Whether to be reprobated be the same with being appointed before-hand
unto eternal condemnation? If not, how do they differ? Also whether
reprobation be the cause of condemnation?
It hath been the custom of ignorant men much to quarrel at eternal
reprobation, concluding, for want of knowledge in the mystery of
God's will, that if he reprobate any from eternity, he had as good
have said, I will make this man to damn him; I will decree this
man, without any consideration, to the everlasting pains of hell.
When in very deed, for God to reprobate, and to appoint before-hand to
eternal condemnation, are two distinct things, properly relating
to two distinct attributes, arising from two distinct causes.
First, They are two distinct things: Reprobation, a simple leaving
of the creature out of the bounds of God's election; but to appoint
to condemnation is to bind them over to everlasting punishment.
Now there is a great difference between my refusing to make of
such a tree a pillar in my house, and of condemning it unto the
fire to be burned.
Second, As to the attributes; reprobation respects God's sovereignty;
but to appoint to condemnation, his justice (Rom 9:18; Gen 18:25).
Third, As to the causes; sovereignty being according to the will
of God, but justice according to the sin of man. For God, though
he be the only sovereign Lord, and that to the height of perfection;
yet he appointeth no man to the pains of everlasting fire, merely
from sovereignty, but by the rule of justice: God damneth not the
man because he is a man, but a sinner; and fore-appoints him to
that place and state, by fore-seeing of him wicked (Rom 1:18,19;
Col 3:6).
Again, As reprobation is not the same with fore-appointing to
eternal condemnation; so neither is it the cause thereof.
If it be the cause, then it must either, 1. Leave him infirm.
Or, 2. Infuse sin into him. Or, 3. Take from him something that
otherwise would keep him upright. 4. Or both license Satan to
tempt, and the reprobate to close in with the temptation. But it
doth none of these; therefore it is not the cause of the condemnation
of the creature.
That it is not the cause of sin, it is evident,
1. Because the elect are as much involved therein, as those that
are passed by.
2. It leaveth him not infirm; for he is by an after-act, to wit,
of creation, formed perfectly upright.
3. That reprobation infuseth no sin, appeareth, because it is the
act of God.
4. That it taketh nothing, that good is, from him, is also manifest,
it being only a leaving of him.
5. And that it is not by this act that Satan is permitted to tempt,
or the reprobate to sin, is manifest; because as Christ was tempted,
so the elect fall as much into the temptation, at least many of
them, as many of those that are reprobate: whereas if these things
came by reprobation, then the reprobate would be only concerned
therein. All which will be further handled in these questions yet
behind.
Object. From what hath been said, there is concluded this at least,
That God hath infallibly determined, and that before the world,
the infallible damnation of some of his creatures: for if God hath
before the world [was made] bound some over to eternal punishment,
and that as you say, for sin; then this determination must either
be fallible or infallible; not fallible, for then your other position
of the certainty of the number of God's elect, is shaken; unless
you hold that there may be a number that shall neither go to heaven
nor hell. Well then, if God hath indeed determined, fore-determined,
that some must infallibly perish; doth not this his determination
lay a necessity on the reprobate to sin, that he may be damned;
for, no sin, no damnation; that is your own argument.
Ans. That God hath ordained (Jude 4), the damnation of some of
his creatures, it is evident; but whether this his determination
be positive and absolute, there is the question: for the better
understanding whereof, I shall open unto you the variety of God's
determinations, and their nature, as also rise.
The determinations of God touching the destruction of the creature,
they are either ordinary or extraordinary: those I count ordinary
that were commonly pronounced by the prophets and apostles, &c.,
in their ordinary way of preaching; to the end men might be affected
with the love of their own salvation: now these either bound or
loosed, but as the condition or qualification was answered by the
creature under sentence, and no otherwise (1 Sam 12:25; Isa 1:20;
Matt 18:3; Luke 13:1-3; Rom 2:8,9, 8:13, 11:23; 1 Cor 6:9-11).
Again, These extraordinary, though they respect the same conditions,
yet they are not grounded immediately upon them, but upon the
infallible fore-knowledge and fore-sight of God, and are thus
distinguished. First the ordinary determination, it stands but
at best upon a supposition that the creature may continue in sin,
and admits of a possibility that it may not; but the extraordinary
stands upon an infallible fore-sight that the creature will continue
in sin; wherefore this must needs be positive, and as infallible
as God himself.
