, in doing good to the creature without cause, or an act of mercy in pardoning sin; all these are acts of justice in this sense. The meaning whereof is no more but this: In all these actions God doth no other thing then what himself hath lawful power to do. In this sense it is just with God, as well to have mercy on whom he will, as to harden whom he will. And so your comparison here made, should have no life at all to that purpose whereunto you accommodate it. For, in this sense the justice of God shall equally appear on both sides: Whereas you make the freeness of God's grace only on the one side to be magnified the more, by the consideration of his justice, which hath course on the other. So that to hold up your own comparison as decently proposed, you must be driven to forgo this common notion of justice, and stick to a more strict and peculiar notion thereof; and that is, when God rewards or punisheth men according to their works. Now, I say, that God doth not deny efficacious grace to any man according to his works; which I demonstrate thus: The execution of justice in this kind, doth always proceed according to some law, which law is made to man by some superior power; but unto God not by any superior power (for he acknowledgeth no superior power), but by his own will: As for example, Wherefore doth God crown all them with glory who die in faith, and in repentance? To wit, because he hath ordained and made a law, that, whosoever continueth to the end (in the state of faith and repentance) shall be saved. Again, why doth God damn them to everlasting fire who die in sin, void of faith, void of repentance? To wit, because God hath ordained and made a law, that, whosoever believeth not (provided that he continueth in unbelief unto the end) shall be damned. For, undoubtedly, God could have turned men into nothing, had it so pleased him, and had he not decreed the contrary; like as he brought men out of nothing. Now show me that God hath ordained or made a law, that men found in such or such a condition shall be denied efficacious grace: if you cannot show any such ordinance or law of God, then do not say that God, in denying grace, proceeds according to men's works in justice. And, indeed, if any such law could be assigned, it would follow, that in the communicating of grace also God should proceed not according to the good pleasure of his will, but in justice, according to men's works. Consider a second argument, What is sin original, but the spiritual death of the soul? By Regeneration man formerly dead in sin is revived. Now is it congruous to say, that because man is dead in sin, therefore it is just with God not to revive him? Because a man is blind, therefore it is just with God not to open his eyes? Or, because he is deaf, therefore it is just with God not to open his ears? Suppose sin were but the sickness of the soul, is it congruous to say, that because a man is sick, therefore it is just with God not to cure him? Whereas it is manifest, that unless a man were first sick, it were impossible to cure him; unless first blind or deaf, it were impossible to restore sight or hearing unto him; unless first dead, it were utterly impossible to revive him.  
Come we now to salvation and damnation; you seem to say that God of his free grace doth save a man. In my judgement it is an improvident speech. For, consider, whom doth God save of ripe years? Doth he save any other but those that die in the Lord? That is, such as die in the state of grace, in the state of faith and repentance? Now judge, I pray, Is it fit to say, It is free and indifferent with God, either to save or damn them who die in the Lord, in the state of grace, in the state of repentance? For, hath not God made as well such a law, that, whosoever believes and reputes, he shall be saved? As such a law, Whosoever believes not, nor reputes, shall be damned? And, in respect of the former law, is not God as much obliged to save them that believe and repent, as in respect of the latter law, he is obliged to damn them that believe not, that repent not? So that the comparison is miserably to blame, made between the freeness of God's grace in saving the one, and his severity and justice in condemning others: And the confounding of effectual vocation and salvation on the one side, and obduration with damnation on the other, hath exposed you to this incongruity ere you are aware. So that, whereas I thought to have least to do about this use, a greater business is made unto me in clearing the truth of God herein then I could imagine: and yet I am not come to an end. This may suffice to discover the unsoundness of the main body of your comparison. But there are some other things to be considered on the by: First, by way of amplifying the largeness of the riches of the grace of God. You tell us how the Lord carrieth the salvation of his Elect in all the ways of it, etc. And forthwith by way of addition you say, that under them also are spread the everlastig arms of God's power and eternal love, to guide them to his eternal kingdom: Which is no different thing, but merely the same with the former, of carrying their salvation along in all the ways of it. These expressions, I confess, are momentuous, to stir up gracious affections in the apprehension of the freeness and power of God's grace. But, if hereby our judgement (in the mean time) is not a little disturbed in discerning Gods truth, so that we embrace error in stead thereof, we shall buy good affections at too dear a rate, as is the loss of truth. And hereby as I have showed, the freeness of God's grace is miserably weakened: For, if God be not acknowledged freely and of the mere pleasure of his will to deny grace unto some, I cannot see how well it can be maintained that he doth freely and according to the mere pleasure of his own will bestow it upon others. Again, that phrase of yours, the equitic of God's justice toward them that are damned, seems somewhat incongruous. For, equity signifies the moderation of justice in such sort, that the strictness thereof may not hinder man's good: But what good the damned reap by this equity you speak of, you have not declared. Lastly, you say, God loves the damned as they are his creatures. And it is a phrase, I confess, that hath ' its course with many hand over head. In the very state of damnation in hell fire, they are and still continue to be his creatures; what, I pray, is that love of God that passeth upon them in that state? Undoubtedly, whatsoever it be, it must consist with hatred in the highest degree. I would willingly know whether it be Amor complacentiae, or Amor beneficentiae. If it be complacentiae, what is it that God likes in them, unless it be his own work, the nature of men? Or what good is it that God doth unto them in the state of damnation? Can it be any other than the continuance of their being? Yet, most think that is nothing good to them in the state of damnation. Whatsoever your meaning be, if you did express it, it may be you would fly from your own caution in this place, as Moses did from his rod when it was turned into a Serpent. I am persuaded, the apparent incongruity thereof would little please you. I come to the Consideration of the second Use.  
2 That the doctrine of our Church, from which you swerve, doth not offer, as well as yours, to carnal Christians a serious exhortation to seek after Christ whilst he may be found: Or that it doth not, as earnestly as yours, press upon them those hearty and quickening expostulations of the Prophets: Why will ye die, O house of Israel? Or, What could I have done more for my vineyard that I have not done? Turn ye, turn ye, that iniquity may not be your destruction, you do not so much as go about to prove. But I have something more to except against this use of yours. The description here given by you of a carnal Christian; to wit, That he sins of ignorance and humane frailty, and not of profane and wilful contempt of the means of grace; I had thought it had been proper to the regenerate, and not at all belonging to the carnal Christians, whom, I think, you make no better than natural men, to whom the things of God are foolishness; and in whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is enmity unto God, in such sort, that they are not subject unto the law of God, nor can be. But, I presume, you speak this of civil and moral Christians, conforming to the means of grace, and not giving any outward evidence of contemning them. But, herehence it followeth not, that God who seeth their hearts, finds not profaneness in them, or vile estimation of the means of grace. But howsoever, whether they are profane or formal, we exhort all, we press the same expostulations upon all: and dare you say, that never any profane or wilful contemner of the means of grace is converted? Though that these expostulations do quicken any, it is merely of the spirit of God, who bloweth where he listeth. But, whereas you seem to imply (though you are not willing to deal plainly, and express so much) that a carnal Christian, such as here you have shaped him, hath power to yield to these exhortations, and quickening expostulations; a point that we dare not take hold of, without much explication: For, to yield unto them in a gracious manner, I conceive, to be utterly out of the sphere of a natural man, or a carnal Christians activity: And, I presume, you will affirm as much; but to yield unto them, either hypocritically, either according to the course of gross hypocrisy, or of that hypocrisy which is secret to him that is possessed with it, or, ad exteriorem vitae emendationem; we deny not such a power unto a carnal Christian as you describe him, nor unto any profane person whatsoever. And, I am persuaded, it is only a consideration of things in general, and in a confusaneous manner, holds you on to imply such a power in carnal Christians: Whereas if things were distinguished aright, it would more easily appear what is within the region of nature, and what beyond it, as merely imputable to the special grace of God, and operation of his spirit.  
3 As for dogs and swine, we are forbidden to give our holy things, or to cast our pearls before them at all. And therefore are we not to trouble ourselves, in considering to what end this doctrine is to be preached unto them. And yet, as for the testifications proposed as proper unto them, it is nothing so; for not to them only, but to carnal Christians also do such belong, yea, to the very Children of God also; to wit, That God is just in all that cometh on them, and his ways equal. As when after David's foul sins in the matter of Uriah, the sword pursued his house, and Absalon defiled his father's concubines, and he was driven to fly from Jerusalem, and Shimei meeting him on the way cursed him, etc. And, I pray you, what unregenerate man throughout the world doth not love the cursed ways of sin, in some kind or other, though not in all kinds? And no marvel, for vice is like a pike in a pond, it devours both virtue and lesser vices: One vice is opposite to another, and not only unto virtue: And therefore, no marvel if no man be found vicious in all kinds.  
4 As for the Lutheran and Arminian, you profess, that this Tenet of yours removes such stumbling blocks out of their way, as have hitherto turned them out of the way of truth and peace. But what these stumbling blocks are, which you have removed, I know not. It seems this hath been a chief inducement unto you, to decline from that which you confess to be the most received opinion of our Church, and to shape unto yourself a new form of opinion different from that which is received, (if not to remove some stumbling blocks out of your own way.) Now, if it be so, the fairest course had been to have expressed what these offences are; Secondly, how our most received Tenet doth either cast them in tho way of others, or at least doth not remove them; and thirdly, to show how by this opinion of yours they are removed: But none of these have been performed by you. Again, Mr. Moulin, being very orthodox in the point of Election, as you are, varieth from us, as you do, in the point of Reprobation; maintaining, Reprobation to be instituted upon the foresight of man's final impenitency, in his Anatome Arminianismi. Corvinus an Arminan, hath taken him to task in a work of his, and is never a whit the more forward to concur with us in the point of Election, because Moulin concurres with them in the point of Reprobation. Nay, what do Papists say about Durham, by occasion of our complying with them, but this, They need not comply with us, for we come fast enough forwards to comply with them. And more than this, I have already showed, that this tempering (or corrupting rather) of the doctrine of Reprobation, maketh a fair way for the utter overthrowing of that which you call the sound and comfortable doctrine of Election. Forasmuch, as look by what reason you maintain the foresight of small impenitency and infidelity to go before Reprobation, as it signifies the punishing with everlasting death; by the same reason it will appear, that the foresight of final perseverance in faith, repentance, and good works, must necessarily go before Election, as it signifies God's decree of rewarding with everlasting life. In which notion alone, election or the decree of salvation, is contrarily opposite to reprobation, or the decree of condemnation. For, in maintaining that Reprobation, as a purpose of God to condemn for sin, doth presuppose the foresight of sin, you do thereby imply that Election, as a purpose of God to reward for righteousness of faith and repentance, doth presuppose the foresight of faith and repentance. But, if your meaning be no other than this, that God hath ordained no man unto damnation but for sin, what offence or scandal do you remove hereby, which we do not remove also, who concur with you herein. And, which is more, we are ready not only to affirm, but to make good also, that in no moment of nature doth the purpose of Condemnation go before the foresight of sin, even of that sin for which men shall be damned: Whereas you, in maintaining that the foresight of sin is precedent to the purpose of condemnation, are not able to make it good; but must necessarily fall foul upon a manifest contradiction to your own rules: For, if the foresight of sin be precedent to the decree of condemnation, than God did first decree to permit sin, before he did decree to damn for it: And herehence it followeth that permission of sin in God's intention, was before condemnation: and if it were first in intention, then, by your own rules, it must be last in execution; that is, men shall be condemned for sin, before ever they be permitted to sin. Nay, I appeal to your own conscience, whether we do not open a fairer way for composition in the point of election, than you do in the point of Reprobation. Considering that like as in Reprobation, God's decree to condemn, is in no moment of nature precedent to God's foresight of sin; so in Election, I am bold to affirm, that God's purpose to save is in no moment of nature before his foresight of faith, repentance, and good works, and final perseverance in them all. Will not you think, that you have cause to fear hereupon, that I am more dissolute in the point of Election, than rigid in the point of Reprobation? Yet if you will confess, that herein is a fair way opened for composition in the point of Election; I dare undertake to persuade you, that this shall be maintained without any prejudice either to the freeness of God's grace, or to the absoluteness of his power. The truth is, our Divines have a long time erred in making different decrees of those which are but one (I mean formal) decree, to wit, of the means, though materially different, which is nothing strange: For, why should it seem strange that many means should be required to the same end? We commonly say, that God's decree to give salvation is the decree of the end; and his decree to give faith and repentance is the decree of the means: yet they dare not say commonly, that God's decree to inflict damnation is the decree of the end; and Gods decree to deny grace is the decree of the means: And so they are driven to overthrow all Analogy between Election and Reprobation. I say that God's decree of giving faith and salvation unto sinners, are but one formal decree of God concerning the means; the end whereof is, the manifestation of God's glory in the way of mercy mixed with justice. And, indeed, nothing can be the end of God's actions but his own glory; for he made all things for himself, and as all things are from him, so all things must be for him; for the supreme efficient must be the supreme end. Now if God at once, and in one moment of nature, decreeth to give salvation by way of reward of faith, judge you, or let any indifferent Reader judge, whether this decree of salvation be not necessarily conjunct with the foresight of saith.  
5 As for the occasions of slandering and reviling the orthodox truth of God, which as you conceive, this doctrine of yours cutteth of to the cavilling and froward spirit; you have not so much as expressed what they are, much less justified them, to be such occasions as you speak of, or showed how they are removed by your doctrine, and not by ours. In like sort, what is that equity of the ways of God, the credit of the clearing whereof, you attribute to your own doctrine, and derogate from ours, you take no pains to explicate. If your meaning be, that you maintain, that God condemns no man but for sin voluntarily and freely committed by him, and withal do obtrude upon us the contrary, you do us the greater wrong, provided you speak of men of ripe years. As for the damnation of infants, I doubt you fear so much to offend men, that you come too near the Pelagian and Arminian tenet hereabouts. And if you think there is any active power in a natural man to believe and repent, we will not fear offence to resist you, or any man in this, the scripture having so plainly expressed the contradictory to this; 1 Cor. 2. 14. and Rom. 8. 8. Or, if your opinion be, that God doth not harden whom he will, as well as he shows mercy on whom he will; (where the good pleasure of God is as evidently signified to be the cause of the one, as of the other) we shall not forbear by God's grace, through fear of offence, to resist you in this also. And if Pharaoh shall hereupon object and say, Why doth God complain of my not letting Israel go, when he himself hardens, my heart, that I may not let Israel go; we think it fit to take the Apostles course to stop such a ones mouth; and say, O man who art thou that disputest with God, shall the thing form say to him that form it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power, etc. And let men take heed, they do not take upon them to be wiser than the Holy Ghost, and think to satisfy men by devises of their own, when the word of God doth not satisfy them. Yet, in all this, the Apostle doth not impeach the liberty of their wills, nor Austin neither, but rather justifieth it throughout; yet is he bold to pronounce, that libertas sine gratia, non est libertas sed contumacia. As much as to say, a man without grace hath will too much to that which is evil, and averse from that which is good, as being wilfully bend to the one, and opposite to the other. And, the providence of God in the efficacy of working all things to his own ends, compared with the liberty of the creature, hath ever been accounted of a secret nature; whereas now a days, nothing will satisfy the Patrons of free will, unless this secret and mysterious providence of God, as it was wont to be accounted, come to be utterly overthrown, and liberty of the creature (if not chance) be brought to domineer in the place thereof. When you speak of the orthodox truth of God, I presume, you do not distinguish of the truth of God as if some were orthodox, and some not. Yet, I confess, Epithets have another use besides the use of distinction; yet, in this case also, the Epithet is not congruous, for orthodox is as much in effect as true.  
6 As touching the last, I presume, you will not deny, but that the riches of God's grace to Christ, and in him to all the Elect, are by our Tenet acknowledged to be as wonderful as by yours. As for the absolute power of his sovereignty in dealing far otherwise with the world, I presume, your opinion is, that we do exceed rather than come short of you in the acknowledging thereof: For, we maintain God to be as absolute and free, in the denying of grace to some, as in giving it to others. And by denying of grace, we understand the hardening of men, at least as touching the chief part wherein it consists. Yet, this you will have to proceed not so much according to God's absoluteness, as according to his justice in punishing men with obduration: yet, I grant, there is an obduration which is properly enough a punishment of sin, and when men are thereby prostituted unto danger, and exposed unto destruction. Yet, I dare appeal to the judgement of any intelligent Arminian, whether, in case you do maintain as you speak, the absolute power of God's sovereignty in dealing far otherwise with the world, then with the elect, any scandal is removed out of their way by your tenet which is cast in their way by ours. As for the unsearchable depth of his wisdom in the order and end of all his ways, as also of his patience towards all men; I presume, you will not say it is more maintained by your tenet then by ours. But by the way, I hope, you will not except against that of Austin; Quantam libet praebuerit patientiam nisi Deus dederit, quis aget poenitentiam, cont. Jul. liber 5. Cap. 4. And again in the same place, Istorum neminem (to wit, non praedestinatorum) adduoit Deus ad salubrem spiritualemque poenitentiam, quâ homo reconoiliatur Deo in Christo, sive ampliorem illis patientiam, sive non imparem praebeat. And again, adducit ad poenitentiam, sed praedestinatum adducit, and none other in his opinion. As for the justice of God to obstinate sinners, I hope you will not say, the common tenet of our Divines doth any way infringe it; we generally maintain him to be righteous in all his works, and holy in all his ways: For, he punisheth none but for sin; none of ripe years, but for sin voluntarily and freely committed by them, and that in such sort as they might avoid it; speaking of any outward transgresion; Only it is not in their power to change their hearts, and to love God with all their hearts, and fear him, and depend upon him: Whence it cometh to pass, that albeit there is no particular, material, transgresion, which they could not avoid, yet it is not in the power of a natural man to avoid it in a gracious manner; and all for want of that love of God, before spoken of, which cannot be wrought in a man, but by the spirit of regeneration. If any man should further object (as I wish you had objected, to the uttermost, against our Tenet) supposing a natural man to perform what good lieth in his power to perform, but not in a gracious manner; and likewise to omit what lieth in his power to omit, but not in a gracious manner, which alone is not in his power to perform; and say, what justice is there in the damnation of such a man? I answer, as much as in the damnation of an infant for original sin, considering that by reason of original sin it is, that a natural man cannot perform any thing in a gracious manner, to wit, for want of the love of God: Original sin being an habitual aversion from God, and conversion unto the creature, or more briefly an inordinate conversing with the creature, either in enjoying it, whereas he should only use it, God alone being to be enjoyed; or in using it, but not in a gracious manner, that is, not for God's sake; to wit, through want of the love of God, which is brought upon us by the sin of Adam; as whereby our natures were bereft of the spirit of God. Thus in prosecuting mine answer unto a devised argument, I have made bold to open my mind concerning original sin: A point that hath seemed unto me of such difficulty, that I have been wont to range it amongst those three, whereabouts I could not expect to be satisfied whilst I lived. Another was the very point we have in hand.   

To the fourth Doubt.  
HOw may it appear that God's hatred of Esau, is of a less 
4 Doubt. Quest. 4.  degree of love, since the making of him who by birth is superior, to be a servant to his underling, argueth no good will at all, but:  
First, rather a purpose to pass him by, in respect of communicating grace and glory.  
Secondly, since the raising of Pharaoh, which was to this intent, to show his power in his overthrow argueth the like.  
Thirdly, since hardening is an effect of hatred, and depends on the will of God, as the first cause thereof, even as Mercy doth.  
Fourthly, since there is no cause of that objection, why complains he? Who hath resisted his will? or at least of that answer, Rom. 9 20, 21, 22.  
I Answer, as Jacob preferring Ephraim the younger brother to greater estate than his elder brother Manasses did not thereby 
Answer.  declare a positive hatred of Manasses, but a less degree of love to him in comparison of his brother:  
So Gods preferring Jacob to be a superior and Lord to his elder brother Esau, doth not argue that in him there is no good will at all to Esau, but a less degree of love.  
To subject Esau, as a servant to Jacob, doth not reprobate Esau, but puts him into the condition of the world of mankind: who together with the rest of the Creatures are made to be servants to the Church of the elect, and to the members of it.  
But grant God's hatred of Esau, and making him a servant to his underling, argueth no less than a purpose to pass him by, in respect of communicating glory unto him out of grace. And for my part thus far I yield, that it may well argue a purpose of God to pass by him, in respect of communicating glory to him out of grace, that grace I mean, whereby he hath made us accepted in his beloved: for this grace or free love, is made jacob's pre-eminence, and is denied to Esau, and though it put him into the estate of a servant to his elect brother, and so into the condition of the world of mankind, yet it doth not reprobate him, or argue a purpose to pass him by in respect of communicating life or glory at all unto him, but implieth only a purpose to deal with him in justice, viz. to give him life or death according to his works, as I have already showed in the answer to the former doubt, and shall have occasion more fully to declare it, in the end of this.  
Surely Jacob in doing that which he did to Manasses and 
Exam.  Ephraim, did neither prefer one to a greater estate than the other, or love one less than the other. But in the spirit of prophecy foresignifyed, what would be the condition of each in their race and posterity. But suppose a father in that which lieth in his power, prefers one son before another, and accordingly in that way of Amor beneficentiae, be said to love one less than another, will any sober man say, that he loves the one, and hates the other? is this a decent expression of less love? We know full well, that a less love in the way of beneficence, may be joined with a greater love in the way of complacency: As for example, an earthly Father, though he suffer his eldest son to go away with the Land, yet he may bear greater affection to a younger son, though he assign unto him a far less portion then to his elder brother. And if it were decent to say, he hates him, whom he loves less in respect of beneficence; then he should be said to hate him whom he loves best.  
Lastly, if the hating of Esau be interpreted less loving, why may not the loving of Jacob, by the same liberty be interpreted the less hating of him.  
Amongst Gods elect some are more beloved of God, and some less, according as he ordains one to greater grace and glory then another, and is it fit to attribute that to Esau, which we attribute to Gods elect?  
I grant that to subject Esau to Jacob as a servant, is not to reprobate him, for this subjection is made in time; But reprobation, as we take it in opposition to election Ephes. 1. 4. was made before all times. It is your own phrase, to distinguish the world of mankind from the elect, as if the elect were none of the world of mankind. For the very elect themselves are subjected as servants to the elect, every one unto others: though as great as Paul and Apollo, as appears by the very place, yourself have now in a contrary sense alleged more than once. And who doubts that we must all serve one another through love, since Christ himself was content to wash his Disciples feet? Lastly, the yoke of Esau unto Jacob was at length shaken off, as appears by Isaac's prophecy it should be; but the yoke of subjection of all things unto the Church, shall never be shaken off.  
But you perceive well enough that the discourse which you answer, considered this temporal preferment (which yet had course only in their seed) only in a typical manner, as that which under temporal things prefigured spiritual, and accordingly you proceed to shape your answer thereunto in that respect also. The same is this, Though God had no purpose to deal with Esau, as he dealt with Jacob: that is, to communicate glory unto him out of grace, yet he had a purpose of communicating glory unto him some other way, and what can that be, but of communicating glory unto him, not out of grace? A very strange assertion, and therefore no marvel, you spared to set it down in so many words. Only you say, that the putting him into the state of a servant, did not reprobate him, or argue a purpose to pass him by in respect of communicating life and glory unto him. Which to my judgement doth manifestly intimate that you acknowledge in God a purpose to communicate life and glory to Esau, some way or other.  
And if you did acknowledge a purpose in God not to communicate life and glory at all unto him, this Aquinas confesseth, and we jointly with Aquinas, confess that it is nothing less than to hate him. For if God will have a man to be, and will not have him to be saved, surely he will have him in the end to be damned. For in the end there will be found no middle state, equally remote from salvation and damnation. But you do in plain terms acknowledge a purpose in God to deal in justice with Esau, and to give him life or death according to his works. I presume you will not avouch this of all them that you account the world of mankind. For I doubt not but you will except Infants. As for men of ripe years, is it not as true of the elect, as of those you call the men of the world, that they shall be dealt withal according to their works? I do not say according to their deserts, but according to their works, keeping myself to your own phrase. Hath not the Apostle professed, 2 Cor. 5. 10. That we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil? But these works I confess are different, for either they consist in obedience or disobedience; either to the Covenant of the Law, or to the Covenant of Grace; either to the Law of works, or to a Law of Faith. Now as for those whom you call the world of mankind, and concerning whom you profess, God hath a purpose to judge them according to their works. I demand whether your meaning is, God will judge them according to their works, in reference to the Covenant of the Law, or in reference to the Covenant of Grace. If in reference to the Covenant of the Law, than the meaning must be this, God hath a purpose to save them, in case they perform exact obedience to his Law: But in case they continue not in every thing that is written in the book of the Law to do it, God's purpose is to condemn them to everlasting death. Now I appeal to every sober Christians judgement, whether if God hath no purpose to save them, but upon condition of such obedience, and withal hath a purpose to damn them upon condition of such disobedience, whether, all things considered, it may not be more truly avouched, that God hath a purpose to damn them, but no purpose at all to save them. If it be spoken in reference to the Covenant of Grace, I dispute against it, first in the same manner. The conditions of the Covenant of Grace on man's part being Faith and Repentance, if God will not save them, but upon condition of faith and repentance, and will damn them in case of infidelity and impenitency; then surely if it shall be found, that the men of this world are far more prone to infidelity and impenitency then unto faith and repentance, it followeth that God purposeth rather to damn them then to save them; But in case they are naturally carried to infidelity and impenitency, and have no power to believe in Christ, and to break off their sins by true repentance; than it followeth as well in respect of this Covenant of grace (according whereunto God will deal with them) as in respect of the former Covenant of the Law, that God hath no purpose to save them, but hath a purpose to damn them unto everlasting fire. But so it is of all those whom you call the world of mankind, namely, that they have no power to believe in Christ, or to break off their sins by repentance, but are naturally carried on unto infidelity and impenitency, as I prove thus. They that cannot discern the things of God, but account them foolishness, they cannot believe in Christ: But such are all they whom you call the world of mankind, for 
1 Cor. 2. 14.  they are not regenerate, and consequently they are mere naturals. Now the natural man, as the Apostle speaks, perceives 
Rom. 8.  not the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him. Again, all such persons are still in the flesh. Now the affection of the flesh is enmity against God, is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. Secondly, I prove that God cannot deal with them whom you call the world of mankind, according to the Covenant of Grace: For if he should, he should save them all; as I prove thus. If whatsoever God requires by this covenant on man's part, God undertakes to perform on his part, than it is impossible but that all must be saved with whom he means to deal according to this covenant. But whatsoever by this covenant God requires on man's part, God himself undertakes to perform on his part, as I prove thus. First, in general, God undertakes in this covenant, to be our Lord and our God, to sanctify us. Therefore, he undertakes to give us faith and repentance. Secondly, in special, and first, doth God require at our hands, that we should love him with all our hearts, and with all our souls? God undertakes to perform this. 
Dent. 30. 6.   
I will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy children, that thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. Doth God require at our hands that we fear him? And God also undertakes on his part to work us unto this. Jer. 32. 40. And I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall never depart away from me. Doth God require Faith? this also on his part he performs, Act. 2. ult. God added to the Church daily such as should be saved: And Philip. 1. 29. To you it is given to believe in him, and to suffer for him. Doth God require Repentance? Even to this end God sent his Son, to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins. In a word, it is God that makes us perfect unto every good work to do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, Heb. 13. 21.  
Answ. But in the second place it may be argued, that Gods raising up of Pharaoh, to this intent to show his power in his hardening and overthrow, argueth the like hatred of Esau as of Pharaoh: viz. a purpose of passing both by, without communicating grace, or glory unto them.  
