-- CHAPTER II: The infinity of grace in God's electing us, discovered by a comparison of it with the
Certainly, it could be nothing but my own mere loving-kindness borne towards you before, that must move me to it: it must be some aforehand purpose; and when, or at what time, think you, did that kindness first begin in me, or that loving fit first take me? Was my love ever nay, and then after a time become yea? No, says he; here I am an everlasting God, and I have no new purposes, that are of yesterday, but which are as of old as myself am; for then I should have an alteration or change made in me, as you creatures have; new thoughts to-day, which I had not yesterday; and to be sure, in my love towards you, of all things else, I have not such; for I love like
God, like the great God, where I love. Neither could there be any thing but such a love so borne to you, that could ever move me to call you, for there was nothing in you to draw on my love; for the truth is,
I was forced to draw you, you were so backward and utterly averse.
And now, after I have called you, I am a God that changeth not: Mal.
3:6, 'For I am the Lord, I change not: therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.' And so my love is from everlasting to everlasting: Ps.
103:17, 'But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him: and his righteousness unto children's children.'
CHAPTER II
The infinity of grace in God's electing us, discovered by a comparison of it with the other act of reprobation.—The vast disparity between election, and the grounds and issue thereof; and the act of rejection of others, and the grounds and issue thereof.
I can put the doctrine of the foregone discourse unto no better use than an exaltation of the grace and love of God towards his in his decrees of election; both, 1, to the end, as of them considered unfallen; and, 2, to the means, considering them as fallen, by and through a comparative made of these his decrees of election with
those parallelly opposite of his denials of those, both end and means, unto others; which so vastly differing comparison between the one and the other the called elect of God are deeply to consider, to the end the more to adore the surpassing grace of God towards them.
And that this high duty is due from us upon the account of this difference and discrimination that electing grace hath made, I shall insist but upon one grand example, that of Christ himself on our behalf. We find our Lord blessing his Father on our behalf upon this comparative account: Mat. 11:25, 26, Jesus said, 'I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.'
In which passage observe, 1. That God's good pleasure in putting this difference between his elect and others is here the subject-matter of his speech.
2. That Christ, the natural Son of his Father, and so privy to his secret counsels touching these disposements, doth rest and acquiesce in his Father's good pleasure, which with an emphasis Brugensis* hath observed out of these words, Ναἰ ὁ Πατὴρ, which we translate
'even so'; but he renders it, Rectè, O Pater, 'Thou hast done rightly, O Father, in so doing;' so in the highest measure approving it.
3. That he allegeth no other reason for this difference, but only his Father's good pleasure, and resolveth all into that: he speaks not, quâ ratione placuit, upon that reason it pleaseth his Father, but only that it pleased him; and therefore only allegeth it, because it is that which should silence all.
4. That which is special to my purpose is, that he not simply approves of this, but singularly blesseth his Father for it; and that not only or merely because he had 'revealed these things to his babes,' but comparatively also, setting before it, and together with it, his having
'hid these things,' which are the means of saving men, 'from the wise
and prudent.' 'Father, I thank thee that thou hast hid them,' &c.; which he mentions as that whereby his Father's love was magnified the more unto his elect, in whom his good pleasure was pitched. And Christ was moved to do this, they being those he loved so much, having been given him by the Father as his sheep to die for.
5. The occasion he takes for this his thanks, uttered in this comparative, was the hardness of heart and impenitency of those many cities he had preached to, ver. 20, and especially of those wise and great men that lived therein, and had been made partakers of his ministry.
And his saying 'Father, I thank thee,' &c., must be understood in such a sense as the apostle useth: Rom. 16:17, 'God be thanked, ye were the servants of sin.' What! doth he thank God simply that they had been such? No; but that which follows must be taken in, viz., 'but ye have obeyed from the heart,' &c., which expresseth their conversion. So as that they had been the servants of sin is brought within those thanks, not simply, but by way of comparison, to extol the more the mercy of their being now the avowed servants of God, which this former contrary condition did set out the grace and wonder of. And thus here in Christ's speech the like intention holds.
Now what affected Christ's heart to provoke him to so high a thankfulness on our behalf, ought to affect ours unto the same end, and so much the more, as it is our personal interest which this concerns.
