87 / 808
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
perfon
without
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
of
thofe
Jewes
who
were 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
Phew
mercy
to tome,
as
to
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
of
the
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
of
his 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
Thew
mercy on whom
he
will;
he
gathereth,
that God
may make
a
decree to
(hew
mercy
to
fuch
as
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 qualified
with
fuch
condition
as
the
juftice
of
God
admitteth, which
is
the moderarrix of
his
mercy.
He who
can
Phew
mercy where he will,
can
doe
more
then
that
which
may poffibly be
done,
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
of
mercy.
He
who
fheweth
mercy where
he
will,
is
the
caufe
why
mercy
lighteth
on there particular
men, rather thenothers.
But he
who
can make
a
decree,rhat fuch
as
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 word
and decree,
is
above refuted,
and bath no concord
with
this objeetion
following, which
is
molt
evi-
dent, after this manner.
If
it be
by
his
meere irrefiftible will
that
men
be
in
the
Rate
of
fuch as
are rejeóted and
hardned, then he hath
no reafon
to blame
them being fo.
But he out
of
his plea
flare,
without
any
thing
in
the creature cau-
fingit,doth
reject fome
from mercy,and harden them
:
Ergo.
H
z
Now
75