To which I answer, a difference there is between Esau and Pharaoh; though not in their final condition, nor in 〈◊〉 purpose concerning them: Yet in the degree of their present estate, whereunto they were severally come, when God gave out his several Oracles concerning them both: for he saith not of Pharaoh, God raised him up to show his power in his hardening and overthrow, before he had done good or evil, as he said of Esau, that he should serve Jacob, before he had done good or evil. The Hebrew and Greek word signify neither to create, nor bring into the world, but to preserve, or to cause to stand, to stir up, or to advance; which presupposeth Pharaoh already born, yea, and of such a Spirit; that if God preserve him and stir him up, he was become a fit subject upon whom God might show his power in his hardening and overthrow. Otherwise God might as well be said to condemn Pharaoh out of his absolute will, without all respect to sin, as to show his power in hardening of him without all respect to sin.  
Hardening, when it falls upon the creature, is both the height of his sin, and depth of his misery, and therefore is it as prejudicial to God's justice to inflict it without respect of sin going before, and to the creature as dangerous to undergo it, as condemnation to hell itself. Hell hath no greater torment than an heart desperately hardened under the wrath, curse, and judgement of God, which was Pharaohs case.  
But consider Pharaoh, not in the estate of Esau, as having done neither good nor evil; but in the state wherein he stood, when God gave out his Oracle concerning him, that for this cause he stirred him up, to show his power in his hardening and overthrow; and then may I easily grant more than is required. viz. When God purposed to pass by him, not only in communicating grace and glory unto him, but also to fall upon him in his utmost wrath, as well in outward strange calamity, as especially in spiritual judgements, hardness of heart, and blindness of mind to his utter perdition.  
In the former part you declined a direct answer to the question proposed; for whereas the question proposed was touching 
Exam.  the communicating of grace and glory, you not adventuring to maintain a purpose of God to communicate grace and glory to them whom you call the world of mankind, only maintain a purpose in God (at least you seem so to do) of communicating life and glory some other way then out of grace. But with what advantage to your cause that hath been carried, I have already considered. Now you seem to answer the question, looking it directly in the face. For though you acknowledge such a purpose in God concerning Pharaoh, to wit, of passing him by in communicating grace and glory, yet the cause (you say) is not alike of Esau, when God's Oracle was given out concerning him, (he being not then born) as of Pharaoh, when the Oracle, here spoken of, was given out concerning him, he being then a fit subject, upon whom God might show his power in his hardening and overthrow. Yet here again you decline the question: For the question was not, whether Pharaoh at that time when God said, For this cause I have raised thee up, etc. were a fitter subject for God to show his power in his hardening and overthrow; then Esau was, while yet he was in his mother's womb. But whether God had not a purpose to pass by Esau as touching the communicating of grace and glory, even before he was born, which he had concerning Pharaoh at that time before spoken of; which that he had, I prove thus. It was said of Esau before he was born, that God hated him. What more could be said of Pharaoh, to express his alienation from him?  
Secondly, look how you qualify the hatred of God to Esau, in the same manner may it be qualifyed towards Pharaoh, even at this time you speak of. For God's hatred towards Esau, you qualify thus. God had a purpose to deal with him according to his works: But say I, even then when God professed of Pharaoh saying, For this cause have I raised thee up, etc. God had a purpose to deal with him according to his works.  
Thirdly, if therefore God had no such purpose towards Esau, (namely, to show his power in his hardening and overthrow) because Esau was not yet born; then belike God had no such purpose towards Pharaoh himself, while Pharaoh was not yet born. But this is utterly untrue, for as much as God's purposes are eternal, and not temporal.  
And in like manner, it may be proved, that if ever God had the like purpose towards Esau, to wit, after his preferring a mess of pottage before his birthright, or at any other time, it followeth that God had the same purpose towards Esau, even before he was born, for God's purposes are not temporal, but eternal.  
Lastly, as for the difference you put between them, (besides the question) one being a more fit subject for God to show his power in his hardening and overthrow then the other, I grant it to be true in part, as touching the hardening of them. For obduration presupposeth a man of such ripeness of years, as to have the use of reason: But this hinders not, but that God might at the same time have a purpose to harden him in his time, as Pharaoh in his time; And yet, why I pray was not Pharaoh as fit a subject for God to show his power in changing his heart, as well as Saul was in the midst of his bloody persecutions of the Church of God? And what natural man (such as I presume are all those whom you call the world of mankind) is not a fit subject for God to show his power in his hardening and overthrow, though he be never so moral, yea as moral as Trajan, who raised one persecution, or Marcus Antoninus Philosophus, who raised another, or as Aurelianus, who raised a third. It is true, if God will move any man unto courses contrary to his corrupt inclination, and not give him grace to master that corrupt inclination; that man whatsoever he be, shall be a fit subject for God to show his power in his hardening, yea, and overthrow also, if it please him. But if God move any man never so contrariously to his corrupt inclination, and withal give him grace to master that corrupt inclination of his, he shall be a fit subject for God to show the power of his grace in his conversion and salvation.  
You speak much of hardening, even according unto pleasure, without giving your Reader any explication of the words, whereby he might understand your meaning, wherein obduration consists. Surely, obduration is either the denial of grace, or whatsoever it be, it is always joined with the denial of grace, as I take it. But in very different manner I confess, which you distinguish not. As for the denial of grace, that was found to have course in the first sin that was committed both in Angels and men. For I am of Augustine's mind concerning the Angels that stood, that they were Amplius adjuti than the other that fell, De Civit. Dei. lib. 12. cap. 9 As also concerning Adam's fall; that in that case, Though God gave him posse si voluit, yet he gave him not velle quod potuit, and these he makes several adjutoria. The like may be said of every sin that was committed, whereas God could undoubtedly restrain from the committing of it, and that either in a gracious manner, or in a mere natural manner. When it is committed, his gracious restraint is not afforded, but denied rather. What that other action is, wherein this obduration consists, and which is joined with the denial of grace, you expound not. Suppose it be Gods moving a man to some course contrary to his corrupt nature, either by his word, as he moved Pharaoh to let Israel go, or by his works, or by the suggestions of conscience; according to that Law which is written in men's hearts, is not this usually found also as often as sin is committed contrary to light of Nature, or light of Grace? And hath not obduration consequently its course in all this? And why you should pronounce of obduration indefinitely, That it is both the height of man's sin, and depth of man's misery, I see no reason. Do not the children of God sometimes feel it, and in pathetical manner complain of it, Lord why hast thou caused us to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts against thy fear? Esay 63. 17. What saith our Saviour to his Disciples? Mark 8. 17. Perceive ye not, neither understand, have ye your hearts yet hardened? As for your phrase of inflicting obduration, that doth much require explication, which you do no where perform that I know. There is I confess another operation of God besides those I mentioned formerly; whereby men are given over by God, whence it followeth, that they will grow harder and harder, and that is the suspension of his admonitions, either by taking away his word, or forbearing inward motives by his spirit, or removing his judgements and giving outward prosperity, whereby God is said to give men over to their own hearts lusts. But how this or any of these can be called the inflicting of abduration, I understand not. And whereas you say it is prejudicial to God's Justice, to show his power in hardening Pharaoh without respect to sin, like as to condemn him; I have already showed the great difference between condemnation and obduration. It being never said, that God damns whom he will, but the Apostle plainly professing that God hardens whom he will, even as expressly as it is said, He hath mercy on whom he will; and no marvel. For God hath revealed a Law, according to which he proceeds in damning men, but you are not able to show us a Law according to which God proceeds in the hardening of them. For if the elect before their callings, be no better than reprobates, it is impossible to assign a Law, according to which God proceeds in the hardening of men, but that by the same Law, the Elect of God must be hardened also. And hardening in the Scripture phrase is usually opposed to Gods showing mercy. It is one thing to speak of an heart hardened, another to speak of a heart desperately hardened. Yet if you were put to explicate yourself, and show what it is to be desperately hardened, and that of God, and there withal to prove how Pharaoh was at the time you speak of, desperately hardened, I am persuaded this phrase would cost you more pains than you are aware of, for the satisfying of yourself, and perhaps somewhat more for the satisfying of others. If then God purposed to fall upon Pharaoh in his utmost wrath, etc. Surely, from everlasting he purposed so to fall upon him: for all God's purposes are everlasting.  
If your meaning be only to denote the precedency of such a condition of Pharaoh in sin, to Gods falling upon him, in bringing such judgements upon his back; but not a precedency to God's purpose; I willingly concur with you herein. But then the like may be said of God concerning Esau, before he was born, to wit, that God purposed to bring such a measure of obduration and confusion upon him after such a condition of sin. But if your meaning be (as indeed hitherunto the genius of your opinion drives you,) namely, that upon the foresight of some sinful condition, God did decree to bring obduration and condemnation both upon Esau and Pharaoh, as this may be said as well of one as of the other; here you will give us leave to descent from you, considering how manifestly you are found herein to descent from yourself. For if such a foresight of sin go before God's decree of obduration and condemnation, than God did first decree to permit that sin, before he did. decree to harden and condemn man for it, so that the permission of that sin in God's intention, must be before obduration and condemnation, and consequently last in execution: that is, men shall first be hardened and condemned, and then suffered to commit that sin, for which they are hardened and condemned.  
Again, if God's purpose to punish with condemnation, must necessarily presuppose foresight of sin in God; by the same reason God's purpose to reward with salvation must necessarily presuppose a foresight in God of obedience, and in this case, what shall become of the freeness of God's grace in election? not to trouble you with the profession of Aquinas, that never any man was so mad as to introduce a cause of predestination, quoad actum praedestinantis. The case is the same with introducing a cause of reprobation, quoad actum reprobantis. For the ground of this is, only because there can be no cause of the will of God, quoad actum volentis. Now reprobation is well known to be an act of Gods will, as well as predestination.  
Answer, But say further, that this hardening of Pharaoh, be an effect of the like hatred of Pharaoh as of Esau; neither is it said to depend on the sin of Pharaoh, but on the will of God, as mercy doth, as the first cause thereof.  
I answer, this hardening of Pharaoh, though an effect of God's hatred of Pharaoh, yet it is not an immediate effect of the like hatred he bore to Esau, before he had done good or evil, but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh, viz. his malicious hatred of God's Church coming between. God hateth no man so far as to harden him, till he hath fallen into some sin, in which, and for which he may be hardened. Hardening being always (as far as I can perceive by Scripture) not only a sin, and cause of sin, but a punishment of sin.  
How can God be said to punish sin with sin, in hardening the creature, if sin in Pharaoh be not presupposed to go before the hardening? It is true indeed, this hardening of Pharaoh is referred by the Apostle to the will of God as the first cause thereof: For otherwise the answer of the Apostle had not been sufficient to the objection propounded, ver. 14. for there it was objected that unrighteousness might seem to be found in God, even respect of persons to deal so unequally with persons equal, such as Jacob and Esau were; for if Jacob and Esau had done neither good, nor evil, when God had exalted the younger to the participation of his free love, and to sovereignty over his Brother, and depressed the elder to the condition of a servant, and as a servant reserved for him just dealing, but not fatherly love; might not this seem an unequal partiality with God, to deal so unequally with persons equal? To resolve this doubt, the Apostle could not have cleared God from unrighteousness by pleading the sin of Esau, which deserved that he should be so dealt withal, for neither did jacob's sin deserve better; and besides the Apostle had said before, God gave out these Oracles which pronounced his different respect of them without all consideration of good or evil in either of them; viz. before they had done either good or evil. Therefore to satisfy the objection, and clear God's righteousness, the Apostle wisely allegeth testimony of Scripture, to prove Gods absolute power and ability, to show mercy on whom he will, and whom he will to harden.  
When you say this hardening of Pharaoh, though an effect 
Exam.  of God's hatred of Pharaoh, yet was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which he bore to Esau, before he had done good or evil, but presupposeth the sin of Pharaoh, your meaning seems to be this, that it is not at all an effect of the like hatred which he bore to Esau, before he had done good or evil, yet it is no less than the not writing of his name in the book of life, as touching the communicating of saving grace and glory, neither do we acknowledge it to be any more; (like as Aquinas doth not) now the consequent of this kind or measure of hatred in holy Scripture is no less, than the worshipping of the beast, Rev. 13. 8. nothing less than the obduration of Pharaoh. The obduration of the children of Israel, was no greater than such as was consequent unto this, that God did not give them an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, Deut. 29. 4. And this of not giving hearts to perceive, etc. undoubtedly, is a consequent even to that hatred which you are content to attribute unto God, concerning Esau. But you help yourself with a complicate proposition, and fly to an immediate effect, which alone you deny in this case, for as much as the hardening of Pharaoh (as you say) presupposed sin committed by him, but very improvidently: For if it be not an immediate effect of the like hatred that God bore unto Esau, then in accurate consideration it is to be acknowledged an effect thereof. Only there is some effect thereof more immediate than this, and what I pray was that? was it Pharaohs sin? for of no other do you make the least intimation; the more improvident is your expression, intimating thereby that Pharaohs sin was a more immediate effect in Pharaoh of the like hatred God bare to Esau then this obduration.  
But how do you prove that Pharaohs hardening was not an immediate effect of the like hatred which God bore to Esau? to wit, because it presupposed sin. But I deny this Argument, neither do you (discoursing at large) give yourself to the proving of it; but only suppose it. By the same reason you might say, that salvation is not the immediate effect of election unto salvation; because salvation in men of ripe years presupposeth faith, repentance and good works.  
Nay, you may as well say, that Gods giving of grace, is not an immediate effect of God's love to any man; because in most men of ripe years it presupposeth many good works. In Saul it presupposed his zeal and his righteousness according to the Law, which was unblameable. If you say that Saul's righteousness, whatsoever it was before his calling was no fruit of his love: I may with more probability affirm, that Pharaohs sin which preceded his obduration, was no effect of God's hatred. If you say, that though such righteousness in Saul was no moving cause to God to give him saving grace: In like manner I say, that no sin in Pharaoh was a moving cause in God to deny him saving grace: For if it were, then either by necessity of nature, or by the constitution of God. Not by necessity of nature; for undoubtedly God could have pardoned this sin of his, and changed his heart, as well as he pardoned the sins of Manasses, the sins of the Jews in crucifying the son of God, Act. 2. the sins of Saul in persecuting Gods Saints; and changed all their hearts. Nor by any constitution of God; for show me if you can any such constitution of God. And if you would but explicate wherein the hardening of Pharaoh did consist, I presume it would clearly appear, that the mere pleasure of Gods will is the cause of it; like as it is the mere pleasure of God that he doth not harden others in like manner: But when we carry ourselves in the clouds of generallties, we are very apt to deceive not others only, (if they will be deceived) but ourselves also. Again, you seem to speak of Pharaohs hardening mentioned Exod. 9 16. And indeed for this cause have I appointed thee, to show my power in thee, etc. Whereas from the first time that Moses was sent unto him he was hardened, and that by God, according as God had told Moses beforehand, that he would harden him. As for his sin, before ever Moses was sent unto him, you do not take any special notice thereof at all; but whatsoever it were, as suppose the cruel edict of his in commanding the male children of the Hebrews to be cast into the River; like as God answered him most congruously in his works; first causing the waters of Egypt to be turned into blood; and in the last place making the waters of the red Sea, the grave of Pharaoh and of his Host: was this horrible sin any less than a consequent to more than ordinary obduration● for even heathen men are seldom exposed to such unnatural courses. So that if this obduration were an effect of God's hatred, but not immediate; supposing sin according to the manner of your Discourse; than you must be put to devise some other sin as precedent to this obduration. And whereas that sin also cannot be denied to be a consequent to God's denial of effectual grace to abstain from sin, we shall never come to an end, till the cause of all these obdurations be at length resolved into original sin; And what share I pray you hath the world of mankind therein, which Gods elect have not? When you tell us the hardening is a punishment of sin, it were very fit you should deal plainly, & tell us in what operation of God this work of hardening doth consist, which I make no doubt, would clear all. All confess that God is not the cause of hardness of heart in any man, but man being borne in hardness of heart, Ezek. 36. 3. 1. God is said to harden, not infundendo malitiam, sed non infundendo gratiam: By leaving him thereunto, whereby it comes to pass that naturally it is increased, especially in case a man be moved to courses contrary to his corrupt humours, whether by God's word, or by his works, and God doth not by grace correct those corrupt humours, which are so contrariant to good motions; good motions, I mean such as have their course only in the way of instruction and persuasion; In this case thus to move and to deny grace is to harden. But when God doth forbear thus to move, and gives men over to follow the swing of their own lusts, this I confess is to harden in greater measure, and properly a punishment. But this was not the manner of Pharaohs hardening. For long after the ninth Chapter of Exodus we read how God continued to admonish Pharaoh by his servant Moses to let his people go; neither ceased he this Discipline till the ten plagues or nine of them at the least were fulfilled. And like as to show mercy is not to move only to obedience, but effectually to work men to obedience, so the hardening of man in opposition thereunto, consists not in not moving unto obedience, but rather in not working unto obedience, although they be moved thereunto both in the way of instruction and exhortation. As for the punishing of sin with sin, in the hardening of the creature, let us understand ourselves aright, and not confound ourselves when we need not. Is it a sober speech to say that God punisheth his denial of grace, with denial of Grace? or that God punisheth the sins of the heathen with the denial of that grace, which they never enjoyed?  
But as for the punishing of sin with sin, this is a large field of God's providence consisting in divers kinds, and it is no way fit to consider them without distinction. God made the unnaturalness of Senacheribs Sons, a scourge to chastise Senacheribs unnaturalness towards God; one man's sinful act to be the punishment of another's. Here is one kind utterly distinct from that you treat of.  
Again, some say, (and I think justly) and Austin acknowledgeth it, that every man's sin may be a just punishment unto him in respect of a former, as Rom. 1. 25. When men for their Idolatry were given over to vile affections, to defile themselves in abominable manner, it is said that herein they received in themselves, such recompense of their error, as was meet. So 2 Thess. 2. 10, 11. Because men received not the truth of God with love, God is said to send them strong delusions, that they should believe lies. Now seeing this concerneth the providence of God in evil, which is very secret, it were very fit that you should declare your opinion hereabout, and show what operation of God it is, wherein consists the administration of this providence. When first, the one committed Idolatry contrary to the light of Nature, and the other received not the truth with love contrary to the light of grace: neither the one nor the other had any saving grace; and therefore, it is not decent to say that God exposed the one to do things inconvenient, the other to believes lies, and herein punished them for their former misdemenour, by denying unto them that which they never enjoyed. For to punish is either to inflict evil, which formerly they suffered not, or to withdraw some good which formerly they enjoyed. Now how God doth expose unconscionable Christians unto errors of Faith, is easily comprehended. For whereas unconscionable Christians apprehend the truth which they do enjoy, but in a natural and carnal manner, they may easily be withdrawn from it, either by persecution or by seduction: Now it is in God's power to send persecutors or seducers amongst them, and thereby expose them to the embracing of lies, for not embracing his truth with love; or by withdrawing good Pastors and conscionable teachers from them: and then men being naturally more prone to error then to truth, especially in matter of Salvation; we see hereby apparently how God can punish sin with sin in this kind, not by denial of grace which they never enjoyed, but by denying some outward means of grace which formerly they enjoyed. And withal it appears that this is nothing to our present purpose, who treat of obduration, as it consists in, or is joined with the denial of saving Grace, in proper opposition to the showing of mercy; or affording saving grace. As touching the other examples wherein the administration of God's providence is more obscure, while he punisheth sin with sin; I say also that Gods punishing consists in denying, or not maintaining some kind of grace, or rather not so much to be called grace as a natural restraint, not from sin in general, (for that cannot be but by saving grace) but from some sins in special, which are foul in the judgement of a natural man's conscience; such as are those unnatural defilements the Apostle speaks of Rom. 1. Now God in a natural manner restrains men from such excess, either for fear of shame of the world, or by reason of some natural detriment that may arise thereby, or by the ministry of his Angels restraining the temptations of Satan in this kind; And it is found by experience that Nemo repent fit turpissimus, but they grow to extremes by degrees, and the longer a man lives, the worse he grows, if grace correct not the course of corrupt nature, according to that saying, Nemo senex metuit Jovem. Now if God shall forbear this restraint, and give them over to the power of Satan, they shall be exposed to the commission of such abominable things, and therein they shall receive in themselves a just recompense of their former errors. And therewithal we see how this case is as extravagant from our present purpose in discoursing of obduration as the former. And you confess that the hardening of Pharaoh is referred by the Apostle to the will of God; but withal you add, that it is referred thereto, by him, as to the first cause thereof, whereas no such distinction or limitation suitable is expressed or employed by the Apostle; but only for the advantage of your own opinion, you are pleased thus to shape it. And it is very strange that the Apostle should utterly omit such a cause as is of a most satisfying nature, and give himself to the pleading of that, which affords so little satisfaction in the judgement of flesh and blood, such as it seems they relish most of, with whom the Apostle enters upon this his Dialogue; neither doth the Apostle refer this to Jacob and Esau only, as you fashion it (to hold up the difference you put between God's hatred of Esau before he was born, and his hatred of Pharaoh;) but to the obduration of Pharaoh also, nay, more properly to that, his obduration alone being expressed, and the Apostle being upon an answer to an objection arising from the Apostles Doctrine concerning God's sovereignty and liberty to harden whom he will.  
Besides this, you do not well to qualify the difference God puts between Jacob and Esau, as if it consisted only in making Esau jacob's servant, and Jacob Esau's Lord; according to your opinion it extends further than this, even to the granting of such grace to Jacob as should be accompanied with salvation, and denying of the same to Esau, whereupon infallibly followed condemnation. It is true, God is just in dealing with Esau, and God is as just every whit, in dealing with Jacob; for he deals with each according to the Law himself made. But God showed mercy also unto Jacob in providing a Saviour to die for him, and in circumcising his heart, and making him to perform the condition of life, he showed no such mercy unto Esau.  
You see well how incongruous it were to plead the sin of Esau, why he should be so dealt withal, seeing Jacob at that time deserved no better. But why do you not observe, that this Discourse of the Apostle, hath every way as pregnant a reference to the obduration of Pharaoh, or of any one that is hardened, as to Gods dealing with Esau?  
Again, suppose some are not so bad as Pharaoh was, when God hardens Pharaoh, and doth not harden others, but rather shows them mercy, will you say the reason hereof is because these deserved better at the hands of God than Pharaoh? Do you not perceive how this Doctrine carrieth you ere you are aware, to trench upon the freeness of God's grace in man's effectual vocation? Suppose Nicodemus who sought to our Saviour by night were converted, and Saul had not been at all converted, but still hardened; would you have said that Paul was hardened because of his sin in persecuting the Church of God, but Nicodemus deserved better at the hands of God than Saul? Yet we are sure that Saul in spite of all his persecution was converted, when in all probability many a moral Jew, and nothing factious in opposing the Gospel of Christ, yea and many a Gentile too were not converted, but perished in their sins, and in the blindness of their mind.  
If it be urged thereupon that God doth harden the creature 
Answer.  and also hateth him with a positive hatred, without all respect of sin in the creature out of his absolute will.  
I answer, in these deep counsels and unsearchable ways of God, it is safe for us to wade no farther than we may see the light of the Scriptures clearing our paths, and the grounds thereof paving our ways, and as it were chalking it out before us. The Scripture telleth us, That God hardens whom he 
Rom. 11. 1. 8. 9 10. compared with Psal. 69. 21, to 28. See also Rome 1. 26 27, 28 Psal. 81. 11, 12.  will.  
And again, sin is the cause in which, and for which God doth harden any: both which will stand together.  
That as God showeth mercy on whom he pleaseth; so he hardeneth whom he pleaseth, out of his absolute will. Yet hardeneth none but with respect of sin going before. For,  
First, when we speak of the reprobate with comparison of the elect, they are both alike sinners: And therefore if the question be, why God hardeneth the reprobate, and doth not harden, but show mercy on the Elect? Here no cause can be rendered of this different dealing, but only the will and good pleasure of God; sin is alike common to both, and cannot be alleged as the cause of this diversity. Idem qua idem semper facit idem. But when we speak of the Reprobates alone considered in themselves: If the question be, why God is pleased to harden them; The answer is always truly, and safely given; It pleased God to harden them for their sins. And which is yet more, when God is said to harden a wicked man for his sin, it is not sin that moved God primarily to harden him; but his absolute will it was to harden him for his sin; for what sin could God see in the creature to provoke him to harden it, but what he might have prevented by his providence, or healed by the blood of Christ, if it had so seemed good to his good pleasure? When therefore God doth harden a creature for his sin, it is because it is his good pleasure, even his absolute will so to harden him. To will a thing absolutely, and yet to will it on this or that condition, may well stand together in many a voluntary agent, when the condition is such, as that the will might easily help, if it so pleased. As if a man should cast off a servant for some disease he hath, which he might easily heal if it pleased him: or break his vessel for some such uncleanness which he could easily rinse out; Both these may well be said of him at once, that he cast off his servant for his disease, and broke his vessel for its uncleanness, and yet might he cast out his servant and break his vessel, and both out of his good pleasure, and out of his absolute, and his free will.  
It is true; the Word of God is a Lantborn unto our feet, and a Light to our paths, and it is fit we should rest contented herewith 
Exam.  for discovering unto us the whole counsel of God. Now this Word of God plainly teacheth us, that God bardneth whom he will. Now I presume you do not doubt, but that 
Rom. 9 18.  God out of his absolute will, shows mercy on whom he will. Nay, I can hardly believe but that your opinion is, that like as God out of his absolute will granted saving grace to Jacob: so out of his absolute will he denied saving grace to Esau. And still doth to those whom you account the world of mankind.  
And I have already showed that the denial of this grace can be no punishment; For as much as punishment consisteth, either in inflicting evil, or in denying some good which formerly was granted them. But in denying saving grace to the world of mankind, he doth not deny them any thing which they formerly enjoyed.  
I have already showed, what that hardening is which is for sin, and wherein it doth consist, not in denying saving grace, which they never enjoyed, but in denying that natural restraint from some foul sin, which formerly they enjoyed, as I exemplifyed it in that, Rom. 1. 27. That in Rom. 11. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. is nothing for you, where there is no mention of sin as the cause of their obduration. As for that in Psalm. 69. 21. Their blinding is referred to their giving unto Christ Gall in his meat, and in his thirst vinegar to drink. I pray consider: Were they not even then blinded, when they persecuted Christ unto death? And yet notwithstanding some of these were converted, Act. 2.  
But upon this their opposition unto Christ, God did proceed to blind them more and more, but how? Not by denying saving illumination, for this they never enjoyed, it was denied them, from the first to the last.  
But by withdrawing from them the means of illumination more and more, as namely the preaching of Gospel, and the working of miracles, and the giving them over unto the power of Satan. This also is to give them over to their own hearts lust, Psal. 81. 11, 12. by ceasing to admonish them of the error of their ways, either by his word, or by his judgements and chastisements in his works. That God doth harden out of his absolute will, and yet hardens none but for sin, cannot be avouched in my judgement without manifest contradiction. If they are not contradictions; Then those also are not, God hath mercy on whom he will, yet God hath mercy on none, but in respect of their good works going before.  
Secondly, by the same reason it may be said, that God condemns men out of his absolute will, and yet he condemns none but for sin, yet you shall never read that God condemns whom he will.  