Again, These two determinations are also distinguished thus: the
ordinary is applicable to the elect as well as to the reprobate,
but the other to the reprobate only. It is proper to say even to
the elect themselves, 'He that believeth shall be saved, and he
that believeth not shall be damned'; but not to say to them, These
are appointed to UTTER destruction, or that they shall utterly
perish in their own corruptions; or that for them is reserved the
blackness of darkness for ever (1 Kings 20:42; 2 Peter 2:12; Jude
13).
So then, though God by these determinations doth not lay some
under irrecoverable condemnation, yet by one of them he doth; as
is further made out thus:
1. God most perfectly foreseeth the final impenitency of those that
so die, from the beginning to the end of the world (Prov 15:11;
Psa 139:2; Isa 46:10).
2. Now from this infallible foresight, it is most easy and rational
to conclude, and that positively, the infallible overthrow of
every such creature. Did I infallibly foresee that this or that
man would cut out his heart in the morning, I might infallibly
determine his death before night.
Object. But still the question is, Whether God by this his determination
doth not lay a necessity on the creature to sin? For, no sin, no
condemnation: this is true by your own assertion.
Ans. No, by no means: for,
1. Though it be true, that sin must of absolute necessity go
before the infallible condemnation and overthrow of the sinner;
and that it must also be pre-considered by God; yet it needs not
lay a necessity upon him to sin: for let him but alone to do what
he will, and the determination cannot be more infallible than the
sin, which is the cause of its execution.
2. As it needs not, so it doth not: for this positive determination is
not grounded upon what God will effect, but on what the creature
will; and that not through the instigation of God, but the
instigation of the devil. What? might not I, if I most undoubtedly
foresaw that such a tree in my garden would only cumber the ground,
notwithstanding reasonable means, might not I, I say, from hence
determine, seven years before, to cut it down, and burn it in the
fire, but I must, by so determining, necessitate this tree to be
fruitless? the case in hand is the very same. God therefore may
most positively determine the infallible damnation of his creature,
and yet not at all necessitate the creature to sin, that he might
be damned.
Object. But how is this similitude pertinent? For God did not only
foresee sin would be the destruction of the creature, but let it
come into the world, and so destroy the creature. If you, as you
foresee the fruitlessness of your tree, should withal see that
which makes it so, and that too before it makes it so, and yet let
the impediment come and make it so; are not you now the cause of
the unfruitfulness of that tree which you have before condemned to
the fire to be burned? for God might have chose whether he would
have let Adam sin, and so sin to have got into the world by him.
Ans. Similitudes never answer every way; if they be pertinent to
that for which they are intended, it is enough; and to that it
answereth well, being brought to prove no more but the natural
consequence of a true and infallible foresight. And now as to
what is objected further, as that God might have chose whether
sin should have come into the world by Adam, to the destruction
of so many: to that I shall answer,
1. That sin could not have come into the world without God's
permission, it is evident, both from the perfection of his foresight
and power.
2. Therefore all the means, motives, and inducements thereunto,
must also by him be not only foreseen, but permitted.
3. Yet so, that God will have the timing, proceeding, bounding,
and ordering thereof, at his disposal: 'Surely the wrath of man
shall praise thee, and the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain'
(Psa 76:10; 1 Kings 22:20-22; John 8:20; Luke 22:51,52).
4. Therefore it must needs come into the world, not without, but
by the knowledge of God; not in despite of him, but by his suffering
of it.
Object. But how then is he clear from having a hand in the death
of him that perisheth?
Ans. Nothing is more sure than that God could have kept sin out
of the world, if it had been his will; and this is also as true,
that it never came into the world with his liking and compliance;
and for this, you must consider that sin came into the world by
two steps:
1. By being offered. 2. By prevailing.
Touching the first of these, God without the least injury to any
creature in heaven or earth, might not only suffer it, but so far
countenance the same: that is, so far forth as for trial only:
as it is said of Abraham; 'God tempted Abraham' to slay his only
son (Gen 22:1), and led Christ by the Spirit into the wilderness
to be tempted of the devil (Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1). This is done
without any harm at all; nay, it rather produceth good; for it
tends to discover sincerity, to exercise faith in, and love to his
Creator; also to put him in mind of the continual need he hath of
depending on his God for the continuation of help and strength,
and to provoke to prayers to God, whenever so engaged (Deut 8:1-3;
1 Peter 1:7; Heb 5:7; Matt 26:22,41).
Object. But God did not only admit that sin should be offered
for trial, and there to stay; but did suffer it to prevail, and
overcome the world.