Thus far in general, that it is our duty to compare the difference of these two procedures of God to the sons of men, to the end to bless and magnify the Lord the more for his special love to us.
I come particularly to institute the comparative itself, that is, to enlarge upon the particulars of it; all which particulars I shall reduce to two heads.
First, That infinite disparity that is between those two acts themselves, of election, and the grounds thereof in the heart of God, and the issue thereof, and the act of rejection of others in the grounds and issue thereof; setting both in view together, by which the transcendency of electing love will the more appear.
Secondly, A comparative made in respect unto the persons refused and elected, as considered in the common condition of both, and the circumstances which both stand in; and that he should, viewed in the same circumstances and condition, choose thee, and not others, which will also wonderfully magnify the electing love unto us. And for the several of these you may take two tests as instances of such a comparison: 1 Thes. 5:9, 'For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.'
The matter of this comparative are the two acts themselves, and although brought in there as motives to us unto obedience, yet also they serve as well to us to he matter of thankfulness, that God hath not ordained us to wrath. In the connection of the words immediately afore, they follow as the object of the hope every
Christian hath: 'God hath not ordained them to wrath, but,' &c. And in saying hath not appointed us to wrath, he stirs them up to reflect upon what he hath done to others, and supposeth such an ordination of God's to have been towards others.* 2dly. For the second comparison, of persons, you have, 2 Thes. 2:13,
'But we are hound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.'
This, you see, comes in a more express way, provoking unto thankfulness; and those words, but for you, &c., do as expressly refer unto what the lot of others was, whose fate he had particularly deciphered in the verse before: ver. 11, 12, 'And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that
they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.'
1. For the comparative between the acts themselves. It is not unknown that in election there is discerned by divines two eminent parts, as some call them; or gradus, or degrees of proceeding therein, as others: several instants the schoolmen call them. And it is also acknowledged by them that there are two eminent parts of what is termed reprobation, oppositely accompanying those two of election, as dark shadows do lightsome bodies; for election acts are the first and primary in order of nature, and reprobation acts do follow or answer thereto, as those words, speaking of election, 'the rest were blinded,' Rom. 11:7, does shew. God's first act (which his heart is upon) is his choice, and those left out therein are called the rest; as when the choice of some are first called out of an heap, those that remain are the rest.
The first act of election is ad finem. Thus Acts 13:48, 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.'
2. To the means to that end—as in 2 Thes. 2:13, 'Through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth'—whereinto
Christ's death and redemption is also to be taken in.
Now, how the first of these is to be referred unto man considered before the fall, as the object of it, and the latter unto man as fallen, as the object of it; as likewise how there are two acts towards those, the rest, whom vulgarly we call reprobates, that answer unto these two of election; I have in a former treatise handled.
The one is a bare not ordaining them unto that ultimate glory which is the end, viz. God's being all in all to them, as 1 Cor. 15:28; the other a withholding from them these effectual means, after or upon foresight of their fall. Such means, as through which he ordained his elect to come unto that glory, denied to those other, which act it is the word reprobation doth properly denote.
In the first they are considered as unfallen (I express it so indeterminately, unto them whether as created or creabiles‚ or that were to be created), and so that ultimate glory, being supernatural to the creature by the law of creation, that glory was God's own propriety, which he might dispose of as his own at free pleasure. In the other act of denial of the effectual means, they were considered as fallen into sin, and therein justly denied those effectual means by which the other are restored out of that estate.
Now, my business in this first branch is an exaltation of election grace, in respect of these its two acts of grace shewn in election, through the help of a comparative disparity of the two acts of electing grace, with those correspondently opposite acts of reprobation in their aspects unto either state.
1. Compare we that act of absolute ordaining them unto that ultimate glory, as viewed without the consideration of the fallen estate, with that other of simply not ordaining the rest to that glory.
It is true concerning either of these that there is in both a pure absolute act of dominion exercised, even in his not ordaining these unto that glory as the end, as much as electing these other unto that glory; for that glory is wholly supernatural, and purely God's own.