Thirdly, if God doth harden out of his absolute will, than also he did purpose to harden of his absolute will. Whence I infer that then God did not purpose to harden for sin. For God's purpose to harden only in respect of sin, is commonly accounted (and that by yourself) a will conditionate, and a will conditionate is opposite to a will absolute.  
Lastly, I deny that God doth harden for their sins, as hardening denoteth a denial of saving grace; For to harden for sin is to punish, but to deny saving grace to them that never had saving grace, is not to punish them; to leave a man in the state wherein he finds him, is not to punish him. And therefore when Epaminondas ran his Javelin through a Sentinel whom he found in sleep, saying, I did but leave him as I found him, because sleep is usually said to be Mortis Imago, the Image of death, had he no better Apology for his fact then this, he had no way freed himself from injustice. If God may harden man for sin, and yet sin shall not be a primary cause moving God to harden him, by the same reason, though God condemns man for sin, it is not necessary, that sin should be a primary cause moving God to condemn him, which is directly contrary to your tenet in the point of reprobation. And this consideration of your own, if you hold yourself unto it attentively, may bring you into the right way, from which you have erred, and the want of it hath been a means I fear to confirm many in their errors. We acknowledge it to be Gods absolute will to condemn for sin, but withal we say it is his absolute will to permit whom he will to sin, and continue in sin by denying saving grace to raise them out of sin. And this denial of grace cannot be for sin, as I have already proved. To harden a man, in opposition to Gods showing mercy on him: we take to be nothing else then his refusal to cure him. Now let any man judge whether it be a decent speech to say, that because a man is sick, therefore God will not cure him.  
In the cases proposed by you, of casting a servant off for a disease which he can cure if he list, or breaking a vessel for some filthiness which one may cleanse if he will; whether this be not to be resolved into the absolute will of the Master, I am content to appeal to every sober man's judgement: although the comparisons are not congruous to the case we have in hand; for as much as the casting of a servant off, is distinct from the not curing of him; the breaking of a vessel is distinct from the cleansing of it. But the hardening of a man, in opposition to Gods showing mercy on him is nothing distinct from Gods refusing to cure him. If the question were proposed thus; Why will not a man cleanse his vessel when he is able to cleanse it? why will he not heal his servant when he hath power to heal him? Is it a good reason to say, therefore he heals him not, because he is sick? therefore he cleanseth not his vessel, because it is unclean? Neither is it a more sober speech to say, therefore God hardens a man because he is a sinner; For it is as much as to say, therefore he refuseth to cleanse him from his sin, because he finds him unclean by reason of his sin.  
Answ. The want of considering this point, hath as I conceive it, entangled the Doctrine of predestination with needless difficulties, and exposed it to rash and hard censures in the minds of gainsayers. Then it may be said there was no cause of that objection, Why complaineth he, and who can resist his will? or at least of that answer to, why doth he yet complain? Rom. 9 20, 21, 22.  
I answer, that objection propounded by the Apostle, Why doth he yet complain? for who hath resisted his will? doth not arise upon occasion of Gods preferring Jacob before Esau, but upon the latter part of the Corollary going immediately before, v. 18. Whom he will he hardeneth; for if it be God that hardeneth the creature, and that according to his absolute will, than might the hardened creature say, what fault is there in me to be so hardened? Why doth God complain of me for my hardness and impenitency? Who hath resisted his will?  
To make this objection colourable, we need not say as you seem to imply, that the Apostle gave occasion of it, by ascribing the hardening of Pharaoh and other reprobates to God's absolute will, and without all respect to sin; yet the creature hardened, is wont to plead with God about it, Esa. 63. 17. you shall there see Gods own people to err, and upon their error, to have their hearts hardened from God's fear, and both done by God, and yet the people expostulate with God about it, which if Gods own people may do reverently, is it any wonder if the reprobates do the same upon the same occasion petulantly and profanely?  
But the answer of the Apostle to the objection propounded, cleareth the whole matter; For, as a man would justify the severe proceedings of a Master of a College, in refusing to elect an unworthy person, and in stead thereof expelling him the College by pleading, first, the liberty or authority of his negative voice: Secondly, the desert of the person refused and expelled. So the Apostle beateth down the insolency of the objection, and pleadeth the justice of God's proceedings against Reprobates hated and hardened, from, first, the Sovereignty of God over his creature, ver. 20, 21. secondly, the due deserts of persons being vessels of wrath, and fitted for destruction, ver. 22.  
What these needless difficulties are, wherewith the Doctrine 
Exam.  of predestination is entangled, by the Doctrine of them whom you impugn, you do not express, nor the hard and harsh censures which are passed upon it, that by due comparing of the one to the other, we might examine how justly such censures are pronounced.  
But of what nature your opinion is, how inconsistent in itself; on how little reason it is grounded; what consequences it draws after it, as also what causeless fears you raise unto yourself; and above all, and which is worst of all, how you deal with Scripture in this argument, to serve your turn, I leave it to your conscience to judge, not to mention how this Discourse of yours is found to harden many in the way of error, and to offend others in the way of truth.  
Indeed there were no cause of any such objection as that, Rom. 9 29. if so be God hardens no man but for sin, and withal it is just with God to harden men in their sine, and less cause of such an answer, Rom. 9 20, 21, 22. No man, I think, makes any doubt but that the objection, Why doth he complain? for who hath resisted his will? ariseth from the 18 ver. where it is said, that God as he hath mercy on whom he will, so he hardeneth whom he will, even as he hardened Pharaoh; but yet you do not shape the objection right, when you shape it thus; What fault is there in me to be hardened? which is in effect as if you would shape it thus; Wherein then have I deserved to be hardened? For the negative to this, namely, that God doth not harden upon desert, is that which the Apostle avoucheth; Like as neither doth he show mercy upon desert. But like as upon the mere pleasure of his will, he shows mercy on some: So, according to the good pleasure of his will, he hardeneth others. But well might he say, why then doth he complain of the hardness of my heart, and my impenitency; or rather the Apostle proposeth it, in reference to the fruits of man's hardness of heart and impenitency, such as God complains of, Esa. 1. I have nourished and brought up a people, and they have rebelled against me. And Esa. 56. All the day long have I stretched out mine hands to a rebellious people, that walk in a way which is not good, even after their own imaginations. Or as if Pharaoh, hearing of this ministry of God's providence, should say, Why doth he complain of the hardness of my heart in not letting Israel go, when he hath hardened my bear't that I should not let Israel go, and who hath resisted his will?  
I have already showed that this hardening of Pharaoh, and so likewise of all reprobates, as it consists in denying of saving grace, in congruous opposition to God's mercy, proceeds merely according to the good pleasure of Gods will: And the Apostle plainly signifies as much, when he saith, That like as God hath mercy on whom be will, so he hardeneth whom bee will; Neither doth he take into consideration any sin of theirs as the cause of hardening, either in the proposition delivered by him, or in answer to the objection arising there-hence. Why then should we be moved with your bare word in saying, we need not say that the Apostle gave occasion of this objection, by ascribing the hardening of Pharaoh and other reprobates to God's absolute will, and without all respect to sin, as the deserving cause thereof. Neither do you give any reason of that you avouch, in saying, that albeit God doth not harden but in respect of sin; yet the creature will plead or expostulate; as indeed it is most unreasonable to ask why God doth complain of hardness of heart, and the fruits thereof; when it hath been showed that this hardness of heart hath been brought upon man for his own sin, and no exception taken against it. But when out of God's absoluteness men are hardened, then, and not till then may it justly seem strange that God should complain of the hardness of men's hearts, and the fruits thereof. As for the place of Esa. 63. 17. Wherein you suppose God's people to expostulate with God for hardening them, notwithstanding they suppose that God hardens them for their sin, this is to beg the question, and not to prove aught, there being no evidence of any such acknowledgement as you suppose, namely, that God doth harden them for their sins. Yet if there were any such acknowledgement, it would not forthwith make for your purpose unless they should acknowledge as much of that obduration, the Apostle speaks of, where he sets it in opposition to Gods showing mercy. To serve your turn, you take liberty to interpret the coherence of these parts, to err from thy ways, and to be hardened against thy fear: as if the former were the cause of the other, upon no other ground that I know, but that thus it shall stand in more congruity with your opinion. Whereas, indeed there is a far greater probability, that hardening against the fear of God should be the cause of the error of our ways, than that error of our ways should be the cause of our hardening against the fear of God; especially taking hardening, not confusedly hand over head, but distinctly in opposition to Gods showing mercy in man's conversion; I take them only as several expressions of the same things consisting of an inward corrupt disposition as the root, and that I conceive to be the want of the fear of God; and the fruit hereof, which is aberration from the good ways of the Lord.  
And they expostulate with God, for not correcting all this by his grace, as by his Covenant of grace, which he hath made with them, he hath engaged himself hereunto, even to keep them from going astray, like a good Shepherd, and to put his fear into their hearts, that they shall never depart away from him; 
Jer. 32. 40.  Which kind of expostulation is nothing answerable to that which the Apostle proposeth to answer, Rom. 9 16. And I may well wonder what you meant to yoke them together: Non bene inaequales veniunt ad aratra juvencae. The children of God do not expostulate with God for his complaining of their disobedience, unthankfulness, and rebellions against him, though they heartily wish they had never provoked him, and expostulate with him for not preserving them by his grace, from such courses of provocation of him, even of the eyes of his glory. The wicked have no such desire to be preserved from sin and sinful courses, which are unto them as sweet bits, which they roll under their tongues; Although when they hear of the Doctrine of obduration and his power to harden them, and in hardening they may take advantage thereby to blaspheme God, and to plead Apology for themselves; Belike than you acknowledge that God hath power to harden without respect to sin, for to this purpose tends your comparative illustration.  
But than you must be driven to deny that obduration is a punishment; seeing it is impossible that just punishments can have course but with respect to sin, as a meritorious cause thereof. That God beateth down the objectour, and pleadeth the justice of God's proceedings against Reprobates, from the sovereign authority of God over his creatures is most true, ver. 20, 21. But that he pleads the due desert of the persons, ver. 22. thereby to justify God in hardening whom he will, as positively avouched, but so far from truth, as that it involves plain contradiction; no less than if the Apostle after he had said that God hath mercy on whom he will, should afterward take a course to justify God herein, by saying that God hath mercy on none, but in respect to their former good works. Nay, much more contradictions, for as much as no good works in the state of nature or grace, can be meritorious of reward. But sins may be and are truly meritorious of punishment. In the 22 vers. there is not the least mention of obduration, much less any mention of the cause thereof, least of all, any reversing of the former cause (expressed ver. 18. and justified ver. 20. from the authority of God the Creator, having power to make his creatures of what fashion he will,) and substituting a new in the place thereof. And although all that are vessels of wrath are sinners, and consequently deserve punishment, yet obduration, in opposition to showing mercy, consisting in the denial of saving grace, is no punishment, for as much as God doth not thereby withdraw any saving grace from them, which formerly they enjoyed; and as for inflicting evil, that hath no place in obduration, for as much as all confess that God doth not obdurate any man, infundendo malitiam, but non infundendo gratiam. Neither is it sin either original, or actual, that which constitutes a man a vessel of wrath, as a vessel of wrath is opposite to a vessel of mercy. For sin both original and actual is incident to the Elect as well as to the Reprobate: but like as Gods showing mercy makes a man a vessel of mercy: so God's denial of mercy, finally constitutes a vessel of wrath, exposing him to final infidelity or impenitency, which sin alone is not found in any of the elect. It seems you think they are fitted to destruction by themselves, as if vasa the vessels did separate, and not Herus the Master rather. Sin alone makes a man obnoxious to condemnation as deserving it, and so there is sin in the best of God's children, to drive them to confess, that if the Lord should be extreme to mark what is done amiss, none were able to abide it: Yet the sin of the Reprobates you confess God could prevent, and not preventing it, yet could cure it by the blood of Christ, so that though sin be granted to be a cause hereof, yet a more original cause (though nothing culpable) must be acknowledged to be the denial of Grace; as our Saviour budgeth not to profess to the faces of some; Ye therefore hear not my words, because ye are not of God, and Joh. 12. 40. Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias saith, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal them.  
All this while have I maintained, the safeness of that exposition 
Answer.  which interpreteth God's hatred of Esau, of a less degree of love, and the same word is also used in the same sense; But yet so understand me, I conceive this less degree of Love, to have somewhat in it of the true nature of Hatred. For as the nature of Love standeth in affecting communion with one, and communicating good unto him: So likewise the nature of hatred stands in the contrary to this, either in affecting separation from one, or inflicting evil on him, or at least in not vouchsafing communion, or communicating good unto him. So is a man said to hate his brother, that will not vouchsafe him such an office of brotherly communion, as that he will communicate a kindly reproof to him for his sin.  
Now I would easily grant, that before Esau had done good or evil, God so hated him, as that he did not communicate to him that fellowship with Christ, which by God's election and donation the members of the body have with him their head in God's account, even before the world was. Neither did God vouchsafe that plentiful communication of his free grace unto him, as might in time by a real actual power draw him to Christ and to live by him: Yea God was pleased to set him in a state further remote, and separate from him than his elect brother: Even in the estate of a servant to the elect: and in stead of communicating free grace, he purposed to deal with him rather according to his works, by a covenant of Justice; For both these are employed in Gods putting of Esau into the state of a servant.  
First, the denial of such grace and fatherly love to him as is reserved for children.  
Secondly, the (not) refusing of him to just dealing, such as is due to servants according to their works.  
I look to receive from you some proof that the word Hatred 
Exam.  is used in the same sense, to wit, to signify a less degree of Love, for to my judgement, it is a wild interpretation; for in this sense God might be said to hate every one of Gods elect excepting Christ, for he loves them all in a less degree than he loved Christ, and one in a less degree than another, according as degrees of Love attributed to God are to be estimated, that is, not quoad affectum, (for undoubtedly there are no degrees to be found in the nature of God) but quoad affectum, and undoubtedly God allotteth one degree of grace to one, and another degree to another, and as he deals with them in communicating of grace, so in the communicating of Glory also. Love and hatred, undoubtedly are opposite contrarily, and not only contradictorily. And because quot modis dicitur unum oppositorum, tot modis dicitur & alterum; as love of complacency consists in delectation, so hatred opposite is of displicency or aversation. And as love of beneficence consisteth in wishing or doing good: So hatred opposite consists in wishing or doing evil to another.  
Here at length I observe the place you stand upon to prove that hatred in holy Scripture, doth sometimes signify a less degree of love, and that seems to be Levit. 19 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, thou shalt plainly rebuke thy brother, and suffer him not to sin. And to serve your turn in this interpretation, you shape a correspondent practice of Love consisting in vouchsafing communion; which unless it be a communion of reproof, is nothing to your purpose, who desire to shape hatred in contradiction thereunto. And yet hatred, all conceive to be much more than not to love. But were all this yielded unto you, yet doth it fall short of your purpose; for albeit he that forbears to reprove his brother, doth him harm, yet if he do not intend him harm, he cannot be said to hate him. For in Scripture phrase hatred denotes an intention to harm, as Deut. 4. 42. Where we read that certain Cities were appointed, That the slayer might fly unto, which had killed his Neighbour at unawares, and hated him not in times past. But if you measure hatred by the harm done, why should the sparing of reproof to preserve a brother from sin, and consequently from incurring the wrath of God, be so qualifyed as to be accounted a less degree of love, and not a fruit of hatred: for consider I beseech you, is not this far worse than to mischief a man by cutting off an arm or limb? So that albeit Scripture did plainly profess that not to reprove a neighbour, but suffer him to sin, were an act of hatred, yet it followeth not hence, that hatred in this case signifies only a less degree of love. For certainly, such an act (to wit, in sparing reproof) is worse by far then to give a man a box on the ear; yet I presume you will not interpret that to be hatred only in such a sense, as signifying a less degree of Love. For certainly the fruits of love are the communications of good, and not any contumelious inflicting of evil. But by your leave I do not find that this is the Scriptures meaning in the place you aim at; but rather in my judgement it seems to meet with a corrupt course of the world, prone to conceive none to be their greater enemies, than such as reprove them. To prevent this, the Lord forbids the one, to wit, the hating of our brother, and as expressly commands the other, to wit, to reprove our Neighbour, manifesting thereby that reproof may be performed, without any just suspicion of hatred in him that reproveth. In fine, this interpretation of hatred which here you make, is embraced by Vossius in his Pelagion Story; but he doth not betray that he is beholding to Cornelius de Lapide the Jesuit for it, in his Commentaries on the ninth to the Romans. And he brings other manner of instances to prove it then you do. And so doth Junius also in Gen. 29. 31. though he were far enough off from applying it in the same sense to Esau, as his son in law Vossius doth, and the Jesuit doth before Vossius.  
In few words your meaning is, God did so far hate Esau, even before he had done good or evil, that he did not destinate unto him any saving grace as he did unto Jacob. May you not as well say that he did not destinate unto him glory, as he did to Jacob? And even this in Aquinas his language is to hate, where he interpreteth God's hatred of Esau before he was born. Yet you might be pleased to go a little further, and to affirm that God did not only not destinate unto him any saving grace, but also that God was purposed to deny him such saving grace as he granted unto Jacob, and consequently he purposed to deny him glory also; if you be pleased to gratify yourself in yielding to this truth, we will willingly gratify you in acknowledging that notwithstanding all this, God purposed to deal with Esau according to his works.  
As for that phrase of yours of putting him into the estate of a servant; though it be of little material consideration in this place, yet I have sufficiently discussed it, in examining your Answer to the first Doubt.   

The Fifth Doubt.  
Question, 5.  
HOw may it appear that all have a sufficiency of coming to Christ, since no man can come without drawing? Joh. 6. 44. 65. and he who is drawn shall be raised to life; or since no man can come except it be given him of the Father. Which speech is a reason why we ought not to murmur or be offended if some believe not, Rom. 11. 7. and since none but the Elect by the means of help and power, Revelat. 2. 15.  
I no where say, nor ever thought that all men had a sufficiency 
Answ.  of power to believe or to come to Christ. Far be it from me to avouch such ungracious Pelagianism; But this I say, God giveth to the men of this world, this world, I say, as opposed to the elect, such means and helps of seeking after the Lord, and finding mercy from him, that they are sufficiently enabled by him to do much more than they do, that way, they are deprived of those drawing and effectual means without which none can come, and with which none ever failed to come to Faith and Repentance: Else how shall we understand these and sundry such like places of Scripture, Act. 17. 25, 26, 27. Rom. 1. 19 to 25. Rom. 2. 4, 5. 14, 15. Luk. 16. 11, 12. Act. 1. 51, 52. Act. 13. 46. Matth. 22. 37, 38. Luk. 19 41, 42. Ezek. 24. 13. Prov. 1. 20. to 30. 2 Chron. 36. 15, 16. Hose. 11. 4. Esa. 5. 3, 4, 5. Job 33. 14. to 18. Joh. 16. 69? From all which places I gather four Conclusions, pertinent to the point in hand.  
First, That God offereth to the men of this world, helps and means, either of the knowledge of God in Nature, or of grace in Christ: and that to this end, to lead them to Repentance and Salvation. Thus is God said to manifest to the Gentiles, that which may be known of him by his works, and by his Law written in their hearts, and that to this end, to make them to seek after the Lord; to lead them to Repentance, to withdraw them from their courses, to heal their pride and to save their souls from the pit. Thus God offered to the carnal Israelites means of grace to purge them, to turn them, Prov. 1. 13. to gather them, Mat. 23. 37. to convince them, Joh. 16. 8, 9 To draw them with cords of man and bands of love, Hos. 11. 4. To dress them to bring forth good fruit, Esa. 5. 4.  
Secondly, That the means God useth for these good ends, are in some measure sufficient (if they be not hindered by men) to bring them to the attainment of these ends: for when God saith himself, he useth these means for these ends; for us to say, these means are not sufficient for these ends, seemeth to me to derogate from the wisdom and sufficiency of God, whose works are all of them perfect, Deut. 32. 4. and so sufficient for the ends for which he wrought them. Yet God forbid I should doubt of that which our Saviour telleth the Jews, No man can come to Christ, except the Father draw him, Joh. 6. 44. by the same Almighty power and authority, whereby he sent Christ into the world.  
The whole tenor of your Answer in clearing the Fifth 
Exam.  Doubt looks this way, as if you maintained a sufficiency of power in those whom we account Reprobates to perform such things, upon the performance whereof they should be saved. I confess you do not make any express mention of Faith, but of obedience in general, and of repentance; which I presume you will acknowledge, will be inseparable from Faith. And that you do acknowledge a sufficiency in them to perform Obedience and Repentance requifite to Salvation, I prove thus:  
You maintain a true desire in God, of their Salvation; and how can this stand with, the denial of such sufficiency as is in his power to grant?  
Again, You expressly maintain, that there is in God, a serious and fervent affection, not concerning their Salvation only, but their Conversion also. Which how it can stand with a denial of sufficient power to turn unto God, I comprehend not.  
Thirdly, You plainly affirm, that mankind slights to work out with the Trinity, their salvation. Now no man can be said to slight the doing thereof, for the doing whereof he hath no power. You maintain there is in a reprobate man's power to work out his salvation with the Trinity.  
Fourthly, the comparison you make to represent Gods different dealing with his Elect, and with the reprobate, doth intimate as much. The servant you say is only persuaded to yield himself to be cut, that he may be cured of the stone, yet earnestly and forcibly persuaded: The son over and above is taken by the Father and bound and cut, that he may be cured. Now as it is in the power of the servant to yield to be cut, that he may be cured, so do you hereby intimate that it is in the power of a Reprobate to yield to be converted, that God may heal him.  
Fifthly, you do acknowledge that God's purpose to give life unto the world upon condition of obedience, doth imply that God should accordingly give means to help them to the performance of this obedience; for you plainly signify that God purposing to give life unto the world upon condition of obedience, doth accordingly give means to help them to the performance of this obedience. Now I say, God's purpose to give life unto the world, upon condition of obedience, doth no more imply that God must accordingly give means to help them to the performance of this obedience, then that God must accordingly give ability by the help of such means to perform obedience. And indeed, to what end tends the giving of means to help them to the performance of obedience, if they have not ability by the help of those means to perform obedience? In this very Section you profess the means which God affords are sufficient to bring them to those gracious ends, which God (you say) intends, if they be not hindered by men. Which doth imply that in your opinion, the men of the world have power to give way unto them, and not hinder them. Yet I confess you are very sparing to confess so much. But the more you are to blame by the face of your discourse to bespeak such opinions in your Readers, and to draw unto them, the maintenance whereof you dare not undertake yourself. But let us consider what you deliver hereupon. And First, though you do not attribute unto a natural man sufficiency, and power to believe: yet if you do attribute unto him sufficiency of power to perform aught, upon performance whereof grace shall be given him, whereby he shall be enabled to believe and to come to Christ, you shall even in this be guilty of that, which you call ungracious Pelagianisme. Now as for your opinion of the power of a naturallman, you here express it partly negatively, partly affirmatively. You conf●●●, they are deprived of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come, and with which, none ever failed to come to Faith and Repentance. Touching which I have something to oppose concerning the phrase, and something concerning the assertion itself.  
The word means used by you, and which you call effectual, we commonly understand as things outward; such as either the Word of God, and the Ministry thereof, or the Works of God and the manifestation of his providence therein. But you seem to go further, and comprehend thereby the effectual operation of God's Spirit, which is very ambiguous, and being delivered in the general, is the fitter to serve a man's turn, sometimes in the one, sometimes in the other signification. As touching the assertion itself, it utterly overthrows all that you have delivered in clearing the fifth Doubt. For with what sobriety can God be said to entertain an earnest and serious affection, concerning their conversion, (which is as much as to say concerning their repentance) being resolved to deprive them of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come to repentance?  
Again, how can God be said to entertain an earnest and serious affection concerning their Salvation, being resolved to deprive them of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come to Repentance, and consequently without which none can be saved? As for the affirmative part, you say the Reprobates are sufficiently enabled by God, to do much more than they do, in seeking after the Lord, and finding mercy from him, and that by certain means and helps. Now in this place I conceive by means and helps you understand only outward things, as either the administration of God's providence in his Works, or the ministry of his Word, and not the effectual operation of God's Spirit, bestowing any power upon them, which naturally they had not, though this must needs be your meaning in the negative part of the assertion. But as touching the assertion itself, there is no question but every natural man, hath power to do more than he doth, in the way of actions natural, but in the way of doing aught that is good, and pleasing in the sight of God, I know no power incident to a natural man: for as much as the Apostle saith, They that are in the flesh cannot please God. Yet I confess according as the world accounts morality, every natural man hath power to do more good than he doth, and to abstain more from evil than he doth, that is, he may give more Alms than he doth, he may be more temperate than he is: but whether he doth that, which for the substance of the action is accounted good; or abstaines from some particular evil actions; yet neither the one nor the other is or can be performed by him in a gracious, but rather in an ungracious manner; and whether this be accounted, a seeking after the Lord, and that to find mercy from him, I dare appeal to your own judgement; yet this is not all you maintain. For whereas the Lord may be sought after, as the God and governor of nature only; you further say in the next page, that there is a sufficiency of power in the means, to lead the men of this world, to come to the knowledge of God, and to grace in Christ.  
But let us examine the places of Scripture, which you muster up in great abundance. The first is out of Act. 17. 25, 26, 27. There we read that God is not worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing bee giveth to all, life and breath and all things. 26. And hath made of one blood all mankind, to dwell upon all the face of the earth, and hath assigned the seasons which were ordained before, and the bounds of their habitation. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That they should seek the Lord, if so he they might have groped after him and found him, though doubtless he be not far from every one of us. 28. For in him we live and move, etc. This seems to be the most principal place whereon you insist, not only by setting it in the first place, but in as much as you deliver your opinion, in the phrase of seeking the Lord, here alone expressed. But this doth nothing serve your turn.  
For first, here is no mention at all of any sufficiency and power, that natural men either by this providence of God, or otherwise have attained unto for seeking of the Lord. For consider I pray; the manifestation of God's grace in his word, is far more able to enable us to seek the Lord, than the manifestation of his providence in his works; yet by the manifestation of his grace in his word, it followeth not that as many as are partakers thereof, are endued with power of seeking the Lord in such sort as to find mercy from him. I confess that to seek the Lord is a phrase of a very general signification, not denoting any material action, but containing only a certain denomination, which may pass upon many material actions; and this Discourse of yours is throughout carried in such generalities, which are very apt to deceive. For in genere latent multae aequivocationes. And for a man to rest on such, is to be in love with his own errors. But I am confident it is only your zeal of justifying God in his ways against the imputation cast upon him by flesh and blood, that makes you take hold of, and content yourself with such general notions, I should think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seek the Lord, in this place, in reference to God's works, is of the same signification in the general with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to seek the Lord, in reference to his word; that is the thing, not whereunto we are hereby enabled, but the thing whereof we are thereby admonished. As Verse 30. it is said, Now he admonisheth every man, every where to repent; to wit, by the preaching of his Word: He doth not say, He doth enable every man, 
Psal. 191. 1.  every where to repent. So; The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament showeth his handiwork: And that which 
Rom. 1. 20.  may be known of God, is made manifest by his works. Rom. 1. And he leaves not himself without witness, giving rain and 
Act. 14. 17.  fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. And so here, He hath assigned the seasons which he ordained before, and the bounds of their habitations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to seek the Lord, that is, as I conceive, to admonish them to seek the Lord: forasmuch, as though the invisible things of God, are said to be manifested by his works: yet it is in such a manner, as it requires study and deep contemplation, to attain to these invisible things of God, in the most indifferent measure: But say, we have power, and all men have power to seek the Lord, that is, to search out those invisible things of God, which are made manifest by his Works, as many Naturalists have done; and to give instance: As Aristotle hath searched after an Ens primum, a first being; and hath found out immaterial substances, and amongst them a first mover, in the contemplation of whom the felicity of all the rest consists; and hath delivered strange conclusions concerning his Nature: Yet I deny that any man hath power natural, so to seek after the Lord, as to find mercy from him. To this purpose it is not enough to know him as the Author of Nature, but we must take forth, and know him as a Redeemer, and author of Grace. For I presume you will not say that Aristotle after his most studious inquisitions after the Lord, did find mercy from him.  
