V E13:5, Rom. 9.cleared. he not have power to ordaine them to this end, whom in fo juif man- ner, and upon fo good confiderations he bringeth unto! &c. In an- fwering thefe, lrminito feemeth very accurate, but it isawily dili- gence ; fuch as chofe poore creatures ufe, which being hard befet will run round often, and fetch running- jumps, that by this meanes they may bring to a loife all that purfue. To leave him therefore in im- pertinent difcourfe,what I can gatherout of him,touching thefe words, refpedtethone ofthefethree things:r .Theoccafion whichwent before, Godbordneth whom he will,as hejheweth mercy to whom hewa á.The ob- jedtion. 3. The anfwer. Let us begin with the firfl,for ifyoumarke the antecedent in the fenfe Arminius taketh it,it wil not beare the objedlion following.Secondly,If the objection could be made, yet Saint Pauls anfwer would proveim- pertinent ; the antecedent occafion, Arminius marl underftand of Gods decreeing to harden, or adlually hardning , according to his decree : His decree is, I will deny thee mercy, harden thee, punifb thee, if through unbeleefe, and impenitency thou (halt make thy fenfe worthy : His adtuall hardning is a powerfull executing this punifhment of induration, and rejedìing, on him who hath by finals impenitency defervcd it : neither of thefe will beare his objection, with Phew of reafon. Andbecaufe Arminius feemeth rather to refpe& the decree, we will take up that, and joyne this murmuring objeûion with it. If I am hardned by Gods decree , which doth fee downe the hardning and rejedlingofall fuch who (hall by finall unbeleefe and impenitency provoke him to it, then hath Godno reafonto be angry withme, on whom this fentence is executedby his unrefiftible will : But I amhard- ned according to that decree. Takethe antecedent in the other fenfr; IfGod now in his wrath execute induration on me, havingdeferved it bymy finali impenitency,and that with fuch power that I cannot refiff him, then bath he no caufe tobe angry with me, who am thus hardned by hisalmighty power. Idoe appeale toany confcience, what fhewof reafon thereis, inferring fucha confequence on fuch antecedents. No, had Gods will beene, not abfolute withinhimfelfe, but refpedting con- ditions meritorious in the creature, orhad his induration beenea meere inferring ofpunifhment now deferved, and not a deniall ofmercy which fhould have removed the entrance of the other, ( which the oppofition teacheth to be meant by induration) then there had beene no Phewofreafon thus to grant againft God. But come to the objedlion: He conceived in it thus much, as if it fhould fay, Can Gods indura- tion caufe him to be angry againffus whoarehardned ! Can that which is the effedlof his unrefiflible will,caufe him to beangry with us juftly Firt, the Apoftlechideth this infolency, fuggefting the{late ofthe per- fonmurmuring, and the perfon of God againft whom it is murmured. Secondly, from comparifon, well having thus repelled it, he defendeth the equity ofGod,and anfwereth to the matter.Firfl in thez.verfe. H. whohath power todecree the lifeand death ofhis creature on force conditions, and fo to harden force, and thew mercy H3 to 17
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=