And I may here apply that speech of Dominicus Bannies, Est manifestatio maximæ libertatis, quam habet divina voluntas circa dispensationem bonorum supernaturalium, quæ maxima est perfectio divina. In the bestowing therefore of this supremest glory, the greatest liberty of the divine will is seen. And as liberty and freedom is most conspicuous in it, so answerably a love supereminent; insomuch as let us suppose God should by another decree bestow never so many and so great good things on these, and yet not this superlative good of super-creation glory, the bare denial or omission of this were an act of hatred in respect to a mere comparison of that love in that ordination of others to that glory. I conceive that the instances of Jacob's election, and the denial to Esau of this ultimate blessing, do most properly and pertinently hold forth
the difference of these two bare acts of election to glory, and the negation of it, as to what God doth towards men, considered as afore the fall, even as Pharaoh's instance in the same, Rom. 9, was alleged of men considered as fallen and hardened; and therefore the apostle saith, upon occasion of this example, 'Whom he will he hardens;' whereas in the estate of the example of Jacob and Esau, he here useth this gloss of his own upon it, 'Being not yet born, nor having done good nor evil,' that is, as they were purely and abstractly considered from any sin or guilt any way contracted, as also before they were born, our birth being that which brings us into an actual and visible residency in this world. And unto this he applies that in verse 13, 'Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,' thus in the type alleged, signifying men unfallen. Now, God ordained Esau (in the type) to many good things and great blessings, as in Isaac's blessing of him: Gen. 27:39, 40, 'Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above,' &c. But that which was the blessing indeed, this his brother (he says) had taken away, ver. 35, which was by that election (which we are upon). And thus did God without the consideration of the fall, ordain his chosen to that super-creation glory, though he denied the rest that great good.
He yet did purpose to ordain them to other good things of an excellent nature and kind, as that creation perfect holiness which was
God's image, and the dominion over all the work of his hands, which Adam, and in him we all, were appointed unto by the law of his and our creation, which condition we all predicate as a complete happiness; but still this was not that good we speak of, not that glory in which God becomes all and in all. And although unto so great a good all men were in this manner made heirs of, yet that will hold true which was said of Esau in comparison of Jacob's portion, 'Esau have I hated;' and in that comparison, election to that super-creation glory only hath the name of love. And I understand the purport of those speeches thus, that there was so vast a difference put, and so great a love cast upon the one, and so transcendent, as that comparatively the other was as hatred; I understand it, I say, that this love was so infinitely high as that it made all other love, and that love to all mankind in their creation, to be but as no love, no glory (as
the apostle says of the law in comparison of the gospel which excelleth), yea, it was as hatred.* And thus I am taught to understand that hatred may be understood of a lesser love, when set in comparison with a love far exceeding; as when our Saviour speaks of what love ought to be bestowed upon himself, so deservedly above what to father and mother, he says, 'If ye hate not father and mother, ye are not worthy of me.' Hatred there imports not barely a less loving, but also serves to express and set out how great a love that must needs be, and ought to he, that shall only deserve the name of love, in comparison unto which all other love, of what is and ought to he in other respects the highest love amongst men (for we ought to love parents and wives above all other relations on earth), should be accounted hatred; and that whilst we thus love them, we must but love them with a love so far below that love we owe to Christ, as it must be but an hatred of them in collation with that towards him.
And thus in like manner to magnify the love he beareth his elect Jacobs‚ he termeth that love he beareth all others of mankind but hatred.
And the comparing alone of this supernatural good with all other good things God did bestow either on Adam, or on men after the fall, in gifts supernatural, as enlightenings and tastings of the powers of the world to come, &c., or outward blessings, the glory and happiness suppose which millions of worlds could afford, might along be sufficient to enlighten us in this argument to magnify electing grace by. I may say, that if all the common mercies and favours of all or any sort that God hath scatteredly vouchsafed to and among all men, were heaped upon one man alone, and he made the possessor of them, they all would be found too light in the balance with the endowment, of this eternal weight of glory on us, and so light as that they will be allowed no better account than of hatred; and it is a big word to be said this.