Nay, this great searcher into the secrets of Nature, denied his Omnipotency, for they could not be drawn to believe that he was able to produce any thing out of nothing, this was the general opinion of them all in a manner. Thence he proceeded to deny that the world had a beginning: and to maintain that God wrought all that he wrought by necessity of nature, and not by freedom of will. Yet this eternal power and Godhead they did acknowledge, and that he was to be worshipped for the dignity of his nature. But not either out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward. Such notions were rather popular then Scholastical, a manifest evidence that the world was brought to conceive more soberly of the nature of God, by instinct of Nature, then by discourse of reason. For such as followed discourse of reason most, became most Atheistical as touching the providence of God; yet all agreed in this, that he was incorruptible, which was sufficient to convict them of impiety, in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God unto the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. And did not they profit best in the School of Nature, who by the observation of providence in the way of mercies and judgements, were driven to acknowledge an unknown God, and to erect Altars for his worship? And as for seeking of the Lord, so as to find him in any comfortable manner, doth not the Apostle as good as confess despair of such power in natural men, when forthwith he addeth, If so be they might have groaped after him, and found him, though doubtless he be not far from every one of us, for in him we live, move, 
Act 17. 26, 27.  and have our being. And yet as for the Apostles finding of him in this place, I should rather think that it is in reference to the apprehension of his nature (as the Creator of all) rather than of his goodness (as a Redeemer) so to find mercy from him though you seem to aim at this interpretation.  
Your second place is out of Rom. 1. 19 to 25. That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them. Where? In his works, as it followeth. For the invisible things of him, that is, his eternal power and Godhead, are seen (not by, but) from the creation of the world, being considered in his works. If the Apostle had here added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to seek the Lord, and to find mercy from him, it had been more fair for your purpose. But the Apostle adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the intent that they should be without excuse, viz. in a particular case, to wit, because they did not glorify God as God, but turned the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Neither do we deny but men have power to discern the nature of God, to be incorruptible, and consequently they are inexcusable in the way of Idolatry. But whereas Idolatry is but the third kind of blasphemy, in attributing to the creature, that which belongs to God himself. And there are two sorts of blasphemy besides this: One in attributing to God that which doth not become him. Another in denying unto God that which doth become him; will you say that every natural man hath power to discern the nature of God in such sort as to preserve himself from blasphemy every way?  
The third place is out of Rom. 2. 4, 5. Despisest thou the riches of his bountifulness, and patience, and long sufferance, not knowing that the bountifulness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5. But thou after thine hardness, and heart that cannot repent, heapest up unto thyself, as a treasure, wrath against the day of wrath. Now if this doth imply any ability in man of seeking the Lord, and finding mercy from him, it must needs be in the way of repentance. And this I confess is a clear way, both of seeking the Lord, and of finding mercy from him. But dare you say that a natural man hath power to repent? I presume you will not, unless you frame repentance after such a notion, as will be found to be neither seeking of the Lord, nor finding mercy from him. And you yourself here profess, that God deprives them of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come to repentance. And in the very place alleged, it is expressly said of them whom God is said to lead to repentance, that the hardness of their heart is such, that they cannot repent.  
The fourth is taken out of Rom. 2. 14, 15. When the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, they having not the Law, are a law unto themselves, which show the effect of the Law written in their heart, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing one another, or excusing. I wish things were carried with less ostentation, and with more judgement, then to allege Scriptures, and put the Reader upon making Arguments for them thence. For my part I see no colour in all this, to justify any power and sufficiency in a Reprobate to seek the Lord, and to find mercy from him: though I make no question, but they have power to abstain from many things prohibited in the Law of God, and to do things commanded, as touching the substance of the duty commanded, or the action forbidden: though they are far enough off from doing it for God's sake, and out of the love of God, with all their heart, and with all their soul, as whom they knew not even the very best of them, 1 Cor. 1. 21. 1 Thess. 4. 5.  
The fifth is drawn out of Luk. 16. 11, 12. If ye have not been faithful in the wicked riches, who will trust you in the true treasures? And if you have not been faithful in another man's goods, who shall give you that which is your own? Hence you seem to infer, that carnal men, natural men, have power and ability to perform faithfulness in the administration of temporal riches: and you might proceed further to infer, that by performing such fidelity, which is in their power to perform, they should have true riches, and such as should never be taken from them. And what is to maintain that God doth dispense grace according to works, if this be not? And yet this latter is with more probability inferred then the former. For certainly God doth reward faithfulness in little, with the bestowing of greater gifts, as Matth. 25. 21. 23. But albeit they that are unfaithful in little, are unworthy to have greater gifts bestowed upon them; yet herehence it doth not follow, that mere natural men have so much power of goodness in them, as to be faithful unto God in the use of those natural gifts which God hath bestowed upon them, (yet in spite of this unworthiness, which God finds in his Elect, before their calling, he doth nevertheless trust them with true riches. And if they were faithful therein, they would be found faithful also in greater things. For ver. 10. our Saviour professeth, That he who is faithful in the least, is also faithful in much.  
The sixth place is, Act. 7. 51, 52. Ye stiffnecked, and of uncircumcised hearts and ears, ye have always resisted the Holy Ghost. 52. Which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted? That which you stick upon (I doubt not) is this, that they are said always to have resisted the Holy Ghost, both they and their Fathers. We deny it not: but will you herehence infer that they had power and ability to yield to the Holy Ghost? If this inference like you, than you may be bold to infer in like manner, That because many resist the Holy Ghost moving them to faith and repentance; therefore they have power and ability to yield to the Holy Ghost in this also, that is, to believe and repent. Yet yourself profess in this very Section, that God deprives them of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come, to wit, to the Lord, and find mercy from him; which yet undoubtedly they should do, did they believe and repent. Yet I deny not, but they might have abstained from persecuting the Prophets; but I deny that it was in the power of any of them (being but natural men) to abstain from it in a gracious manner, and acceptable in the sight of God. And so long as they did not abstain so, is it fit to call it a seeking after the Lord, or finding of mercy from him? I presume you will not deny but that many a Jew in the Apostles days were free from faction, contenting himself to enjoy his own course quietly and peaceably, was yet further off from grace then Paul that persecuted the Church; God calling him in the midst of his furious pursuit, and not calling others though far more peaceably disposed toward the Church of God than Saul.  
The seventh place alleged is Act. 13. 46. Then Paul and Barnabas spoke boldly, and said, It was necessary that the Word should first have been spoken unto you, but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, we turn unto the Gentiles. Hence you infer that these Jews were enabled to do more than they did in seeking the Lord, and finding mercy from him. But I would gladly know wherein that seeking of the Lord consists? Had they not railed against Paul, (as I confess they had power to spare that) had they not contraryed him, nor spoken against those things which were spoken by him, as I confess they might have held their tongue; had this been to seek the Lord more than they did? or in better manner than they did? I think not: for they might have contained themselves from all this, nay, they might have pretended some propensions to embrace the Gospel, which yet had it been performed in hypocrisy, it had nothing commended them in the sight of God. As Diasius, when he could not prevail with his brother to draw him back to Popery, pretended some propension in himself to hearken unto him; but we know what the issue was, even to slit his head, as the issue of Judas his following Christ was to betray him. I think they that deal so, and through zeal persecute the Church, as Soul did, are nothing further off from seeking the Lord and finding mercy from him then the other. These did manifest themselves unworthy of eternal life; do not all so, who stumble at the Word of God, and refuse to hearken to it? For this is the condemnation of the world, Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil, Joh. 3. 16. Will you therehence infer, that all such are enabled to obey it, which is as much to say, as that they are enabled to believe and repent?  
The eighth is out of Mat. 23. 37, 38. How often would I have gathered thy children together, as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not? Behold your habitation is left unto you desolate, etc. What I pray you, is to be gathered under his wings? can it be less then to come unto him? nay, is it not to be healed by him? since as yourself observe, healing was under his wings: and if so, to come to Christ, is to be healed by him: can it be any thing less, then to believe and repent? And will you herehence infer that they had power thus to come under his wings, and consequently to believe and repent?  
And yet in this very place you profess that as touching all others except the Elect, God deprives them of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come to Faith and Repentance. Nay, whatsoever it be, that lies in their power to perform besides, by the performing of it, do they come any whit nearer to the participation of Grace? I do not find you adventure to profess so much, for fear of falling into that which you call ungracious Pelagianisme.  
The ninth is Luk. 19 41, 42. Which is of the same nature, and of no greater force than the former, Oh that thou hadst even known at the least in this thy day those things which belong unto thy peace; but now are they hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee when thy enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and make thee even with the ground, because thou knewest not the season of thy visitation. To know, in Scripture phrase is of a complicate notion and signifieth knowledge joined with congruous affections: and thus to know the things that belong unto our peace, is so to know, as therewithal to embrace them; and to know the time of our visitation, is so to know, as to accommodate ourselves thereto in agreeable conversation, as Jer. 8. 7. The Stork in the air is said to know her appointed times, and the Turtle, and the Crane, and the Swallow (are said) to observe the time of their coming. That is, so to know it, as accordingly to come: so to know the time of our visitation, is so to know it, as accordingly to come unto God when he visits us, and according as his Visitation requires of us. Now will you herehence infer, that they were enabled to perform all this, and so to seek the Lord? I appeal to your own conscience, whether it might not be as justly said of them, as Moses said of the children of Israel in the wilderness, Deut. 29. 4. The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. Nay, doth not our Saviour himself say as much of these Jews, Joh. 12. 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias saith again. 40. He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Neither will it follow hereupon that they are excusable so much the more, although this is a very plausible inference, for our Saviour professeth (notwithstanding this) that they had no cloak for their sins, Joh. 15. 22. And indeed only such an inability doth excuse, as hereby a man is unable to do that which he fain would do●● As for the doing of that they did in resisting the Gospel, they had rather too much will therein then too little, and that through the want of grace.  
For as Austin wisely observes: Libertas sine gratia non est libertas, sed contumacia. Liberty without grace, is not liberty, but wilfulness.  
The tenth is, Ezek. 24. 13. Because I would have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness, till I have caused my wrath to light upon thee. I should think this were spoken of God's Elect, not so much by observing that phrase, till I have caused my wrath to light upon thee, but chiefly by comparing it with Ezek. 22. 10. I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the Countries, and will cause thy filthiness to depart from thee. It may have place, not only of the Elect, but of the regenerate also, for even them sometimes God doth cause to err from his ways, and harden their hearts 
Esa. 63. 17.  against his fear. Which though they have power to repent, yet upon supposition of obduration, and so long as that continues, it may be said that they cannot repent. How much more may it be verified of natural men, in the state of unregeneracy, that they cannot repent? And shall this any way hinder the course of God's judgements against them for their sins unrepented of, because without grace it is not in their power to purge themselves from their sins by repentance? I deny not but they have power to perform feigned repentance, as Jer. 3. 10. And shall feigned repentance (think you) be of force to keep off the judgements of God? or if God's judgements shall have their course, except they be prevented by unfeigned repentance, will it herehence follow that natural men are enabled to perform unfeigned repentance?  
The eleventh is Prov. 1. 20. to 30. Wisdom cryeth, etc. 20 How long will ye love foolishness? ver. 22. Turn you at my correction, ver. 23. Because I have called and ye have refused, etc. ver. 24. I will also laugh at your destruction, ver. 28. Will you herehence infer that they were enabled to turn, to hearken to wisdom's voice, and think to put a difference betwixt your opinion, and that of the Pelagians of old, by saying that though natural men have not power to believe and repent, yet they are enabled to do more good than they do, in the way of seeking the Lord and finding mercy from him? and pin upon every place you allege, such a distinction as this, which you no where manifest sufficiently to understand yourself, as touching the latter part of it; So loathe you are to show what are the particulars of seeking the Lord, they do attain to, and to what particulars further they might attain, and of what particulars they must necessarily fall short, for want of certain helps.  
Might you not as well infer, that it is in the power of man to make him a new heart, because God calls upon him to make him a new heart? Austin was wont to say and advise rather in this manner. In praecepto cognosce quid debe as habere, in correptione cognosce tuo te vitio non habere, in oratione cognosce unde possis habere. In God's precept know what you ought to have, in his rebuke take notice that through your fault you have it not, in prayer know whence you may have it.  
The twelfth is out of 2 Chron. 36. 15, 16. And the Lord God of their fathers sent unto them by his Messengers, rising early and sending, for he had compassion on his people, and on his habitation. 16. But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his Prophets, until the wrath of God rose against his people, and till there was no remedy. I do not deny but that it was in their power not to misuse the Prophets, not to mock his Messengers, but do you not think, that amongst these naughty figs, some were nothing so bad, and yet did not the wrath of God come upon them as well as upon others.  
Again, consider, what of all this; yet if they had repent, had not their foulest sins hereupon been done away? so that for want of repentance, the wrath of God broke forth against them. Now why do you not as well infer herehence, that they had power to repent, and so to seek after the Lord, and find mercy from him?  
Thirdly, was it not enough to bring the wrath of God upon them, to be found guilty of despising his words, and hath any natural man power to keep himself from this sin? Is there any greater despising of them, then to esteem so basely of them, as to account them no better than foolishness? Now is any natural man free from this? Doth not the Holy Ghost tell us, 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural man perceives not the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him? But by the way I observe, we little agree in the notion of free will; which (if I be not deceived) was never accounted by the Learned, to consist in aught other then in election of means. As for the end, according to the habitual disposition of the heart and will, a man is necessarily carried to the affection of an agreeable end, agreeable, I say, to his own disposition. Whence it followeth, that albeit it be in the power of grace alone, to change the heart and renew the will, yet whatsoever the unregenerate either do or refuse to do, they carry themselves herein freely, in as much as they proceed herein with choice in respect of their own ends.  
I come to the thirteenth out of Hos. 11. 4. I led them with cords of a man, and with bands of love, and I was to them as he that taketh away the yoke from their jaws, and I laid their meat unto them. Was not such like the Lords dealing with the children of Israel, when he took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt? Did he not lead them with the cords of Love? did he not take off the yoke from their jaws? did he not lay Manna before them? yet of them doth Moses profess, that notwithstanding all this; God gave them not an 
Deut. 29 4.  heart to perceive, nor eyes to see, nor ears to bear unto that day. And in this Text alleged, what colour is there to justify this your distinction; namely, that albeit God deprives Reprobates of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come to faith and repentance, yet they are enabled by him to do much more than they do, in seeking after the Lord, and finding mercy from him.  
The fourteenth is out of Esa. 5. 3, 4, 5. Judge I pray you between me and my vineyard. 4. What could I have done more to my Vineyard, that I have not done unto it? why have I looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes? 5. And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I conceive herein you may devise a treble ground to build upon. I could wish yourself had dealt plainly, and argued herehence, the justification of your premised distinction. It might have saved your Reader a great deal of pains, whereas now by the manner of your Discourse, he is driven as well to argue for you, as to answer for himself, that he may keep himself from being overtaken with error upon a general consideration ere he is aware.  
The first ground may be, that God seems to profess, that he had done what he could do; now undoubtedly he could give them power to do more good than they did, in the way of seeking the Lord, which is the thing that you affirm, and therefore he did give this power: but say I, God could give means also to draw effectually unto repentance; and consequently he did draw them hereunto, which is the thing that yourself deny, and the Text itself also, for instead of sweet grapes, they brought forth wild grapes.  
Secondly, you may ground upon this, that God expected they should bring forth sweet grapes, and upon such grounds you usually make Collections, and herehence you may infer, that therefore they had power to bring forth sweet grapes. But this consequent is untrue by your opinion; for sweet grapes must needs be grateful unto God, and no less than Faith and Repentance. But you confess that God deprives them of such drawing and effectual means without which none can come, and with which none ever failed to come to faith and repentance.  
The third ground may be God's resolution to lay his vineyard waste. And thence you may infer that they had power to avoid such sins as were the causes thereof. But consider, I pray you, is it not just with God to damn the world for infidelity and impenitency, and will you herehence infer that it was in their power to believe and repent? I presume you will not.  
The fifteenth is Job 33. 14. to the 18. there we read that God speaketh once and twice, and one seeth it not, even in dreams and visions of the night. 15. When this will not serve the turn, he opens the ears of man, even by the corrections which he hath sealed, ver. 16. and that which God aims at in this is, That he might cause man to turn away from his enterprise, and that he might hide the pride of man, ver. 17. and keep back his soul from the pit, and that his life should not pass by the Sword, ver. 18. All this represents the power of God's grace in overcoming the hardness of man's heart, together with the wisdom of God, proceeding various ways to the same end, an instance whereof we have in Manasses. But as for any power in man to do any more good than he doth in seeking after the Lord, here is not the least indication, much less to justify the distinction here devised by you.  
I come to the last, taken out of Joh. 16. 8, 9 And when he is come he will reprove the world of sin, because they believed not in me. It seems you insist only upon the latter, in as much as the allegation reacheth no further. The other parts being explicated in the Verses following. Cannot Christ reprove the world of infidelity, for not believing in him, unless thereby be acknowledged a power in a carnal man to do more good than he doth, in the way of seeking the Lord? Surely, if any power in man hereto is to be acknowledged, it must be a power to believe in Christ; seeing infidelity is the sin whereof the world shall be reproved by Christ; and not the sin of not doing the good they could in the way of seeking the Lord.  
But yourself acknowledge in this section that God deprives them of those drawing and effectual means without which none can come to Faith and Repentance. Much less doth it prove your present distinction, namely, that albeit God deprives them of such means, without which none can come to Faith and Repentance; yet they are enabled to do more good than they do, in the way of seeking the Lord.  
Means of the knowledge of God, we confess to be partly the administration of his providence in his works, which is the book of his creatures; and there was a time when God did teach the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his Works, as chrysostom observeth, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his Writings, and partly by the revelation of his word in the Scriptures. And one of these means ever was and is afforded unto all. But whereas you say God affords them to this end to lead them to salvation and repentance. Here is first an incongruity, which you are content to swallow, to hold up your opinion. For in truth the administration of God's Providence in his works, and the revelation of himself in his word, is the very leading of them to that whereunto he leads them, to wit, by admonition. And as it is absurd to say that God doth admonish men to the end he may admonish them: so is it no less absurd to say, that he doth lead them, to the end he may lead them. As for the things whereof he doth admonish them repentance and salvation are ill matched. And even such an incongruity doth serve your turn, to blear both your own eyes and others also. If these were the things God leads men to by his works, and word, it were but in this manner, he leads them to repentance that they may be saved.  
As for repentance itself, admonition hereof the Apostle doth so manifestly attribute in such sort unto the ministry of his word as withal he derogates it from the bare administration of his providence in his works, Act. 17. 30. And the time of this ignorance God regarded not, but now he admonisheth all men every where to repent; manifestly giving to understand that the Gentiles were not admonished till now. In the time of extraordinary affliction, brought upon them by the administration of God's providence in his works, men may be stricken with fears that they have provoked a divine providence, and hereupon they may be stirred up to take a course to pacify the wrath of God according to that counsel. Non te nullius exercent numinis irae, etc. therefore faciles venerare Napaeas': namque dabunt veniam votis irasque remittent.  
But when they neither know God whom they have offended; nor the sidne whereby they have provoked him, nor the right way to pacify him; (as a Jew sometimes being taken in a foul fact of collusion, with the place where he had been kindly entreated, and desiring to make remonstrance of his repentance, out of his familiarity with me, came to me privately, and inquired of me what it was to repent, for saith he, I do fast and macerate my body.)  
This manner of admonition deserves not to be called an admonition to repentance. In such a case the Athenians were sometimes brought about to erect an Altar to an unknown God; as much as to say, to pacify they knew not whom, nor how, nor for what.  
It is true, God is said Rom. 1. 19 to manifest to the Gentiles that which may be known of him, by his works. Yet not all that may be known of him; for even the wisdom of the world, after all their pains and studious courses, are said not to have known God, no not in the wisdom of God, 1 Cor. 1. 21. But his eternal power and Godhead is generally made known to the world, sufficiently to convict them of Idolatry: ●nd the Apostle delivers no more in that place.  
I hope we Christians by the help of God's Word, are now adays brought to such a measure of understanding of God by his works, that we are able even by discourse of reason to prove many a fair attribute of God, which the greatest Philosophers were ignorant of, though some things are found in them concerning the nature of God, which we cannot read without admiration.  
You add also that God hath made manifest that which may be known of him by his Law (also) written in their hearts. These you couple together, though little or nothing Homogeneal. The Law of God written in our hearts, is concerning man's duty, no part whereof is contained in his Works.  
His eternal power and Godhead the Apostle tells us is made manifest by his works, no such content doth he make of the Law written in our hearts, Rom. 2. 14. but when you say this is done to this end to move them to seek after the Lord, you fall upon the incongruity formerly spoken of. For the very administration of God's providence, is the moving of them to seek after the Lord.  
I say the administration of God's providence in his works, moves men, as the Apostle signifies, to seek after the Lord. The Apostle no where refers this to the Law written in men's hearts; but you put all together, and that for a special purpose as it 
seems.  serves. For the phrase of seeking after the Lord, Act. 17. seems only to import the seeking after his nature, manifested by his works; but you desire (as it seems) to bend it to denote such a seeking after the Lord, as whereby to pacify him, and to find mercy from him. In which sense you say it was far more accommodable to the Law of God written in man's heart, then to the Administration of his providence in his works; and therefore you couple both these courses together, and then assign the end of them both, to seek after the Lord; which through the ambiguous signification thereof, is applicable to both; though the Apostle utters it in such a sense only, as whereby it is applied to one course only, namely to the administration of his providence in his works. Which yet I do not conceive to proceed from any ill mind in you, but out of a desire to hold our tenets up in that course of opinion which pleaseth us, which is a common fault of all.  
But with this difference; some affect those opinions, which are most fit to humour flesh and blood: but your aim (I am persuaded) is only to take a fit course to justify God in his proceedings. Only you may be pleased to remember, that it is nothing fit, we should lie for God, as man doth for man, to gratify him.  
As for the other end here specified, of Leading to Repentance; this is neither appliable to that course of God's providence, mentioned Act. 17. which is admonishing to seek the Lord, nor to that, Rom. 2. 14, 15. but to a course different from both, namely, the consideration of God's patience and long-suffering, which yet without God's word to inform us better, is far more fit to harden men's hearts in their sinful courses, then to bring them to repentance. Which is a good reason to persuade, that in this second Chapter to the Romans, the Apostle makes a transition from the Gentiles to the Jews, from them which were nurtured and disciplined only by God's works, to them which were nurtured also by the Ministry of his word. That in Job 33. 17. 29. of withdrawing men from their courses, healing their pride, and saving their souls from the pit; You do not well to confound the courses taken for this there mentioned, with the bare administration of God's providence in his works, or the writing of his Law in men's hearts, after a natural manner. For the courses there mentioned by dreams and visions, and by an interpreter, were in those days the only means of grace. And then Elihu speaks of God's effectual working of these gracious operations: to wit, In withdrawing men from their sinful courses, to heal their pride, and save their souls from the pit. And we can willingly grant, that God did intend that which he would effectually bring to pass. But to say that God doth intend and will, that such a thing should come to pass, which never comes to pass, this we take to be a most indecent assertion, and spoils God of his omnipotency, and plainly contradictious to that which yourself here profess, in saying that God deprives the men of this world, of those drawing and effectual means, without which none can come to Faith and Repentance. And with what sobriety can it be affirmed, that God wills their repentance and salvation, whom he deprives of those means, without which none can repent, that he may be saved? Yet for the making good of your assertion, I have often devised a commodious interpretation of your words, which you do not, as namely thus; God useth such or such means to withdraw men from their course, to heal their pride, to save them from the pit. That is, to admonish them of their duty in turning from their wicked ways, and humbling themselves, that they may be saved. And accordingly God may be said to will it, with will of precept, not of purpose, Voluntate praecepti, non propositi; until withal he doth effect it, by giving those drawing and effectual means, without which none can repent.  
Or lastly, God may be said, by using such courses to intend, that they should repent, and so be saved, that is, that they should (Ex officio, not the facto) repent, that they might be saved. Thus to the Israelites he did, and to his Church 
Ezek. 24. 13.  he doth even to reprobates amongst them; offer means of grace to purge them. Now by the operations of outward means, (which I think you signify) and if you thereby comprehend the inward operation of God's Spirit also, you do not well to confound things so different under the same terms, (such ambiguity is so apt to deceive us) consists only in instruction, and admonition, and exhortation or correption. Now these whether made to turn us, Prov. 1. 23. or to gather us, Mat. 23 27. or to convince us, Joh. 16. 8, 9 are not of themselves (as you know) effectual to the conversion of any; though they are called in Scripture phrase, the drawing of us with the cords of a man, and with the bonds of love, Hose. 11. 4. And the dressing of us, Esa. 5. 4. And yourself profess, that unless God use those drawing and effectual means, no man can convert, no man can believe and repent.  
Secondly, when you say, that the means which God useth for these ends, are in some measure sufficient (if they be not hindered by men) to bring them to the attainment of these things. This is worse than ought you have delivered hitherto; yet you are to be commended for dealing so plainly as you do in this place, and no where else for aught I have found. But the more plainly you deal, the more foul doth your opinion appear. I should with a distinction, willingly confess that the means God useth are sufficient, to wit, in the way of instruction and admonition, so far forth as God will have them (towards whom they are used) to be instructed and admonished: But this kind of sufficiency doth not depend on man, as if he could hinder it.  
Whether they will receive any instruction or no, the means are never a whit less or more sufficient in the way of instruction.  
And indeed outward means tend no further, then to such like operations as thus, (to wit) instruction, admonition, correption.  
But when you make the sufficiency of the means to depend on man's will, so as to be hindered thereby, this must needs be delivered of sufficiency in respect of conversion, of bringing men unto faith and repentance.  
And withal this is further to imply, that it is in the power of man by these means to be converted unto God to believe and repent: which is a more foul tenet, than any you have delivered yet, though little truth hitherto have I found in this Discourse throughout, saving in things merely delivered to no purpose. And withal it is plainly contradictious to that which here you expressly profess, namely, that no man can believe and repent without some drawing and effectual means, which are far different from the means here spoken of. For the means here spoken of, are such as he affords to Reprobates: but those drawing and effectual means, which he affords only to his Elect, as yourself do acknowledge; we are so far from denying them to be sufficient to the ends whereto he intends them, as that we willingly profess, they are all effectual (in their kind) unto the ends, whereto he intends them.  
