Baynes - BS2695 B289 1643

V E R.5. Rom. 9.cleared Thatehich is wholly in the free pleafure of God, that lommeth notfrdm any thing inyhe powerof man : But this mercy, electing, adopting, calling, is meerely in Gods free pleafure ; it is not therefore in man ro procure it, but in Gods liberty to Phew this mercy. This anfwer Both plainely thew, that the point which diftafted, was this ; That God Mould at his meere pleafure thew mercy to Jacob, when he refufedEfsu; whichtwould make our election, calling, adop- tion, quite our ofour power,meerely depending do Gods freepleafure: For, both thefe are here avouched to ftand with juftice in God, what ever might be furmifed : And 4narke here, that the Apoftle doth maintains it without injuflice, to thew and refute mercy, when he conldereth not any thing in the perlonswhich might make this equall: For were the equity of Gods mercy {hewed to !scab, and denied Ow in this, that now all were become children of wrath , whom God might pardon and rettore, or leave and execute at his pleafure ; then the Apofile thould in the honour he owed to the name ofGod, have here expreffed this confideration, that God might juftly thew mercy to Tome, anddeny it to otherfome,who werenow fuch,that they had by finne brought the mfelves under fintenceofcondemnation. For ifhe had not;hewed it to any, he had not beene unjuft ; but Saint bud did know that he had affirmed, that God looking neitherat merit in the one, nor demerit inthe other,had chofen and loved the one, refufed and leffe loved the other. Here marke Arminius. If that purpofe, God rejecting loch as feeke righteoufneffe by their ovine workes,eleétingbe1leevers,dependonely on hismercy, then it is not unjutt. jj But that purpofeis neither from him that runneth, &c. but de- pendeth on Gods meere mercy, Ergo, it is not to be accufed ofinjuflice. Firft Marke how he maketh the Apoflle not anfwer thedifficulty of the Objection, which was this; How could God goelfromone Covenant , decreeing falvation on workes , and decree contrary, that not workers, but beleevers thould be faved r for Gods mercy can- not be the caufe, nothing elfe comming betweene, why God fhould changehis order, and goefrom oneunto a contrary. Secondly; Let him (hew how mercy can be the onely caufe, why a jufticiarie, cleaving to owne righteoufneffe, is rejeêted from falvation. Thirdly; The, Apoftle doth not prove this decree, that beleevers (hall be faved, to be, jolt in God, but Gods (hewing mercy in deflination and execution to one before another. Now this decree, I will fave all that (hall beleeve; doth not Phew anymercy toone before another, but offers mercy to all alike. Laftly ; Who would everaccule the mercyofGod, fordecreeing in a juft courte to bringmen to falvation, when now they hadmade themfelves guilty of wrath : Marke how he depraveth that confeétarie, which fheweth that it is not in our power now under wrath to deferve that God fhould decree the falvationofus, in cafe we wouldbeleeve. H But

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=