It is true indeed that commonly men do not discern or conceive of the greatness of this election privilege, made without or afore the consideration of the fall, but by the fall and the misery they are
brought into by sin. Yet in this other way of comparison I have now made, these other good things fore-mentioned must be acknowledged (if taken in by us) to be a most piercing and accommodate way to aggrandise it by. I shall further urge this comparative of it, with this supposition made concerning Adam's state and condition. Suppose we that Adam and all men had stood to this day (and to illustrate things we may make suppositions of things that were never, but might have been, as Christ does, Luke 10:13), and not only so, but should have so continued for ever, and that God, out from among them, had elected some to that ultimate glory and kingdom we have been speaking of, whom he had taken up immediately into it without redemption, &c., whilst those others should have enjoyed but that holiness and happiness they were created in, and continued in still upon earth, such as Adam and Eve themselves did, which is the opinion of many divines, he only should have enjoyed; what an infinite difference would this have been! as much as of an earthly and heavenly state. And thereby even all along during that estate so continuing, there had been an infinite illustration given unto that heavenly glory, in that a complete happiness on earth, in enjoyment of God, had, as a lower way, been extant, infinitely short of that heavenly glory election had designed some of them, over the head, as we say, of that earthly state.
But, further, if we withal suppose (as de facto it was), that all this holiness and happiness in Adam's state did mutually depend upon the changeable vertibility and slipperiness of free will, liable to fall, and so to forfeit it all in the twinkling of an eye, by admitting one sinful thought, whereas in that first act of election we have been speaking of, this ultimate glory was immutably and unchangeably endowed upon those God foreknew; and so whereas that other holy and happy state hung but as a comet or meteor, wavering in the air, this gift of glory was fixed in God's heart towards them, as the sun is in the firmament, as Ps. 89, whereas the other were not liable only to fall, but de facto would have fallen (even as Adam also did), at one time or another. What an infinite favour and grace then was it
aforchand to ensure this victory of his elect! Whether fall they, or not fall, they lie under an unchangeable decree.
Again, under this head the comparison comes in between God's intention of our salvation as his end in election, and of men's damnation in the point of rejection.
It is true, that in his decrees of either, his own glory is the supremest end in both decrees; but yet in the point of election, the glory and salvation of the elect themselves is an ultimate end, which his heart is directly and absolutely set upon—an end simply and for itself desired by him, as which his soul singly and absolutely delighted in, for and in itself; whereas in reprobation the case is otherwise; damnation is the end indeed of the persons, yet no otherwise but as death is said to be the end of life, which is indeed the issue, the terminus which life expires into; but it is not the end for which we live.* And accordingly God professeth of the death of a sinner, that he hath no pleasure in it, that is, not simply for itself. Every end of anything is optimum quid, and the perfection of a thing; but damnation is the extremity of evil, and the highest imperfection; and therefore was not the end God propounded to himself, which he cannot be said to make the creature for. And, therefore, most assuredly the matter of election and reprobation is not stated well by those who say, that men's damnation and reprobation, and man's salvation in election, do stand in a like posture or reference in God's intention, that is, intended by God upon like terms, for his own glory's sake. No, there is an infinite difference; for besides the tendency which our salvation hath unto his glory, it was also intended by God simply and directly in itself as his end, though inferior to his own glory; but that of damnation was never intended by him for itself, as an end which he delights in.
This for the act of election, considered as afore and without the fall, and a comparative of that glory denied in that act unto those God passed by, with all the other good things God did or might bestow upon them.
But it pleased our God permissively to decree those elect to fall together with the rest, as for many other holy ends, so for this one especially that respects the matter in hand, that we might discern the difference of immutable holiness running along with glory, which election brings unto, Eph. 1:4, from that of created holiness; which, if we suppose man had not fallen from, but stood by, his free-will grace had not been so manifestly discerned, but the glory of it would have been obscured and attributed unto man's free will, and not the grace of election.
I therefore, secondly, come to a comparison of the acts of election and reprobation, as they were framed for and respected man's fallen condition.
Now this first purpose unto this ultimate end, though it stand firm, yet it cannot bring unto that glory but by new means, and such as must be suited to bring sinners to God. And hereupon that first decree to glory, out of absolute dominion, will not now serve the turn; for without faith and holiness no man can please or see God.