As for example, if God intends them for the converting of some unto God, all such shall certainly be converted; if only to the taking away of excuse from others, they shall be effectual to the removing of excuse; if to the bringing of some ad exteriorem vitae emendationem, to an outward amendment of life and no further, they shall be effectual to that also and no further. And therefore we do nothing derogate from the wisdom of God, but look you well unto it, that you do not derogate from God's omnipotency whilst you maintain that some things are intended by God, which are never brought to pass, and that because the will of man forsooth stands in resistance unto God's intention. Directly contrary to the Discourse of Austin, Enchir. cap. 96. whose words are these, Deo proculdubio, quam facile est quod vult facere, tam facile est, quod non vult esse, non sinere. Hoc nisi credamus, periclitatur ipsum nostrae fidei consessionis initium, qua nos in Deum Patrem omnipocentem credere confitemur. Neque enim ob aliud veraciter vocatur omnipotens, nisi quia quicquid vult potest, nec voluntate cujusquam creaturae voluntatis omnipotentis impeditur effectus. And if it be so as you profess; That no man can come to Christ, except the Father draw him; by the same Almighty authority and power, whereby he sent Christ into the world; and withal if you add thereunto, as elsewhere you do, that this power (I leave out authority as of an alien signification) is showed only in drawing his Elect, what need all these pains that you have taken, since it is clear, that so long as you hold to this, you shall never satisfy any Pelagian or Arminian? and all the absurdities they charge our Doctrine with, are directed against this.  
But well you may puzzle the wits, and trouble the mind of many an Orthodox and well-affected Christian, with so intricate a discourse, labouring to devise a new way to justify our Doctrine of Election by so tempering the Doctrine of reprobation, as utterly to overthrow your own Orthodox opinion, in the very point of election, as I have already showed, as occasion hath been given.  
Object. How then (will you say) can these two stand together? there is a sufficiency and power in the means, to lead the men of this world to the knowledge of God, and to grace in Christ, and yet there is an impotency, yea an impossibility in the men of the world to come to Christ, without greater and stronger means than these be?  
Answ. For answer whereto I will not content myself to say, that these means are sufficient, because they suffice to leave men without excuse; only in the second place, and by accident, after, when men have neglected to make so good use of them as they might have done: but you see that God aims at other ends in the first and principal place. viz. to lead them to repentance to save their souls from the pit, as the places alleged give evident witness: and for these ends it is that these means must be acknowledged and conceived as sufficient. For else the Word of God argued an imperfection or insufficiency of such means to their proper ends. I think it safe to say, these means are sufficient, ex parte Dei, on God's behalf, to manifest the will of God, rather to desire repentance and life, than the hardening and destruction of the Creature. And ex parte hominum, in regard of men, sufficient to enable them to the performance of such duties, in which their natural consciences would excuse them, and in which way they might the sooner find mercy, mercy vouchsafing more powerful and more effectual helps, whilst they walk according to the knowledge and helps, which they have received, and sin not against conscience, but only out of ignorance in the state of unbeleef.  
It is Arminius his superficiary conceit, that Hortatio non facta 
Exam.  sed spr●ta, makes a man inexcusable, not considering that admonition and instruction itself, takes away excuse, although none have need of excuse, but they that do evil. For the excuse is this, si scissem fecissem, or, si audivissem credidissem; now this excuse is manifestly removed by the preaching of the Gospel. And the word inexcusable, though it formally signify without excuse, yet withal it connotates a condition delinquent, and such as had need of excuse, though bereft thereof, and such a condition ariseth from the contempt of the means of grace.  
Neither is this condition by accident, like as the neglecting to make good use of them is not by accident.  
For God intending to deprive them of those drawing and effectual helps, without which none can make good use of them, did never intend they should make good use of them, but rather the contrary, in as much as he purposed not to show that mercy towards them which he shows towards his Elect, but rather to harden them. As the Lord tells Ezek. Chap. 2. 4. They are impudent children, and stiffe-hearted. I do send thee unto them, and thou shalt say unto them; Thus saith the Lord God. But surely they will not hear, neither indeed will they cease; for they are a rebellious house, yet shall they know, that there hath been a Prophet among them.  
So that albeit the Lord knew full well what sorry entertainment his Prophets should find, yet would he not give way to any such excuse as this; If the Lord had sent his Prophet to admonish us of our wander from him we would soon have turned unto the good way of the Lord.  
No, they shall know there hath been a Prophet among them.  
And as for the ground of this his foreknowledge, Esay manifesteth this to be God's purpose to harden them, Esa. 6. 9 Go and say unto this people, ye shall hear indeed, but shall not understand, ye shall plainly see and not perceive; make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and convert, and I shall heal them. What place is here for such conceits of leaving men without excuse in a second place, and that by accident?  
Yet if you can prove that God did intend any better thing unto them in a first place, we shall be willing to confess that this comes in, in a second place.  
You say, God leads them to repentance to save them from the pit.  
I answer this leading to repentance, Rom. 2. is only his sparing them in their sins, and admonishing them to repent; and this we say is done to the Reprobates, not with any purpose to bring them to repentance: for if God had any such purpose, he would not deprive them of those helps without which none can come to repentance as yourself profess he doth: and if he had any such purpose to bring them to repentance and yet doth not, it followeth that he cannot.  
And if he hath any such purpose, either this purpose must continue still in God, even after their damnation, or otherwise God must be charged with mutability, all which you consider not, much less accommodate any tolerable answer thereto.  
For the same reason I deny that God hath any intention or purpose to save them: how can he? considering that from everlasting he hath ordained them to condemnation.  
And of this also you take no notice, much less go about to shape any convenient answer thereunto; carrying the matter all along in such manner, as if God's decree of their condemnation were not conceived, until the means of Grace offered are found to be finally despised.  
Neither do the places alleged by you, give any testimony to these your uncouth assertions, much less evident testimony. Indeed I blame you not for desiring your Reader would take them so, to save your pains of proving it. For you take no pains at all to enforce any place, by Logical argumentation to give evidence to such a sense you put upon them, though it stand in manifest opposition to the nature of God even to the bereaving him both of his omnipotency and immutability, to make him to contradict himself, and strangely to go about to persuade the world that God intends the repentance of those men, to whom he denies those helps, without which none can repent, as yourself also acknowledge.  
So that we need not to be put to deny the sufficiency of God's word to those ends whereunto God hath given it, which is to instruct in all points of Faith and duties of life; and to admonish us to give obedience unto it, and reprove them that do not; and consequently to take away all excuse for want of any of these gracious operations. And thus it is sufficient ex parte, Dei, and ex parte hominum too, as for God to admonish thereby, and men to be admonished and instructed.  
But otherwise to require any thing on man's part to add sufficiency to God, is too too absurd.  
For whether man doth yield obedience, the word is never a whit the more sufficient, or whether he yields not obedience, the word is never the less sufficient.  
As for the desire of the Repentance and life of Reprobates which you attribute unto God, you keep your course I confess in strange expressions, manifestly contradictious to the nature of God, and to yourself.  
Can you persuade yourself that ever the world will be brought about to believe, or any intelligent or sober man amongst them, that God desires the repentance and life of them, whom he hath determined from everlasting to deprive of those helps without which no man can repent and be saved? yet that he doth deprive them hereof, it is your own most express profession in the former Section.  
As for hardening them; doth he not harden whom he will? and hath he not from everlasting ordained all Reprobates unto destruction? As for any desire hereof in God, I account it a very absurd thing, to treat of any will in God under the notion of desire in proper speech; Speak we of the desires of weak men, who cannot effect what they will; but be advised to spare to attribute any desires to God in proper speech, as you would spare to attribute to him, eyes and ears, and hands, and heart, in proper speech, and though God be pleased in condescension to our capacities to take upon him our infirmities, let us not recompense his goodness so ill, as to conceive of his nature as obnoxious to the same imperfections whereto our natures are: When you say that the Word enables not only the Elect, but others to perform such duties, and having but erst spoken of the duty of repentance, and this being delivered in the same breath, whereto doth this tend, but to work in your Reader an opinion, that even Reprobates are enabled by the Word to perform the duty of Repentance? which you know full well cannot be affirmed by you without palpable contradiction to yourself, as well as to the truth of God, and therefore I wonder not a little what you mean to carry yourself in this your Discourse in such sort as to draw so near to such foul assertions. Therefore you forbear to name particularly the duty of Repentance, but flee to generals and say that even Reprobates are enabled by the Word, to perform such duties in which their natural conscience would excuse them.  
And I confess that, as Paul hath taught me, even without the word natural men are enabled to do some duties wherein their natural conscience doth excuse them, as namely, in doing the things contained in the Law, and that by nature, mark that well, I beseech you, that you may see the uncouthness of that which follows, as when you say; And in that way they sooner find mercy. For what? is a man by nature able to perform some things whereby he may the sooner find mercy? Was ever mercy found at the hand of God by performing some duty by power of nature? What revelation of God hath taught you this? that a work of nature should further us to obtaining the mercy of God? I speak of moral works of nature, not of natural, such as are to go to Church and to hear a Sermon; to go, and to hear, are actions natural, not moral, unless they be considered as joined with affections and intentions moral. And to go to Church and hear a Sermon, with ill affections and intentions, as namely either to mock, or to take a nap, is a natural way I confess, whereby a man may and doth find mercy far sooner, than by keeping at home, though never so civilly employed. And therefore Father Latimer reprehending some for coming to Church to take a nap, yet saith he, let them come, for they may be taken napping; which is as much as to say, they may find mercy at the hands of God whilst they are napping.  
Yet I presume you will not say, that so to come to Church, is the performing of a duty whereby they may find mercy sooner.  
In the next place you indirectly embrace the sour leaven of Arminianism, plainly professing that God doth vouchsafe more powerful effectual helps to them that walk according to the knowledge and helps they have received. As if that of our Saviour Habenti dabitur, to him that hath shall be given, you did interpret especially after the same manner, as Arminius doth, to wit, that if men use their naturals right, God will give them means of grace; But here is the difference, they speak their minds plainly, you carry your Discourse so, that we are driven to grope (as in the dark) after your meaning. For you deliver this of Reprobates, who do already enjoy the Word, the means of grace; And therefore the more powerful helps you speak of, are not outward means, (for that they enjoy already) but inward grace. As if God had ordained that grace should be given according unto works, which is direct Pelagianism. And withal you imply a power in Reprobates to walk according to knowledge, and helps already received, to wit, under the means of grace; And what can this be less, than a power to believe and repent. How many a godly man's heart would bleed to understand so foul assertions to drop from the pen of such a man as yourself?  
In fine, you add a new qualification of the way to find mercy the sooner, and that is, not to sin against conscience, but only of ignorance, and withal by the coherence imply, that even reprobates and unregenerate persons have power to keep themselves from sinning against their conscience, and so to keep themselves as to sin only through ignorance. Whence it manifestly followeth, that in such a case of performance which you esteem possible, either the conscience of a natural man shall not convict him of nay sin, or convicting him of sin, shall not convict him, that he ought to repent of it.  
Or lastly, it followeth, that he hath power to repent. The two first are unreasonable; to affirm the last, is to contradict yourself, having lately professed, that God deprives all save his Elect of those helps and means, without which none can repent. And truly it seems, in denying the power of repenting unto the world, you did not well consider what you delivered; for the face of your Discourse seems to lead to the contrary, namely, to the maintaining that it is in the power of a natural man to repent though he be in the state of unbelief.  
Where again, in signifying that you speak of a man in the state of unbeleef, you confound, if not yourself (yet) I am sure your Reader. For but erst you discoursed how men of the world are enabled by God's Word to the performance of such duties in which their natural conscience would excuse them. Now I should think, they that enjoy the Word of God, and are thereby so enabled as you speak, are not to be accounted in the state of unbelief, which I should think is a state peculiar unto heathens, who have not so much as an outward profession of Christianity. In like sort it is your course to confound the inward operation of God's Spirit with the outward means, and comprehend them both under the terms of means and helps, which have no univocal notion common unto them. It is bad enough to hold one's self to generals; considering, that may be verified of one species which cannot be verified of another, but it is too too bad to confound those under general terms, that have no more univocation between them then creation, and exhortation.  
Another confusion I find abuseth your fancy in this very Section, and that is spread all over it like a Leprosy. For whereas the objection arising naturally from the former discourse, is grounded upon a seeming contradiction, in professing a natural man to be impotent to perform faith and repentance; and yet giving power to a man to attain those ends, whereunto the means given tend, namely, to his conversion and salvation: instead of comparing the sufficiency you give to man with the sufficiency you deny to man, and there with all showing how the one doth not contradict the other; I say instead of comparing these, you compare the sufficiency of the means with the impotency of man, to convert and be saved; which you express by coming to Christ. Varying your phrases at every turn, which is good for nothing but to trouble disputation. Whereas indeed there is no question to be made of the sufficiency of the means, (if by means you understand the word of the Gospel) in that kind, wherein means are capable of sufficiency, to wit, in the way of instruction, exhortation, reprehension, beyond which kind of operations their sufficiency doth not extend.  
The question is only of the sufficiency of man to perform what the means do move us unto.  
I confess under means you comprehend, not only the book of grace, which is God's word, but the book of Nature also, which is God's works, the sufficiency whereof to inform either, as touching the nature of God or duty of man, we utterly deny, neither are you able to prove. And therefore you do not so well to carry it in the general, seeing as touching the specials, it is true of the one, not of the other. And in such cases the issue of generals, is rather to circumvent a simple Reader then to inform him.  
And yet as touching that undue comparison by you made, and formerly mentioned; you do not carry it so cleanly, but that by the way you supplant yourself; as when you speak of the sufficiency of the means, to the ends formerly mentioned, except they be hindered by men. For it cannot be understood of bringing a man passively to those ends, to wit, unto repentance. For man neither is nor can be merely passive in repentance, but must be active also. Nay, for aught I see, you make him passive therein, only in respect of instruction, and exhortation, which nothing hinders, but that he may be altogether active in performing repentance, if he will. Sigh then repentance is the end whereto these means tend, and the means are sufficient to bring any to repentance (as you avouch) except they be hindered by men, it must necessarily follow, that man hath power by these means to attain to these ends whereto these means lead him, if he will; and consequently hath power to repent, and to obtain grace in Christ, if he will; for the means lead hereunto, namely, to the knowledge of God and grace in Christ, as yourself have professed in express terms.  
And consequently when you say to the contrary, that there is an impotency, yea, an impossibility in the men of this world to come to Christ, without greater and stronger means than these be: you do directly contradict yourself, neither will all the labour following, expressing yourself in various phrasiologies, serve turn to free you from this contradiction, but leave men suspicious that you affirm this contradiction only in words, but the contrary potency, you maintain in deed. And because that without all tergiversation you profess, that such men have power to perform something, upon the performance whereof they might the sooner find mercy; I beseech you in the fear of God no longer to abuse yourself and others in speaking thus indefinitely, but tell us plainly and particularly, what that is which (you say) Reprobates have power to perform, and upon the performance whereof they should find mercy. To confess my bold weakness, ingenuously I am persuaded you are not able to define any such particular; if you should, it will not satisfy to the full, unless withal you explicate yourself, and show whether that work you speak of be a work of nature, or a work of grace; If a work of grace, than an unregenerate man is not so farredead in sin, but he is able to perform a work of grace, and if he be able to perform one work of grace, why not two, why not twenty? If a work of nature only, then seeing hereupon you say he shall find mercy; you fall foul upon that which was censured in the Synod of Palestine, one thousand two hundred years ago, namely, that grace is given according unto works. If some may say on your behalf, that you do not say they shall find mercy in this case, but only that they shall the sooner find mercy: or if this like not, if any shall otherwise plead in this manner: namely, that you do not say that he shall find mercy in this case, but he might find mercy: I will bid him content himself, and expect while you warrant such Apologies, and then I doubt not, but he shall wait long enough, for I am confident you are far off from maintaining such foul collusions.  
By the way give me leave to wonder that you express yourself in such a manner. But alas, what should we look for when the cause is no better? and yet a gracious respect unto a gracious end, namely, the justifying of God's proceedings, hath cast a good man upon such a course. So dangerous a thing it is when a man is to seek in some particulars, not to content himself with acknowledgement thereof, and to wait upon God for a time of revelation, but to cut out his own way in seeking satisfaction.  
Thirdly, the men of this world do not walk answerably to 
Answ.  the means they have received, neither do they employ or use these talents to such advantage as they might. The Gentiles though they knew God, yet they glorified him not as God, but 
Rom. 1. 21. 28.  became unthankful and vain in their imaginations, they did not like to retain God in their knowledge: but to detain the truth in unrighteousness.  
The Jews resisted the Holy Ghost, despised the messengers and word of God, acknowledged not the day and means of 
Act. 7, 51. Luk. 19 24. Mat. 27. 21, 22 Joh. 3. 43.  their own peace; refusing him and all his benefits, preferring a murderer and false prophet before him, brought forth wild grapes of injustice and oppression instead of the sweet grapes of righteousness and judgement. In this they abused the talents and means of Grace in a worse manner than could be excused, by any necessity or impotency of corrupt nature. Corrupt nature resisting not, but by these helps they might have avoided these sins which they fell into, and might have reached to the performance of these duties; for the neglect of which they are here reproved for coming short of 〈◊〉 Yea, Pilate himself would have brought forth better fruit, than some of these which the Jews yielded, but that the Jews themselves prevailed with him for worse.  
To speak plainly, that phrases do not deceive us, it is 
Exam.  true, that the men of the world do not live according to their knowledge, nor abstain from foul sins, from which they might abstain. But what if they did? should they find mercy the sooner? for unless you make this good, you say nothing to the purpose. Therefore to the maintenance of this you tended in the former Section, but all in vain. For consider; why then did not the Philosophers find mercy, Plato, Socrates, Photion, the most moral men of the world? Again, did any of these abstain from any foul fin in a gracious manner, or out of their love to God? Look to Isocrates his incitements to morality, what are they other than the reward of praise and applause of the world? and why, I pray you, should God regard them any whit the more for this? nay, did they not look for justification by this? all their goodness did they not attribute to their own Free will? and why should not God hate them the more for this? Do not Publicans and Harlots (and did not our Saviour tell us as much?) enter into the kingdom of Heaven before Scribes and Pharisees? Be it so, that the men of the world were Fornicators when they might have forborn it: were Idolaters, but might have abstained from that: were Adulterers, Wantoness, Buggers, and might have kept themselves pure from such abominations: were thiefs, when they might have abstained from laying hands on their neighbour's goods; were covetous, yet might have contemned the world as many did: were Drunkards, yet might have tempered themselves from such excess: were Railers, yet might have ordered their tongues: were Extortioners, yet might have been more merciful than so. Now I pray you tell me, were not the elect of God such also? See what the Apostle saith in reference to every one of these particulars, 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are justified, but ye are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. Nay, how many a natural man was more moral then to be guilty of so foul pollutions, as many of Gods elect have been conscious of, yet never found mercy at the hands of God. If otherwise, God should call men not so much according to his purpose and grace, as according to works; directly coutrary to Paul's text, 1 Tim. 1. 9 And what then should become of that, He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth? Rome, 9 18.  
As for the fault you mention of the Gentiles, was it not common to the Elect as well as to the Reprobates? What saith Paul to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 12. 2. Ye know ye were Gentiles, and were carried away unto dumb Idols, even as ye were led. Yet the Romans for above a hundred years had no Images, as Varro testifies, saying, That then the Gods were worshipped castius, more chastely, and that they who brought in Images, timorem ademerunt, errorem auxerunt, took away the fear of God, and increased the error concerning the nature of God: Yet in these days of Image-worship, thousands were from Idols turned to serve the living God, 1 Thess. 1. 8. in those former days not one that we read of.  
We come to the Jews; be it so, that they were worse than Pilate, yet many of them in despite of their sins were converted unto Christ; I say, of them that crucified him, and preferred a murderer before him; Pilate was not: at least we have a record of the conversion of the one, Acts 2. none of the other. Yea Saul breathing nothing but wrath and fury against the Church of God, as Ferox scelerum— Quia prima provenerant; being heartened with the blood of Stephen, as with a cup of sweet Wine, was converted unto Christ, when many a moral, quiet, peaceable, and nothing factious Jew, had not the mercy showed him that Saul had. They abused (you say) their talents and means of grace, in a worse manner than could be excused (yet who worse than Saul or Manasses) by any necessity or impotency of corrupt nature. But who I pray, goes about to excuse them this way? we certainly excuse them not, no, nor they themselves neither; for it were most incongruous they should, even as if Epicures should complain of the sweet morsels which they roll under their tongues, that they are so sweet, that they cannot forbear to be in love with them. But will you deny God to have a hand in hardening them, to the committing of so foul excess? what is the meaning of giving over to vile affections? to do things inconvenient, and that in an abominable kind? and that to what end but this, that so they might receive the just recompense of their error? yet that error is well known to have been incident, as well to the very elect of God, as unto Reprobates. By the way you signify, that by the neglect of the helps and means afforded them, they fell short of these duties, to the performance whereof they might have reached. Their sin was in doing contrary to their knowledge and conscience upon due information out of God's Word; this is to neglect the means; And consequently to use the means aright, was to do accordingly as they were informed. And indeed, if they had done otherwise then they did, they had not done so bad as they did. I find such giddiness of discourse usually amongst the Arminians; while they satisfy themselves with phrases, never examining particularly, the matter and substance of their own expressions.  
Because of the abuse of these talents and means of grace, 
Answ.  God therefore doth deny to the men of this world such powerful and gracious helps, as he vouchsafeth freely to the Elect, to draw them on effectually to repentance and salvation.  
The Gentiles abusing the light of nature, God gave them 
Rom. 1. 29.  up to vile affections, yea, even to a reprobate mind.  
The Pharisees because they employed the talon of their 
Luk. 16. 11, 12.  wealth unfaithfully, God would not trust them with the true riches.  
The Jews because they rejected Christ, and his Word, and 
Acts 16. 46. Lukc 19 42.  his Messengers, with scornful and bitter malignity, and brought forth grapes of gall and wormwood; therefore God took his Word from them, and hid from them the things that did belong 
Mat. 21 41, 42.  unto their peace; he took the kingdom of God from them, and gave them as a prey to sin, and misery, and derision, Psal. 81. 11, 12. What if none of the world (as opposed to the Elect) ever came to Christ, or made such use of the means and helps offered in him unto them, as to obtain salvation and regenerating grace by him; yet might they have made better use of the means than they did, which because they did not, it was just with God to deny them greater means, who thus abused the lesser.  
In all this we have as pure Arminianism tendered unto us, as could drop from the pen of Arminius himself, or Corvinus. 
Exam.  Yet God forbid we should co nomine, for that cause dislike it. It truth, we must embrace it, though it come out of the mouth of the Devil. If falsehood, we shall by God's grace disclaim it, though it proceed out of the mouth of Angels of light, and not disclaim it only, but disprove it also. You may as well say that God doth not draw the men of this world effectually to Repentance, because they do abuse the talents and means of grace, but this I disprove thus.  
First, if this be the cause why God doth not draw them to repentance, than this is the cause why he showeth not to them that mercy which he doth to the Elect; but this is not the cause thereof, which I prove thus. The mere pleasure of God is the cause; therefore that is not. The antecedent thus; God shows mercy on whom he will, and hardens, (that is, denies mercy) to whom he will. If to harden were not to deny mercy, it could not stand in opposition to showing mercy. The consequence I demonstrate thus. If to deny mercy to whom he will, doth not infer that mercy is not denied according unto works: then to show mercy to whom he will, doth not infer, that mercy is not showed according unto works.  
Secondly, if men's evil works were the cause why God denies them mercy, than it could not be said, that God denies mercy, because it is the pleasure of his will to deny it. For if a reason be demanded why a malefactor is hanged, it were very absurd to answer, that the reason is, because it was the pleasure of the Magistrate to have him hanged.  
Thirdly, if evil works be the deserving cause, why God's mercy is denied unto men, then either by necessity of nature, or by constitution of God. Not by necessity of nature, in opposition to the constitution of God; for then by necessity of nature God must be compelled to deny mercy unto such, what then shall become of God's Elect? unless you will say, that their works before mercy showed them, were not so bad as others, which were equally to contradict both experience and the Word of God; For in this case men should have mercy showed on them, according to their works, to wit, as they were found less evil than the works of others. Nor by constitution of God.  
For first, show me any such constitution, that men in such a condition of evil works shall be denied mercy.  
Secondly, by the same constitution, mercy should be denied to the Elect also. When you speak of the Gentiles (in this case) abusing the light of Nature, and given over to vile affections, you take your aim miserably amiss: For the Gentiles are not the men of the world in opposition to the Elect. But God forbid, that the Gentiles, and the men of the world, should be terms convertible in this kind, for then what should become of us?  
Certainly the number of God's Elect is greater amongst the Gentiles, then among the Jews; and even of those that were given over to vile affections, some were Elect, as appears 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. And to say that the cause why God denies them mercy, was, because they abused the light of nature; I have freshly disproved this, and that evidently, as I presume the intelligent Reader will observe, though the contrary (I confess) be very plausible at the first sight, and before we come to the discussing of it.  
Thirdly, you take your aim amiss also (though not in so great measure as in the former) in the phrases: For even of the Pharisees some were Elect, witness holy Paul; Who abused his zeal of the Law more foully than he? even to the persecuting of God's Church? yet was not the true treasure denied to him, and that in the highest measure. And as for Reprobates, if you think their unfaithfulness in the use of their wealth, was the cause why mercy was denied them: for the disproof hereof, I refer me to my former arguments.  
Fourthly, the very Elect of God, not only rejected Christ for a time, but also crucified him. That which you urge of Gods taking his word and Kingdom (in plain terms the means of grace) from such a Nation as contemns them, is nothing to the purpose. For we treat of Gods showing and denying mercy, not in the means, but as touching the grace itself of Repentance. But this benefit you have confounded, by comprehending both under the name of means and helps, for your advantage, to pass from the one to the other, as you see good. Here indeed it is as true, that because men do make precious account of the means of grace, therefore God continueth these means unto them: like as because of men's perseverance in Faith, and Repentance, and good works, God rewards them with everlasting life; like as because men die in their sins, therefore God inflicts on them everlasting death. Only with this difference; Sin on the one side is the meritorious cause both of withdrawing the means of grace, and of damnation: but conscionable walking before God in the use of the means, is only the disposing cause both to the continuance of the means, and to eternal salvation. For God by grace makes us meet partakers of the inheritance of the Saints 
Col. ●.  in Light. Forthwith you return to the right state of the question, to wit, in the concession or denegation of regenerating grace, but carry yourself in show very prejudicially to the freeness of God's grace; as when you say, What if no Reprobate made such use of the means and helps offered as to obtain regenerating grace? Dangerously implying that there is a certain use of the means, quo posito, which being put, regenerating grace should be obtained. As if grace regenerating were to be dispensed according to an unregenerate persons works. Of the same leaven savour your words following, when you say, That because they did not make better use of the means, it was just with God to deny them greater means, saving that here you may be relieved by the ambiguity of the word means, by shifting from one sense of it to another. For if means be taken in the same kind, to wit, of outward means, like ●● it is just with God to reward the right use of smaller means, with the bestowing of greater, so it is just with God, for the abuse of the smaller, not only to deny greater, but to take away those smaller.  
But as touching the granting, or denying grace regenerative, herein God carrieth himself merely according to the good pleasure of his own will, according to that of the Apostle, He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Neither can it be otherwise; For as much as mercy in regenerating any man, cannot be showed according unto good works, and consequently the denying of mercy cannot proceed according to evil works, as I have already demonstrated in the first place.   

The Sixth Doubt.  
Question, 6.  
HOw may it appear, that the declaration of the equity and sufficiency of God's justice is real, and not pretended; since all things are carried and come to pass, by an absolute and unconditional decree, and providence: exempli gratia, that fact, Act. 4. 28. & 2. 23.  