Ans. Well, this is granted: but yet consider,
1. God did neither suffer it, nor yet consent it should, but under
this consideration; If Adam, upright Adam, gave way thereto, by
forsaking his command, 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die' (Gen 2:17, 3:3). Which Adam did, not because
God did compel him or persuade him to it, but voluntarily of his
own mind, contrary to his God's command: so then, God by suffering sin
to break into the world, did it rather in judgment, as disliking
Adam's act, and as a punishment to man for listening to the tempter;
and as a discovery of his anger at man's disobedience; than to
prove that he is guilty of the misery of his creature.
2. Consider also, that when God permitted sin for trial, it was,
when offered first, to them only who were upright, and had sufficient
strength to resist it.
3. They were by God's command to the contrary, driven to no strait
to tempt them to incline to Satan: 'Of every tree of the garden
thou mayest freely at,' saith God; only let this alone.
4. As touching the beauty and goodness that was in the object unto
which they were allured; What was it? Was it better than God? Yea,
was it better than the tree of life? For from that they were not
exempted till after they had sinned. Did not God know best what
was best to do them good?
5. Touching him that persuaded them to do this wicked act; was
his word more to be valued for truth, more to be ventured on for
safety, or more to be honoured for the worthiness of him that
spake, than was his that had forbad it? The one being the devil,
with a lie, and to kill them; the other being God, with his truth,
and to preserve them safe.
Quest. But was not Adam unexpectedly surprised? Had he notice
beforehand, and warning of the danger? For God foresaw the business.
Ans. Doubtless God was fair and faithful to his creature in this
thing also; as clearly doth appear from these considerations.
1. The very commandment that God gave him, fore-bespake him well
to look about him; and did indeed insinuate that he was likely to
be tempted.
2. It is yet more evident, because God doth even tell him of the
danger; 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die.'
3. Nay God by speaking to him of the very tree that was to be
forborn, telling him also where it stood, that he might the better
know it; did in effect expressly say unto him, Adam, if thou
be tempted, it will be about that tree, and the fruit thereof:
wherefore if thou findest the tempter there, then beware thy life.
(1.) To conclude then: though sin did not come into the world
without God's sufferance, yet it did without his liking: God suffered
also Cain to kill his brother, and Ishmael to mock at Isaac, but
he did not like the same (Gen 4:9-11; Gal 4:30).
(2.) Therefore though God was first in concluding sin should be
offered to the world; yet man was the first that consented to a
being overcome thereby.
(3.) Then, Though God did fore-determine that sin should enter,
yet it was not but with respect to certain terms and conditions,
which yet was not to be enforced by virtue of the determination,
but permitted to be completed by the voluntary inclination of a
perfect and upright man. And in that the determination was most
perfectly infallible, it was through the foresight of the undoubted
inclination of this good and upright person.
Quest. But might not God have kept Adam from inclining, if he
would?
Ans. What more certain? But yet consider,
1. Adam being now an upright man, he was able to have kept himself,
had he but looked to it as he should and might.
2. This being so, if God had here stept in, he had either added
that which had been needless, and so had not obtained thankfulness;
or else had made the strength of Adam useless, yea his own workmanship
in so creating him, superfluous; or else by consequence imperfect.
(3.) If he had done so, he had taken Adam from his duty, which was
to trust and believe his Maker; he had also made void the end of
the commandment, which was to persuade to watchfulness, diligence,
sobriety, and contentedness; yea, and by so doing would not only
himself have tempted Adam to transgression, even to lay aside the
exercise of that strength that God had already given him; but should
have become the pattern, or the first father to all looseness,
idleness, and neglect of duty. Which would also not only have
been an ill example to Adam to continue to neglect so reasonable
and wholesome duties, but would have been to himself an argument
of defence to retort upon his God, when he had come at another
time to reckon with him for his misdemeanours.[6]
Many other weighty reasons might here be further added for God's
vindication in this particular, but at this time let these suffice.