And without these God stood as peremptorily resolved none should see his face, as he did to that other, to bring us to that glory; and therefore a decree of these new means are necessarily required. For though God should have taken (as he might), his elect by the first decree, immediately out of that state of creation, with that holiness they were made in, unto that supreme glory, yet that holiness then, though perfect in its kind, was never ordained as a means to that glory, viz., the kingdom of the Father, as faith on Christ and holiness flowing from thence now are; for that anything should be a means unto glory, depended upon an ordination of God, and an ordering of one for the other. And this ultimate glory, the kingdom of the Father, and God being all in all, should never have gone by works only, which was Adam's covenant; so that, if we should suppose that act of his grace had purposed and ordained to take up these his elect unto glory, out of that state of holiness by creation (supposing Adam also not to have fallen, but to have propagated that holiness to his posterity), yet the holiness of that covenant had not been an
influential means to that glory, but was thus far, and upon this account necessary, yet, indeed, it must have been continued; for if it had not, then guilt had arisen, and so a bar unto that glory; so that indeed it was a requisite, sine qua non‚ but not a means of influence by that covenant, no more than creation itself was. Well, but now upon the fall, there is an absolute bar to glory: the elect are fallen into the demerit of the contrary, of hell and damnation, as well as those others which the Scripture calls the rest or the refused.
Hence, therefore, if the elect be brought to glory, considered as fallen, there must be new decrees of means in order to that end;
Christ must become a redeemer, a redeemer from sin, to remove that demerit; and then on our part, faith on him, and repentance for sin
(in which two our calling consists), are ordained to be given them to bring them to salvation. When those means came to be decreed, it will be tried whether his first purpose of ordaining the elect to glory be firm or no. In the apostle's words, Rom. 9:11, now when they are considered as fallen, whether God will now in this necessity (as absolute as the former), further shew forth his love in giving Christ as a redeemer, and effectual calling to you, not at all proceeding therein by works, which our first creation-covenant proceeds by; and if fallen man would have attempted to perform, he could never have obtained at God's hands, to call or work repentance in them.
Now, as to the magnifying God's grace in his ordaining to give his elect those new means after the fall, these things may be considered.
1. When the decree of those means should come to be made, there was, and must have been, a new or second election, or renewal of that first act of ordaining to the end, as often after the miscarriages of the elect the Scripture speaks: Isa 14:1, 'For the Lord will have mercy upon Jacob, and will yet choose Israel.' And as for the thing itself, it is no absurdity to say, that God in continuance renews his acts of election every moment; but here there was a necessity of it, a necessity at least of another act to be added to the first, namely, that which divines mostly appropriate the word predestination unto, as
they distinguish it from election simply considered, which, say they, more ordinarily imports barely a choice unto the end; but predestination to be an ordaining of means, and through these means unto the end. And therefore, now there needed a new further extent of love and mercy, not only to continue his resolution to love, notwithstanding the fall, but to contrive the means of carrying them through to glory notwithstanding that fall. And upon and for this act it is, and upon ocasion of it, that the Scripture so celebrates the love of God. 'God so loved the world, as he gave his only begotten Son,' namely, as a redeemer, John 3:16; and 1 John 4:10, 'Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.' And herein the strength and firmness of that first act of election appeared, and shewed that God was so resolute therein, that nothing could dissolve or alter it. And thus by this order of decrees (which in the former treatise we shewed), and by this second act, the grace of election comes to be the more magnified.
2dly. That together with this new act ordaining to these means, there was a denial of giving the same unto the rest‚ to whom he had also denied glory afore in the first act of preterition. And this second denial of the means, to be made with so manifest a difference, doth mightily enhance electing grace: Mat. 13:11, 'It is given to you to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.' And how given to them, but by and from election? 'The election obtained it, whereas the rest was blinded.' As also Christ:
John 10:26, 'Ye believe not' (which is the means to salvation). Why?
'Because ye are not of my sheep,' namely, by election; also John 6:64, 65, 'But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.' And he said, 'Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father;' compared with John 13:13, 'I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen: but, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.' Where the reason of giving faith is plainly resolved into election (and it is not chosen
unto apostleship, that is there meant, but unto salvation before the world), and exemplified in the instance of Judas there brought, as also of those others spoken of in that 6th of John, which enjoyed the best and most powerful outward means (Christ's ministry) that ever was or shall be; but it was election that put the difference, by which they were made Christ's sheep originally, and which ordained to give the other apostles saving and effectual inward means, and workings of grace, over and above those outward means vouchsafed.