Answer. To say that God carrieth all things by an absolute and unconditional decree of providence, viz. opposing absolute to all conditions presupposed in the creature, in my judgement is neither agreeing to the Doctrine of Scripture, nor of our Divines; who do both teach that as God in the fullness of time doth administer and dispense the way of his providence, so he decreed to dispense them in the same manner from eternity. Now in dispensing the performance of the Covenant of works, the Lord punisheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or disobedience performed by it, as it is at large described, Levit. 26; Deut. 28. and therefore surely he decreed to carry such works of his providence upon the same conditions.  
The places that may be alleged to the contrary, do speak of God's Decree in delivering Christ to death for us, which as it was a work of mere grace, you may safely conceive it was decreed by an absolute and unconditional decree of providence, as generally the works of free grace are. For either they depend on no condition in the creature, or at least on none but such as God is pleased to work in us, and for us. And yet I believe that in your own judgement you think not that God did decree the death of Christ, much less deliver him to death, but upon condition of Adam's fall. If you say, God did as well decree a sinful manner of the death of Christ by the hands of the wicked, as the death itself, and that by an absolute, an unconditional decree.  
I answer, if you mean an unconditional decree, presupposing no condition in those creatures, which were the wicked instruments of his death, it is spoken without warrant either from those places, or from any other. That God gave up Judas to betray him, it was the punishment of his covetousness and hypocrisy. That God gave up the high Priests and Pharisees to conspire against him, to deliver him to Pilate, it was the punishment of their ambition and envy, and in some of them their sin against the Holy Ghost. That Pilate against his conscience gave judgement against him, it was the judgement of his carnal popularity and his worldly fear of Caesar. That the common people and Soldiers cried out against him, and laid violent hands on him, it was the punishment of their ignorance and infidelity. Now it is out of all controversy that God doth not punish sin with sin, nor decree to punish, but upon condition of sin presupposed. It is true indeed, God worketh all things after the counsel of his will; but that proveth not that God carrieth all things with an absolute and unconditional decree of providence. For it is the counsel of his will, as to work the salvation of his Elect according to the Covenant of Grace, freely and absolutely: so to dispense rewards and punishments to the men of this world according to the condition of their obedience or disobedience.  
There is therefore no place left for such a question, viz. How it may appear, that the declaration of the equity of God's Justice was not pretended, but real, since all things are carried and come to pass by an absolute and unconditional decree of providence. For neither are all things (as it is evident) so carried, and if they were, I had rather such a question should come out of the mouth of an Arminian, then of any godly and judicious Brother.  
The Arminians you know upon a seeming fair pretence, are wont to object against our Divines, that God calleth the Reprobates rather simulate then sorio, in semblance rather than in truth, if he hath before determined of them, by an absolute and unconditional decree. But the same answer yourself would return to their objection, the same I return to your question, with more probability, (yea, I may truly say) with more safety.  
That no will of God is conditional, we have the concurrent 
Exam.  consent both of our, and Popish Divines. For both Piscator maintains it against Uorstius, and Bradwardine demonstrates it: And this condition which you speak of, can be no less than some motive cause: & Aquinos hath professed that never any was so made, as to affirm that there was any cause of Predestination, quoad actum praedestinantis, as touching the act of God predestinating; and that for no other reason then because there can be no cause of the will of God, quoad actum volentis, as touching the act of God willing. Whence it followeth manifestly, that in like sort there can be no cause of reprobation neither quoad actum reprobantis, as touching the act of God reprobating: and consequently no condition. As for the contrary allegations out of Scripture, and out of Divines, I shall be content to consider them, whensoever you shall produce them; but I am persuaded you will not be forwards to trouble yourself thereabout, after I shall present unto you how incongruous a course you take to the justifying of that which here you affirm. And not incongruous only, but most dangerous, tending manifestly to the utter overthrow of the Freeness of God's grace in Predestination; which indeed very frequently you shake in this unhappy discourse of yours. As God in fullness of time doth administer and dispense the ways of his providence, so (you say) be decreed to dispense them in the same manner from all eternity. We grant it willingly; but what of all this? you add, that in dispencing the performance of the Covenant of works, the Lord punisheth and rewardeth the creature according to the condition of obedience or disobedience performed by it, or rather by the persons under it: This also we willingly grant. But what do you infer herehence? only this; Therefore surely he decreed to carry such works of his providence upon the same conditions. Now this conclusion we embrace as readily as yourself; but this is far from justifying the decree of God to be conditional. Nay, yourself do plainly express, that the carriage of such works of his providence is upon such conditions: Not that God's decree is upon such conditions: which is as much as to say in plain terms, that the execution of his decree proceeds upon condition, not the decree itself. Yet I confess, in the same manner Arminius himself and his followers discourse; as if they would explicate themselves in this manner of argumentation. Sin always goes before damnation; therefore a respect to sin goes before God's decree of damnation: As if we should argue thus. Faith in men of ripe years always goeth before salvation: therefore a respect unto faith always goeth before God's decree of salvation. Do you not perceive by this the dangerous issue of your argumentation? yet this is the very thing they aim at: this is the Helena they are enamoured with. But I am confident you are far from this, and would not a little grieve to understand, that the Orthodox faith of some in the very point of predestination, is not a little shaken by such argumentations as these. And the rather, because they have found such an eminent man as yourself, not only to swallow them, but in a confidentiary manner to propose them as most sound to give satisfaction unto others. Therefore Aquinas fairly distinguisheth of the cause or condition of God's will, either quoad actum volentis, as touching the act of God willing, or quoad res volitas, as touching the things willed; no cause or condition thereof, quoad actum volentis; there may be quoad res volitas. As for example, to give instance in predestination, no cause thereof at all, quod actum praedestinantis, as touching the act of God predestinating; there may be a cause thereof quoad res praedestinatione praeparatas, as touching the things prepared by predestination. As for example: Grace may be, and is the cause of glory, and Christ's merits may be, and are the cause of grace. So of Reprobation no cause thereof at all, quoad actum reprobantis, as touching the act of God reprobating, no more then of the will of God, quoad actum volentis, as touching the act of God willing: But there is a came thereof, quoad res reprobatione praeparatas, as touching the things prepared by Reprobation, as sin is the cause of condemnation. And indeed many confound these, and thereupon profess the will of God in some cases to be conditional; the issue whereof is no more than this, That some things which God will have to come to pass, shall not come to pass but upon on condition. Thus Vossius understands voluntas conditionata, a conditionate will, which he attributeth unto God, not considering how handsomely he contradicts himself. And Doctor Jackson of Providence, discoursing of voluntas antecedens & consequens, will antecedent and consequent, premiseth that the distinction is to be understood non quoad actum vokntis, not touching the act of God willing, but quoad ves volitas, as touching the things willed; though his discourse hereupon be nothing suitable. A manifest evidence that he understood not the distinction any more than Uossius did.  
You are willing to acknowledge that God's decree of delivering Christ to death, was absolute, as a work of mere grace. As for the condition of Adam's fall to be premised to this decree, sure I am, that is not your Opinion: neither doth it become any to maintain any decree of God to be both unconditional and conditional. And why that sin more than any other for which Christ satisfied should be imagined to be premised as a condition of this decree; I see no reason: and if every sin must be presupposed, why not the sin of crucifying Christ? This sin started Arminius; and this is it, and this alone, which he thinkee good to except in this case. I do nothing wonder that his learning and his honesty were so well met both of a very temperate nature. But albeit the fall of Adam was not preconceived to this decree of delivering of Christ to death; yet I am not of your Opinion, who think hereupon, that the decree of sending Christ into the world, was before the decree of permitting Adam's fall: concerning which I have discoursed enough, while I examined how well you cleared the first doubt. But when you distinguish of God's decree to deliver Christ to death, and to deliver him to a sinful death; you take a course to make mad work amongst God's decrees. As if God did first intend the generality of a thing, and not till after the foresight of somewhat else intent the specialty thereof. I will not tell you how undecent a course Schoolmen conceive it to be, to attribute decrees to God of things indefinite; I never found any Arminian take such a course, Philosophy hath taught us, duplicem ordinem naturae, a double order of nature; as namely, nature generantis, & naturae intendentis, in generation and intention. And albeit, secundùm naturam generantem, communia & generalia, are priora specialibus, in generation, things common and general are before their specials: According as a man in generation, prius vivit vitam plantae, first lives the life of a plant, then vitam animalis, the life of an Animal. Lastly, vitam hominis, the life of a man; yet quoad naturam intendentem, as touching the intention the order is quite contrary, & that the more specials (as more perfect) are first in intention. And whereas intentio rerum gerendarum, the intention of things to be done, is for the production of things in existence; and it is well known that generals can not exist but in specials, nor specials exist but in particulars; it is very strange that God should first intend to produce a Genius, and after intend the specialty: seeing nothing can be produced but in particular. You may as well say that God did first intend that Christ should die, but whether a natural or violent death that was at first undetermined. Secondly, that God determined he should die a violent death, but whether by a judicial proceeding, or extrajudicial, that as yet was left undetermined. And see whether this might not be extended further also. But let us examine it by your own rules, the best course to present before your eyes the strangeness of these conceptions. Three things are to be considered as ordered by you one after another. First, God's absolute decree to deliver Christ to death. Secondly, the foresight of men's corrupt dispositions. Thirdly, God's decree to deliver Christ to death by the sins of men.  
Now men's sinful dispositions depending partly upon original sin derived unto all from the sin of Adam; partly upon men's former actual conversations; as also upon God's permission of it to continue uncured and uncorrected; it followeth herehence, that the foresight of these sinful dispositions did presupose both that God purposed to permit Adam's fall, as also to bring these men forth into the world in original sin, as also to permit their former actual sins, whereby they arrive to these vicious habits; together with his purpose to deny grace whereby these vicious habits should be corrected.  
Before all these decrees, was the decree of delivering Christ to death by certain sins of certain men, according to your Opinion in this place. Whence it followeth, that the delivering of Christ to death by the sins of men, being last in intention, must be first in execution, to wit, before Adam was suffered to fall, or they suffered by an evil conversation to arise to so corrupt dispositions, or God denied them grace to correct such corrupt dispositions. And though Christ's suffering death in a special manner, to wit, by the sins of men, were to be first in execution, yet Christ's suffering death in general and in an indefinite manner, was to be last in execution. And this argumentation of mine throughout depends merely upon your own rules delivered in clearing the first doubt. But pass we over these scrupulosities.  
The course you take to explicate God's providence in punishing sin with sin, is nothing congruous to the examples thereof set down in holy Scripture. For whereas Judas his betraying of Christ was a fruit of his covetousness, you make Gods giving him over to the committing of this sin to be the punishment of his covetousness. Likewise whereas the High Priests and Pharisees conspiracy against Christ was a fruit of their envy; (for Pilate knew that for envy they had delivered him) and of their ambition, as appeareth Joh. 11. 48. you make Gods giving them over to the committing of this sin, to be the punishment of their ambition and envy. In like sort that Pilate gave judgement against Christ being a fruit of his popularity and worldly fear of Caesar, the giving of him over to the committing of this sin, you make to be the punishment of his popularity and worldly fear of Caesar. So the Jews crying out against him being a fruit of their ignorance and infidelity, the giving them over unto this sin, you make it to be the punishment of their ignorance and infidelity.  
Now show me any example throughout the book of God in punishing sin with sin, answerable unto this. As if God did punish men's sinful dispositions by giving them over to bring forth the proper and congruous fruits of those sinful dispositions, Rom. 1. We read God gave the Gentiles over into a reprobate mind, to do things inconvenient, to commit horrible uncleanness. But God hereby punished not the unclean disposition, the fruits whereof were brought forth by Gods giving them over into a reprobate mind, but hereby God punished their Idolatry, 2 Thess. 2. 20. We read of Gods giving men over to illusions to believe lies, hereby he did not punish their infidelity, the fruit whereof was, the believing lies, but hereby he punished their want of love to God's truth. So when God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Sechem, to set them together by the ears, he did not hereby punish their mutual hatred one against another, but rather their joint conspiracy against the sons of Jerubbaal. I do not deny but it may be said, as Austin saith, that God hath ordained, Ut omnis inordinatus animus paena sit sibi, That every inordinate mind should be a punishment to itself; but in my judgement it is a strange liberty of speech, to say, that God doth punish a man for his covetousness, by not restraining it, but suffering it to have his course.  
What you mean by giving Judas over to betray Christ, I know not. God's providence operative in evil, is of an obscure nature. You speak of obduration and of giving over unto sin, but wherein it consists you explicate not. Yet by declining these phrases, you forsake the point in question: Which is not at this present, whether God gave Judas over to the betraying of Christ, but whether he decreed he should betray him, and the Priests conspire against him, and the people prefer Barrabas before him, and Pilate condemn him. Which because you not directly deny, the Question is transferred to the manner of this decree: as namely, whether it be absolute or conditional. You will have it to be conditional, to wit, upon the presupposal of Judas his covetousness. Yet this you do not in plain terms express, as indeed you seldom set down your meaning plainly, giving yourself too much liberty in speaking at large, which is no way conducing to the investigation of truth, but a sore impediment rather. Having said that it is without warrant to say, that the sinful manner of Christ's death was decreed by God by an unconditional decree, presupposing no condition in the creatures, which were the wicked instruments of his death. Whereas hereupon you should show upon presupposal of what condition in Judas, in the Priests, in Pilate, God decreed that Judas should betray him, the Priests deliver him to Pilate, and Pilate condemn him: you decline this, and in a new phrase tell us, that it was the punishment of Judas his covetousness and hypocrisy, that God gave him up to betray Christ; and in like manner you speak of the rest. Leaving to your Reader to expiscate your direct meaning, and to explicate that which you involve. It seems your meaning is, that upon the foresight of Judas his covetousness and hypocrisy, God decreed he should betray him.  
Now let us discuss this; If God did in this manner decree it, then certainly upon the covetousness of Judas he brought this to pass. Now I demand by what course of providence God brought it to pass, that Judas betrayed him? you say it was by giving him over to betray him. Now what you mean by this I know not, neither do you express: but I will endeavour to explain it.  
First, I presume your meaning is God did not restrain his covetousness, for this seems to be the meaning of this phrase, Psal. 81. where it is said, God gave them over to their own hearts lusts, and by way of explication it is added, And let them follow their own inventions. Now this course of providence was not sufficient to bring it to pass, that Judas should betray him. For this is only to let him do what he will in the course of his covetousness. Now though Judas was left to do what he would in the way of satisfying his covetous course, yet it doth not follow hereupon that Judas should betray Christ. Therefore Arminius to this decree of God, presupposeth not Judas his covetousness only, but his will to betray Christ, as much as to say, God foreseeing he would betray him, decreed he should betray him. To this construction of Gods decree you come too near, though you do not deliver yourself thereof so plainly as he doth, nor so plausibly. But the mischief is, it is now confessed on all hands; that the very act of willing is wrought by God, and consequently was decreed by God. Now upon what condition presupposed did God decree that Judas should will the betraying of Christ? was it upon the foresight of his will? If so, then also upon the presupposition of Judas his will to do this, God did work his will to do this; which is flat contradiction, in making Judas his will to do this, to go before his will to do this. Besides, what need was there for God to work his will to do this, when his will to do this is already presupposed? Bellarmine goes another way to work, and confessing that God decreed that Christ should be betrayed and crucified, yet denies that he decreed that any should betray and crucify him. Christ's suffering was decreed and his patience therein, but not their sin in putting him upon suffering. Your interpretation is less plain than theirs, but equally with theirs removed from the truth. Punishment of sin always presupposeth (I confess) sin; but I deny that the decree of punishing sin presupposeth sin. If this argument were right; than it would follow, that because to reward with everlasting life, presupposeth good works, Gods decree to reward with everlasting life, presupposeth good works; which is as much to say that election presupposeth good works. For election is the decree of bestowing everlasting life by way of reward; yet here you bring in Gods punishing sin with sin, whereof there is no question here, and forbear to speak of God's decree, whereof alone is the present question. I pray you what rewards doth God dispense unto Reprobates in regard of their obedience? will you deny plain Text of Scripture expressly professing, That we must all appear afore the judgement seat of Christ, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil? Only here is the difference, Christ made satisfaction for Gods Elect, and not of Reprobates. And also merited that God should enable his Elect, and not Reprobates to perform obedience acceptable to God, according to the Covenant of Grace, and that Salvation accordingly shall be bestowed upon them by way of reward.  
Yet I confess God's equity and justice in dispensing rewards and punishments is no way prejudiced by the absoluteness of his decree. For he hath absolutely decreed to deal with men according to that, which they have done in their bodies whether it be good or evil; though the good which is done is merely of God's grace, and his rewarding men accordingly, is no impediment to the course of his Covenant of Grace.  
God's calling of Reprobates we conceive consists in causing the Gospel to be Preached unto them, which in effect is this, Whosoever believes shall be saved, whosoever believes not shall be damned; judge you whether there be not as much truth in Preaching this to Reprobates, as in Preaching it to the very Elect of God.   

The Seventh Doubt.  
Question, 7.  
THat if all be translated into Christ's Dominion, than the Infants of Turks.  
First, how then saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
Secondly, on all children dying before the guilt of actual sin, he will show the riches of his grace, because their damnation cannot stand, with such an equity of his justice as here is mentioned and made show of.  
To this I answer, that when I say, that all the creatures are 
Answer. Col. 1. 3.  translated into the Dominion of Christ, I mean not into his Kingdom of a grace, but into the dominion of his power; viz. to be disposed of by him, the wicked to the praise of his justice, and both them and other creatures to the service and exercise of his elect. Hence I conceive it to be that it is said, that Christ hath bought the dominion of such as deny him. Hence 
Rom. 14. 9 John 3. 35. Mar. 28. 18. Phillip 1. 8, 9, 10, 11.  by his dying and rising again he is said to be the Lord both of the quick and dead. Hence God is said to have given all things into his hand, with all power both in heaven and earth. Neither am Lable to conceive how the whole body of the Creature, I mean all the world beside Reprobates, can be said to wait for the redemption, and restoring into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, unless as they lost their liberty— by the first Adam, so they had recovered the same again by the redemption of the second Adam. If then all the creatures be translated into the dominion of Christ, think it not absurd that the Infants of Turks themselves be translated into the same dominion. The place that may be alleged to the contrary, doth prove the Infants of Infidels not to be translated into the Kingdom of grace, or fellowship of his Church, but what is that to this point touching children that die in their infancy before the guilt of their actual sin? I would not hastily determine any thing. Praestat dubitare de occultis, quam ligitare de incertis. It is better to doubt of secret things, then wrangle about things uncertain. They stand or fall to him, who hath said of the Infants of such parents, as commend them to the blessing of Christ, Of such is the kingdom of God. But to my understanding 
Mark 10. 14.  it is most agreeable to the analogy of faith to range little children under the convenant of Parents, it being Gods usual manner of dealing, to visit the sins of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him, and to show mercy unto thousands of them that love him, and keep his commandments.  
That all creatures are under the dominion of Christ no 
●●am.  Christian doubteth, for as God, he made all things, Col. 1. John 1. and as the son of God, he is the heir of all things, Heb. 1. When God bringeth in his first begotten son into the world, he saith of him, Let all the Angels of God worship him, Heb. 1. 6. & Joh. 5. God hath committed all judgement unto his Son, and Joh. 17. 2. Thou hast given him power over all flesh. But that he hath bought this dominion, well it may pass for an Oracle of flesh and blood, but I have not hitherto found it to be an Oracle of God. Whatsoever is bought, is bought with a price. And so whatsoever Christ hath bought, he hath bought with a price, 1 Cor. 6. 20. & 7. 23. And this price wherewith Christ hath bought that which he hath bought, is his blood, Rev. 5. 9 1 Pet. 1. 18. But blood is no sit price wherewith to buy Dominion. His blood is propitiatory and satisfactory, and so fit only to buy poor souls, and to save them from condemnation. And accordingly, the life that he gave for many, was given by the way of ransom, Matth. 20. 24. So that persons thereby are ransomed, rather than any general dominion procured. And is it sit to say, that Christ by his blood obtained dominion over the wicked to damn them for their sins? Rather the power which he obtained was to give eternal life to them, whom his Father had given him, Job. 17. 2. and that in despite of sin.  
Again, is it fit to say that Christ by his blood bought dominion over brute and senseless creatures? Or, that by his blood he obtained dominion over Angels and Devils? Whom Christ bought, he bought unto God, Rev. 5. 9 And shall we say that by his death he bought unto God the dominion over Reprobates, whether Men or Angels, and over all other creatures?  
Again, whom he bought, he bought from the earth, Rev. 14. 8. And from men, ver. 4. Can this be verified of Angels of light, and of angels of darkness, and of reprobate men, and of all God's creatures?  
Lastly, whom he bought by his blood, he redeemed from their vain conversation, 1 Pet. 1. 18. So he did not redeem either reprobate men, or reprobate angels: and as for the Elect Angels they stood not in need of any such Redemption, much less the brute creatures of God. Yet even of some that were no better than Reprobates, it is said that he redeemed them, 2 Pet. 2. 1. And hence Arminius inserres that the most wicked are redeemed by Christ, and that in the same sense that God's Elect are redeemed by Christ. You say he redeemed, even the Reprobates, but not in the same manner as he redeemed the Elect, but only that he bought the dominion of them. But this seems a forced interpretation: For whom he hath bought, they are his in special manner. But to he Christ's, is peculiar to God's Elect, 2 Cor. 3. ult. And hence the Apostle inferreth, Glorify God in your bodies, 1 Cor. 6. ult. You will say, In what sense doth the Apostle say of wicked men, that the Lord redeemed them?  
I answer, it may be said in the same sense wherein it is said of the gods of Damascus that they plagued Ahaz: not that indeed they plagued him, or had any power to plague him, for An Idol is nothing, saith Paul, that is, hath no power to do good or evil, but it was Ahaz his opinion that they plagued him, and so he sacrificed unto them.  
Again, their former profession was such, that they were the redeemed of the Lord as well as any other. So Piscator interpretech that place in Peter, as spoken, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not as it were so indeed, but in their opinion only, or in the common opinion of others. The creature likewise shall be restored by him, Act. 3. For the Heavens must contain him, till the time come that God hath appointed, for the restoring of all things. But that redemption is not yet, neither hath he purchased that redemption with his blood.  
We deny not that all creatures are under the dominion of Christ, but that they should be translated into his dominion by way of purchase by his blood, that seems to me a strange conceit. Yet it sufficeth us that you confess, that Turks, together with their Infants, are not translated into the kingdom of Grace. By Infants of Turks we understand none other than such as die in their Infancy, and I wonder, you should distinguish betwixt them; Why you should reckon the condition of Infant's deceasing out of the Church, amongst the number of the secret things of the Lord, I see no reason. Are they not born children of wrath? And if they continue so from the time of their conception unto their birth, why not as well from the time of their birth, to the time of their death dying in their Infancy? And can we doubt what is the condition of those who die children of wrath? doth not God say of the Sodomites, that they suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, and were there (think you) no Infants at all amongst them? As for those who are commended to the blessing of Christ, I make no question but that of such is the Kingdom of God. For the Apostle teacheth us, that if but one parent be a believer, the children are holy, but if neither are, they are unclean.  
But if they die in their uncleanness, unwashed, unsanctifyed, what shall become of them?  
You do well in mine opinion, to range little children under the covenant of their Parents: that I like well: but I like not so well the reason whereby you enforce it. For the sins of the Father who is under one Covenant may be visited upon their children unto the third and fourth generation who are under another covenant. For the sins committed in the days of Manasses, were in the captivity of Babylon, visited upon the children in a fourth generation after, and that upon as gracious children as were those that were represented by the basket of good figs, Jer. 24. And the Covenant between Jonathan and David, was only the preservative for keeping gracious Mephibosheth, from having visited upon him the sins of his Grandfather Saul, in slaying the Gibeonites. Neither yet have we cause to complain as the heathen doth Delicta majorum immeritus lues Roman. For if I mistake not, there is a great deal of difference between punishing the Son for the sin of the Father, (which hath no place at all in God's providence, excepting the case of punishing original sin, if so it hath place in that) and visiting the sin of the Father upon the Son. This being the punishment of the Father rather than of the Son; And God being able to sanctify any temporal affliction that falleth upon the son for the sin of his Father, either while the Father liveth or after, and to make it fall amongst the number of those things which work together for his good.   

The Eighth and lost Doubt.  
Question 8.  
HOw may it appear, that this makes not three Covenants? The first of works, requiring perfect obedience.  
The second of grace, promising Christ and all his graces, even faith in him.  
The third, partly of grace, providing a redemption, and promising sufficient help; partly as requiring both what we can do of ourselves, and Gods help proceeding with us accordingly.  
Answer. This frame of Doctrine is so far from making three Covenants, that the serious meditation of two Covenants 
The Examination must proceed according to this correction.  was one of the principal reasons that first turned the stream of my thoughts into this covenant. For when I saw that the Covenant of works did in justice reward according to works, as well with life upon condition of obedience, as with death in case of disobedience; I began to conceive, that as the purpose of election was suitable to the Covenant of grace; so suitable unto a Covenant of works, must be a purpose of retribution. For how shall God covenant to retribute or recompense with life or death according to works, if he have no purpose at all of such retribution? How shall the Covenant of works promise life upon condition of obedience, if the purpose of reprobation have absolutely determined death upon all them within that Covenant, without all respect of good or evil, obedience or disobedience in any of them? the grace of redemption offering the death of Christ, and reaching forth some fruits thereof unto all, as the promising and offering sufficient help to bring them to the knowledge of God and means of grace: yea, and sometime bestowing on them the participation of some excellent and common graces, doth not make a third covenant, partly of grace, partly of works, but bindeth such so much the more to keep the Covenants of works, by how much the more helps and means God vouchsafeth them to keep it. It is not the helps of grace offered or given, that includeth men with in any part of the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given.  
Secondly, if God offer grace and give, though never so small, even as a grain of Mustardseed, and promise to uphold it freely for Christ his sake, and not according to our works, it is a Covenant of Grace. But if he offer and give never so many gracious helps, and means, and gifts, and uphold them according to the works of the creature; it is still a Covenant of works, as it was to the Angels that fell, and to Adam, though he gave to both of them the whole Image of God, and besides, heaven itself to the one, a Paradise to the other, it is but the same covenant of works which God made with the world of mankind after the fall, and with Adam before the fall: though Adam received greater means and helps to keep it, than his posterity had after the fall.  
Because still the condition of the Covenant was the same in both, to reward them both according to their works. So is it still but the same Covenant of works which God makes with mankind, when he offereth them in Christ, greater grace and helps to keep it, then after the fall they could have attained unto without Christ, because still the condition of the Covenant runneth in the same tenor, to deal with them according to their works.  
Neither do I conceive any danger in the point, though by this means obedience to Christ, and walking worthy of him, should be commanded in the Law, which is a covenant of works. For if the infidelity and disobedience of the men of this world to the Gospel of Christ be sin, then are they also transgressors of the Law, and then the contrary virtues are commanded in the Law.  
Thirdly, the Ceremonies of the Old Testament, which were figures of Christ, were commanded in the second precept of the Law, was not Christ himself under those figures commanded also? were they commanded to lay their hands on the sacrifices, and not withal to lay their Faith on Christ? were they commanded to look on the Brazen Serpent, and not withal to behold Christ? were they commanded to obey Moses, and not withal the Prophet like unto Moses? What then? do we confound the Law and the Gospel? God forbid; The Law indeed commandeth to obey God in whatsoever he had of old, or in fullness of time, should afterwards reveal to be his will: but it is one thing to command Christ to be obeyed and revealed, (which after Christ is revealed, even the Law also doth to all that hear it) another thing it is to give Christ freely, and faith to receive him, and the spirit likewise to obey him, yea and perseverance also notwithstanding our unworthiness to continue in him, all which the Gospel promiseth to the Elect of God.  
