V E R.5. Rom. 9.cledred. For the firft, it is true that is gathered, but not pertinent; for this example is brought to (hew that God may rejcó a perfonwithout in- juftice, when he hath done nothingfor which Gods will (hould be moved to reject him ; and it is to be well noted, that the mindeof God cannot be too prone, that he may make a decree to reject a perfon that followeth righteoufneffe in the Law; for Pharaoh cannotbe confidered, as in the number ofthofe Jewes whowere zealous for the Law. Befide that, it could never feeme in appearance unrighteoufneffe, to decree when a man is now a childe of death, that if he will not accept of Gods mercy in Chrift his Sonne, but cleave to his owne righteouf- neffe, then he (hall be rejected. And for the latter Syllogifme, it is no new Argument, as Arminius would have it ; but the conclufion affirming from all gone before, that it is in Gods liberty to Phewmercy to tome, asto Jacob, and to deny it to other fome, and that, Ergo, he cannot be unjuft in doing that which he hath liberty to doe. Againe, the firft part ofthe Propofttion.doth fight with it felfe ; for he who may thew mercy on whom he will, he may not make the creature the caufe why he fhould thew mercy, for he cannot (hew mercy on any out ofhis meere pleafure, and yet (hew mercy on fome confederation in the creature moving him to ir. Now from this that here it is faid;Gadmay Thewmercy on whomhewill; he gathereth, that God may make a decree to (hewmercy to fuchas beleeve, repent, and perfevere, &c. in fan tification. He who may thew mercy to whom he will, he is not reftrained to Come perfons,who (hall be of thisor that condition,but is as free to one as another. Now the grounds of this new learning, or old errour, I know not which to call it, fay, that God cannot choofe any, but fuch whom he feeth eligible,as being qualifiedwith fuch conditionas thejufticeof God admitteth, which is the moderarrix of hismercy. He who can Phewmercy where he will, can doe more then that whichmay poffibly bedone, and yet not any receive mercy. But fuch a decree as this might be made, and it (fill poffible that not one in all man-kinde fhouid be partaker ofmercy. He who fheweth mercy where he will, is the caufe why mercy lightethon there particular men, rather thenothers. But he who can make a decree,rhat fuchas will beleeve (hall have mercy, he isnot the caufe in particular why this man hath mercy fhewed to him, rather then another. His Conclufion mifconftring that wordand decree, is above refuted, and bath no concord with this objeetion following, which is molt evi- dent, after this manner. Ifit be by his meere irrefiftible will that men be in the Rateof fuch asare rejeóted andhardned, then he hath no reafon to blame them being fo. But he out ofhis pleaflare, without any thing in the creature cau- fingit,doth reject fomefrom mercy,and harden them : Ergo. H z Now 75
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=