And this is amplified as the former was by this, that as in the first act of election, though God gave that holiness that was by creation due, or to be due unto those of Adam's posterity, suppose he had propagated, whom yet he had denied that supreme glory unto, or did ordain that creation holiness to be a means to that glory, so here with this second decree of his elect to saving means. God indeed answerably ordains to give the best of good things that in this world men are capable of, unto many of those the rest‚ which are yet short of true faith and grace. He gives them spiritual gifts, 'unto the rebellious also,' as he says in the psalmist, enlightenings, tastings of the powers of the world to come, which are given indeed, that men might be saved, as Christ speaks of his preaching, which are an outward means of salvation, John 6; that is, they have a tendency to salvation, even as Christ's ministry (as himself witnesseth) tended to the salvation of them that heard those things. 'I speak,' says Christ,
'that you might be saved,' but yet they have not salvation in them, or accompanying them, and annexed to them, as Heb. 6:4, 5, and 9 compared, true grace is said to have. And God doth this to illustrate by this difference his electing grace in giving saving means unto his chosen.
3dly, Let us compare the grounds of those acts themselves, viz., the decree to give effectual means to the one, and the denial thereof to the other; let us compare, I say, these two together, and such a difference appears, the grounds or foundations of doing the one and the other, as will serve greatly yet more to enhance the grace of God
in this act of election to the means, through that comparison of those several grounds.
The foundation of his decreeing his elect to those effectual means proves still to be as pure an act of dominion, and so out of mere love, and grace, as much as was the former act of election to the end, and with a super-addition of mercy to it, yea, and further degree of dominion exercised therein; whereas on the other hand, the ground of his denial of those means to the other considered now as fallen, becomes not an act of pure dominion, but of justice, though put forth by his will.
And how from this comparison of these two there accrues that which will yet magnify the grace of election, I shall shew after I shall have first cleared and explained the premises.
That God's denial of effectual means to those we call reprobates, to bring them to salvation, after man is considered as fallen, is not as then an act of pure dominion, sovereign dominion, but has a jus ordinatum in it, which justly may move him thereunto.
It is true, indeed, those that hold all acts of election and reprobation to have been after the fall considered, they do in this respect make reprobation an act of pure dominion, namely, that if the inquiry be why he chose those and those, and not the others, and why he reprobated, when he might have chosen them whom he cast away; and on the contrary, have cast away whom he chose, according to that, 'I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful, and whom he will he hardens;' and in so doing (say they) God looked not at all at sin as the motive to his passing by those individual persons he did pass by; and though this be true, yet I withal must add that there remains still this difference, that sin and the loss of holiness man had before the fall, did bring in a desert to be reprobated, and to have the means to bring men effectually to salvation denied them; and this none can deny. And therefore it is acknowledged by some,* that though sin is
not causa reprobationis‚ take the act, est tamen causa reprobabilitatis.
And further, that efficacious means should be withdrawn is from their sin, they being now fallen, according to that of Christ, 'lost they should see with their eyes,' &c., Mat. 13:15. For the fall foreseen did from the first preclude them from those means, for it brings in a want of all good, and possesses the whole of the heart with the contrary unto all those means, so as God should not have needed to exercise any act of dominion unto the person thus fallen, in this denial of means, for the guilt and power of sin in the heart do prepossess and prevent, or rather preoccupate the room of those principles which are now to be the means of bringing men to glory, so as although as to the persons whom, after the fall viewed, he reprobated, whilst he chose others to those means, there was indeed a dominion exercised; yet as to the thing denied, there was not a pure prerogative exercised, but a jus ordinatum concurred with it, and was mingled with it; a just cause or reason de jure‚ or in right, for God so to do; and this is a certain truth, that not to grant a thing de novo, or anew, that is by a forfeiture excluded and debarred to be given, is not a mere act of denial thereof, or pure act of prerogative, for there is desert in it, why it should be done; but this is the case in the point afore us. And I speak thus of it, although they forefeited in Adam what indeed was less in some respects than is required now, as the means to bring them unto glory, yet in substance it is the same image of God that was created then that is created now; yet so as by the guilt of that loss there arose a just prohibition in law against the giving of new means to bring fallen man to salvation by, without a new interposition of sovereign grace.