Glory be to God in Christ, and peace upon Israel.  
If the serious consideration of two convenants did turn the 
Exam.  stream of your thoughts into this 
* Indeed it should be not Covenant, as my Copy had it, but current, as a friend showed me how to correct it.  covenant, it should seem you do acknowledge a third covenant, distinct from the former two. Therefore I conceive there is an error in the writing, and that whereunto the stream of your thoughts was turned, is not a different covenant from the former two, but rather an opinion concerning reprobation, different from that which is most generally received amongst our Divines. And albeit hereupon you fell on this; yet herehence it followeth not, but that you might hereby fall upon laying a ground for three covenants ere you are aware. Yet do I not charge you with this. As in some respect you may seem to make three; so in another respect you may seem to make but one; if the covenant of retribution according unto works be but one; For I see no reason but God's purpose of election, may well pass for a purpose of retribution; and consequently, if the purpose of election and reprobation be reduced unto one, why may not the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, by your rules be reduced into one? As election is God's purpose to bestow everlasting life, seeing God doth not purpose to bestow it, but by way of reward of obedience, of faith and repentance, and good works; it necessarily followeth that God's election is his purpose of retribution. But there is besides in election, a purpose to work a certain number of men unto faith, obedience, and good works, and unto a final perseverance in them all. So likewise between the covenant of the Law and the covenant of Grace, there is this principal difference: that God enables his elect to the performance of the one, not of the other; but as touching the reprobate, he enableth them to the performance of neither condition. Subservient to Gods election of some is each covenant. The covenant of works to humble them, not only upon the consideration of their sins, whereby they have merited eternal death; but especially upon consideration how their natural corruption is so far from being mastered and corrected by the Law, as that on the contrary it is irritated and exasperated so much the more. Then the covenant of grace to comfort them, considering how the condition of life is adulced and tempered, being from exact and strict obedience changed into faith and repentance; but chiefly upon consideration that the word of this covenant is a word of power mastering their corruption, and enabling to perform faith, repentance, and Evangelicall obedience in an acceptuble manner unto the Lord. Subservient to the purpose of reprobation may be the Law, only written in men's hearts, which very obscurely, intimateth (if at all) any covenant made of everlasting life between God and man. Where the word is revealed, that in general comprehending both Law and Gospel, is subservient thereunto in the way of instruction and exhortation, and the like, thereby taking away all excuse.  
Of any other end intended towards them I know not, except sometimes, as Austin observeth, Ut proficiant ad exteriorem vitae emendationem quo mitius puniantur. And why I pray may not the covenant of works promise life upon condition of obedience, notwithstanding the purpose of reprobation hath absolutely determined death, upon all them within the Covenant: as well as the Covenant of grace threatens death upon condition of disobedience of faith and repentance: notwithstanding that the purpose of election hath absolutely determined life upon all them within that Covenant. And yet like as in election we acknowledge a respect to obedience, consequent thereunto, in as much as it includes a purpose to give grace to work them to obedience, though not any respect thereto, as antecedent to the decree itself; how much more may you easily conceive, that in reprobation we deny not a respect to disobedience consequent, for as much as it includes a purpose to deny grace, which alone can prevent disobedience, though not any respect to disobedience as antecedent to the decree of reprobation? And to repeat by the way, that which formerly hath been delivered.  
Respect to disobedience as antecedent to the decree of damnation cannot be imagined, unless withal you imagine God did first decree to permit it, and thereupon for the foresight thereof decree to damn for it: Whence it followeth that permission of disobedience must be first in intention, in comparison with condemnation, and consequently it must be last in execution by your own rules, formerly laid down as unquestionable foundations. Yet do not I maintain that God in any moment of nature, doth first decree damnation, and then decree the permission of sin, for which he damns them; I make these decrees not subordinate as most do, but coordinate and joint decrees, being only concerning means tending to the same end. And with Aquinas, I say that reprobation includes Voluntatem permittendi culpam, & condemnationem inferendi proculpa. The end whereof is the demonstration of his glory in the way of justice. But withal I desire that culpa in this description of reprobation may be understood aright, and not as Arminius doth, whose superficial consideration of things is usually for his advantage, making him thereby the more to abound in arguments for the impugning of his adversaries opinions, according to his own shaping of them quite beside their meaning. For culpa is not fin in general in this definition, but only such a sin, propter quod quis damnatur, for which a man is damned; that is, final perseverance in infidelity or impenitency. When you say the grace of redemption offers the death of Christ, and reacheth forth some fruit thereof unto all, you walk according to your course in the clouds of your own mysteries.  
What you mean by these fruits you speak of, and by the reaching of them forth, I am utterly to seek; neither doth aught you have formerly delivered help me in this. But in these particulars it seems you love to speak darkly; and keep yourself to general terms. I know no condition proposed in the Gospel, for receiving of any benefit from Christ, but faith and repentance. But you seem to bring in gracious helps for the obtaining of faith and repentance, to be tendered unto us for Christ's sake upon other conditions, I know not what; neither have. I hitherto received any ground of assurance from this your discourse, that yourself know what. In the next place you seem to specify what these fruits are, as when you say, that it promiseth and offereth sufficient help to bring them to the knowledge of God, and means of grace, still keeping yourself in the general, as if you feared to be understood. And I wonder not a little that yourself being a man of such reputation, and much exercised in giving satisfaction, addressing yourself to give satisfactiun in so tender and precious points of Divinity as these, should deliver yourself in so strange a language. But let us take the more pains in discussing the clouds of your Phrasiologies. When you say the grace of redemption promiseth and offereth sufficient helps; your meaning must be that the Gospel of Christ doth promise and offer this, for as much as we are acquainted with no promises of Grace but in the Gospel. Yet this phrase of expressing, used by you, is enough to trouble a Reader, who when the matter we treat of is difficult enough, might justly desire that he might not be put to other trouble, as to interpret men's expressions. Yet it may be you may think to have a ground for this out of Saint Paul, where he saith, The grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all, teaching us to deny ungodliness; and by which grace he seems to mean the Gospel. Be it so, yet Saint Paul doth not call it the grace of redemption, as you do. Redemption in Scripture phrase signifies forgiveness of sins, Ephes. 1. 7. and Col. 1. 14. If this be your meaning, I find no congruity in this your affirmation. For what? will you say the Gospel preached, doth promise and offer to bring men to the knowledge of God, and means of grace? I had thought rather it had brought the knowledge of God and means of grace to them. Or rather is the very bringing of it, or to speak more properly is the very means of grace itself. All which considered, I am yet to seek of your meaning, I find it so miserably involved, and that in the very close of all, enough to make any intelligent Reader despair to receive satisfaction from you, when in the very last act he shall find himself so far from making any tolerable construction of your words, thereby to pick out any sober meaning.  
Then again, by offering helps, you seem to imply some terms or condition whereupon it is offered them, but no such condition is expressed by you. If it had, perhaps thereby we might have taken the altitude. I mean the depth of your meaning throughout. The same grace of redemption bestows also (you say) sometimes some excellent though common graces. I have heard (I confess) you stand much upon common graces. But what they are, and to what end they tend, and whether absolutely or conditionally imparted according to your opinion: when I shall be sufficiently informed, I will do my best endeavour to weigh them in the balance of Christian and Scholastical examination, and accordingly to give them that due respect which belongs unto them. It may be about a third covenant, which they might seem to make, partly of grace and partly of works: I should not be much contentious. Yet it followeth not, that because they do bind the more to the keeping of the Covenant of works, as having more means and helps vouchsafed unto them; therefore it doth not make a third Covenant: You say it is not the helps of grace offered or given, that include men within any part of the covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given: that is, whereupon they are offered or given, to wit, the helps of grace.  
Here new mysteries offer themselves again, I must be driven Balaam-like to cast about for divinations: and whether in the issue I shall find that I seek for, I cannot assure myself. You came but now from speaking of common graces, and by the coherence, these helps of grace which here you speak of, should be those common graces, considered as helps of grace special. Now had you given instance, and showed what these common graces are, they might of themselves have discovered the reference wherein they stand unto grace special, which I guess to be faith and repentance. This you might easily have done, and saved us a great deal of irresolution and pains also, partly in seeking after that which we cannot easily find, and partly in labouring to disprove we know not what. This confused course proceed in some from an ill mind, fearing lest their opposites should have too much liberty by their plain dealing to impugn them, but in good men it proceeds from the weakness of their cause, and from the uncertainty and ambiguity of their thoughts, for the justifying of that which they do maintain. But let us proceed. These helps of grace by which I hope you mean, helps unto faith and repentance, you plainly signify are offered upon a condition, and by the quality of this condition we may judge whether they to whom they are offered are included within the covenant of grace or no.  
Now let us endeavour to sound your meaning; These helps of grace must needs be, either outward means, or inward qualities and habits.  
By helps I should understand outward means, after mine own phrase of speech, and by yours also I have good cause; for as much as in the words immediately going before, you join helps and means together, and confound common graces with them both. As for means of grace, they are not given upon condition; for what condition can be imagined whereupon the Gospel should be given to a Nation? shall it be the using of their naturals right? how will you be able to make it good, that heathen men before they enjoyed the Gospel, did use their naturals right? Did the Corinthians who were carried away with dumb Idols even as they were led? 1 Cor. 12. 2. And for not honouring God as God, did not God give them up into a reprobate mind, to do things inconvenient as well as others, thereby to receive the recompense of their errors? Judge of this by that which the Apostle minds them of, 1 Cor. 6. For after he had told them that neither Fornicators, nor Idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor Wantoness, nor Buggers, nor Thiefs, nor Covetous, nor Drunkards, nor Railers, nor Extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God, ver. 9 10. forthwith he addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these things were some of you, as much as to say, some of you were fornicators, some adulterers, some Idolaters, some wantoness, some buggers, some thiefs, some covetous, some drunkards, some railers, some extortioners; or some of them in divers kinds, if not in all these kinds liable to condemnation, and utter exclusion out of the Kingdom of God: But (yet for all this) ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God, ver. 11. And is it not manifest that when the Gospel is first preached to any Nation, it is preached as well to the uncivil as to those that are civil: as well to the debauched as to the moral?  
Again, In this case, the Gospel should be bestowed by way of reward of obedience: but obedience is no obedience, unless it be performed upon knowledge, in obedience unto some Law given. Now how could the Gentiles know of any such Law, that whosoever used their naturals should be rewarded with the benefit of the Gospel; seeing this is no where pretended to be revealed but in the Gospel? So that assoon as any man hears of such a Law, he already enjoyeth the Gospel. The two first of these arguments may as well be applied against this doctrine of yours, if by helps of Grace you mean some habits or qualities besides that which may be further alleged upon your specification, what these habits and qualities are.  
And here is a fair way opened for a third Covenant; for as for the two covenants commonly acknowledged, they are only for the obtaining of Salvation different ways: besides which here is brought in another Covenant for the obtaining the means of grace, and that different ways also, to wit, either by works or by Grace. But when I look unto your former words and consider them well, as when you say it is not the helps of grace offered or given, that include men within any part of the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon it is offered or given, these words, It is offered or given, perhaps are not referred to the helps of grace, but rather to the grace itself, yet I interpret them of the helps of grace, with no other mind then to salve this rule of yours from manifest contradiction.  
For by your rule you profess, that the inclusion of some within the covenant of grace, and the exclusion of others, depends not upon any indifference in the things offered or given, but only on the condition whereupon they are offered or given; manifestly implying thereby, that the same things are given to them that are without the covenant, and to them that are within; but the difference is only in the condition whereupon they are given.  
But if your rule run thus, it is not the helps offered or given, that include a man within the Covenant of grace, but the condition whereupon the grace itself is given. Hereby you manifest that they within the Covenant of grace, and they without are distinguished, not only by the condition, whereupon that which they have is given, but also by the things themselves which are given them: for as much as only the helps of grace are given to the one, to wit, to them that are without the covenant, but not only helps of grace, but grace itself is given to the other, which serves directly contrary to your rule here given: not to speak of the miserable confusion that like a Leprosy seizeth upon your manner of expression, and which you hold up in the beginning of your next section. But before I come to the scanning thereof, let me tell you of your dis-junctive phrase, as when you said, offered or given; this is very ill-accommodated to the helps of grace, if you mean helps outward, such as the Gospel; for the Gospel where it is preached, there it is not only offered, but hoc ipso given.  
The phrase offered, is as ill accommodated to grace itself in respect of the condition, whereupon depends admission into the convenant of grace. For to offer to a man admission into the covenant of grace upon condition, is to offer it upon a condition to be performed by him to whom it is offered. But such an offering yourself confess doth savour of a covenant of works, but when the condition is merely for Christ's sake, that you say makes the covenant of grace. Now to that which followeth.  
If God offer (say you) and give it, to wit, [grace] though never so small, even as a grain of mustard seed, and promiseth to uphold it freely for Christ's sake, and not according to our works, it is a covenant of grace. But if he offer and give never so many helps, and means, and gifts, and uphold them according to the works of the creature, it is still a covenant of works, as it was to the Angels that fell, and to Adam. Here you continue your former confusion; for pretending to maintain the difference between them within, and them without the covenant of grace, as depending merely upon the condition, whereupon things are given; you notwithstanding this, make a difference also in the things given. For the one thing, given to them within the covenant of grace, you seem to make grace itself, though perhaps as small as a grain of mustard seed, and not only helps of grace; but the things given to them without the Covenant, are only gracious helps and means. And withal you deal not fairly in the expression of that which you intent; for you do not make it plainly appear, that you put a difference between the things given (lest you should contradict yourself, for you place the difference only in the condition whereupon the thing given, is given) but that which is given to them within the covenant of grace you formerly expressed by the relative [it], which made me in doubt whether I should refer it to grace itself; or to the helps of grace; yet forthwith on the other side running again to helps, you do not style them helps of grace, as before you did, which doth manifestly distinguish helps of grace, from grace itself, but you call them gracious helps and means, and not contented with that, you add gifts also, as if your purpose were not to distinguish them from grace in the other member of the comparison mentioned, but rather to confound them therewith. Which I confess sorts best with your rule, which placeth the difference only in the condition of the things given, and not in the things given themselves. And this is further confirmed by the instance given in Angels and Adam, where you plainly give us to understand, that by gracious helps and means, and gifts given them, you understand the Image of God; which clearly signifies not any outward help and means, (after which manner I was prone to interpret this phrase of yours) but the very inward sanctification of their natures, which in my judgement is very untowardly called means of grace, or helps of grace.  
Whereas it is rather, that holy power wherewith God had endued them to perform that which he had commanded them. For of Adam, that is undoubtedly true which Austin saith, namely, that God gave Adam, posse si voluit; non dedit velle quod potuit, power to obey if he would, but not a will to do that which he could; and questionless it is as true of the Angels as of Adam.  
And this power I confess had continued in them, had they performed actual obedience according to that power, whereof by their disobedience they were deprived. Whereby you give me good ground to guess, what that opinion of yours is, (which you carry wondrous closely, (and I verily believe because of the offensive nature thereof to good men, such as yourself) namely, That power to believe and repent is given to them as well without the covenant, as to them within; like as both Angels and Adam before their fall, had power to perform obedience to God's Commands: But to them within the covenant of grace, it is given and upheld only for Christ's sake; too others it is to be given and upheld only according to the covenant of work, that is, upon condition of some performance of theirs. But yet of the full portraiture of your opinion, I am to seek in some particulars: As  
First, what the condition is upon the performance whereof they shall have power given them to believe and repent. Whatsoever you say, or give instance in, if it be a work of nature, it will necessarily follow that grace shall be possibly, at least resolved into a work of nature; then we are where we are, and still to seek how they came by power to perform that work of grace.  
Secondly, I am to seek by what means God doth work this power, whether only by persuasion, which is only a moral action, or by an immediate change of their natures by the inspiration of God's Spirit.  
Now the first of these cannot be; for persuasion hath no power to change the nature of aught, and work new powers in it, which are not wrought without giving a new life. And indeed persuasion tends rather to move men to do that which they have power to do, then from thence to receive a power of doing. We do not persuade men, ut possint aliquid facere, sed ut velint, & ut faciant, to be able to do aught, but to move them to be willing to do it.  
If by immediate inspiration giving a new life, than it follows that regeneration is a common grace, possible at least, given to them as well without the Covenant of grace, as to them within: to the Reprobates as well as to the Elect, and that upon performance of a work of nature. And because it were in vain to speak of upholding it after it is given, unless it were given indeed, you imply hereby that even this power is given to Reprobates. But whereas it is to be upholden but upon condition, yet you do not express what this condition is. But I guess the condition hereof is the exercising of this power; like as upon the exercising of the power which God gave Angels and Adam, before the fall, they had been confirmed in their integrity. But what if they do not believe or repent for a year or two together; yet I presume you will not say they are thereupon deprived of this power, but that it continueth for aught we know to the contrary to their lives end; though it fell out quite contrarily with Angels and Adam, who immediately upon their disobedience were deprived of this power. What is your meaning when you say, God offers mankind in Christ, greater grace and helps to keep the Covenant of works, then after the fall they could have attained to without Christ, I cannot easily comprehend, and throughout find you very close and reserved hereupon, which to speak like a free man, is no good dealing.  
First, I know not what that grace and help is, which here you speak of. If your meaning be no more but this, that they have more power to perform the Covenant of works through Christ, then otherwise; (as I guess it will come to no more in the end) I pray you what think you of mankind before Christ came into the world, had they this power you speak of through Christ? If you think they had, I pray you how came they by it? If only it hold of mankind since the preaching of the Gospel; I demand whether of all, or some? if of all, than you must acknowledge the Gospel to be preached to all. If only of them to whom it is preached; yet the question still is, whether it be wrought by persuasion or inspiration.  
Secondly, in saying that in Christ they have greater grace to help to keep it, your phrase doth imply, that even without Christ men have grace and helps and power to keep the Covenant of works. In a word, dare you say that any natural man hath any power to be subject to the Law of God, or to do that which is pleasing in God's sight? If you say they have any such power, I demand whether ever any were found subject to the Law of God, or did that which was pleasing in God's sight? It is very strange that never any such act should proceed from a power so general. If they were, or did that which was pleasing in God's sight, than they were not in the flesh, for they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 
Rom. 8.   
Lastly, when you say, these helps or this power is offered them in Christ, it implies that upon some condition performable on their parts it is offered unto them. Now it were very requisite you should deal plainly, and express this condition, which you do not. I confess I see no danger in acknowledging that God purposeth to deal with mankind according to their works; nay I wonder you should exclude the elect from the number of those with whom God deals in this manner, when the Apostle professeth so directly, we must all appear before the judgement seat of God, that every man may receive the things which are done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether good or evil, 2 Cor. 5. 10. Only for Christ's sake God giveth faith and repentance to some, working in them that which is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ; and doth not deal in the like mercy with others.  
The rest of this Section I dislike not.  
Glory be to God in Christ, and peace upon Israel, In submission unto his Truth.  
For why should we lie for God, as man doth for man, to gratify him?    

For an Auctarium, here is laid down a short Survey of the ninth Chapter to the Romans, so far 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 bewails it, yea, and protesteth, that he would wish himself rather separate from Christ for their sakes: The grounds of which he rendereth to be for his kindred's sake, ver. 3. for their privileges sake, ver. 4, 5.  
This coherence I could brook well enough, only I say it is devised at pleasure: and I find it is a general course to feign 
Exam.  coherences, and sometimes only 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 he doth sometimes repeal and insert the Doctrine of Justification; yet he handles two other principal 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 God's people, and that to them alone pertained the promises. Paul answers that the Elect alone are God's 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 Abraham's flesh are the children of God, but the children of promise, ver. 6, 7, 8. which he 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 be to him a servant, ver, 11.  
Which promise touching Jacob is amplified by,  
First, the freeness of it, all cause of different acceptation being removed from the two brethren, and in regard, first, of parentage, ver. 10. secondly, of personal condition and endowments, ver. 11. which freeness 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 parallel promise suiting to it, preferring Jacob before Esau in God's affection, when they were both considered only as brethren, ver. 13.  
These words of the Apostle are I confess the key of the whole 
Exam.  Chapter, for opening the meaning, or at least making way to a fair 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, than it may seem that God's word is of none effect, which consequence, (the Apostle supposing such a consequence likely to be made) by his denying of it doth imply, that there was some Word of God that seemed to be made of none effect by this Doctrine concerning the rejection of the Jews. This word therefore is to be inquired into, the investigation whereof will give light to all the rest. Now this word can be no other than the word of some promise made by God for the taking of the seed of Abraham to be his people, to be 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 me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting Covenant, To be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee. This I conceive to be the Word of God, which the Apostle had before his eyes when he delivered this, and denied that this word and promise of God can be of none effect; although it be granted, that most part of the Jews be rejected, provided that all are not. And he gives this reason, to wit, because this word and promise of God concerning Abraham's seed to be taken into his Covenant of Grace, did not comprehend all his seed: for all are not Israel, that are of Israel, etc. seeing then we do 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 he knew before, ver. 5. Even so then at this present there is a remnant according to the Election of grace. Withal the Apostle signifieth that not one of God's people is rejected: to wit, not one of them whom he 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 virtue of Gods promise made to Abraham for a Son, when both he and Sarah were dead as touching any natural power to beget, or conceive a Child. But God to make his promise good, enabled them with power hereunto above nature. And conformably hereunto alluding also to the condition of God's children begotten unto him, not by power of nature, but above nature, by virtue of a promise likewise, even that which he made unto Abraham, that in his seed (that is, in Christ) all the Nations of the earth should be 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, he begets them unto himself, each in his appointed time according to their generations.  
Quest. Is there not then unrighteousness with God to deal so unequally with persons equal? ver. 14.  
Answ. God forbid, which denial the Apostle proveth by a double testimony of Moses, both of them declaring the absolute Sovereignty of God over the creatures, and thereby his liberty to deal diversely or unequally with persons equal.  
First, the one by showing the independency of his mercy, ver. 15. wherein he 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 stir up a sinful Creature to this purpose, to show his power on him, though it be in his just hardening and overthrow, ver. 17. Where he inferreth another Corollary arising from both these places, ascribing as well the hardening of the creature that is hardened, as the showing mercy to him that obtaineth mercy, both to the absolute Sovereignty of God's will, ver. 18.  
This objection ariseth from the consideration of the equality 
Exam.  of Esau and Jacob, before they were born, and whilst they were in their mother's womb.  
The Answer is rightly conceived, as freeing God from injustice, by reason of the sovereignty he hath over his creatures and liberty thereupon to deal, not only as here it is expressed in general, diversely, or unequally with persons equal (for so he deals even with his Elect) giving a greater measure of grace to one, as even to Saul a persecutor and less to another though never so moral, and free from such as the world accounts foul sins before their callings, but so unequally as to show mercy unto one, and to deny mercy unto the other. For the more full explication whereof we are to consider, that righteousness 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 than he hath power to do; as in executing the power that God hath given them over inferior Creatures, we are just though we do kill Sheep, or Oxen, etc. Not in reference to any works of theirs, but only in reference to our own necessary use, and unto that lawful 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 showing 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 find 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 means to obtain mercy.  
I no way like this, for if it be understood of willing and running in a natural manner, such willing and running are no means to obtain mercy: Or if it be to be understood of willing and running in a gracious manner; whosoever thus willeth and runneth hath obtained mercy: as the Apostle signifieth when he saith, I found mercy that I should be faithful. And to obtain mercy in the Apostles phrase, Rom. 11. 30. 
1 Cor 7▪  and 31. is clearly to obtain faith and repentance; So that according to this exposition, the meaning of the Apostle is this; though man is he who believeth and repenteth, yet the glory of all is to be given unto God, as who showeth mercy to whom he will, when as freely he denyeth it to others, and so hardeneth them. And that this is the Apostles meaning in this place, it appeareth by the Antithesis which the Apostle makes, between showing mercy on the one side, and hardening on the other.  
Again, whereas the right of God in stirring up a creature to this purpose to show his power on him, though it be in his hardening, and overthrow; this right I say, or rather the exercise of this right in God, is confined to a sinful creature, this is quite besides the Apostles Text; For albeit the creatures he speaketh of (as Pharaoh and the rebellious Israelites) were sinful creatures, yet it doth not follow that the Apostle in the Doctrine which here he delivereth, taketh any notice of their sinfulness; As indeed it is apparent that he doth not justify God's courses here mentioned upon the consideration of their sinfulness, but only upon the consideration of God's Sovereignty over his creatures. And indeed it is plain, that of two sinners God can give the grace of raising from sin to whom he 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 he 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 than 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 be acknowledged a sin to precede the first sin, which cannot be avouched, without manifest contradiction. But it is just in respect of God's Sovereignty to keep from sin whom heo will, and to permit whom he will to fall into sin.  
Quest. Thou wilt further say unto me, Why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will?  
Answ. To this the Apostle returneth answer in four material points.  
First, He checketh the petulancy of the creature, by showing that though God should harden the creature by his irresistible will, yet it is not for the creature to reply thus to God; this he doth by a comparison, arguing God's Sovereignty over the creature, suitable to the power which the potter hath over the clay, ver. 20.  
Secondly, he admitteth a deny all or at least a mitigation of the rigour of that word objected in the manner of Gods hardening by his irresistible will, instead whereof the Apostle implieth, he doth rather harden by his suffering and long patience. What if God suffer in long patience, etc. ver. 22.  
Thirdly, He cleareth the justice of God in hardening the creature, by showing the conditions of those persons, whom he thus hardeneth, not creatures that have done neither good nor evil; 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 refusal of the means of grace, Ephes. 2. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 15, 16. or else after gross and unnatural iniquity, Gen. 15. 16. compared with Levit. 28. 27, 28, 29.  
Fourthly, he declares the holy ends which God aims 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 wisdom, and of the power of God how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! To him be glory for ever, Amen.  
By this objection arising out of the former Doctrine, namely, 
Exam.  that God hath mercy on whom he will, and hardeneth others: he doth evince that by showing mercy, is signified Gods giving the grace of obedience; by hardening, his denying the same grace of obedience; And withal that by denying this grace it comes to pass, 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 hardness of heart uncured, and consequently in their disobedience, whereupon it seems unreasonable that God should complain of men's disobedience, as oftentimes he doth, as Esa. 1. Hear, O Heavens, and hearken O Earth, I have nourished and brought up a people, and they have rebelled against me. 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 air, knoweth her appointed times, and the Turtle, and the Crane, and the Swallow observeth the time of their coming, but my people knoweth not the judgements of the Lord, and ver. 6. I harkened and heard, but none spoke aright, no man repent of his wickedness, 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 me. And Exod. 10. 2. Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? Let my people go that they may serve me, ver. 4. But if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to morrow I will bring Grasshoppers into thine house, etc. ver. 20. But the Lord hardened Pharaohs heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go. Now this I say seems most unreasonable in the judgement of flesh and blood. Namely, both to harden a man's heart, and yet to complain of, and find fault with the hardness 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, showing that when the Scripture doth manifest this to be God's course, namely to harden, and yet to complain of a man's hardness and disobedience, it becometh not the creature to quarrel with God, or dispute with God hereabout, because his weak capacity is not able to comprehend the reasonableness thereof. As for hardening by a will irresistible, implying that there may be a kind of hardening by a will resistible, as Arminius interpreteth the Apostle, it is to put upon the Apostle the conceits of man, for he maketh no such distinction.  
Secondly, He proceeds to show 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 he will, ver. 20. Secondly, in making him to what end he will, and that without control from the creature (the one being answerable to the other) in these words: Shall the thing form say unto him that form it, why haste thou made me thus? Now these different conditions, as different fashions of a vessel, are to be conceived in congruous reference to the double act of God formerly mentioned. First, the one was in showing mercy on whom he will, whereby a man is made a vessel of grace fit for honour. Secondly, the other was in hardening whom he will, whereby a man left destitute of grace, is exposed to rebellion and disobedience and consequently made a vessel fit for dishonour.  
Secondly, to what end he will, to wit, either to honour or dishonour, that is, either to become finally a vessel of mercy, or a vessel of wrath, like as the potter disposeth of clay in making vessels thereof; answerable hereunto in each particular, according to the mere pleasure of his will.  
Thirdly, he showeth 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 sovereignty in making whom he will vessels of wrath, or mercy.   
Fourthly, he shows withal, that before the execution of his wrath comes, he 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 pathetical manner, unto these vessels of wrath to move them to repentance. For that God doth complain, and expostulate, and reprove for these their sinful courses is most evident. And it is no less evident that when they go on in their obstinate courses, not profiting by God's 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 hear, from the first unto the last, Deut. 29. 4. That is, that both man runneth on wilfully in his sinful courses, and that most culpably, and also that without grace it cannot be otherwise. Though the reconciling of both these be very obscure and difficult as indeed the providence of God especially in evil, and generally in working what he will, by the free wills of the creature, is of a most mysterious nature. This patience of God comprehends not God's bare suffering the wicked only, but his prospering of them also, Jer. 12. 1. Why are all they in wealth that rebelliously transgress? 1. As for the first material point of the Apostles answer, I agree with you, in the explication thereof. 2. But as concerning the second, in my judgement there is nothing sound.  
For first, you feign the rigour of that which was objected to consist in a certain manner of Gods hardening: to wit, by his irresistible will; As if the Apostle did give us to understand, that there is a double kind of hardening, that is imputed unto God. The one by his irresistible will; the other is not expressed by you, but intimated to consist in hardening by his will resistible, whereas no such distinction is either expressed or insinuated by the Apostle, neither do you once go about to prove it. And the distinction itself is very absurd; both in bringing in a will of God resistible, whereas the Apostle supposeth the will of God in hardening to be irresistible, without all distinction; neither doth he give any the least intimation of a twofold hardening used by God, or imputable to him. He plainly professeth, that as God hath mercy on whom he will, so he hardeneth whom he will, without all distinction. And you may as well distinguish Gods showing of mercy, as if that were twofold; one by his will resistible, another by his will irresistible; For showing mercy and hardening are made opposite by the Apostle. And it is a well known rule in Schools, that Quot modis dicitur unum oppositorum, tot modis dicetur & alterum, of two opposites, look how many ways the one is taken, so many ways may the other be taken. And upon this Doctrine of the Apostle, ariseth the objection to this effect. That seeing Gods will is irresistible in hardening a man; it seems unreasonable that God should complain of such a man's rebellion and disobedience whom himself hath hardened, supposing that they cannot obey God who are hardened. 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 God's obduration, to wit, either by his resistible will, or by his irresistible will.  
Secondly, you feign at pleasure in like manner, a denial, or at least a mitigation of the rigour of St. Paul's former Doctrine, whence rose this objection (for so I had rather express it, then as you do, when in very obscure manner you call it the rigour of the word objected) And I wonder you would adventure to devise a denial, or any colour of denial made by the Apostle of that, which formerly he delivered in saying, He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth; when yourself have not hitherto manifested any mind to deny aught 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 Paul's former Doctrine of Gods hardening whom he will, but rather in complaining of their disobedience whom God himself hath hardened, 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 me, 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 show, 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 hardened. For albeit God all the day long, yea, and all the year long, yea, and many years 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 hardness of their hearts, as even in despite of God's 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 less 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 unless 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, be to suffer with long patience, then to show mercy, being opposite to hardening must be not to suffer with long patience. And if to suffer with long patience be to harden, then as often as he suffers his own elect with long patience, he hardeneth them. And when St. Peter saith, God is patient toward us, the meaning in proportion must be, he hardens us. Let me tell you, that Julian the Pelagian of old, took the like advantage as you do 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 justify God, hath recourse to God's sovereignty over his creatures, as great as the potter hath over the clay, who maketh vessels of what fashion he will, and to what end he will. But in the last place you feign most unreasonably, a justification of God's course in hardening whom he will, from the consideration of the persons hardened, as being sinners. I say this is most unreasonable.  
First, because when the creature is dealt withal 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 merely in vain to fly to any other course of justification, especially when it is less satisfactory than 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 God's sovereignty, and should only intimate this, and that obscurely, when this doth afford far better satisfaction than the former.  
Secondly, in this case, there were no ground for any such objection, nor any colour of unreasonableness; if God did but deal with them according to their deserts, as often as he hardeneth them.  
Thirdly, the objection ariseth not upon Gods hardening a man simply, but upon the hardening of whom he will, and that in a conjunct consideration, with his showing mercy therewithal on whom he will. In which case if God be justified from the consideration of their conditions with whom he deals, like as he dealeth differently with them, in showing mercy on some, and hardening others, so there should be 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. Paul's consideration are equal, with whom nevertheless God deals very unequally.  
Fourthly, though this be a plausible course in the judgement of man, especially of the Arminians, for the smothering of the light of God's truth in this place, yet when it is well considered, in the proper nature of it, I presume it will be very dissonant unto common reason. For what I pray you is hardening in this place, standing in opposition to the showing of mercy, but only the denying of the grace of Faith and Repentance to them that hear the Gospel; like as to show 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 clearing itself? 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 be said with sobriety, that man by sin doth deserve that God should deny him faith and repentance, like as it cannot be with sobriety affirmed, that man by being sick, hath deserved that the Physician 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 be raised from death, unless he were first dead, nor cured unless first sick, neither were there any need of Faith in Christ crucified, and of repentance, unless 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, he denied to the rest, merely out of his own free pleasure, according to the Sovereignty he hath over his creatures, and not with any reference unto sin preceding. For how was that possible? namely, that there could be any sin found in Angels before their first sin? yet were the one, (to wit) the elect Angels amplius adjuti, more succoured than the other, as Austin exprestely profesteth, lib. 12. De Civ. Dei. cap. 9 Indeed I find Ephes. 2. 3. That we are born children of wrath, in respect of sin, but that sin makes a man a vessel of wrath, or that he is not a vessel of wrath till sin comes, the Apostle saith not; nay, the Apostle intimates the contrary, when he represents the power of God over his creatures, by the power of the Potter over the Clay, in making therehence one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. It is true, since the fall of Adam; man in his generation hath no being without sin; (for we are even conceived in sin) yet it is not that sin, that makes a man a vessel of wrath, for if it did, than all should be made by God vessels of wrath. But albeit the Apostle signifies that we are all born children of wrath, which is verified in respect of the desert, even of sin original, 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 appear upon them, and this purpose of God was everlasting, not only as old as every man's generation, but as old as the creation of all, yea, and from everlasting before the Creation. Secondly, it includes also a fitness in the vessel for such an use, not fitness in the way of desert only; (such fitness being found in all the natural sons of Adam) but fitness in respect of God's purpose to show 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 refusal of means of grace, or the committing of gross and unnatural iniquity, than it followeth, that no Infants of Turks and Sarecens are vessels of wrath; No, nor men of ripe years amongst the heathen, many of whom never having either refused the means of grace (for as much as they never enjoyed them) and having lived civilly and morally all their days, Philosopher-like, free from gross and unnatural iniquity. And though all this be granted you; yet if God to that end refuse to show 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 God's course to be, in complaining of them for their disobedience, when God himself hath hardened them, in the same degree of rigour and unreasonableness, 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 quarrel with you thereabout; Gods judgements indeed, Rom. 11. 33. that is, his agendirationes (as Piscator interpreteth it) are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out. But you take a course quite contrary, to make them nothing unsearchable, but easy to be found out. For if obduration be in respect of sin, surely there is no unsearchable depth in this. And in my opinion, the chief ways of God, which the Apostle aims it in the place alleged, consists in having mercy on whom he will, and hardening whom he will, and in general 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 Egypt: Again, there was a time after this, for about 1600. years, that God had a Church of the Jews in distinction from the Gentiles. And since that for the space of about 1600. years, 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 signified by the Apostle immediately before, Rom. 11. 30. For even as ye in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past, have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy, through their unbeleef, there have we two of them; one past, another then present: Then follows the third, ver. 31. Even so now have they not believed by the mercy showed unto you; (this is part of the second) that they also may obtain mercy. This is the third, which we look for, ver. 32. For God hath shut up all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Then follows the exclamation, ver. 33. O the deepness of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God (for he knows all courses possible to be taken, both wise and unwise, and out of the depth of his wisdom makes choice of what he thinks fit) O how unsearchable are his judgements, (for out of all these different courses, results such a splendour of the glory of God, as no creature (till it be revealed) can project, nor devise any courses countervailable thereunto, when it is revealed) and his ways past finding out!  
FINIS.   

The English of the Latin passages in this Treatise, in the several Pages thereof, that are not formerly englished.  
PAge 10. lin. 2, 3, 4. The Apostle saith that we are chosen in Christ, as in a Mediator, by whose blood salvation is procured for us. lin. 5. As touching the act of God choosing. lin. 17, 18. as in the head.— The nature of an head, is not the nature of a cause meritorious. lin. 19, 20, 21. The Apostle saith that we are elect in Christ, as in a Mediator, by whose blood life is precured for us. l. 21. a meritorious cause. lin. 22, 23, 24. and as in an head, from whence these good things are derived to us. So that the reason of an head, is the reason of a meritorious cause, not morally, but naturally. l. 26. as in the head. l. 27. as dead and raised again. l. 37. Christ is the head of the predestinate.  
Page 11. lin. 5, 6. The other reason concerning Christ considered as the head, seemeth to depend on these parts.  
Page 12. l. 5. a thing being by accident. l. 28. Predestination puts nothing in the thing predestinated. l. 31. in all things.  
Page 13. lin. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. By the comparing of which sentence it appears, that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rightly rendered, among all. It is a Greek phrase, lest some one might conceive it ought to be translated, in all; to wit, in all things. We are to remember, that the Apostle from this verse began to discourse of Christ's kingdom in his Church, which no man will deny, if he doth but lightly consider the very words themselves: and therefore under the universal particle, no other thing is comprehended, but all believers of all times. Christ is the first of them that rise again, that among all the Saints, both of them that went before and of them that came after, he might have the primacy of dignity, power, and holiness. that so among all he might have the pre-eminence; not only in respect of men, but also of all angels. lin. 23, 24, 25, 26. that always in every life he may be chief and principal: in grace and glory: in generation and resurrection: as well in visible as in invisible creatures.  
Page 14. lin. 17, 18, 19 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. If Christ's predestination and ours be considered, as touching the act of God predestinating, so the one is not the cause of the other; for the same thing cannot be the cause of itself: but by the same divine act both Christ and we are predestinated; therefore the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our predestination. But if it be considered as touching the effect, seeing the effect of our predestination is grace and glory, and the adoption of sons; so it is to be said, that the predestination of Christ is the cause of our predestination, both the cause efficient and the cause exemplary. l. 32. first. l. 33. latter.  
Page 15. lin. 28, 29, etc. a being by accident.  
Page 16. l. 14. God only permitting them as they are evil. lin. 16, 17. not any thing comes to pass unless God will have it come to pass, either by suffering it to come to pass, or himself working it.  
Page 21. l. 3. the reason whereof is derived from the reason of the end designed.  
Page 26. l. 10. the reason of the end.  
Page 27. lin. last thirteen. 1. Of all things which God from everlasting did in his mind devise to do, the first was the hypostatical union of the divine Word. The second was the predestination of all the elect. The third was the condition of the nature of things. And therefore supernaturals are before naturals; and the order of nature presupposeth the order of grace.  
2 The foreknowledge of no future thing is in the mind of God supposed to go before predestination, but all things follow from it: and so farforth, that God decreed nothing at all from eternity to do, nor in time doth, he permits nothing, or intends, whether natural or supernatural, whether it be of great weight, or of least weight, or of no weight, which proceeds not there-hence, and is the effect and means of the predestination of the elect and of Christ. So that all things fall under the order of the divine predestination, as means ordained to the glory of Christ and of his Saints.  
Pag. 28. 3. There is no other providence in God preceding predestination, to wit, from which providence proceed things natural, and some other effects supernatural; but there is one only providence, and that is predestination, from which all things throughout proceed, without all exception. So that according to this conclusion, the whole universe, as it comprehends things natural and supernatural, things good and evil, substances and accidents, and all ways throughout of being and working, not only in general, but in special and individual, are to be considered as the only total object of divine predestination; so that not any one thing is without the breadth of its object, and which falls not under that act of predestination.  
4. If there had not been a predestination of Gods elect, nothing at all had been in the nature of things. Therefore I hold this as certain, that unless Christ had been to come into the world, there had been no predestination of the elect made by God; and if no predestination had been, by virtue whereof all things follow, there should have been neither heaven, nor earth, nor other elements, nor living things, nor men, nor angels, nor sins, nor devils, nor reprobates; and last of all, that I may conclude in one word, God alone had been, and nothing else had been besides God, neither natural nor supernatural, neither good nor evil; we speak according to the common law and order of things, and according to those ends which probably we conceive God to have had in the making of creatures. For our purpose is not at all so to tie the majesty of the divine power to the weakness of our apprehensions, to deny that God could (such is his absolute power) make and ordain the nature of things without dependence upon grace and glory, and grace without dependence upon Christ our Lord.  
Pag. ibid. five last lines. Behold where, look by what reason Christ is said to be Gods, and the predestinate are said to be Christ's; by the same reason all natural things, whether present or to come, whether life or death, are said to be the predestinates own things: But so it is, that Christ is therefore said to be Gods, and the elect are said to be Christ's, because  
Pag. 29. God is the end of Christ, and Christ is the end of the elect; that is, because Christ is ordained unto God as unto the end, and the elect unto Christ, as unto the end: and unless he, that is, God, were the first end, or the manifestation of his glory, there should be no Christ; and if there were no Christ, there should be no elect: therefore altogether by the same reason, the creatures are therefore said to be theirs who are elect, because they are for the elect, and the elect are the ends of them; and so if the elect should not have been, no natures of the creatures should have been.  
Pag. ibid. l. 9, 10, etc. He hath chosen us in him before the constitution of the world. Now he speaks of Christ man, to wit, of Christ the head, as Hierome expresseth upon that place, and it appears most plainly by the text. Certainly, either I am deceived, or Saint Paul intends not that only, to wit, that God hath chosen us in Christ, before the true and real constitution of the world, which was made in time now six thousand years ago. For that God had chosen us in Christ before the temporal creation of all things, was no great thing, nor worthy of so great a pen; for so he chose oxen and stones: For he decreed them, and foresaw them, before the creation of things in time, or before he made any thing in time; now before the constitution of the world, and from everlasting he devised them, and determined to make them. Therefore Paul intends some higher and more divine matter; to wit, that God in his eternity, when he devised with himself the creation of the world, even before that in order of reason he devised with himself concerning the election of his elect; and even then (I say) he had intended and fore-seen Christ, and in him he had chosen the predestinate.— lin. 27, 28, etc. a most efficacious reason; Every one willing things ordinately, first willeth the end; and of means those means which are nearer to the end: But Christ and the predestinate, and therefore all supernaturals are nearer to the end, that is, to the manifestation of the divine goodness, than all natural things; therefore supernaturals are willed by God before naturals; and the manifestation of the goodness of God before them all; because we consider it as the end of all.— lin. 37. 38. After what order and manner things are determined with God.  
Pag. 30. lin. 6. to 15. Thomas is of opinion, that Christ should never have been predestinated if man had not sinned. Whence it seemeth to follow by consequence, that sin was first seen by God, and the permission thereof willed, before the incarnation of the Word was willed: So that in the way of the Thomists, it appears not how it can stand, that the first decree of God was the incarnation or predestination of the Word, if so be the permission and foresight of sin was before it: but if Christ were predestinate before sin was fore-seen, then though sin had not been yet Christ should have come into the world, who was predestinate before the foresight of sin. lin. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. That God did first will the hypostatical union and incarnation of the Word, before he willed the permission of sin, and before he determined to make the nature of man, and of the whole universe— Yet because the incarnation was not willed without the consideration of sin, but was willed dependently upon the permission of sin, and of the nature of things, as upon the means; therefore it followeth not, that Christ should come into the world if sin had not entered, or if the world had not at all been.— means tending to the incarnation of Christ.  
Pag. 32. l. 20. From the greatness of the remedy, take notice of the greatness of the danger.  
Pag 36 l 26. beyond the worthiness of it. l. 27. less than it deserves.  
Pag 40. l. 4. who by profiting write, and by writing profit. l. 16. the mass not made. l. 17. made not yet corrupted. l. 18. the mass corrupt.  
Pag. 41. lin. 23. the mass not yet created. l. 28. the mass corrupt.  
Pag. 43. lin. 34, 35. God willed glory unto Peter, he willed nothing unto Judas. l. 36. God willed grace unto Peter, he willed nothing unto Judas.  
— l. 37. God would have each of them to exist in the corrupt mass.  
Pag. 44. l. 2. It is something to come thus far. l. 4. will damnation unto Judas. l. 14. of every thing that is, and of every thing that is not. l. 33, 34. If God did not will glory to Judas, than God did will that he should have no glory.  
Pag. 45. l. 13. to hate. l. 14. not to will grace and glory to some one.  
Pag. 47. l. 23. as a crown of justice.  
Pag. 51. l. 25, 26. Reprobation includes the will of suffering sin, and inflicting damnation for sin.  
Pag. 53. l. 22. We know. l. 23. not only wills averse from faith, but wills adverse to faith. l. 29. Of the vocation of the Gentiles.  
Pag. 54. l. 20. in the mass from the beginning corrupt.  
Page 55. l. 34. in the mass of Adam. lin. 36, 37. to consider,— to err or feign. lin. 27, 28. as to come in the mass of Adam.  
Page 56. lin. 5, 6. as should be faithful, and repent, and persevere in faith and repentance.  
Pag. 59 lin. 13, 14. Let me not live if I delight in the death of a wicked man; but I delight when a wicked man returns, that he may live. lin. 21, 22. Because our defections and our sins lie upon us, therefore we pine away in them, and should we live. lin. 24, 25, 26. Say unto them, Let me not live, saith the Lord, if I delight in the death of the wicked, but when the wicked returns from his way, that he may live. Return ye, return ye from your most evil ways; for why should ye die, O house of Isreal?  
Pag. 60. lin. 3, 4. by almighty facility convert, and of unwilling make them willing? lin. 38. the will of sign,— the will of good pleasure; l. 39 the will of precept.  
Pag. 61. l. 1. the will of purpose. l. 14. the will of sign, and the will of good pleasure.  
Pag. 63. l. 18. as touching the act of God willing. l. 19 as touching the things willed.  
Pag. 67. l. 20. the decrees being changed the Court of heaven had mourned. lin. 24. in a greater measure succoured.  
Pag. 68 lin. 23, 24. Not any thing comes unless God will have it come to pass, either by suffering it to come to pass, or himself working it. l. 25. suffers to come to pass, he will have it come to pass.  
Pag. 69. l. 11. middle knowledge. l. 21. in part. lin. 22. simply, or thoroughly.  
Pag. 71. l. 2, 3. the pride of man is wont to say, If I had known it, I would have done it.  
Pag. 72. l. 32. This is an hard saying.  
Pag. 76. l. 1, 2, etc. Each part of man (the spirit and the heart, that is the superior and inferior) ill disposed by God, understand it negatively, as touching the giving of free grace, but positively, as touching the judgement, inclination to, and prosecution of a sensible good. So that God made the King's spirit hard (that is, not yielding to the requests made) and not giving him grace to yield, and working with him to the affection of security, and his own good.  
Pag. 77. lin. 31, 32. by works, by writing.  
Pag. 78. lin. 16, 17. How great patience soever God affords, who will repent unless God give repentance?  
Pag. 79. l. 11, 12. that they may profit so far, as to perform outward repentance, that so their punishment may be the less. l. 24, 25. by will of precept, by will of purpose or good pleasure.  
Pag. 82. l 4. that he might afflict thee. l. 28. of duty.— by conformity to the affections of men.  
Pag. 86. l. 6, 7. Fair Laverna, teach me to deceive, teach me to seem just and holy: Cast darkness over my sins, and a cloud over my deceits.  
lin. 38, 39 Liberty without grace is not liberty, but wilfulness.  
Pag. 89. l. 3. do that which is just. l. 4. because they will not.— why will they not? l. 5. we go far,— without prejudice of a more diligent search, l. 6, 7. Either because the goodness of it lies hid, or because 'tis such as delights not. l. 8. but that, what lay hid is made known, and that is made sweet which formerly did not delight, this is from the grace of God which succoureth men's wills. l. 34, 35. averse from true faith, but adverse to true faith.  
Pag. 94. l. 27, 28. whom no man's will resists;— for of unwilling he makes them willing. l. 32, 33. the pride of man is wont to say, Had I known it, I would have done it.  
Pag. 95. l. 5, 6. faith is the cause of salvation.— cause meritorious. l. 7. cause of damnation.— causes disposing.  
Pag. 97. l. 3. Of the vocation of Gentiles.  
Pag. 99 l. 34. Justice of condecency.  
Pag. 105. l. 29. university of elect.— a world of elect. l. 30. Of the vocation of Gentiles.  
Pag. 108. l. 10. the will cannot be constrained. lin. 15, 16. God by almighty ease converts men, and of unwilling makes them willing.  
Pag. 109. l. 21. in the mass at the first corrupt.  
Pag. 111. l. 24. of former and latter.  
Pag. 114. lin. 31, 32. includes the will of suffering sin, and inflicting damnation for sin. l. 36. the critical point.  
Pag. 115. l. 33. the outward works of the Trinity are indivisible.  
Pag. 121. l. 2. such as should be saved.  
Pag. 122. l 1, 2. they increased the error concerning God.— they took away the fear of God.  
Pag. 125. l. 11, 12. into a mind void of all judgement. l 20. from the beginning.  
Pag. 127. l. 10. of old forewritten to this judgement.  
Pag. 129. l. 28. the pure mass. l. 29. the corrupt mass.  
Pag. 132. l. 38. suits at law.  
Pag. 133. lin. 31, 32, 33. moreover this metaphor is taken from hence, that God's eternal, whereby the believers are ordained to salvation, is called a book.  
Pag. 137. l. 24. righteousness of condecency.  
Pag. 140. l. 20, 21. The love of good liking.— the love of welldoing.  
Pag. 141. l. 10. the will of the flesh. l. 25. to an outward amendment of life.  
Pag. 146. l. 11. is not liberty, but contumacy.  
Pag. 147. l. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. what patience soever God shows, yet who shall repent unless God gives repentance.— None of these whom God hath not predestinated, doth God bring unto true and wholesome repentance, whereby man is reconciled unto God in Christ, whether he affords them greater patience, or as great.— God brings to repentance; but whom? whom he hath predestinated  
Pag. 185. lin. 9, 10. more helped. l. 11, 12. to be able if he would.— to will what he could. l. 13. helps or succours.  
Pag. 187. l. 22. as touching the act of God predestinating. l. 23. as touching the act of God reprobating. l. 25. as touching the act of God willing.  
Pag. 191. l. 4. not by infusing malice or naughtiness, but by not infusing grace.  
Pag. 193. l. 15. no man becomes most foul at first. l. 18. No old man fears God.  
Pag. 195. lin. 21, 22. The same, as the same, always works the same.  
Pag. 202. l. 12. unequal heifers are not fit to plough under the same yoke.  
Pag. 203. l. 17. by infusing malice, but by not infusing grace.  
Pag. 205. l. 3. not as touching the affection, l. 4. but as touching the effect.  
Pag. 212. l. 15. In the general lurk many equivocations.  
Pag. 224. lin. 27, 28, 29. Thou art under the wrath of God,— therefore worship God who is easy to be entreated. For upon thy prayers he will pardon thee, and his anger will be appeased.  
Pag. 227. l. 27. of duty, not of fact.  
Pag. 229. lin. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. To God, without doubt, look how easy it is to do what he will, as easy it is not to suffer that to be which he will not have to be. Unless we believe this, we must renounce the first article of our Creed, whereby we profess to believe in God the Father, who is almighty. For he is not called omnipotent, but to show, that whatsoever he will do, that he can do; neither can the effect of an almighty power be hindered, by the will of any creature.  
Pag. 230. lin. 28, 29. Exhortation not made, but despised. l. 32. if I had known it, I would have done it;— if I had heard, I would have believed.  
Pag. 232. l. 33. on God's part,— on man's part.  
Pag. 258. lin. 7, 8. O Roman, thou dost undeservedly suffer for the sins of thine Ancestors.  
Pag. 262. lin. 31, 32. that they may profit to the outward amendment of their life, to the end that their punishment may be the milder.  
Pag. 263. l. 24. the will of suffering sin, and inflicting damnation for their sin.  
Pag. 283. lin. 31, etc. what is this that you say, [when they are said to be given over to their lusts, they are to be understood, as men left by divine patience, not compelled into sins by God's power] as if the Apostle had not put both these together, both patience and power, when he saith, But if God willing to show wrath, and demonstrate his power, suffered in much patience the vessels of God's wrath, fitted, or prepared, for destruction. Yet which of these two do you say is that which is written? And the Prophet if he shall err, and speak, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet: and I will stretch out mine arm upon him, and cut him off out of the midst of my people Israel. Is this patience, or power? choose which you will, or confess both. Yet you see, that the sin of him who prophesyeth falsely, is also a punishment of sin. And when it is said, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet: will you say here also, that this is to be understood as if it were said, I have deserted him, that by reason of his merits he is seduced that he might err? Be it so, if you will; yet after this manner he was punished for his sins, that by prophesying that which was false he might sin. But look unto that which the Prophet Micheas saw; to wit, The Lord sitting upon his throne, and the whole army of heaven stood about him, on his right hand, and on his left: And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab the King of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? and one spoke on this manner, and another on that. And there came forth a Spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord aid unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying Spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. But this very thing was also a punishment of sin; God judging, God sending an evil Angel: That we may more clearly understand, how it is said in the Psalm, that he sent the wrath of his indignation by evil Angels. But did God err in this? did he judge or do aught unjustly or rashly in this? far be it from us so to think. But the Prophet spoke not in vain, when he said, Thy judgements are a great depth. The Apost be doth not cry out in vain, when he saith, O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his Counsellor? or who first gave unto him, that he might be recompensed? And again, in the same Chapter it followeth; For this cause God gave them over to the lusts of uncleanness. You hear, that for this God gave them over; and you vainly inquire, How it is to be understood, that God gave them over? taking much pains to show, that God gives men over in such manner, by deserting them: But after what manner soever God gives them over, for this cause God gave them over: For this he deserted them. And you see Gods giving of them over, what kind of desertion soever it be, and after what manner soever you understand the things which followed hereupon. For the Apostles care was to show, how great a punishment it is, to be given over of God to the lusts of uncleanness, whether by forsaking them, or after what other manner soever; whether explicable or inexplicable, whereby God doth this, who is both good and just in an unspeakable manner.  
FINIS.