So as now the working of that grace and of holiness in us, that are now ordained to be the effectual means having salvation in them, as the apostle speaks, Heb. 6:9, flow all purely and immediately from election, and the fruits of it; yea, and become an act of higher dominion than was exercised in that other, to the end, and that not only because that all is a free gift, as Rom. 5:15, 16, in this respect,
that there was an utter want of power to bring forth such efficacious acts unto salvation, yea, a principle contrary unto all the works of grace; but also in this, that there was a desert to the contrary by a law, even the law of our creation, so as now there must be an overruling dominion of grace exerted to work them. And now 'it is not in him that runs, nor in him that wills, but in God that shews mercy,' which is spoken in respect to the means of salvation. And indeed all the withdrawing, of those means after the fall are to be considered as judicial acts in God, as leaving them unto sins, and damnation following thereupon. These are all along, after the fall, acts of judicature on God's part, and his decreeing of them, or disposing of them foreseen, are to be put unto the account. And as God decrees not to damn, but only for sin, so he decrees not to withdraw the inward means of salvation, but for sin foresoon.
Hence therefore, for God to choose to the means effectual to bring to salvation his elect considered as fallen, there is a jus absolutionis in it, heightened to the highest; but in reprobation, not to give them to man fallen, there was what should move him to it, and a justice in it.
Now, if this second act of election unto the means be thus an act juris absoluti in the highest kind, which the other is not, as by the former comparative appears, then how may and should we afresh magnify the grace and love of God shewn therein? If God had, in decreeing to give those effectual means, gone by a jus ordinatum‚ or a rule, or anything revived in us that should have deserved the giving those means, as our running, or our willing, as motives to bestow them, then the dominion of giving them had gone by a jus ordinatum; and then it had gone by works, and had not been 'of him that calleth,' namely, out of his pure dominion, as that opposition declares in Rom. 9; and then his grace and love would have been lessened in this act. But being otherwise, now the purity of the glory of grace continues still as high, and shines as clear and glenous,* as in that other act of election to the end; yea, higher, for the reasons given aforesaid, How, then, should this love and grace be magnified by us in this second act of election by these considerations!
1. For where more of dominion is and appears in an act, that is, an act of grace, there is the more of grace shewn therein; for then it is grace absolutely, and every way grace, when there is nothing obliging or moving thereunto in the least, and grace is then grace when it is every way grace, and kept free of all obligations or encouragements that are from us. It is not only the greatness of the gift that sets out the grace, but the freeness and absoluteness of the giving and bestowing of it; now where there is the more dominion, there is the more liberty in the giving, and the more freeness, and so the more grace in it. Kings are said in their gifts to be gracious, because they have so high and sovereign dominion, and free from obligations to their subjects. The glory of grace lies in freedom, when it is mero motu, as the style of kings in giving gifts doth run.
2. In that former act of election to the end, towards us as not fallen, but creabiles‚ or as considered in creating, appears (as it was indeed) an absolute dominion, because in bestowing it God bestowed purely what was his own, and wherein there was maxima libertas‚ as out of Bannies was shewn. And besides the greatness of the dominion, its being a destination to so great a glory doth enhance it. For think with yourselves, a thing out of nothing, decreed to be created, and then created, and whilst it is yet nothing, could no way be considered to have anything in it to move or oblige, but yet so as still there was nothing contrary which could be viewed therein. If you will say it was simply in the power of God and the sovereignty of God to ordain this, but yet there was no bar to hinder the procedure of it, and yet put in a caveat or plea against it in the least, but where sin is (as in man considered as fallen) there is a law utterly to the contrary, as was said, and therefore it is a higher dominion to remove those cross bars, to answer those pleas, and overrule and give means to fallen man to salvation anew, than to ordain to the end at first. And therefore it is the Scripture sets forth by this 'the love of God to us, that while we were sinners Christ died for us,' and 'so God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,' and the like, which were but means to save man fallen.*
3. There was in that fallen condition, when it was in view, causa reprobabilitatis, a cause to have been reprobated: not so in the former act. A reprobability there was, to the denying of all means for the future, and so of salvation itself; for without these means, none that were fallen could be saved, and there was the same provocation to deny it to those the elect, considered as now fallen, as was to the other, if the dominion of grace and love had not stepped in. And therefore in Isa. 41:9, it is said that when God's law chose thee he might have cast thee away: 'Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.' Of which speech there may be a double meaning: 1, that God was immutable in his love, that whom he had so chosen he would never cast away; or, 2, that when he chose them, it was free to him, and he might as easily have laid them aside. It was to him but as a man would turn a key one way or the other, to lock or unlock. It was but saying, yea, or no; I know you, or I know you not.